The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

[Rover]

SJL is not exactly the highlight of the Democratic delegation. Unfortunately, she's in the safest of safe districts—and will be for life, racial politics FTW!—and there's no sign of a viable intra-party challenger. (I will admit to voting for her in the general election... as much of an idiot as I find her to be, she's much more likely to vote the way I want on legislation than a GOP challenger.)

Yeah, there's always a few people we're better off without. Congressman John Tierney in my state comes to mind as well as the aforementioned Maxine Waters over in CA.

Now that we've exposed the Woodward fraud (now he's claiming he never said he was threatened, although once again he's on record claiming intimidation), lets move on to the sequester. Once again the pundidiotocricy is missing something important (big surprise).

A lot of speculation is revolving around who will be blamed for the sequester. While the answer according to polling seems to be "the Republicans" I don't think that's where the most impact will be felt. Sure, the guy who has the Navy base in VA as well as several CA Republicans might pay the price, but that's about it. To me the big issue is what will happen with the big campaign donors.

Right now, the Dems rely on many small donors while the GOP relies on a few big donors both individual and corporate. These approaches both have their advantages and disadvantages. If I'm in the defense industry, I've gotta wonder why I'm spending millions of dollars propping up the GOP only to have them stick most of the budget cuts on my sector even though they control the House. With their insistence on not closing corporate loopholes to offset the cuts, they are in essense favoring the oil/gas/AG/etc industries over national defense. I have to believe there's going to be some blowback for that. Not that these sectors will all start donating to Peacenik Democrats, but I can see them doing what Wall St has already done, which is to start spreading their largesse more evenly between the two parties.

 

[mookie1995]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

Is it safe to go out? Have toll takers Been furloughed? Cops? Air traffic controllers? I'm driving to the cape after work and don't want a plane to fall on me while I'm parked in line at the 128/mass pike toll booth!
Can I order a burger for lunch and not worry?
Ate my boys still in school? Or have the doors been locked and the buses parked?!?
This worry stuff isn't worth it!!!!! AAARRRGGGH!!!

 

[French Rage]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

Ate my boys still in school?

I don't think it's time to turn to cannibalism just yet.

 

[Rover]

I don't think it's time to turn to cannibalism just yet.

Yeesh. I always thought Mookie was weird but even I didn't see this coming.

Some (I think) helpful articles on the deficit reduction.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/budget/news/2013/01/08/49137/the-deficit-reduction-we-have-achieved-so-far/


http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/assessing-the-2011-defense-cuts-6308

Gist of it is this. About 2.5T of deficit reduction has been signed into law. Of that, 1.8T is spending and .7T is tax hikes. Of the 1.8T in spending, its a little tough to parse out the defense portion, but they're getting .5T from the sequester and another say .8T split between the wars winding down and other cuts. Domestic reductions make up the rest.

However, this analysis excludes the deficit reduction from the payroll tax hike that happened automatically which is another 1.2T added to the pot. Finally, war spending in 2012 is 120Bn, down from $160Bn a couple of years early. Get the hell out of Afghanistan finally and poof, we've found another 1T (and even if that's used to pay for the military's sequestration cuts, we're still .5B up on the game).

So, at the end of the day as we sit here now, before entitlements or tax loopholes have been touched the deficit should go down about $5T over the next 10 years. Its up to the pols to find another .5T through tax loophole closings and some entitlement reform and growth ought to take care of a good portion of the rest.

 

[joecct]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

Yeesh. I always thought Mookie was weird but even I didn't see this coming.

Some (I think) helpful articles on the deficit reduction.

http://www.americanprogress.org/iss...he-deficit-reduction-we-have-achieved-so-far/


http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/assessing-the-2011-defense-cuts-6308

Gist of it is this. About 2.5T of deficit reduction has been signed into law. Of that, 1.8T is spending and .7T is tax hikes. Of the 1.8T in spending, its a little tough to parse out the defense portion, but they're getting .5T from the sequester and another say .8T split between the wars winding down and other cuts. Domestic reductions make up the rest.

However, this analysis excludes the deficit reduction from the payroll tax hike that happened automatically which is another 1.2T added to the pot. Finally, war spending in 2012 is 120Bn, down from $160Bn a couple of years early. Get the hell out of Afghanistan finally and poof, we've found another 1T (and even if that's used to pay for the military's sequestration cuts, we're still .5B up on the game).

So, at the end of the day as we sit here now, before entitlements or tax loopholes have been touched the deficit should go down about $5T over the next 10 years. Its up to the pols to find another .5T through tax loophole closings and some entitlement reform and growth ought to take care of a good portion of the rest.

Why 10 years?

They say we're cutting $5T from the budget, but that's over 10 years. And a lot of it involves accounting gimmicks and weird assumptions that would get most of them a doctorate in voodoo. Heaven help us if the interest rate rises to 3%.

