Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: roo_ster on March 21, 2011, 02:49:30 PM
-
"Paul’s package axes four federal departments: Commerce, Education, Housing and Urban Development, and Energy. It also repeals Obamacare and requires entitlement form to be implemented by 2016."
Balances budget in 5 years.
More of this, thanks.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/262478/rand-takes-reins-robert-costa
-
I could kiss him.
-
Looks good.
But actions speak louder than words. Can he get it passed?
-
Not saying I disagree, but with DOE gone, who is going to handle the maintenance and storage requirements of our nuclear weapons?
-
Axing multiple cabinet departments is a step in the right direction, as is doing away with Obamacare. He should also look at curtailing the Department of Labor and the EPA, and doing away with the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
And in most cases the department's basic FUNCTIONS ought to be eliminated - not just shifted to another department.
For entitlement reform, I'd favor prohibition of any Federal money being used on benefits for illegal aliens EXECPT for emergency medical care (if necessary) in the interval - the SHORT interval - between their apprehension and deportation. Also take a look at cuts to food stamps, WIC, AFDC, EITC, midnight basketball, and a host of other "Great Society" leftovers . . . as well as foreign aid to countries that really aren't our friends.
And I'm sure there's a lot of the Dept. of Agriculture we could do without . . .
-
Not saying I disagree, but with DOE gone, who is going to handle the maintenance and storage requirements of our nuclear weapons?
Maybe by the folks that are potentially tasked with using them? Putting that sort of thing under DOE is nothing more than a way to artificially shrink the military's budget, a common tactic in govt.
Chris
-
Not saying I disagree, but with DOE gone, who is going to handle the maintenance and storage requirements of our nuclear weapons?
The Military, considering they are already handling that on a daily basis.
-
While we're at it, get rid of the national endowment for the arts.
-
Axing multiple cabinet departments is a step in the right direction, as is doing away with Obamacare. He should also look at curtailing the Department of Labor and the EPA, and doing away with the Bureau of Indian Affairs.And I'm sure there's a lot of the Dept. of Agriculture we could do without . . .
So going back to rivers on fire? No more labor laws, you will now work for 20 hrs a day at .25 and hour and you have to rent and buy food from the company store.
-
So going back to rivers on fire? No more labor laws, you will now work for 20 hrs a day at .25 and hour and you have to rent and buy food from the company store.
Yes, because unless the federal government prohibits those things, it'll all devolve into some Dickensian hellhole, complete with the roving bands of orphans pressed into a theiving ring.
-
Honestly, do people actually believe this stuff? It's like the unions that are getting paid $100K in salary and benefits saying that if you think they've gone too far, you must hate a 5 day work week.
Sometimes the stuff lefties say surprises even me, and I'm pretty cynical.
-
While we're at it, get rid of the national endowment for the arts.
Why? Some of the greatest treasurers of history is the art the remains. Sometimes you need to see past tomorrow, next week or your own life span. $150 million in annual appropriations is chump change in the whole federal budget.
-
Axing multiple cabinet departments is a step in the right direction, as is doing away with Obamacare. He should also look at curtailing the Department of Labor and the EPA, and doing away with the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
And in most cases the department's basic FUNCTIONS ought to be eliminated - not just shifted to another department.
For entitlement reform, I'd favor prohibition of any Federal money being used on benefits for illegal aliens EXECPT for emergency medical care (if necessary) in the interval - the SHORT interval - between their apprehension and deportation. Also take a look at cuts to food stamps, WIC, AFDC, EITC, midnight basketball, and a host of other "Great Society" leftovers . . . as well as foreign aid to countries that really aren't our friends.
And I'm sure there's a lot of the Dept. of Agriculture we could do without . . .
If we get rid of the EPA and DOI, we can actually get some *expletive deleted*it done.
BIA- Get rid of the "reservations" completely. Get rid of racial division and bullshit all together. Stop affirmative action and that kind of *expletive deleted*it. It's all about playing the races off against each other, and if we as a country are "supposed" to move beyond racial divisions, then why does the fed .gov promote racial strife so much?
Transfer the national parks over to the state park systems of the states they reside in.
-
So going back to rivers on fire?
If our water is flammable, we won't need OPEC now, will we?
it'll all devolve into some Dickensian hellhole, complete with the roving bands of orphans pressed into a theiving ring.
Poor Fagin was misunderstood.
Why? Some of the greatest treasurers of history is the art the remains. Sometimes you need to see past tomorrow, next week or your own life span. $150 million in annual appropriations is chump change in the whole federal budget.
Yes, I'm sure a crucifix immersed in urine or a Madonna painting smeared with elephant dung will be seen as a creative treasure in a century or two.
Seriously, this is the 21st century, not the 15th. With radio, TV, newspapers, and the Internet making the art market truly worldwide - billions of potential buyers with access to tens of trillions of dollars - any so called "artist" who can't find a market for his alleged "art" needs to find himself a REAL job, as the rest of us have no obligation to support his hobby.
-
So going back to rivers on fire? No more labor laws, you will now work for 20 hrs a day at .25 and hour and you have to rent and buy food from the company store.
Every state has its own DOL and its own EPA. Why do we need federal redundancy?
-
Downside, without HUD I'd have no home.
I'm willing to pay that price.
-
Looks good.
But actions speak louder than words. Can he get it passed?
This is politics. Words are an action, too.
-
Every state has its own DOL and its own EPA. Why do we need federal redundancy?
becasue lots of "things" are interstate.
For folks who complain about the EPA, BLM, Interior Department, etc. You need to read a book called: Renewable Resource Policy by David A. Adams.
Surprisingly the book is unbiased and gives the history of many of those agencies and all the laws passed in regards to natural resources.
-
Downside, without HUD I'd have no home.
I'm willing to pay that price.
If we could be debt free in five years, with a reduction in taxes in the sixth to match the spending cuts, a lot of us might have enough left over to help you out.
Think you can manage in a refrigerator box for six years?
-
Why? Some of the greatest treasurers of history is the art the remains. Sometimes you need to see past tomorrow, next week or your own life span. $150 million in annual appropriations is chump change in the whole federal budget.
Because A.) states have art programs, and B.) That's the argument they use to justify everything. All these "chump change" amounts add up, and it's not the responsibility of the government to promote art.
Plus, the internet exists now. Everything that's created is more or less there for eternity now.
-
Maybe by the folks that are potentially tasked with using them? Putting that sort of thing under DOE is nothing more than a way to artificially shrink the military's budget, a common tactic in govt.
Chris
The Military, considering they are already handling that on a daily basis.
Just 'cause little Lieutenant Ricky turns The Key(tm) when the correct codes get transmitted to his silo doesn't mean he necessarily knows a damned thing about purification process of plutonium, neutron reflectors, super-accurate detonation systems or the myriad of other things that are necessary. Could any of you guys tell me when a neutron initiator for a compression type plutonium physics package needs to be changed, or even how to test it, or make the replacement? Those Q clearance civis have spent decades getting their doctorates and masters in their fields for a reason and sadly that level of expertise isn't readily replaceable by the military. After axing the DOE those guys would still likely need to be rehired by big.mil in order to keep our stockpiles fresh, safe and functional.
-
becasue lots of "things" are interstate.
For folks who complain about the EPA, BLM, Interior Department, etc. You need to read a book called: Renewable Resource Policy by David A. Adams.
Surprisingly the book is unbiased and gives the history of many of those agencies and all the laws passed in regards to natural resources.
Great. If your state is a polluting cesspool, the state next to you can take you to federal court over it.
Those natural resources do not belong to the Federal government, they belong to the state they are found in.
Most of those agencies have absolutely no constitutional mandate to exist.
-
becasue lots of "things" are interstate.
