AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Republican obstructionism has now officially jumped the shark
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Republican obstructionism has now officially jumped the shark - Page 4

post #121 of 200
2/26/13 at 6:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

What's the point of your graph except to point out that the Republicans are making a mountain out of a very very important molehill? Pass the fucking budget and save jobs, and save the progress were making toward recovery. Don't obstruct for what amounts to next to nothing.

Back here on planet Earth, the graph shows that Obama is the one making the mountain out of a molehill. He got his tax increases in exchange for future spending cuts, and now refuses to countenance even the slightest cuts to the federal budget.

You can blame GOP 'obstructionism' all you like. When this blows up - and it inevitably will - threads like these will stand out as a reminder that there were people calling for fiscal sanity that went unheeded for the better part of a decade.
"Fiscal sanity" in the face of a recovery does not mean what you think it does. What you're talking about is austerity. Look how well that has done for Greece, Spain and Italy. Meanwhile, real fiscal sanity -- letting the banks fail, raising taxes and strengthening the safety net -- is what is leading Iceland to recovery while the other recessed nations fail under the folly of austerity.
Reply
Reply
post #122 of 200
2/26/13 at 7:38pm

And "austerity" is not what you think it is.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #123 of 200
2/26/13 at 8:01pm
Thread Starter 
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance

A state of reduced spending and increased frugality in the financial sector. Austerity measures generally refer to the measures taken by governments to reduce expenditures in an attempt to shrink their growing budget deficits.

 

Seems to be what tonton is talking about.  Perhaps it isn't what you think it is.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #124 of 200
2/26/13 at 8:04pm

Except that no one is talking about or proposing reducing spending. That's just the lie that's being told and expected to be believed by moronic and ignorant sheep.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #125 of 200
2/26/13 at 8:14pm
Thread Starter 
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance

*cough* Jesus is real and evolution isn't *cough*

 

Reducing guaranteed growth means less money is spent than what was going to be spent.  

 

Also,

 

2012 federal budget expenditures:  $3.796 trillion

2013 federal budget expenditures:  $3.803 trillion (requested)

 

Sequester hit: $85 billion or $0.085 trillion.

 

2013  federal budget expenditures post-sequester:  $3.718 trillion (requested)

 

Last time I checked, 3.718 < 3.796 (unless you don't believe in math either because number lines are a liberal plot against freedom).  You, MJ, are the one who is believing lies like moronic sheep.

 

 

*cough* Jesus is real and evolution isn't *cough*

*cough* Jesus is real and evolution isn't *cough*

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #126 of 200
2/26/13 at 8:28pm

I forgot, you're one of them. Thanks for reminding me.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #127 of 200
2/26/13 at 8:29pm
Thread Starter 
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance

Someone forgot to turn off MJ's "disregard argument, repeat countered statement" subroutine.  Unless you are arguing that 3.718 > 3.796. I mean, it wouldn't surprise me coming from you.

 

MJ, do you believe that 3.718 > 3.796?  That little sideways "v" means "greater than" when the corner points right, just in case you didn't know.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #128 of 200
2/26/13 at 10:49pm
So yes, MJ, you may have been previously ignorant of it, but we are in fact talking about reduced spending. Specifically.
Reply
Reply
post #129 of 200
2/27/13 at 6:07am

The $995 billion Sequester Cut Is Actually a $110 Billion Spending Increase

 

Furthermore, the irony is that those who would characterize these cuts as the first steps of Armageddon are now claiming that the Republicans are making a mountain out of a mole hill. The $85 billion in "cuts" amounts to 2% of the total budget. But, again, these aren't real cuts. This is a shell game and the Obama administration, in particular, is playing its disciples and apologists like a violin. He's also demonstrating himself (once again) to be an untrustworthy liar. The Democrats did this same thing to Reagan and Bush: Give us tax increases and we'll cut spending. Tax increases came. Spending cuts didn't.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #130 of 200
2/27/13 at 7:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So yes, MJ, you may have been previously ignorant of it, but we are in fact talking about reduced spending. Specifically.

 

No - it's easy.  If you turn out to be wrong about this year's budget, just change the subject to the next 10 years' budget instead.

Reply
Reply
post #131 of 200
2/27/13 at 10:20am
Thread Starter 
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

No - it's easy.  If you turn out to be wrong about this year's budget, just change the subject to the next 10 years' budget instead.

