What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

  • Thread starter Thread starter Priceless
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

FreshFish said:
I can't find the information right now....FY 2009 started out as a Bush budget and then there were some additional "extraordinary circumstances" expenditures added to the 2009 budget mid-year. So the 2009 spending is partly the budget for 2009 that was passed when Bush was President, with some additional spending thrown on top of it.

I do agree with you conceptually that 2009 is the fair place to start, if I could just find what the original FY 2009 budget number was before the extra spending was added to it, that would be the number to use.

Basically Obama himself doesn't really understand how the economy works; some advisors told him if he did the "stimulus" then these "magic multipliers" would take effect, and voila! problem solved. Since they told him what he wanted to hear, he went with their advice (it's never "his fault" you know....;)) and now doesn't quite know what to say or do about it.
'
Romney does, but he's playing not to lose, he's not trying actively to actually win.

(example: before the Obama Presidency started, there were already 48 Federal job-training programs; now of course there are 49....yet we still hear that the skills that workers have are not the skills that employers want to hire. Several independent Congressional audits of those jobs programs find that they are not very effective, yet each one has a constituency such that we can't get rid of them. Here is a perfect place for someone with Romney's private equity experience to make a big difference, yet he says nothing along those lines.....)
Click to expand...

Also, if I recall correctly, didn't Obama threaten martial law if the "stimulus" was not passed?

I think the Kenyan is well aware of how the economy works, and that he wants America to fail.
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

5mn_Major said:
Meant to say the rate is down...

Post_2_graph_1.png
Click to expand...

The Washing Post has already debunked these numbers. In fact they gave it Three Pinocchios
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

FreshFish said:
I do agree with you conceptually that 2009 is the fair place to start, if I could just find what the original FY 2009 budget number was before the extra spending was added to it, that would be the number to use.
Click to expand...

I should clarify that I'm playing this game because its popular. I don't think the most important lessons to be learned from this episode will be of the sort:

crap before X all came from this dude; crap after X all came from that one. I know my horse is dead and beaten, but to beat it again: I think the ratchet effect is a general pathology that applies to both parties. It's not a Democratic or Republican problem. It's an American political economy problem.
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

MinnFan said:
The Washing Post has already debunked these numbers. In fact they gave it Three Pinocchios
Click to expand...

Even with making recommended adjustments from 1.4% to 3.3%...the net message is the same. They probably should have retained a couple of pinocchios for themselves for overdramatisation.
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

amherstblackbear said:
I think the ratchet effect is a general pathology that applies to both parties. It's not a Democratic or Republican problem. It's an American political economy problem.
Click to expand...

Totally agree, and it in part reflects the way the budget process works in government vs how the budget process [supposedly] works in the private sector. if you "come in under budget" in the private sector, you are praised and perhaps even get a bonus! in government, no one ever dares "come in under budget" because your baseline for this year's budget is last year's spending; therefore administrators look for ways to use up any money left over before the fiscal year ends.

One way this thinking is manifested comes when you have a program that is slated to grow at 6% per year, and someone proposes that it grow at 3% per year. that is called a "budget cut" and so Ryan is a heartless granny-killer because he wants Medicare to grow more slowly and Obama is a reckless fool because he wants defense spending to grow more slowly....they still want programs to grow just not quite as fast as they've been growing, yet proponents of those programs wail about spending 'cuts' that are not reductions in any way, shape, or form.

Just starting a budget by looking at what was spent last year is a bit goofy; most people start a budget process by saying "what are our highest priorities?"

No one in government seems to want to do any prioritizing at all, by 'compromise' they seem to mean, "you support my spending and I'll support yours" [and we'll set aside how to pay for it, for now]. Say what you want about the TEA party, at least when they call for fiscal rectitude they seem actually to mean it and take it seriously.

What we really need is some kind of national convention "grand bargain" in which everyone accepts less of something than what they have now. I believe that as long as everyone realized that the sacrifice truly would be shared and spread around to all, they'd buy into it; right now, it is like little children "don't take mine, I don't care where else you get it as long as you leave mine alone." We'll never get anywhere that way.

This is what Obama promised to do in 2008, and it's what he promised to do when he convened the Simpson-Bowles commission (which gave him the perfect political cover he needed). He failed to follow through on both promises, which is why so many have become disenchanted with him in the meantime.
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

FlagDUDE08 said:
Also, if I recall correctly, didn't Obama threaten martial law if the "stimulus" was not passed?

I think the Kenyan is well aware of how the economy works, and that he wants America to fail.
Click to expand...

Got a source for that? Other than the Tinfoil Hat Brigade?

But since you A) think Obama is Kenyan and B) think he wants Amercia to fail, you probably don't.
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Priceless said:
Got a source for that? Other than the Tinfoil Hat Brigade?