For folks who complain about the EPA, BLM, Interior Department, etc. You need to read a book called: Renewable Resource Policy by David A. Adams.
Surprisingly the book is unbiased and gives the history of many of those agencies and all the laws passed in regards to natural resources.
Just like unions, a lot of government may have possibly once been necessary, or even helpful, but that point has long passed.
I worked for the DOI, NPS to be exact. Yeah, it ain't needed when there is redundancy created by the state park systems. I went to work for my state's park system. Guess which one not only protects resources, but turns them into a profitable enterprise, provides 75% of it's funding from visitor revenue, AND does the job on a fairly low budget? Let me give you a hint, not the feds.
On the contrary, the NPS is very well funded, marginally protected the resources (I should note that the idiot chief ranger at the site I worked for wanted to perform actions that would damage/destroy the resources on site), wasted gross amounts of money, and has a love of dictating the actions of people off the park (the park I worked for seized a man's family homestead because they could, not because the site was historically significant, and later the park tried to prevent a neighbor from doing what he wanted with his private property, in this case moving a trailer on to it for his sick father to live in so they could take care of him)
-
If the EPA would get out of the business of carrying water for radical environmentalists and stick to monitoring and enforcing reasonable environmental law, then I could go with keeping it. AS it is now the EPA is a tool of the aforementioned radicals greens and globalists. I stand amazed at the frequency with which sensitive flora or fauna show up on resource rich land. Inevitably the land is placed off limits to exploitation and the potential wealth it would generate disappears into someone's or some group's pocket. This country is awash in natural resources yet we seem unable exploit them.
-
At least he understands that our present predicament requires a chainsaw, not a dull butterknife.
The odds of getting anything this sane passed in a climate of addiction is minimal. But nobody can say he didn't try.
-
If the EPA would get out of the business of carrying water for radical environmentalists and stick to monitoring and enforcing reasonable environmental law, then I could go with keeping it. AS it is now the EPA is a tool of the aforementioned radicals greens and globalists. I stand amazed at the frequency with which sensitive flora or fauna show up on resource rich land. Inevitably the land is placed off limits to exploitation and the potential wealth it would generate disappears into someone's or some group's pocket. This country is awash in natural resources yet we seem unable exploit them.
Hell, the kooks are trying to infiltrate the AZ Game and Fish Department.
I sat in on one of my rifle club's member meetings to hear from a AZGFD officer that a lot of the "Sierra Club" types are getting jobs at AZGFD, trying to deliberately shift policy from hunt management to critterhugging. He was practically begging for more of "our type" to apply to work at Game and Fish.
-
If the EPA would get out of the business of carrying water for radical environmentalists and stick to monitoring and enforcing reasonable environmental law, then I could go with keeping it. AS it is now the EPA is a tool of the aforementioned radicals greens and globalists. I stand amazed at the frequency with which sensitive flora or fauna show up on resource rich land. Inevitably the land is placed off limits to exploitation and the potential wealth it would generate disappears into someone's or some group's pocket. This country is awash in natural resources yet we seem unable exploit them.
Don't worry, they'll be exploited--by the Chinese, after our government begins to sell off assets to satisfy its need to run deficits in perpetuity.
-
Why? Some of the greatest treasurers of history is the art the remains. Sometimes you need to see past tomorrow, next week or your own life span. $150 million in annual appropriations is chump change in the whole federal budget.
Are you saying this for the lulz?
The National Endowment for the Arts funds things nobody actually wants to see. That's why they need the endowment.
-
At best, RP will get to introduce it and give a speech about it on the floor.
Kinda like Bernie Sanders gets to do with his ideas. Sometimes.
-
This is politics. Words are an action, too.
Not all words.
It's a standard political play for politcritters to propose a bill they know won't ever be passed, just to please the base. We always seem to notice it when the other side does it to/for their supports, such as when Schumer introduces new assault weapon ban bills, knowing full well that they won't ever see the light of day. But when our guys to it to us, do we fall for it?
-
Not all words.
It's a standard political play for politcritters to propose a bill they know won't ever be passed, just to please the base. We always seem to notice it when the other side does it to/for their supports, such as when Schumer introduces new assault weapon ban bills, knowing full well that they won't ever see the light of day. But when our guys to it to us, do we fall for it?
Hmm, maybe it is more a threat. "Deal with us reasonable folks or you get to deal with Rand."
Anyways, it looks like Rand Paul & DeMint & Lee are the only GOP senators to be truly serious about debt & deficits. McConnell sure isn't. Maybe they can get together with Paul Ryan and stir something up, as the GOP leadership is pretty much a bunch of saps.
-
;/
Nobody sugggested having some seat warmer maintain the nukes. A reasonable person would expect the DOD to hire their own experts, maybe even the ones at DOE who currently manage the nukes. The point is bringing military budget items back under the DOD so it can be properly accounted for and not hidden under an seemingly unrelated line item.
Chris
Just 'cause little Lieutenant Ricky turns The Key(tm) when the correct codes get transmitted to his silo doesn't mean he necessarily knows a damned thing about purification process of plutonium, neutron reflectors, super-accurate detonation systems or the myriad of other things that are necessary. Could any of you guys tell me when a neutron initiator for a compression type plutonium physics package needs to be changed, or even how to test it, or make the replacement? Those Q clearance civis have spent decades getting their doctorates and masters in their fields for a reason and sadly that level of expertise isn't readily replaceable by the military. After axing the DOE those guys would still likely need to be rehired by big.mil in order to keep our stockpiles fresh, safe and functional.
-
Hmm, maybe it is more a threat. "Deal with us reasonable folks or you get to deal with Rand."
Anyways, it looks like Rand Paul & DeMint & Lee are the only GOP senators to be truly serious about debt & deficits. McConnell sure isn't. Maybe they can get together with Paul Ryan and stir something up, as the GOP leadership is pretty much a bunch of saps.
Given the choice between moderate reductions that actually become law, and huge reductions that are nothing more than hot air, I'll take the former. A bird in the hand beats two in the bush.
Rand and the boys talk a good game, but so far all I've seen is talk. I keep hoping for substance, but they just don't seem to get it done. Maybe that's Rand's role in all of this, to spin pretty fantasies to keep the troops motivated. But I wonder how long he can keep this game up without being able to deliver.
If he keeps overpromising and underdelivering, he's going to wind as the Obama of the right, an empty suit who's all talk and no substance.
-
;/
Nobody sugggested having some seat warmer maintain the nukes. A reasonable person would expect the DOD to hire their own experts, maybe even the ones at DOE who currently manage the nukes. The point is bringing military budget items back under the DOD so it can be properly accounted for and not hidden under an seemingly unrelated line item.
Chris
And let's not ignore that the military somehow manages to run plenty of MOBILE nuclear reactors.
Given the choice between moderate reductions that actually become law, and huge reductions that are nothing more than hot air, I'll take the former. A bird in the hand beats two in the bush.
Rand and the boys talk a good game, but so far all I've seen is talk. I keep hoping for substance, but they just don't seem to get it done. Maybe that's Rand's role in all of this, to spin pretty fantasies to keep the troops motivated. But I wonder how long he can keep this game up without being able to deliver.
If he keeps overpromising and underdelivering, he's going to wind as the Obama of the right, an empty suit who's all talk and no substance.
Uh, the "moderate reductions" aren't happening anyway, and the only reason that Rand and the ones like him aren't having any success is that the rest of Washington is corrupt and sure as hell ain't going to do any cutting. There simply aren't enough people in power who are actually interested in saving the USA.
-
Uh, the "moderate reductions" aren't happening anyway, and the only reason that Rand and the ones like him aren't having any success is that the rest of Washington is corrupt and sure as hell ain't going to do any cutting. There simply aren't enough people in power who are actually interested in saving the USA.