 

Exactly. 1slj61.gif

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #132 of 200
2/27/13 at 3:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

The $995 billion Sequester Cut Is Actually a $110 Billion Spending Increase

Furthermore, the irony is that those who would characterize these cuts as the first steps of Armageddon are now claiming that the Republicans are making a mountain out of a mole hill. The $85 billion in "cuts" amounts to 2% of the total budget. But, again, these aren't real cuts. This is a shell game and the Obama administration, in particular, is playing its disciples and apologists like a violin. He's also demonstrating himself (once again) to be an untrustworthy liar. The Democrats did this same thing to Reagan and Bush: Give us tax increases and we'll cut spending. Tax increases came. Spending cuts didn't.
Who's the liar? The tax increases together with the spending cuts that followed under the Clinton administration balanced the freaking budget. Or did you conveniently forget?
Reply
Reply
post #133 of 200
2/27/13 at 3:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


Who's the liar? The tax increases together with the spending cuts that followed under the Clinton administration balanced the freaking budget. Or did you conveniently forget?

 

But these aren't spending cuts. They're reductions in future spending increases. Totally not the same thing.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #134 of 200
2/27/13 at 3:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Who's the liar? The tax increases together with the spending cuts that followed under the Clinton administration balanced the freaking budget. Or did you conveniently forget?

But these aren't spending cuts. They're reductions in future spending increases. Totally not the same thing.
When the population starts decreasing, and when inflation stops, and when per capita GDP stops increasing, you can argue that spending should never go up.
Reply
Reply
post #135 of 200
2/28/13 at 6:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


When the population starts decreasing, and when inflation stops, and when per capita GDP stops increasing, you can argue that spending should never go up.

 

 

But, but, in 1808 we spent only $X on whatever and we did fine.  We should return to that figure because that is what our Founding Fathers Wanted™.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #136 of 200
2/28/13 at 6:30pm

Except that real per-capita spending also keeps increasing meaning that spending is increasing faster than inflation and population.

 

This all grants the (dubious) assumption that this is a valid and appropriate way to measure what spending should be. Or even that the current levels of per-capita spending are justifiable.

 

Neither of these have been established at all.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #137 of 200
2/28/13 at 6:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Except that real per-capita spending also keeps increasing meaning that spending is increasing faster than inflation and population.

 

This all grants the (dubious) assumption that this is a valid and appropriate way to measure what spending should be. Or even that the current levels of per-capita spending are justifiable.

 

Neither of these have been established at all.

 

You addressed population but did not factor in GDP. Whether or not any particular level of spending is desirable or justifiable, as per capita GDP and aggregate wealth increases, demand for services tends to increase, and so upward pressure on per capita public spending is somewhat inevitable.  But US taxation is not particularly high by historical levels - one source of mismatch that is fueling the deficit.

Reply
Reply
post #138 of 200
2/28/13 at 6:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

You addressed population but did not factor in GDP.

 

I addressed the two factors (population and inflation) that one of the posters suggested were important to determining spending. I disagree that either or both of these are the most important factors in determining the appropriate level or increases in spending. But even with those considered, spending has been increasing faster than both of them.

 

We can look at spending relative to GDP if you like, but I'm not sure why GDP should be an important factor either. Until we've established why any, all or any combination of these metrics are appropriate factors in determining what government spending should be the discussion of these ratios and metrics is premature. GDP has the added issue of including government spending so creating the potential problem that as government spending goes up, so does GDP, and if government spending is indexed against it, it appears it could create a self-feeding growth.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Whether or not any particular level of spending is desirable or justifiable, as per capita GDP and aggregate wealth increases, demand for services tends to increase, and so upward pressure on per capita public spending is somewhat inevitable.

 

Maybe. Maybe not.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

But US taxation is not particularly high by historical levels - one source of mismatch that is fueling the deficit.

 

I'm not sure how this is relevant to the question of what the spending should be or even relevant to what tax levels should be.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #139 of 200
2/28/13 at 7:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

You addressed population but did not factor in GDP.

 

I addressed the two factors (population and inflation) that one of the posters suggested were important to determining spending. I disagree that either or both of these are the most important factors in determining the appropriate level or increases in spending. But even with those considered, spending has been increasing faster than both of them.