But since you A) think Obama is Kenyan and B) think he wants Amercia to fail, you probably don't.
Click to expand...

http://ppjg.me/2009/03/05/sovereignty-hypocrisy/
http://www.dcjunkies.com/showthread.php?t=7851 (videos included)
http://www.sodahead.com/united-stat...mposed-in-the-united-states/question-1500035/

Do I need to do more dirty work to answer your questions, Bear Red?
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

FlagDUDE08 said:
http://ppjg.me/2009/03/05/sovereignty-hypocrisy/
http://www.dcjunkies.com/showthread.php?t=7851 (videos included)
http://www.sodahead.com/united-stat...mposed-in-the-united-states/question-1500035/

Do I need to do more dirty work to answer your questions, Bear Red?
Click to expand...

I hope you realize that Rep. Smith is talking about the bailout bill and the Bush administration, not the current stimulus bill.
Click to expand...
Right.

Federal reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke threatened the specter of martial law back in 2009 when he said if the stimulus was not passed, the economy would collapse and anarchy would prevail.
Thousands of foreign troops are in the U.S. to assist with "domestic emergencies." Homeland Security has deemed that returning veterans, tax protesters, and anti-abortion advocates, among others, are "terrorists."
George W. Bush signed a treaty with Mexico and Canada that allows the U.S. government to call on their troops to quell any public unrest in the United States.
Click to expand...

Once again, the previous president, not this one.

The government is using pastors in a targeted outreach at churches all across America to teach their congregations that absolute fealty to the American government is "God's will."
Click to expand...

That sounds like something Obama would do.:rolleyes:

ETA: Oh, and it's an advertisement for a book. Very trustworthy. Just this morning I got a letter from a prince in Nigeria...
 
Last edited:
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Heard an interesting story about Valejo, CA on the Beeb this morning. They are coming back from bankruptcy (they were a Navy town that lost its base) and like most of CA their main problems are (1) the cops are too expensive, and (2) the taxes are too low (Suffolk County in NY has the same problem, too, and it may be the general problem for all middle class suburbs). They actually voted through a 1% tax increase in themselves to help balance the books. People can be responsible. Sometimes.

It was mentioned that Gov. "California Uber Alles" Brown is using the CA direct initiative to try to get around the supermajority rule for tax hikes that has basically destroyed the entire CA economy (a revenue bill needs 67% in each chamber; Dems hold about 60% in each and CA Republicans are lock-step with Grover). The initiative asks voters to approve a tax hike. The smart part is that it lays out exactly what Brown will cut if it fails. In a way conservatives (well, honorable ones) should approve the method - it's essentially like user fees, either you buy it or it goes away. By the rules of the CA constitution it only takes a simple majority to approve a state constitutional amendment.

I don't understand why they don't just put up a direct initiative to restore the simple majority on revenue bills in the state leg. That's the way it was up until Prop 13 (IIRC).
 
Last edited:
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Best headline ever. Who could resist clicking on it?

edit: they changed it! This morning it was simply, "Bill Clinton Out of Control."
 
Last edited:
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Kepler said:
I don't understand why they don't just put up a direct initiative to restore the simple majority on revenue bills in the state leg. That's the way it was up until Prop 13 (IIRC).
Click to expand...

Because that direct initiative would fail?
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

bronconick said:
Because that direct initiative would fail?
Click to expand...
Would it? If you only need a simple majority in an initiative, and 60% of the people of the state are having their voice nullified by 40% in the state leg, it might pass, particularly if you paired it with a balanced budget mandate.

(BTW, upon further review, it wasn't Prop 13 that mandated the supermajority, and I realize the personal property provisions of Prop 13 are still very popular.)
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Kepler said:
Would it? If you only need a simple majority in an initiative, and 60% of the people of the state are having their voice nullified by 40% in the state leg, it might pass, particularly if you paired it with a balanced budget mandate.

(BTW, upon further review, it wasn't Prop 13 that mandated the supermajority, and I realize the personal property provisions of Prop 13 are still very popular.)
Click to expand...
If 40% are opposed to a law, is it a good law to begin with (thanks to R. Heinlein for that one)???
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Kepler said:
Would it? If you only need a simple majority in an initiative, and 60% of the people of the state are having their voice nullified by 40% in the state leg, it might pass, particularly if you paired it with a balanced budget mandate.

(BTW, upon further review, it wasn't Prop 13 that mandated the supermajority, and I realize the personal property provisions of Prop 13 are still very popular.)
Click to expand...

A group opposing it would simply point out that voting for it would allow the nasty government to raise taxes on you much more easily and it's better to make them come to a 2/3 agreement to do such a travesty.

It would fail by about that same 2-1 margin.
 
Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

joecct said:
If 40% are opposed to a law, is it a good law to begin with (thanks to R. Heinlein for that one)???
Click to expand...

Let's ask residents of the Confederacy, circa 1965.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top