Washington Fails Us Again

Evil Bastard (aka Chris_L) · Nov 21, 2011

Michael_ Gee said:

Please note: All this means is that no REPLACEMENT deficit reduction has been proposed to substitute for the 1.2 trillion in budget cuts which will automatically come into effect in 2013. It's only after Congress gets rid of the defense half of the cuts and then enacts further tax cuts by extending the Bush tax cuts forever -- as will happen like clockwork next year -- that it's fair to say it failed.
But why even pretend anyone cares about the deficit? Given their choice of losing Medicare and Social Security benefits or the deficit, Americans are going to say, deficit forever! At this point, if Martians invaded Kansas, the Republicans would oppose tax increases to pay for interplanetary war.
Click to expand...

Please note that it is the Democrats who are requesting cuts in Defense. They suggest Republicans listening to the Generals but then when they get the White House military decisions become 100% political.

Evil Bastard (aka Chris_L) · Nov 21, 2011

Michael_ Gee said:

To reiterate. The political party that enacts the Simpson-Bowles recommendations will lose the next election in a landslide that'd make McGovern and Mondale feel better. Every public opinion poll, and there have been hundreds, show that overwhelming majorities not only oppose cuts to Social Security and Medicare, but do so with almost violent anger. The only budget proposals to gain majority support are cutting foreign aid (picayune) and increasing taxes on rich people, which in a country ruled by rich people is impossible.
Click to expand...

While the Super Committee was meeting in DC - Obama was golfing in Oz. It's as if he doesn't care. "Pass this bill now" "I will focus all my time on jobs". Nothing but empty promises and politically driven policies. He's toast. And the country will be so much better off.

Boom_70 · Nov 21, 2011

Evil Bastard (aka Chris_L) said:

Michael_ Gee said:

To reiterate. The political party that enacts the Simpson-Bowles recommendations will lose the next election in a landslide that'd make McGovern and Mondale feel better. Every public opinion poll, and there have been hundreds, show that overwhelming majorities not only oppose cuts to Social Security and Medicare, but do so with almost violent anger. The only budget proposals to gain majority support are cutting foreign aid (picayune) and increasing taxes on rich people, which in a country ruled by rich people is impossible.
Click to expand...

While the Super Committee was meeting in DC - Obama was golfing in Oz. It's as if he doesn't care. "Pass this bill now" "I will focus all my time on jobs". Nothing but empty promises and politically driven policies. He's toast. And the country will be so much better off.
Click to expand...

I will vote for Obama in 2012 because my party has yet to put up a
candidate that interests me, but this is once again an example of Obama leading from back seat and having Congress do the heavy lifting.

suburbia · Nov 21, 2011

Boom_70 said:

Evil Bastard (aka Chris_L) said:

Michael_ Gee said:

To reiterate. The political party that enacts the Simpson-Bowles recommendations will lose the next election in a landslide that'd make McGovern and Mondale feel better. Every public opinion poll, and there have been hundreds, show that overwhelming majorities not only oppose cuts to Social Security and Medicare, but do so with almost violent anger. The only budget proposals to gain majority support are cutting foreign aid (picayune) and increasing taxes on rich people, which in a country ruled by rich people is impossible.
Click to expand...

While the Super Committee was meeting in DC - Obama was golfing in Oz. It's as if he doesn't care. "Pass this bill now" "I will focus all my time on jobs". Nothing but empty promises and politically driven policies. He's toast. And the country will be so much better off.
Click to expand...

I will vote for Obama in 2012 because my party has yet to put up a
candidate that interests me, but this is once again an example of Obama leading from back seat and having Congress do the heavy lifting.
Click to expand...

Obama needs to strike a balance. You're absolutely right that he can't lead from the backseat like he so often does. But he can't try to strongarm Congress the way Bill Clinton tried to do at first either.

jackfinarelli · Nov 21, 2011

Ooops...

I thought this was about the Redskins losing in overtime yesterday.

My mistake...

Tarheel316 · Nov 21, 2011

Michael_ Gee said:

To reiterate. The political party that enacts the Simpson-Bowles recommendations will lose the next election in a landslide that'd make McGovern and Mondale feel better. Every public opinion poll, and there have been hundreds, show that overwhelming majorities not only oppose cuts to Social Security and Medicare, but do so with almost violent anger. The only budget proposals to gain majority support are cutting foreign aid (picayune) and increasing taxes on rich people, which in a country ruled by rich people is impossible.
Click to expand...

This. And I agree completely. The Koch brothers won't allow more taxes on the wealthy.

YankeeFan · Nov 21, 2011

President live now from the WH Briefing Room.

Brian · Nov 21, 2011

suburbia said:

Boom_70 said:

Evil Bastard (aka Chris_L) said:

Michael_ Gee said:

To reiterate. The political party that enacts the Simpson-Bowles recommendations will lose the next election in a landslide that'd make McGovern and Mondale feel better. Every public opinion poll, and there have been hundreds, show that overwhelming majorities not only oppose cuts to Social Security and Medicare, but do so with almost violent anger. The only budget proposals to gain majority support are cutting foreign aid (picayune) and increasing taxes on rich people, which in a country ruled by rich people is impossible.
Click to expand...

While the Super Committee was meeting in DC - Obama was golfing in Oz. It's as if he doesn't care. "Pass this bill now" "I will focus all my time on jobs". Nothing but empty promises and politically driven policies. He's toast. And the country will be so much better off.
Click to expand...

I will vote for Obama in 2012 because my party has yet to put up a
candidate that interests me, but this is once again an example of Obama leading from back seat and having Congress do the heavy lifting.
Click to expand...

Obama needs to strike a balance. You're absolutely right that he can't lead from the backseat like he so often does. But he can't try to strongarm Congress the way Bill Clinton tried to do at first either.
Click to expand...