 

We can look at spending relative to GDP if you like, but I'm not sure why GDP should be an important factor either. Until we've established why any, all or any combination of these metrics are appropriate factors in determining what government spending should be the discussion of these ratios and metrics is premature. GDP has the added issue of including government spending so creating the potential problem that as government spending goes up, so does GDP, and if government spending is indexed against it, it appears it could create a self-feeding growth.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Whether or not any particular level of spending is desirable or justifiable, as per capita GDP and aggregate wealth increases, demand for services tends to increase, and so upward pressure on per capita public spending is somewhat inevitable.

 

Maybe. Maybe not.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

But US taxation is not particularly high by historical levels - one source of mismatch that is fueling the deficit.

 

I'm not sure how this is relevant to the question of what the spending should be or even relevant to what tax levels should be.

 

Unless I'm looking at the wrong post, he listed per capita GDP too.  I was not suggesting spending should be indexed to GDP - just noting that there is a credible source of upward pressure due to the gross investment element of GDP.

 

The taxation comment was just an observation - not related to spending except in the sense that they need to balance.

Reply
Reply
post #140 of 200
2/28/13 at 7:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Unless I'm looking at the wrong post, he listed per capita GDP too.

 

I guess I missed that. I still don't see it as relevant.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

The taxation comment was just an observation - not related to spending except in the sense that they need to balance.

 

Agreed for the need to balance. The persistent and seemingly perpetual borrowing will end badly. It is simply a way to put off hard decisions onto future generations. It is basically "borrowing" (or "stealing") growth and wealth and prosperity from the future. Inflation is the other way BTW.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #141 of 200
3/1/13 at 5:49pm

Well all I'm wondering is if Republican congressmen will be looking back during the next election and thinking : " Gee! Maybe we shouldn't have let that sequestor happen! ".1wink.gif

 

 

Cheers!


Edited by jimmac - 3/1/13 at 5:57pm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #142 of 200
3/4/13 at 8:30am

With the sequester, Obama gets his ‘balanced’ approach:

 

 

Quote:
Congressional Republicans have had quite a comeback. In January, the GOP was forced to vote for a major tax hike with zero spending cuts. Now it is President Obama who has been forced to accept spending cuts with no tax hike. Who says divided government doesn’t work?

 

lol.gif

 

 

 

Quote:

Obama continues to complain the sequester does not represent a balanced approach to deficit reduction, and wants to replace some of the spending cuts with tax increases. But the Simpson-Bowles Commission laid out what a “balanced” approach should entail: $3 of spending cuts for every $1 dollar in tax increases. Well according to Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), by that standard Congress and the president have nearly met that mark.

 
Just a few weeks ago, as part of the fiscal-cliff deal, Congress approved $620 billion in tax hikes over ten years with no spending cuts. That means that to meet the 3-to-1 ratio, we should have a corresponding $1.86 trillion in spending cuts. But the sequester cuts just $1.72 trillion in spending over 10 years, according to Portman’s office. That is a ratio of just 2.78-to-1. We would need to cut an additional $138 billion, Portman calculates, in order to meet the 3-to-1 ratio recommended by Simpson-Bowles.
 
If anything, the spending cuts Congress enacted in the sequester are not too deep — they are not deep enough.

 

But it gets better...

 

 

Quote:
For weeks, Obama tried to use the indiscriminate nature of the sequester to bludgeon Republicans into replacing some of the cuts with new tax revenues. But his dire warnings that criminals would be set free, teachers laid off, meat inspectors thrown off the job, air traffic controllers forced to abandon their posts backfired. It turned out most of his claims were exaggerated or flat untrue. And the false threats failed to deter Republicans from holding the line and demanding that the spending cuts be enacted in their entirety.
 
Now it appears Obama has backed down. After issuing apocalyptic warnings of the plagues and pestilence would descend upon the land if the sequester took effect, on Friday he declared, “This is not going to be [an] apocalypse, as some people have said.” (Some people, Mr. President?) Instead of the end of the world, the sequester is now “just dumb.”

 

I guess Obama's use of the "politics of fear" didn't work this time.
 
And, maybe, the Republicans weren't so dumb after all...
 
Quote:
What this means is that, by sticking to their guns in the sequester showdown, Republicans have actually forced Obama into the “balanced approach” he called for but did not actually pursue.