I'm wondering where the "moderate reductions" are, too.
-
I'm wondering where the "moderate reductions" are, too.
You're not playing the long game. They'll be here in a decade. All this clamoring for deep cuts now is distracting the adults from doing the work of dragging their feet working on real plans for reform.
Chris
-
Given the choice between moderate reductions that actually become law, and huge reductions that are nothing more than hot air, I'll take the former. A bird in the hand beats two in the bush.
Except that what needs to be done is both.
A legislator explained to me once that the role of the politician is not merely to pass laws, but also to educate the public about the options it has - even if the cannot be passed NOW NOW NOW. Randall Paul is doing that, and it is a good thing it is being done.
If he keeps overpromising and underdelivering, he's going to wind as the Obama of the right, an empty suit who's all talk and no substance.
If a Republican President can accomplish as much in tax cuts and deregulation as Obama has accomplished in raising spending, it would be a great day for America when such a President gets elected.
-
Are you saying this for the lulz?
The National Endowment for the Arts funds things nobody actually wants to see. That's why they need the endowment.
Well Pablo Picaso or Jackson Pollock were probably considered the level of a Madonna covered in elephant turds when they started out. Lulz? I can think of Andy Warhol or Chuck Close.
-
Hell, the kooks are trying to infiltrate the AZ Game and Fish Department.
I sat in on one of my rifle club's member meetings to hear from a AZGFD officer that a lot of the "Sierra Club" types are getting jobs at AZGFD, trying to deliberately shift policy from hunt management to critterhugging. He was practically begging for more of "our type" to apply to work at Game and Fish.
Well the numbers of hunters are declining, many hunters are people of means who have far better day jobs than what a wildlife biologist will pay. Many wildlife biologists don't hunt, mostly because their parents didn't hunt so no one showed them how.
Also is it really bad if someone wants to preserve a species that is disappearing due to man's treatment of the environment? Is it bad that we have clean air to breath? Look at third world countries where there isn't a environmental plan, do you really want to live in something like that. Do you think God would be angry that we are poisoning his creation?
With out the government agencies that you want to end I believe we would turn into a what Russia became after the fall of the Soviet Union. Lots of corruption, very few people getting rich and lot of people going without basic needs. All one has to do is look back at 100-125 years into our past, except for a very small middle class and even smaller upper class most people lived at the subsistence level.
-
I'm wondering where the "moderate reductions" are, too.
And I'm wondering if you've been paying attention. Boehner and the House leadership have been getting temporary weekly budgets passed (not just proposing them or discussing them) that cut the budget at a pace of $100b a year. The permanent budget legislation is still pending, but every indication is that the final product will continue to reduce the budget at the same moderate pace.
Yeah, it's not as much as I'd like, probably not as much as you'd like, and not as much as we probably need. But it seems to be all we can get under current circumstances.
Recall that we only control half of a third of the federal government, if even that, and those who control the rest are hell-bent on resisting cuts in every way possible. Getting anything cut at all is quite an accomplishment in this environment. It may not be a particularly satisfying accomplishment, but reality is often like that.
-
Well Pablo Picaso or Jackson Pollock were probably considered the level of a Madonna covered in elephant turds when they started out. Lulz? I can think of Andy Warhol or Chuck Close.
Picasso made a living selling his paintings.
-
If a Republican President can accomplish as much in tax cuts and deregulation as Obama has accomplished in raising spending, it would be a great day for America when such a President gets elected.
Yeah, but consider that they needed supermajorities before they could make any real moves, and it cost them dearly to do it. This kind of setup only occurs about once every two generations, it has immense value, and they squandered every bit of it to accomplish what little they did.
If our side ever has that much political power to invest into a cause, then I too believe that it would be an impressive day for America. Thing is, we've never had anywhere close to that kind of power. And we're not likely to acquire it any time soon, not unless we really shape up. (1)
Now, you mention cutting as much as "Obama" has increased. Let's consider some numbers.
Obama's 2009-2010 budget was $3.6 trillion. Next years budget as proposed by Obama would have increased spending by about $200 billion. They never passed it last year, and now Boehner and the incoming Republicans are pushing through an alternative budget that would cut spending by $100b. So we're looking at cutting the budget by an amount that's half of what Obama would have increased. (2)
I say this to try to keep things in perspective. This year alone we're canceling out half of one of Obama's would-be budget increases for the year. Look at how much we can do with what little power we have right now.
Yet our side keeps looking for the quantum leap solution, the all-at-once proposal that will instantly set everything aright. But that's a fantasy. We don't have that kind of power right. Even if we did, real life isn't a sitcom that gets resolved in an ADHD attention span.
The real solution is right here in front of us. It's not nearly as sexy or appealing. It doesn't take supermajorities for us to accomplish what you want. We don't need Grand Slam all-at-once proposals. We just need to keep at the mundane work we're doing right now. We are succeeding, slowly.
God bless Rand Paul and his $500b budget cuts that axe a quarter of the Federal bureaucracy. Truly, I hope he can get it passed, I just don't see how that's realistic. I think it's going to be the Boehners of the world, grinding it out one little bit at a time, $100b at a time that carry the day. (3)
I really wish people weren't fighting that so hard.
(1) We're making serious progress on this front. If we can keep it up, and keep it togethre, than the political future is going to be very interesting. Still, conservative/libertarian supermajorities are a long, long way off.
(2) Granted, the Republicans' $100b cut hasn't actually passed yet, but right now it looks a lot more probable than not.
(3) Rand himself has a competing $200b cut proposal that stands a much greater chance of becoming law. I wish he was pimping that one more.
-
The two, as I said, are not mutually opposed.
-
And yet, looking over the responses in this thread, many people are unwilling to support both strategies. Lots of folks want to latch on to the aggressive, unrealistic strategy and shoot down the slower, realistic alternatives.
-
Looks good.
But actions speak louder than words. Can he get it passed?
This is politics. Words are an action, too.
Thank you. Well said.
-
The two, as I said, are not mutually opposed.
Nor is the third option; pass the big cut, then hire out all the Federal elected officials to some random country as farm labor, and put their earnings toward paying down the debt.
-
Are you saying this for the lulz?
The National Endowment for the Arts funds things nobody actually wants to see. That's why they need the endowment.
An acquaintance of mine who's on Facebook is all up in arms over someone's comment that NEA should be done away with, and got pretty snippy with another acquaintance who tried to debate the issue with her.
She's an artist herself - so it's her ox being gored. To be fair, she's not a "crucifix-in-a-jar-of-urine" type artist - she actually DRAWS things, and she's not terrible. Then again, with all due respect to someone making some kind of living as an artist (I draw as a hobby myself), she's not spectacular either.
-
And I'm wondering if you've been paying attention.
The $4B & $6B might be enough to get Boehner to weep into his hankie, but it barely slows the rate of growth, let alone cuts anything back.
Also, the GOP leadership isn't going to try to cut $100B, but less than $60B. Even the original $100B wasn't even a good start, just a throw-away line before the election. And still only slows the rate of growth, cutting back not one red cent.
It is pretty easy to see who the serious folks in DC are, and they are not the senior senator from Kentucky or the human waterworks with the gavel.
You're not playing the long game. They'll be here in a decade. All this clamoring for deep cuts now is distracting the adults from doing the work of dragging their feet working on real plans for reform.
Chris
I suspect that is right.
Granted, they only have the House, but they aren't even trying that hard.
Frankly, we don;t have a decade:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmercatus.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fother-spending-squeezedPNG.png&hash=af047a79a1179465438cc04a053cee513cdb2c33)
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/262673/autopilot-programs-will-squeeze-out-everything-else-veronique-de-rugy
The GOP needs to grow up, so at least one of the parties in DC can have some claim to being adults.