Just two years ago, Republicans said Obama strong-armed the healthcare bill through Congress and was ruining America with his radical agenda (agenda said with sneering tone). Now, he's laying back and letting Congress work out the problems he's told he's not leading.

There. Is. Nothing. He. Can. Do. They hate him.

DanOregon · Nov 21, 2011

suburbia said:

Bob Cook said:

doctorquant said:

So let's assume that the sequester, which doesn't take effect until 2013, actually comes into being. That means that, over the period from 2013 to 2021, federal spending will increase by $1.6 trillion. Without the sequester (i.e., assuming the supercommittee had "done its job"), spending would have increased by $1.7 trillion.

Wow, such a consequential failure.
Click to expand...

I agree that there is no way anything was getting done. It's not like there existed 12 magical members of Congress, representing both parties, who could come up with a plan everyone loved. It was a sham from the start.

Plus, it's getting to be more apparent the best thing for Democrats to do to advance their own agenda is... nothing. A good story here:

http://www.salon.com/2011/11/18/the_favor_george_w_bush_did_for_democrats/singleton/

Basically, let the automatic cuts (which are mostly from traditionally Republican-supported departments, like defense) take effect, let the Bush tax cuts expire, and presuming Obama is re-elected, all of this can happen without a single vote. Plus, the Democrats are in a stronger position because polls generally blame Republicans for Congressional gridlock.

For a while, it was Republicans who benefited politically when nothing was done -- now it's Democrats. The Salon story makes a good point that Republicans' negotiating position isn't so strong, or else why would it have offered $250 billion in new revenue as part of the supercommittee negotiations (it was offered in exchange for keeping the Bush tax cuts, but still).
Click to expand...

The difference is that Republicans actually have some political spine. Democrats, particularly Obama, don't.
Click to expand...

Let's see, the Dems agree to cuts on social programs advocated by Republicans that anger their base. The GOP resist any tax increases which would anger their base. I don't see how anyone in the GOP has shown any real spine here. I guess I am kind of surprised they didn't get any pressure from defense contractors who are likely to take a hit from the mandated cuts.

suburbia · Nov 21, 2011

DanOregon said:

suburbia said:

Bob Cook said:

doctorquant said:

So let's assume that the sequester, which doesn't take effect until 2013, actually comes into being. That means that, over the period from 2013 to 2021, federal spending will increase by $1.6 trillion. Without the sequester (i.e., assuming the supercommittee had "done its job"), spending would have increased by $1.7 trillion.

Wow, such a consequential failure.
Click to expand...

I agree that there is no way anything was getting done. It's not like there existed 12 magical members of Congress, representing both parties, who could come up with a plan everyone loved. It was a sham from the start.

Plus, it's getting to be more apparent the best thing for Democrats to do to advance their own agenda is... nothing. A good story here:

http://www.salon.com/2011/11/18/the_favor_george_w_bush_did_for_democrats/singleton/

Basically, let the automatic cuts (which are mostly from traditionally Republican-supported departments, like defense) take effect, let the Bush tax cuts expire, and presuming Obama is re-elected, all of this can happen without a single vote. Plus, the Democrats are in a stronger position because polls generally blame Republicans for Congressional gridlock.

For a while, it was Republicans who benefited politically when nothing was done -- now it's Democrats. The Salon story makes a good point that Republicans' negotiating position isn't so strong, or else why would it have offered $250 billion in new revenue as part of the supercommittee negotiations (it was offered in exchange for keeping the Bush tax cuts, but still).
Click to expand...

The difference is that Republicans actually have some political spine. Democrats, particularly Obama, don't.
Click to expand...

Let's see, the Dems agree to cuts on social programs advocated by Republicans that anger their base. The GOP resist any tax increases which would anger their base. I don't see how anyone in the GOP has shown any real spine here. I guess I am kind of surprised they didn't get any pressure from defense contractors who are likely to take a hit from the mandated cuts.
Click to expand...

Republicans show spine by sticking to their ideology no matter what. And they win in the end because Democrats sacrifice their ideology and principles in the name of "compromising" and "being the adults in the room," which is then rewarded by the GOP screwing them over, campaigning against them anyway and winning elections.

As someone (I forget who) once said, if you give voters a choice between an actual Republican and a Democrat acting like a Republican, the actual Republican will win every time.

Oggiedoggie · Nov 21, 2011

We pepper spray college students when they don't move.

This inaction deserves at least a kick in the nuts.

Uncle.Ruckus · Nov 21, 2011

suburbia said:

Republicans show spine by sticking to their ideology no matter what. And they win in the end because Democrats sacrifice their ideology and principles in the name of "compromising" and "being the adults in the room," which is then rewarded by the GOP screwing them over, campaigning against them anyway and winning elections.

As someone (I forget who) once said, if you give voters a choice between an actual Republican and a Democrat acting like a Republican, the actual Republican will win every time.
Click to expand...

Cool story, Amalgam.

Log in or Sign up

Washington Fails Us Again

Evil Bastard (aka Chris_L) Active Member

Evil Bastard (aka Chris_L) Active Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

suburbia Active Member

jackfinarelli Well-Known Member

Tarheel316 Well-Known Member

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

Brian Well-Known Member

DanOregon Well-Known Member

suburbia Active Member

Oggiedoggie Well-Known Member

Uncle.Ruckus Guest

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Washington Fails Us Again

Evil Bastard (aka Chris_L) Active Member

Evil Bastard (aka Chris_L) Active Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

suburbia Active Member

jackfinarelli Well-Known Member

Tarheel316 Well-Known Member

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

Brian Well-Known Member

DanOregon Well-Known Member

suburbia Active Member

Oggiedoggie Well-Known Member

Uncle.Ruckus Guest

Share This Page

Useful Searches