 

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #143 of 200
3/7/13 at 4:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

With the sequester, Obama gets his ‘balanced’ approach:

 

 

Quote:
Congressional Republicans have had quite a comeback. In January, the GOP was forced to vote for a major tax hike with zero spending cuts. Now it is President Obama who has been forced to accept spending cuts with no tax hike. Who says divided government doesn’t work?

 

lol.gif

 

 

 

Quote:

Obama continues to complain the sequester does not represent a balanced approach to deficit reduction, and wants to replace some of the spending cuts with tax increases. But the Simpson-Bowles Commission laid out what a “balanced” approach should entail: $3 of spending cuts for every $1 dollar in tax increases. Well according to Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), by that standard Congress and the president have nearly met that mark.

 
Just a few weeks ago, as part of the fiscal-cliff deal, Congress approved $620 billion in tax hikes over ten years with no spending cuts. That means that to meet the 3-to-1 ratio, we should have a corresponding $1.86 trillion in spending cuts. But the sequester cuts just $1.72 trillion in spending over 10 years, according to Portman’s office. That is a ratio of just 2.78-to-1. We would need to cut an additional $138 billion, Portman calculates, in order to meet the 3-to-1 ratio recommended by Simpson-Bowles.
 
If anything, the spending cuts Congress enacted in the sequester are not too deep — they are not deep enough.

 

But it gets better...

 

 

Quote:
For weeks, Obama tried to use the indiscriminate nature of the sequester to bludgeon Republicans into replacing some of the cuts with new tax revenues. But his dire warnings that criminals would be set free, teachers laid off, meat inspectors thrown off the job, air traffic controllers forced to abandon their posts backfired. It turned out most of his claims were exaggerated or flat untrue. And the false threats failed to deter Republicans from holding the line and demanding that the spending cuts be enacted in their entirety.
 
Now it appears Obama has backed down. After issuing apocalyptic warnings of the plagues and pestilence would descend upon the land if the sequester took effect, on Friday he declared, “This is not going to be [an] apocalypse, as some people have said.” (Some people, Mr. President?) Instead of the end of the world, the sequester is now “just dumb.”

 

I guess Obama's use of the "politics of fear" didn't work this time.
 
And, maybe, the Republicans weren't so dumb after all...
 
Quote:
What this means is that, by sticking to their guns in the sequester showdown, Republicans have actually forced Obama into the “balanced approach” he called for but did not actually pursue.

 

Republicans are extremely lucky things haven't gone sharply south........yet because of it. It's a phased in thing or didn't you read about that. Also didn't read who'd take the blame if it causes problems.1wink.gif Meanwhile the market is doing very well having recovered it's loses since 2007. However proof again that Wall Street is disconected from Main Street.

 

Here's a little read from the same source :

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/03/06/did-president-obama-cry-wolf-on-the-sequester/

 

 

Quote:

While they clearly feel as though they have political momentum behind them at the moment, the GOP would do well to remember that the high ground can shift rapidly. That’s especially true when it comes to the sequester, which has been compared to a wave; it might start small but it can quickly grow into something that can swamp you. Remember that this is a $1.2 trillion spending cut spread out over a decade, meaning that the longer the sequester is allowed to stay in place the broader and more painful the cuts will become.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #144 of 200
3/7/13 at 5:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Republicans are extremely lucky things haven't gone sharply south........yet because of it.

 

They are lucky that what things haven't gone south (yet) because of what?!

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

It's a phased in thing or didn't you read about that.

 

What is?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Also didn't read who'd take the blame if it causes problems.

 

Yes, yes, we all know you're all about who you think will get the blame for this or that by a poorly informed and fairly illogical American public. 1rolleyes.gif

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Meanwhile the market is doing very well having recovered it's loses since 2007. However proof again that Wall Street is disconected from Main Street.

 

Yes...so sequester was bad...or it was good...and the economy is doing well under Obamanomcis...or it's only Wall Street that's doing well under Obamanomics...or something...or whatever. 1rolleyes.gif

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/03/06/did-president-obama-cry-wolf-on-the-sequester/

 

Yeah, nothing new there.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #145 of 200
3/8/13 at 4:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Republicans are extremely lucky things haven't gone sharply south........yet because of it.

 

They are lucky that what things haven't gone south (yet) because of what?!