Rand Paul's $500B proposal is just that, a good start(1). The real work comes when "entitlements" are cut.
(1) GOP's incredibly shrinking $100B $61B reduction is not even that.
-
An acquaintance of mine who's on Facebook is all up in arms over someone's comment that NEA should be done away with, and got pretty snippy with another acquaintance who tried to debate the issue with her.
She's an artist herself - so it's her ox being gored. To be fair, she's not a "crucifix-in-a-jar-of-urine" type artist - she actually DRAWS things, and she's not terrible. Then again, with all due respect to someone making some kind of living as an artist (I draw as a hobby myself), she's not spectacular either.
So she has a hobby . . . and wants taxpayers to subsidize her.Well Pablo Picaso or Jackson Pollock were probably considered the level of a Madonna covered in elephant turds when they started out.
Looking at much of their work product I still find that an apt comparison. But Picasso in particular DID find a market for his stuff.
As far as I'm concerned, paint anything you want, sculpt anything you want - whatever. Just don't ask demand that people pay for it whether they like it or not.
****************************************
And as for the overall budget . . . Boehner has been real quiet lately about his pre-election promise to cut the budget to 2008 levels, without TARP or stimulus spending.
-
God bless Rand Paul and his $500b budget cuts that axe a quarter of the Federal bureaucracy. Truly, I hope he can get it passed, I just don't see how that's realistic. I think it's going to be the Boehners of the world, grinding it out one little bit at a time, $100b at a time that carry the day. (3)
I really wish people weren't fighting that so hard.
I have 0 faith at this point that it will be ground down. Its going to take sweeping chops with the axe. And a balanced budget amendment. Its going to take chopping people off of their dependancy on the federal government. A plan to end SS. A plan to end Chip. A plan to stop Obamacare.
If Rand Paul is successful, its also symbollic. Seeing that Leviathian can be reeled in and reduced is an act that will cause others to act. If it goes forward, how long before others are chopping off subagencies and departments?
-
I have 0 faith at this point that it will be ground down. Its going to take sweeping chops with the axe. And a balanced budget amendment. Its going to take chopping people off of their dependancy on the federal government. A plan to end SS. A plan to end Chip. A plan to stop Obamacare.
If Rand Paul is successful, its also symbollic. Seeing that Leviathian can be reeled in and reduced is an act that will cause others to act. If it goes forward, how long before others are chopping off subagencies and departments?
And how do you propose to swing that axe? How do you think you'll get Obama and the Senate Dems to go along with your proposal to kneecap the Federal bureaucracy?
If you have a viable plan to get this done, I'd love to hear it.
It's not enough to debate this stuff in the faculty lounge. Not for me, anyway. I want more than idle talk, I want to get it done. So far, nobody has put forward and alternative plan that would work.
-
The last election cycle was the hail mary. If people like Rand Paul don't succeed in cutting chunks off of levithan, then it likely won't happen ever.
-
The last election cycle was the hail mary. If people like Rand Paul don't succeed in cutting chunks off of levithan, then it likely won't happen ever.
About the only other thing likely to do what Jamis is proposing is another "Bonus Army" gathering in and around DC, but there under no uncertain terms to tell Congress to defund the leviathan. Something seething with malice and anger, but not quite doing anything yet and giving Congress a true Final Notice.
Chances are they'd send out the Cavalry like they did in the 30's though. Microwave guns and tear gas instead of sabre-flats and Hum-Vees instead of horses.
(I always wondered how Eisenhower and Patton slept at night after that...)
-
The GOP ought to buy an hour of national tv time and present a "Scared Straight" show that levels with the American people about what we're facing and what, in simple dramatic terms, lies ahead if we do not take the problem seriously and gird our loins for real reform.
That assumes that Republican politicians can man up and think about their nation, not re-election. I suggest a "suicide pact" that promises they won't run again as the bond of their truth-telling. This problem IS soluble if we take responsible and dramatic action.
Do I expect this to happen? Unfortunately, no.
We will play more games until the storm hits us, hard. That is the most likely current scenario.
-
And how do you propose to swing that axe? How do you think you'll get Obama and the Senate Dems to go along with your proposal to kneecap the Federal bureaucracy?
If you have a viable plan to get this done, I'd love to hear it.
It's not enough to debate this stuff in the faculty lounge. Not for me, anyway. I want more than idle talk, I want to get it done. So far, nobody has put forward and alternative plan that would work.
Which is why we're f***ed. Little cuts like you're talking about aren't doing anything and the big cuts aren't going to happen because way too much from both sides is invested in staying in power and spending more, more, more!
Which brings us to this point:
About the only other thing likely to do what Jamis is proposing is another "Bonus Army" gathering in and around DC, but there under no uncertain terms to tell Congress to defund the leviathan. Something seething with malice and anger, but not quite doing anything yet and giving Congress a true Final Notice.
Chances are they'd send out the Cavalry like they did in the 30's though. Microwave guns and tear gas instead of sabre-flats and Hum-Vees instead of horses.
We're going to have to march on Washington and protest heavily and make a scene. Which will, you can take this to the bank, be immediately classified as domestic terrorism. People are going to die for the cause, others will be imprisoned and never get a trial (or they'll get a kangaroo court). The media will happily cooperate, and the rest of America won't notice it.
-
And how do you propose to swing that axe? How do you think you'll get Obama and the Senate Dems to go along with your proposal to kneecap the Federal bureaucracy?
No, but a losing vote along party lines is a powerful way to motivate people to make sure that next year's Congressional elections go even better than last year's. Show the people there's a plan and that the Democrats are the only thing standing in the way, and a lot more of them will be going away.
-
Might also could help if the Stupid Party could focus on the real *expletive deleted*it that's happening and stop fussing about abortion, gay marriage, etc.
-
Might also could help if the Stupid Party could focus on the real *expletive deleted* that's happening and stop fussing about abortion, gay marriage, etc.
This.
-
Might also could help if the Stupid Party could focus on the real *expletive deleted* that's happening and stop fussing about abortion, gay marriage, etc.
Can you cite any bills in the House they are focused on, that pertain to these issues rather than the financial crisis we're in?
Or are you just launching generic stoopid party complaints?
I agree with the complaints... but I'm not aware of any wasted effort on the hill trying to outlaw "Brokeback Mountain 2: Cowboy Up!" from going straight to DVD. ;/ I think they're at least focused on Boehner-level cuts, though I'd prefer Paulian cuts instead.
-
There is a Republican house plan to cut funding for Planned Parenthood with the reasoning given that they provide abortions rather than any fiscal reasoning.
I'm not sure about the gay marriage part.. I'm not even sure where anything about that would have a substantive effect on or anything to do with the Federal budget.
-
There is a Republican house plan to cut funding for Planned Parenthood with the reasoning given that they provide abortions rather than any fiscal reasoning.
I'm not sure about the gay marriage part.. I'm not even sure where anything about that would have a substantive effect on or anything to do with the Federal budget.
It may be small taters, but cutting an unconstitutional program is A Good Thing. Just be sure to add 1000 other such small programs as well as entitlements.
-
Which is why we're f***ed. Little cuts like you're talking about aren't doing anything and the big cuts aren't going to happen because way too much from both sides is invested in staying in power and spending more, more, more!
So you're against "little" cuts?
This what I don't understand. How can people support the impossible goal of cutting by $500b, but oppose a realistic goal of cutting $100b?
As for $100b not doing anything, that's just silly. $100b is still a lot of money. If we can cut $100b a year for a few years, and recover from the recession, we'll be back on a sustainable financial footing in 4 or 5 years.
A $100b a year isn't a small thing.