What is the number in FY 2014? 2015? These are immediate numbers that will affect the outre years.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

Opie you're a crank, a bitter old man and a fraud. However, I've been told you have a tremendous singing voice, so I guess it all evens out. Like most conversations with you, ours descended into a stupidfest of which I share partial blame (75% you, 25% me I'd say) as we rehashed events that took place 50 years ago. Here is the link you seek:

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsam-jfk/nsam-263.htm

Now, from it I've notice two things. 1) JFK assumed all troops would be home by X-mas '65 given proper conditions on the ground but didn't explicity order that. My bad and point for you. 2) JFK did explicity order 1000 troops home, not as a troop rotation (meaning they'd be replaced) but as a permanent action. This is backed by Johnson reversing the order. Why would he reverse a troop rotation order? So, point for me as you said it was merely a troop rotation.

I'd ask you to defend your view of Nixon's innocence, but why do I think all I'm going to get is more swearing and bile? You do understand that its not my fault you follow a dinosaur ideology, right? Most 70 year olds don't spend their day writing expletive laden tirades at total strangers on a message board.

I suppose it really doesn't matter if you're a mouthy, superficial, bull sh*t artist. But that link to an NSAM surely doesn't prove your "historical fact" that JFK "signed a document" bringing all troops home. You and Oliver Stone are merely delusional on this point.

Your defense hinges on the distinction as between "rotation" and "withdrawal"? Except, of course, regardless of how the troop movement is categorized, it's only 1,000. And not the "all" you claimed. On the day JFK died, there were over 16,000 Americans in Vietnam. There were only a few hundred GI's in Vietnam when he became president.

So, before the point gets lost in your customary blather, let us recall, again, that you claimed it was an "historical fact" that JFK "signed a document" ordering all American troops out of Vietnam. He did no such thing. Nor is there any persuasive evidence that he wanted to or would have. More importantly, buried in the middle of several paragraphs of ad hominem attacks: you admit it and describe your mistake as "my bad."

As I say, it really doesn't matter. But this annoying habit you have of offering opinions as "facts" for past events then crawfishing away, claiming "they're too far in the past" to be worth discussing is really chicken sh*t. When did I ever use the word "innocent" to describe Nixon? Another strawman.

 

[Rover]

Why 10 years?

They say we're cutting $5T from the budget, but that's over 10 years. And a lot of it involves accounting gimmicks and weird assumptions that would get most of them a doctorate in voodoo. Heaven help us if the interest rate rises to 3%.

What is the number in FY 2014? 2015? These are immediate numbers that will affect the outre years.

10 years is how these things are scored by the CBO. Whether that's by law or just in practice I'm not sure, but I'm following the published assessments which tend to look at the impact over that period of time.

I also tend to look at it at a last year's deficit basis. So, if the deficit last year was $1T, what in year impacts would have brought it down? 120Bn in payroll tax, 70Bn in top income tax increase, 85Bn Sequester, 100+Bn previous budget cuts. That would bring yearly deficit down to 600Bn. You need another 100Bn which you'll easily get from no more war spending (120Bn in the 2011 #'s). Economic growth will take care of a good deal of the rest, but the trick is not crippling growth for too much austerit (as in the UK example).

 

[Rover]

I suppose it really doesn't matter if you're a mouthy, superficial, bull sh*t artist. But that link to an NSAM surely doesn't prove your "historical fact" that JFK "signed a document" bringing all troops home. You and Oliver Stone are merely delusional on this point.

Your defense hinges on the distinction as between "rotation" and "withdrawal"? Except, of course, regardless of how the troop movement is categorized, it's only 1,000. And not the "all" you claimed. On the day JFK died, there were over 16,000 Americans in Vietnam. There were only a few hundred GI's in Vietnam when he became president.

So, before the point gets lost in your customary blather, let us recall, again, that you claimed it was an "historical fact" that JFK "signed a document" ordering all American troops out of Vietnam. He did no such thing. Nor is there any persuasive evidence that he wanted to or would have. More importantly, buried in the middle of several paragraphs of ad hominem attacks: you admit it and describe your mistake as "my bad."

As I say, it really doesn't matter. But this annoying habit you have of offering opinions as "facts" for past events then crawfishing away, claiming "they're too far in the past" to be worth discussing is really chicken sh*t. When did I ever use the word "innocent" to describe Nixon? Another strawman.

So.....you spend two paragraphs on personal attacks against me like a typical Nixonian campaign operative and then get around to noticing that I said after looking at it that he signed the order to bring some, not all, of the troops home in the month before his death. You asserted that this was merely an exchange of troops that didn't signal any intent to leave that place. Does that make you a BS artist too by your own standards? Kindly explain.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

So.....you spend two paragraphs on personal attacks against me like a typical Nixonian campaign operative and then get around to noticing that I said after looking at it that he signed the order to bring some, not all, of the troops home in the month before his death. You asserted that this was merely an exchange of troops that didn't signal any intent to leave that place. Does that make you a BS artist too by your own standards? Kindly explain.