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

It's a phased in thing or didn't you read about that.

 

What is?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Also didn't read who'd take the blame if it causes problems.

 

Yes, yes, we all know you're all about who you think will get the blame for this or that by a poorly informed and fairly illogical American public. 1rolleyes.gif

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Meanwhile the market is doing very well having recovered it's loses since 2007. However proof again that Wall Street is disconected from Main Street.

 

Yes...so sequester was bad...or it was good...and the economy is doing well under Obamanomcis...or it's only Wall Street that's doing well under Obamanomics...or something...or whatever. 1rolleyes.gif

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/03/06/did-president-obama-cry-wolf-on-the-sequester/

 

Yeah, nothing new there.

You're right nothing new there or here. Continued denial and pretending not to understand.lol.gif

 

Meanwhile : http://news.msn.com/us/unemployment-drops-to-77percent-lowest-in-4-years

 

 

Quote:

Unemployment drops to 7.7%, lowest in 4 years

Something you probably didn't want to hear. I hope however once the more of the sequester kicks in ( something you pretended to not understand lol.gif ) doesn't negatively impact this trend.1wink.gif

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #146 of 200
3/8/13 at 4:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Continued denial and pretending not to understand.lol.gif

 

I hope however once the more of the sequester kicks in ( something you pretended to not understand lol.gif )...

 

What the **** are you babbling about?!

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Meanwhile : http://news.msn.com/us/unemployment-drops-to-77percent-lowest-in-4-years

 

Something you probably didn't want to hear.

 

What makes you say that? I am happy that jobs are being created. Even happier that most of them are in the private sector. Even happier that some more government employees will be getting laid off. This employment report isn't the great news you think it is however. It's tepid at best. But it's better than nothing, sure.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #147 of 200
3/8/13 at 6:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Continued denial and pretending not to understand.lol.gif

 

I hope however once the more of the sequester kicks in ( something you pretended to not understand lol.gif )...

 

What the **** are you babbling about?!

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Meanwhile : http://news.msn.com/us/unemployment-drops-to-77percent-lowest-in-4-years

 

Something you probably didn't want to hear.

 

What makes you say that? I am happy that jobs are being created. Even happier that most of them are in the private sector. Even happier that some more government employees will be getting laid off. This employment report isn't the great news you think it is however. It's tepid at best. But it's better than nothing, sure.

 

Quote:

What the **** are you babbling about?!

Translation from MJ : " I pretending to not understand " .

 

Thanks for another sterling example.

 

Obfuscation at it's best.

 

I'll try again however. You do know that all of the effects won't be felt for months because the cuts are phased in right?

 

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/03/01/budget-cuts-long-term-effects-still-unclear-they-take-effect/GyMYuSUMaIp9nMTtXKPTLP/story.html

 

 

Quote:
Sequester’s long-term effects still unclear

 

In other words the full nature of how this will effect the economy won't become clear for months.

 

Another article to help you understand :

 

Quote:
Effects of sequester will take time — and could be big or small

 

 

Quote:

As Major General Karen Dyson — the U.S. Army’s budget director — explained to NPR, “It really sort of manifests itself over time.”

That’s true of the cuts themselves; the direct effects probably won’t start for several months, for the most part. But the indirect effects are already here — just ask Realtors in the Hampton Roads area, which relies heavily on government spending for its economy.

 

And :  http://blogs.marketwatch.com/election/2013/02/15/not-all-sequester-cuts-would-hit-at-the-same-time/

 

 

Quote:
Not all ‘sequester’ cuts would hit at the same time

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:

This employment report isn't the great news you think it is however. It's tepid at best. But it's better than nothing, sure.

I knew you'd say this. Considering the depth of the economic downturn this is good news. Please don't even try to pretend this is a normal recession.  ( half full / half empty yadda, yadda, yadda ).1rolleyes.gif


Edited by jimmac - 3/8/13 at 6:50pm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #148 of 200
3/8/13 at 8:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Translation from MJ : " I pretending to not understand " .

 

Thanks for another sterling example.

 

Obfuscation at it's best.

 

You're babbling incoherently now.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I'll try again however. You do know that all of the effects won't be felt for months because the cuts are phased in right?

 

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/03/01/budget-cuts-long-term-effects-still-unclear-they-take-effect/GyMYuSUMaIp9nMTtXKPTLP/story.html

 

In other words the full nature of how this will effect the economy won't become clear for months.