Obviously this does nothing for the long term entitlement problem, and at some point we're going to have to tackle that, but at least we'd have a solid footing to start from.
-
Might also could help if the Stupid Party could focus on the real *expletive deleted* that's happening and stop fussing about abortion, gay marriage, etc.
Do that and you'll be called a weak sellout who won't fight for principles.
=|
-
Might also could help if the Stupid Party could focus on the real *expletive deleted* that's happening and stop fussing about abortion, gay marriage, etc.
Do that and you'll be called a weak sellout who won't fight for principles.
=|
And you would be. Your "CALL A TRUCE ON SOCIAL ISSUES!!!!" is a distraction. It's really just "Shut up, social conservatives. You make us feel icky in front of the cool kids."
Here's an idea. Instead of YOU obsessing over social issues, why not just get to work on the fiscal issues. If that were really your concern, you wouldn't be focusing on the social issues.
I care about the fiscal future of this country. I do not care about it to the exclusion of all other things, though. I will not leave the future of this society to the progressives just because it makes you uncomfortable to be "grouped" with social conservatives.
-
Or maybe we ought to just call a "truce" on gun rights while we work on the important things.
Who cares what the progressives do to the Second Amendment? We've got REALLY IMPORTANT MONEY STUFF to worry about and we can't pay attention to that social stuff!
-
Or maybe we ought to just call a "truce" on gun rights while we work on the important things.
Who cares what the progressives do to the Second Amendment? We've got REALLY IMPORTANT MONEY STUFF to worry about and we can't pay attention to that social stuff!
They (democrats) don't have the control of bills to make it to the floor for a vote.
We (conservatives) do have control over the legislative agenda.
We have more pressing problems than zOMG gayzors!!!1!1! right now.
-
Do that and you'll be called a weak sellout who won't fight for principles.
=|
And you would be. Your "CALL A TRUCE ON SOCIAL ISSUES!!!!" is a distraction. It's really just "Shut up, social conservatives. You make us feel icky in front of the cool kids."
Here's an idea. Instead of YOU obsessing over social issues, why not just get to work on the fiscal issues. If that were really your concern, you wouldn't be focusing on the social issues.
I care about the fiscal future of this country. I do not care about it to the exclusion of all other things, though. I will not leave the future of this society to the progressives just because it makes you uncomfortable to be "grouped" with social conservatives.
So you believe there's no place for triage? That political resources are infinite and can be allocated towards all causes indiscriminately?
Mind you, I'm not opposed to social issue either. Quite the opposite. But it seems that whenever we have a polticritter who's strong and focused on the fiscal issues, the social issues crowd breaks pull out the long knives because he doesn't share their same focus.
That's not a wise strategy.
-
So you believe there's no place for triage? That political resources are infinite and can be allocated towards all causes indiscriminately?
Mind you, I'm not opposed to social issue either. Quite the opposite. But it seems that whenever we have a polticritter who's good on the fiscal issues, the social issues crowd breaks pull out the long knives because he doesn't share their same focus.
That's not a wise strategy.
So, would you vote for someone who is good on social issues but poor on fiscal? I wouldn't, but sure seems like if you expect half your coalition to suck it up and give up their concerns, what's good for the goose should be good for the gander.
Further, to respond to:
They (democrats) don't have the control of bills to make it to the floor for a vote.
We (conservatives) do have control over the legislative agenda.
We have more pressing problems than zOMG gayzors!!!1!1! right now.
What bills going after teh gayz are being debated?
This is a pre-emptive attack on your purported allies. If you want to break down your coalition and give the democrats the control of the legislature again (and, thereby, destroy this country) keep sniping at your allies.
I'm sure it's a GREAT strategy to attack half your coalition in order to gain that extra 5% of "independents."
-
So, would you vote for someone who is good on social issues but poor on fiscal? I wouldn't, but sure seems like if you expect half your coalition to suck it up and give up their concerns, what's good for the goose should be good for the gander.
If that's the best way to advance parts of my agenda, then yes, absolutely.
There's a real limit to what you can get done in any given legislative session. You have to pick ans choose, you can't have it all at once.
Many politicians recognize this. It frequently gets them into trouble with supporters who don't.
-
This is a pre-emptive attack on your purported allies. If you want to break down your coalition and give the democrats the control of the legislature again (and, thereby, destroy this country) keep sniping at your allies.
I'm sure it's a GREAT strategy to attack half your coalition in order to gain that extra 5% of "independents."
The abortion/gayzors social issue people tend to come from the Bible Belt, which also has a long and studied history of backing unions and supporting all sorts of fun social welfare programs. They were Democrats up until the 70's and 80's and I'm not sure why the South/BibleBelt chose to become (R) after all this time...
There's a Venn diagram of the things we agree on.
A = my issues. (GTFO of my life)
B = your issues. (gayzors, abortion)
C = intersection of your and my issues. (money)
Let's get C done (the money) before we screw with A or B.
Right now, you're saying to deal with B in order to get C. Or else.
-
If that's the best way to advance parts of my agenda, then yes, absolutely.
There's a real limit to what you can get done in any given legislative session. You have to pick ans choose, you can't have it all at once.
Many politicians recognize this. It frequently gets them into trouble with supporters who don't.
Here's what's funny. There hasn't been a push for conservative legislators to "do something" about abortion, teh gayz, or any other social problem unless it is dealing with government funding of said social problem.
The social conservatives ARE approaching this fiscally. Yet, what they hear from their purported allies is to "SHUT UP AND TAKE IT SOCONS".
Why the pre-emptive strike? This necessarily makes social conservatives wary of the intentions of their "allies."
-
Right now, you're saying to deal with B in order to get C. Or else.
Really? Who is saying that?
We're wondering why, while we're all working on C, your side suddenly shouts "AND KEEP THE HECK AWAY FROM B, YOU BIBLE THUMPERS!!!"
That makes us take a step back and wonder what your real intentions are.
-
I keep hoping for substance, but they just don't seem to get it done.
Weird, that's my feelings every time a R majority takes place in Congress, and fails to deliver.
-
Here's what's funny. There hasn't been a push for conservative legislators to "do something" about abortion, teh gayz, or any other social problem unless it is dealing with government funding of said social problem.
There has been quite a lot of that, actually. Gay marriage comes to mind. Anti-abortion legislation also. Much of the anti-illegal-immigration policy. Church and state issues...
Really? Who is saying that?
We're wondering why, while we're all working on C, your side suddenly shouts "AND KEEP THE HECK AWAY FROM B, YOU BIBLE THUMPERS!!!"
That makes us take a step back and wonder what your real intentions are.
It goes both ways, mak, and far more of this trash comes from the social conservatives than form the others. Most social conservatives will happily stab a fiscal conservative in the back for not caring enough about the social issues.
-
Really? Who is saying that?
We're wondering why, while we're all working on C, your side suddenly shouts "AND KEEP THE HECK AWAY FROM B, YOU BIBLE THUMPERS!!!"
That makes us take a step back and wonder what your real intentions are.
Because the Venn Diagram also has a 3rd circle... the blue dogs that are getting hounded to also trim the budget, but live in D-areas.
Their intersection with our C doesn't include gayzors and abortion.
We don't have supermajorities. We don't really even have parity in the Senate.
You want stuff to pass, we have to go for the lowest hanging fruit first. The stuff that Harry Reid and his leftist ilk that somehow get elected in flyover America, and the RINOs like Scott Brown in metroweenie areas, won't disagree on. THEN we can expend political capital to fight against fed funding for gayzors and abortion and poop-art.
I want the $500 billion cuts. I think $100 billion is cowardly to target since the House and Senate could increase $300 billion a year with no problem. And the mere $60 billion target today is a disgraceful shame, worthy of public humiliation.
But if we can get the easiest parts FIRST, before starting the political fights... we should.
And we shouldn't amend bills with controversial amendments, when the spending cuts on them are otherwise not controversial.
Cut. agree. pass. New bill. CR/LF.
Cut. agree. pass. New bill. CR/LF.
Cut. whoah! fight. agree on half. pass. New bill. CR/LF.
-
Really? Who is saying that?
We're wondering why, while we're all working on C, your side suddenly shouts "AND KEEP THE HECK AWAY FROM B, YOU BIBLE THUMPERS!!!"
That makes us take a step back and wonder what your real intentions are.
Because IT NEVER F***ING FAILS that the GOP gets all wrapped around the axle about gays and abortion and such. Sooner or later, the politicritters open their big mouths and start worrying about *expletive deleted*it that's none of their damn business instead of actually fixing the country. It's a pattern that has repeated itself time and again.
-
There has been quite a lot of that, actually. Gay marriage comes to mind. Anti-abortion legislation also. Much of the anti-illegal-immigration policy. Church and state issues...
It goes both ways, mak, and far more of this trash comes from the social conservatives than form the others. Most social conservatives will happily stab a fiscal conservative in the back for not caring enough about the social issues.
If you believe abortion is the genocidal slaughter of tens of millions of the innocent, you'd probably think it's pretty goddamn important. It's amusing how eager you are to spend money and lives on Libya, but want to back burner something far worse.
As for "supporting the small cuts" I do support them. I don't see GOP cutting anything, just slowing the rate of growth. It's rather like the Dems screaming about "cutting X entitlement program" when the R's propose slowing it's increase, only in reverse. Just as dishonest.
And speaking of triage, when the patient has a sucking chest wound a man putting a band-aid on it as though he's accomplishing something is pathetic, not realistic.
-
Saying "I don't care about X social issue, therefore it isn't important" doesn't make it so.
-
Because IT NEVER F***ING FAILS that the GOP gets all wrapped around the axle about gays and abortion and such. Sooner or later, the politicritters open their big mouths and start worrying about *expletive deleted* that's none of their damn business instead of actually fixing the country. It's a pattern that has repeated itself time and again.
So, what you really want is for the GOP to ignore social conservatives concerns completely. Not "call a truce" for a time, but stop worrying about our society and save the government while the society falls apart.
Personally, I think our society is more important than our government, but as the collapse of the latter is more imminent than the collapse of the former, I'm focused on that. I wish those of you who claim to be concerned about ONLY the out of control spending would actually act like the spending is what you're concerned about and not more concerned about shutting up social conservatives.
-
Social values and the economy (deficits) are inseparable.
In fact...there is no way we are going to solve our current economic problems solely by economic means. Getting to the heart of the matter, really, will mean rollbacks and re-adjustments that require new assumptions about how we live together.
-
Weird, that's my feelings every time a R majority takes place in Congress, and fails to deliver.
Let's see. Off the top of my head, in no particular order:
Multiple tax cuts
Demise of the AWB
Balanced budget
Welfare reform
Partial birth abortion ban
DOMA (these last two are specifically for Mak)
Every item on the contract with America
Budget cuts (underway now)
-
If you believe abortion is the genocidal slaughter of tens of millions of the innocent, you'd probably think it's pretty goddamn important. It's amusing how eager you are to spend money and lives on Libya, but want to back burner something far worse.
If there was a credible plan for "doing something" about abortion, then I'd be fully behind it. Given the legal situation, I'm not sure what can be done short of a constitutional amendment, which we don't have the clout to pass. All we can really do is nibble around the edges a bit, which we've done.
As for "supporting the small cuts" I do support them. I don't see GOP cutting anything, just slowing the rate of growth. It's rather like the Dems screaming about "cutting X entitlement program" when the R's propose slowing it's increase, only in reverse. Just as dishonest.
And speaking of triage, when the patient has a sucking chest wound a man putting a band-aid on it as though he's accomplishing something is pathetic, not realistic.
Again with the myth that we need a massive all-at-once solution...
-
The abortion/gayzors social issue people tend to come from the Bible Belt, which also has a long and studied history of backing unions and supporting all sorts of fun social welfare programs.
Not exactly shoring up your credibility. Long and studied history of backing unions in the Bible Belt, eh? Are we talking America or some fictional country where all the right to work states are in the rust belt?
-
One reason why the socially liberal/fiscally conservative GOP types lose support is because they have more in common with the Tooth Fairy than reality.
Oddly enough, the best issue correlation to be found with fiscal conservatism is social conservatism. The solibs/ficons almost invariably disappoint and end up spending like a drunk sailor.
-
Never mind. I'm not in the mood for this crap.
-
Never mind. I'm not in the mood for this crap.
ditto. Most people can't see the forest for the trees. Some don't even read/understand history and will be doomed to repeat it.
-
This what I don't understand. How can people support the impossible goal of cutting by $500b, but oppose a realistic goal of cutting $100b?
As for $100b not doing anything, that's just silly. $100b is still a lot of money. If we can cut $100b a year for a few years, and recover from the recession, we'll be back on a sustainable financial footing in 4 or 5 years.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding your numbers earlier, but it appeared that Obama wanted a budget of X+200b. Boehner and co want to cut that budget by 100b, leaving a net budget of X+100b. Which is not a real cut, but a Washington Cut (real cuts involve spending less than the year before). If we keep cutting 100b and they keep raising it 200b, we'll keep getting worse off.
-
Perhaps I am misunderstanding your numbers earlier, but it appeared that Obama wanted a budget of X+200b. Boehner and co want to cut that budget by 100b, leaving a net budget of X+100b. Which is not a real cut, but a Washington Cut (real cuts involve spending less than the year before). If we keep cutting 100b and they keep raising it 200b, we'll keep getting worse off.
Buuuuurrrn him! The Unbeliever sheds his light of deception upon the blind masses! Burrrrrrn him!
[popcorn]
-
Perhaps I am misunderstanding your numbers earlier, but it appeared that Obama wanted a budget of X+200b. Boehner and co want to cut that budget by 100b, leaving a net budget of X+100b. Which is not a real cut, but a Washington Cut (real cuts involve spending less than the year before). If we keep cutting 100b and they keep raising it 200b, we'll keep getting worse off.
Sorry if I was unclear.
It's real cuts, not Washington cuts. If we take X to be last year's budget, then Barry's proposed-but-never-passed budget would have been X+200b. The GOP House budget is X-100b.
It's more complicated than that because we're already 40% of the way through the current budget year. They never passed a budget last year for the upcoming year (aka right now) because Barry and Harry and Nancy were afraid of the debate that would ensue right before the elections. So for the first few months of the current budget year we were operating under continuing resolutions that fund FedGov at the same rates as last year.
Back in Feb the GOP House passed a $1.2t budget bill covering the on-budget expenses over the 60% of the fiscal year that remains (many Federal expenditures aren't actually considered part of the budget - social security is the biggest of these). The GOP bill reduces spending from last year's levels at a 100b per year pace, but since only 60% of the budget year remains, the total cuts within this fiscal year are only $60b. The full $100b of cuts will not occur until a full year has elapsed. That bill has stalled in the senate, so we still don't have a real budget for this year.
Since then, the Republicans have allowed two more continuing resolution budgets, but they've demanded that these provide for spending cuts of $2b per week ($100b per year) from last year's budget. This was to allow time for the full budget bill to be approved by the Senate and signed by the Prez, but the Democrats have been stalling. It's unclear whether any further continuing resolutions will be allowed, or if we'll just let the government shut down. It's no big deal either way, as a shutdown reduces expenses, and so would more continuing resolutions with the $2b/wk cuts.
Clear as mud?