 

Another article to help you understand :

 

And :  http://blogs.marketwatch.com/election/2013/02/15/not-all-sequester-cuts-would-hit-at-the-same-time/

 

 

Indeed they may or may not be. Frankly, the point, is these "cuts" are not the match that lights the fire of Armageddon that Obama tried to lead everyone to believe. So the "effects" are likely to be fairly modest or even unnoticeable in the large anyway. The "cuts" just aren't that significant. I know the "cuts" won't hit at once. I've known that all along. Most of them are back-loaded (as usual) and probably will never end up happening anyway.

 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I knew you'd say this.

 

Good for you. 1rolleyes.gif You get a sucker.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Please don't even try to pretend this is a normal recession.

 

I haven't.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #149 of 200
3/9/13 at 3:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Translation from MJ : " I pretending to not understand " .

 

Thanks for another sterling example.

 

Obfuscation at it's best.

 

You're babbling incoherently now.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I'll try again however. You do know that all of the effects won't be felt for months because the cuts are phased in right?

 

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/03/01/budget-cuts-long-term-effects-still-unclear-they-take-effect/GyMYuSUMaIp9nMTtXKPTLP/story.html

 

In other words the full nature of how this will effect the economy won't become clear for months.

 

Another article to help you understand :

 

And :  http://blogs.marketwatch.com/election/2013/02/15/not-all-sequester-cuts-would-hit-at-the-same-time/

 

 

Indeed they may or may not be. Frankly, the point, is these "cuts" are not the match that lights the fire of Armageddon that Obama tried to lead everyone to believe. So the "effects" are likely to be fairly modest or even unnoticeable in the large anyway. The "cuts" just aren't that significant. I know the "cuts" won't hit at once. I've known that all along. Most of them are back-loaded (as usual) and probably will never end up happening anyway.

 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I knew you'd say this.

 

Good for you. 1rolleyes.gif You get a sucker.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Please don't even try to pretend this is a normal recession.

 

I haven't.

 

Quote:

Frankly, the point, is these "cuts" are not the match that lights the fire of Armageddon that Obama tried to lead everyone to believe.

I believe he said they miight hurt the recovery and are a dumb way to do things. That's a far cry from amageddon. I believe the only ones that were saying that ( in reference to what Obama said ) were the republicans.1wink.gif

 

I believe we haven't felt the full impact yet and I hope it's minimal but I fear it will hurt the recovery which is giving many signs right now ( not just the job market ) of picking up steam.

 

 

Quote:

and probably will never end up happening anyway.

What makes you think that?

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #150 of 200
3/9/13 at 9:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I believe he said they miight hurt the recovery and are a dumb way to do things.

 

Actually, that's not true. He toned his rhetoric down after the deadline came and went and the world din't end to avoid looking the the fool that he is. But the rhetoric from the WH was quite strong WRT the negative consequences if spending was cut.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I believe the only ones that were saying that ( in reference to what Obama said ) were the republicans.1wink.gif

 

I guess you can believe whatever you like. Even if it's not true.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I believe we haven't felt the full impact yet and I hope it's minimal but I fear it will hurt the recovery which is giving many signs right now ( not just the job market ) of picking up steam.

 

You can believe whatever you want. I doubt you have much solid basis for that belief.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

What makes you think that?

 

I'm just highly skeptical. Neither party has been very serious about spending cuts for decades. The great "debates" and fights have not been about cutting spending or not cutting but the rate of growth of spending. In D.C. the word "cut" has a very different meaning than it does to the rest of us.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #151 of 200
3/10/13 at 4:39am

Who really started these sequester cuts good old Obama himself.Who is he kidding? People are starting to see what kind of a leader we really have in the White House.And it stinks!
 

Reply
Reply
post #152 of 200
3/11/13 at 7:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I believe he said they might hurt the recovery and are a dumb way to do things.

 

Actually, that's not true. He toned his rhetoric down after the deadline came and went and the world din't end to avoid looking the the fool that he is. But the rhetoric from the WH was quite strong WRT the negative consequences if spending was cut.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I believe the only ones that were saying that ( in reference to what Obama said ) were the republicans.1wink.gif

 

I guess you can believe whatever you like. Even if it's not true.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I believe we haven't felt the full impact yet and I hope it's minimal but I fear it will hurt the recovery which is giving many signs right now ( not just the job market ) of picking up steam.

 

You can believe whatever you want. I doubt you have much solid basis for that belief.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

What makes you think that?

 

I'm just highly skeptical. Neither party has been very serious about spending cuts for decades. The great "debates" and fights have not been about cutting spending or not cutting but the rate of growth of spending. In D.C. the word "cut" has a very different meaning than it does to the rest of us.

 

Quote:

Actually, that's not true. He toned his rhetoric down after the deadline came and went and the world din't end to avoid looking the the fool that he is. But the rhetoric from the WH was quite strong WRT the negative consequences if spending was cut.

Please link me a quote that reflects these " apocalyptic " consequences from Obama you're referencing. Surely that can be easy enough.1wink.gif

 

 

 

Quote:

I guess you can believe whatever you like. Even if it's not true.

 

I usually start believing when it doesn't come out of your mouth.

 

 

Quote:
I'm just highly skeptical. Neither party has been very serious about spending cuts for decades. The great "debates" and fights have not been about cutting spending or not cutting but the rate of growth of spending. In D.C. the word "cut" has a very different meaning than it does to the rest of us.

I see. Not much of a basis.1wink.gif


Edited by jimmac - 3/11/13 at 7:37pm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #153 of 200
3/11/13 at 7:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Who really started these sequester cuts good old Obama himself.Who is he kidding? People are starting to see what kind of a leader we really have in the White House.And it stinks!
 

I really hope you're being facetious and not just randomly jumping across the line from your usual position.1wink.gif

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #154 of 200
3/11/13 at 8:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I see. Not much of a basis.1wink.gif

 

I'll go with history on this one.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #155 of 200
3/12/13 at 12:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I see. Not much of a basis.1wink.gif

 

I'll go with history on this one.

 

Cool. So you're supporting a combination of small non-social program cuts with raised taxes to balance the budget like Clinton (and his Republican Congress) did. Good to know. So when can we see you on board with Obama implementing those Clintonsque tax increases?
 

Reply
Reply
post #156 of 200
3/12/13 at 4:07am

This whole country is fucked up now unfortunately.
 

Reply
Reply
post #157 of 200
3/12/13 at 6:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

This whole country is fucked up now unfortunately.
 


Compared to most European countries as well as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the Asian Tigers, yes, it does appear that way. But who's making comparisons? Certainly not the Republicans.

Reply
Reply
post #158 of 200
3/12/13 at 6:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Cool. So you're supporting a combination of small non-social program cuts with raised taxes to balance the budget like Clinton (and his Republican Congress) did. Good to know. So when can we see you on board with Obama implementing those Clintonsque tax increases?

 

What the **** are you babbling about?!

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #159 of 200
3/12/13 at 6:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


Compared to most European countries as well as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the Asian Tigers, yes, it does appear that way. But who's making comparisons? Certainly not the Republicans.

 

How interesting. Those three specifically and two of the "Asian Tigers" are freer countries than the US. But most of what you support and vote for is actually taking the US further down the list and away from those places. How ironical. Personally, if I had the resources to just get up and move, I'd move to almost any of those countries overnight and wave bye-bye to the US.


Edited by MJ1970 - 3/12/13 at 7:06am

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #160 of 200
3/12/13 at 7:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


Compared to most European countries as well as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the Asian Tigers, yes, it does appear that way. But who's making comparisons? Certainly not the Republicans.

 

How interesting. Those three specifically and two of the "Asian Tigers" are freer countries than the US. But most of what you support and vote for is actually taking the US further down the list and away from those places. How ironical. Personally, if I had the resources to just get up and move, I'd move to almost any of those countries overnight and wave bye-bye to the US.


Part of what allows them to be "freer countries" in the US is their common inclusion of a stronger social safety net than the US has. How interesting. Every single one of those countries has more welfare, more housing, more education, and certainly more health care provided by the government than the US. Yes, I want to take the US closer to how they are. Every single one of them also has a military budget of between one twentieth and one one thousandth that of the US. That's one of the things that helps them pay for the social programs. Also, they don't bail out megacorps. They don't give huge tax breaks specifically for rich people. You're damn right I want the US to be more like them.

Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Republican obstructionism has now officially jumped the shark