Here are some news articles that might explain the events a bit better:
House GOP budget passed in Feb:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2011/Feb/19/gop_bill_pairs_budget_cuts__regulatory_rollbacks.html
First continuing resolution; 2 week extension that cuts $4b.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/02/the-note-the-two-week-solution-government-shutdown-likely-averted-for-now.html
Second continuing resolution; 3 week extension that cuts $6b.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/17/110622/government-shutdown-averted-for.html
-
Let me demonstrate why we need a rapid solution:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usgovernmentspending.com%2Fusgs_line.php%3Ftitle%3DUS%2520Government%2520Spending%2520As%2520Percent%2520Of%2520GDP%26amp%3Byear%3D1903_2010%26amp%3Bsname%3DUS%26amp%3Bunits%3Dp%26amp%3Bbar%3D0%26amp%3Bstack%3D1%26amp%3Bsize%3Dm%26amp%3Bcol%3Dc%26amp%3Bspending0%3D6.80_7.28_6.89_6.81_6.61_7.90_7.84_8.03_8.31_8.09_8.22_9.55_9.80_8.22_9.49_22.12_29.38_12.81_14.31_12.67_11.27_11.49_11.44_11.12_11.75_11.75_11.27_13.07_15.92_21.19_22.38_19.40_20.17_20.00_18.74_20.53_20.66_20.14_19.22_28.15_46.68_50.02_52.99_35.87_23.65_20.47_23.47_23.95_22.38_27.88_29.02_29.27_26.70_26.47_27.21_28.84_28.77_28.74_30.25_28.94_28.71_28.50_26.96_27.45_29.80_30.47_30.08_31.00_31.49_31.36_29.78_30.23_33.62_34.00_32.91_32.02_31.58_33.72_33.64_36.25_36.31_34.44_35.48_35.71_35.09_34.73_34.94_36.01_37.22_37.04_36.31_35.38_35.54_34.69_33.77_33.24_32.65_32.56_33.38_34.75_35.28_34.82_34.79_35.06_34.98_36.94_41.35_39.97%26amp%3Blegend%3D%26amp%3Bsource%3Di_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_a_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_a_i_i_i_i_a_i_i_i_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_e_g&hash=60836fed5b2116d66503ffb5197826df8ee5966b)
Can you find the effect of the Contract with America on this graph? Or the effect of anything any Republican did? Any cuts introduced by anybody are just a statistical blip on this.
-
Can you find the effect of the Contract with America on this graph? Or the effect of anything any Republican did? Any cuts introduced by anybody are just a statistical blip on this.
Contract with America or End of the Cold War with the Soviets?
-
It's real cuts, not Washington cuts. If we take X to be last year's budget, then Barry's proposed-but-never-passed budget would have been X+200b. The GOP House budget is X-100b.
Excellent. So I am more cynical than the situation merits, and they are actually attempting to reduce overall spending. Thanks for the explanation.
-
Excellent. So I am more cynical than the situation merits, and they are actually attempting to reduce overall spending. Thanks for the explanation.
Difficult to pull off, nowadays...
-
There's a lot of good information on the budget at the Heritage Foundation's website here: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/06/Federal-Spending-by-the-Numbers-2010
A few tidbits:
* Federal spending has grown 62 percent faster than inflation since 2000.
* Since 2000, Medicaid and Food Stamp rolls have expanded by nearly 20 million.
* K-12 education spending has surged 219% since 2000. (That's why US kids are #1 in world academic comparisons, right?)
Boenher's pre-election promise to cut the budget to 2008 levels, excluding TARP/stimulus spending, would cut more than Rand Paul's $500,000,000,000 spending cut proposal. (Boehner's been real quiet about this since the election . . . )
-
Let me demonstrate why we need a rapid solution:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usgovernmentspending.com%2Fusgs_line.php%3Ftitle%3DUS%2520Government%2520Spending%2520As%2520Percent%2520Of%2520GDP%26amp%3Byear%3D1903_2010%26amp%3Bsname%3DUS%26amp%3Bunits%3Dp%26amp%3Bbar%3D0%26amp%3Bstack%3D1%26amp%3Bsize%3Dm%26amp%3Bcol%3Dc%26amp%3Bspending0%3D6.80_7.28_6.89_6.81_6.61_7.90_7.84_8.03_8.31_8.09_8.22_9.55_9.80_8.22_9.49_22.12_29.38_12.81_14.31_12.67_11.27_11.49_11.44_11.12_11.75_11.75_11.27_13.07_15.92_21.19_22.38_19.40_20.17_20.00_18.74_20.53_20.66_20.14_19.22_28.15_46.68_50.02_52.99_35.87_23.65_20.47_23.47_23.95_22.38_27.88_29.02_29.27_26.70_26.47_27.21_28.84_28.77_28.74_30.25_28.94_28.71_28.50_26.96_27.45_29.80_30.47_30.08_31.00_31.49_31.36_29.78_30.23_33.62_34.00_32.91_32.02_31.58_33.72_33.64_36.25_36.31_34.44_35.48_35.71_35.09_34.73_34.94_36.01_37.22_37.04_36.31_35.38_35.54_34.69_33.77_33.24_32.65_32.56_33.38_34.75_35.28_34.82_34.79_35.06_34.98_36.94_41.35_39.97%26amp%3Blegend%3D%26amp%3Bsource%3Di_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_a_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_a_i_i_i_i_a_i_i_i_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_e_g&hash=60836fed5b2116d66503ffb5197826df8ee5966b)
Can you find the effect of the Contract with America on this graph? Or the effect of anything any Republican did? Any cuts introduced by anybody are just a statistical blip on this.
The challenge with cutting spending over the long term is that most FedGov spending isn't subject to yearly congressional budgets. Only a third of the budget is "discretionary" spending that congress can choose to cut from during any given year. The rest, "mandatory" spending, is allocated based on long-term programs (mostly entitlements) that congress doesn't have under review every year.
Most of the growth in spending is mandatory spending, not so much the discretionary spending that politcritters choose to include or exclude in the annual budget every year.
Any major change in spending is going to have to come out of the mandatory spending, and that's going to require taking on the entitlements. If someone has a sound plan for that, I'm all ears. I'm not sure how anyone could do it short of a conservative supermajority or a constitutional amendment pushed through by the states.
Bush took a stab at it after the midterm elections, trying to partially privatize Social Security, but that went nowhere fast.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftinyurl.com%2F6276rsg&hash=4a2aa9e4de3956ae21d7a399aa0d1b8f3f7729c9)
-
There's a lot of good information on the budget at the Heritage Foundation's website here: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/06/Federal-Spending-by-the-Numbers-2010
A few tidbits:
* Federal spending has grown 62 percent faster than inflation since 2000.
* Since 2000, Medicaid and Food Stamp rolls have expanded by nearly 20 million.
* K-12 education spending has surged 219% since 2000. (That's why US kids are #1 in world academic comparisons, right?)
Boenher's pre-election promise to cut the budget to 2008 levels, excluding TARP/stimulus spending, would cut more than Rand Paul's $500,000,000,000 spending cut proposal. (Boehner's been real quiet about this since the election . . . )
Hmm, that is a GOP leadership proposal I can get behind. Mayhap we can get folk to be a little less quiet and remind The (Weepy) One of his promises?
-
Hmm, that is a GOP leadership proposal I can get behind. Mayhap we can get folk to be a little less quiet and remind The (Weepy) One of his promises?
No need to remind him. The house GOP has been quietly making good on all of their budget promises.
Recall that the GOP campaign pledge thing stated that the budget should be cut by $100b in the first year, then roll back to 2008 levels thereafter. We're right on track for that.
The text of the pledge can be found here (http://www.scribd.com/doc/37958976/GOP-Pledge-to-America). Budget details are on pages 10 and 11.
Oh, I almost forget. The House actually passed a budget bill in January (H.Res. 38) that would have immediately returned spending to 2008 levels, skipping right over that $100b in the first year thing. So Boehner and the boys have actually exceeded their promises. Alas, this particular budget has as little chance of overcoming Senate Dems and Obama's veto as Rand Paul's bill does.
-
You notice that there is no talk about reducing Senators and Representatives salaries, benefits and other perks.
It isn't a lot, and it won't cure anything right now but a drop in the bucket goes towards filling that bucket.
-
You notice that there is no talk about reducing Senators and Representatives salaries, benefits and other perks.
It isn't a lot, and it won't cure anything right now but a drop in the bucket goes towards filling that bucket.
It's a pity that when the Constitution was written, they didn't include a provision that Federal elected officials and their staffs are paid ONLY when there's a sufficient annual surplus to do so without borrowing . . .
-
So you're against "little" cuts?
This what I don't understand. How can people support the impossible goal of cutting by $500b, but oppose a realistic goal of cutting $100b?
As for $100b not doing anything, that's just silly. $100b is still a lot of money. If we can cut $100b a year for a few years, and recover from the recession, we'll be back on a sustainable financial footing in 4 or 5 years.
A $100b a year isn't a small thing.
And now $33 billion.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2011/03/budget-negotiators-reach-tentative-deal-to-avert-government-shutdown.html
-
Sometimes what is realistic is extreme. This is one of those times. Merely slowing a car headed for a cliff doesn't do much good. We are at war right now, a war against financial and economic self-destruction. When we really act as if we believe that and start communicating it, clearly and bluntly, to the American people we might--might--have a chance at averting disaster. "Realistic" gradualism is not going to get us anywhere in this case, because none of the people who got us or keep us here are "realistic." When you are dealing with delusional people, you don't waste time compromising or temporizing. Whether there is no "realistic" chance of passing Randian-style fiscal reforms isn't the issue; the issue is doing the right and noble thing by appealing to the truth, however bitter.
If the American people want to have a hard landing, fine, but they are entitled to know it's coming so they some of them can fasten their seatbelts.
-
Sometimes what is realistic is extreme.
This. When faced with an extreme problem, many extreme solutions become viable. As an analogy, look how many treatments for cardiac arrest would be valid cause for lethal self-defense if done on someone who merely has indigestion. OTOH, giving Tums for cardiac arrest is about as effective as what the Democrats want to do with the budget.
-
Well, so much for that.
Went to the Tea Party rally this afternoon in DC. Cold and damp. Anemic, pathetic turnout. We barely had 1,000 folks today, if that. Not good. Harry Reid's been saying all week that the Tea Party doesn't have any clout any more. Well, today we managed to prove him right. =|
A year ago we had the momentum and popular support to block most of the Dems agenda even without having any representation in congress. We did it though massive popular opposition. Last week I was pretty confident we could apply some more of that same political pressure and, along with our new majority in the House, force through some modest budget cuts. We tried to flex that muscle today, and failed badly.
Got ahold of one of Mike Pence's staffers on the way home. He told me that it's been quiet in the capitol all week. No visitors, no flood of phone calls or letters or faxes. The electorate isn't getting in on this fight, not like we did for health care or immigration reform. That leaves the representatives sympathetic to our cause without a leg to stand on.
Yeah, so much for flexing that muscle.
If we get any budget reduction at all out of this, I'll be surprised. Today was a cold, wet dose of reality. We're still the minority. We still lack any real political power. We can halt their advances, but we can't make any advances of our own.
Current scuttlebutt is that they're dickering over cuts in the $30b to $40b over the remaining half budget year, so maybe $60b to $80b in annualized reductions. Rationally, I have to think that that's not small peanuts, that it's a damned sight better than the $200b of increases Harry and Barry would have implemented if left to their own devices. Still, not particularly satisfying.
The silver lining is that there's a real possibility of forcing in a rider to the budget bill defunding Planned Parenthood. So maybe we'll gain some ground on the social issues front, if nothing else.
-
was today a holiday? isn't school still in? of not and so, i wouldn't put much weight in today's turnout. after all, you're talking about people that have jobs. and don't get paid to protest. =)
-
It's not just the lack of people at the rally. The miserable turnout is merely a symptom of the wider problem, namely that the electorate does give a fig about the current budget debate.
-
Just met Rand Paul this morning, nice guy.
-
Perhaps if the conservative electorate thought they really had an army of allies in Congress they might be more energized? When they see Boehner willing to settle for $33 billion in cuts and proclaiming that we are basically an impotent minority what do you expect from people outside the actual corridors of power? The American people have accepted the fact that they are largely ignored when decisions are made. I would not, however, expect this apathy to continue indefinitely; when the next wave of economic distress hits, when more people find they can't get work or unemployment payments, when more homes are foreclosed, when they see their neighborly civil servants exempted from the pain, the real shape of our political theater will be formed.
-
So a little bit over 10%? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110403/ap_on_re_us/us_gop2012_budget)
They seem to think this is a final goal and not a starting point. It is better than nothing but they could go so much deeper.
-
There will be no rational resolution of our budget problems, but it will all be very entertaining theater. There are not enough sober and productive Americans left to save the whole. Yes, this charade will ultimately end in some form of separation, autonomy, secession, pick your own word. You can't sell austerity to a population that has no concept that deferred gratification and industry are the basis of real economic prosperity and growth.
-
Disappointed to hear about the DC rally. Not surprised, just disappointed.
I'm one of those that considers the GOP to be on probation. I also figured the probation period would last about 6 months from the convening of congress. If I hadn't seen movement in controlling spending during that time I would conclude republicans are part of the problem and therefore meant to be swept away next go'round. I guess what I was looking for out of Boehner was leadership. Instead I see political process management. There is time when leadership demands the taking of actions management considers to be ill-advised or nonsensical. Boehner appears to be tone deaf to the need for leadership. Yeah, the TEA party appears to be flat and dispirited but that may not be a bad thing. It may be watching, waiting, evaluating, and considering options. Social movement in the US typically run a 6 to 7 years from awareness of a social problem to actually dealing with the problem. The TEA party did it in less than 2 years. I don't think is finished, but I do think the republicans party as currently managed is in real trouble.
-
The Tea Party may or may not be dispirited, but what's happening right now isn't the key issue; the issue is that the T.P. is what will form the core of a new conservative party and, maybe, the core of a new nation.
It's very early in the game.
-
Ryan's 2012 budget is a step in the right direction. We'll see if the gOP leadership support him or let him hang.
-
It is. Props for Ryan. Let's hope his proposals go somewhere.
-
Good all over Ryan and Paul.
Problem is the same cast of characters that was unable to negotiate chump change reductions is the same cast of characters who intend to shoot the moon. Boehner gave up his negotiating position when he said he would not shut the government down (in the words of democrats). Boehner screwed the pooch and it can not be fixed. Only new leadership will work.
-
The leadership (GOP) is definitely wanting, but are these issues really negotiable any more when you have a critical mass of takers in America? We've had 60 years of living on credit, of feeling entitled, of expecting to be taken care of. I want to be optimistic but I think the cultural divisions, which continue to be exacerbated by those in power, are deep and wide and, I fear, unbridgeable.
-
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/04/05/breaking-no-deal-says-boehner/
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/264599/strike-one-editors
The deal - even a worse sham than previously expected.
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/264599/strike-one-editors
The deal - even a worse sham than previously expected.
Oh, my aching head!
No matter how cynical I become, the ruling class fools always manage to prove I am not cynical enough.
Weepy Tan Man owes us an apology.
-
I'm sure we'll be told by our betters that we're misunderstanding the significance of this budget.
Chris