Only if you consider mischaracterizing a small withdrawal as a rotation, equivalent to claiming it was a "historical fact" that the President had signed a document bringing "all" the troops home. I was wrong. Clearly JFK was keeping his options open in Vietnam, and reversing that withdrawal somewhere down the road was a possibility. However, 1,000 is not the same as 16,000. There is no document which JFK signed calling for a comlete withdrawal of American forces. You said there was. And offered to prove it. You didn't. And can't.

As to name calling, I'll let others be the judge of that.

Always attack. Always argue tu quoque, ad hominem and from ignorance. Always change the subject.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

The Bone Man.

Worst Speaker of the House. EVER.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

Hilarous how Obama is telling us the sky will fall if sequestration happens. The math is quite compelling. Depending on the number you use, sequestration represents roughly 1-2 percent of the entire federal budget. Just goes to show how dominant the spending culture is in the beltway that a 1-2 percent cut is viewed as something akin to the world ending. Obama may learn that when you cry wolf too often people eventually learn.

 

[Rover]

Only if you consider mischaracterizing a small withdrawal as a rotation, equivalent to claiming it was a "historical fact" that the President had signed a document bringing "all" the troops home. I was wrong. Clearly JFK was keeping his options open in Vietnam, and reversing that withdrawal somewhere down the road was a possibility. However, 1,000 is not the same as 16,000. There is no document which JFK signed calling for a comlete withdrawal of American forces. You said there was. And offered to prove it. You didn't. And can't.

As to name calling, I'll let others be the judge of that.

Always attack. Always argue tu quoque, ad hominem and from ignorance. Always change the subject.

Ummm...sparky, I already said that. Are you sure you're on the right meds? I take a second look and agree with you and you're still going berserk. I feel sorry for your neighbors. Must be tough living next door to the resident old coot in town. Yikes.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

Ummm...sparky, I already said that. Are you sure you're on the right meds? I take a second look and agree with you and you're still going berserk. I feel sorry for your neighbors. Must be tough living next door to the resident old coot in town. Yikes.

They could always move to mouthy, superficial, bull sh*t artistville. You are intellectually dishonest. That's a "historical fact" which cannot be denied.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

Hilarous how Obama is telling us the sky will fall if sequestration happens. The math is quite compelling. Depending on the number you use, sequestration represents roughly 1-2 percent of the entire federal budget. Just goes to show how dominant the spending culture is in the beltway that a 1-2 percent cut is viewed as something akin to the world ending. Obama may learn that when you cry wolf too often people eventually learn.

From Obama's point of view, it may well be the case that he truly does believe the "sky will fall" under the sequester, in the sense that once people discover how little pain would accompany a bona fide attempt to cut spending while continuing to deliver essential services, people will then be comfortable with even more cuts. The Republicans in the House planned to pass a bill giving the administration flexibility to make cuts where they would do the least pain, and Obama promised to veto it!!

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

Why 10 years?

because BHO's second term will end before then. He wants no cuts at all through 2016 and then lots of cuts from 2017 through 2022.

Heaven help us if the interest rate rises to 3%.

Preaching to the choir!

What is the number in FY 2014? 2015? These are immediate numbers that will affect the outre years.

I realize "outre" is probably a typo, yet "outré" is quite apt for the current situation, too!

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

Since we all love to have a genteel, civil discourse regarding politics and elections, it might be timely to note that Old Pio as 2011 Poser of the Year has seen to it that the elections for 2012 Poser of the Year are now underway in the Polls section of the Cafe. Plenty of worthy candidates from this thread to choose from!

 

[unofan]

From Obama's point of view, it may well be the case that he truly does believe the "sky will fall" under the sequester, in the sense that once people discover how little pain would accompany a bona fide attempt to cut spending while continuing to deliver essential services, people will then be comfortable with even more cuts. The Republicans in the House planned to pass a bill giving the administration flexibility to make cuts where they would do the least pain, and Obama promised to veto it!!

Right...just remember that you all think sequestration is a good thing right now. I don't want to hear any *****ing about it in 6 months.

 

[Rover]

Since we all love to have a genteel, civil discourse regarding politics and elections, it might be timely to note that Old Pio as 2011 Poser of the Year has seen to it that the elections for 2012 Poser of the Year are now underway in the Polls section of the Cafe. Plenty of worthy candidates from this thread to choose from!

Sounds good, but if there's a new category called "2012 Poster If You Stuck a Lump of Coal Up His @ ss In Two Weeks You'd Have a Diamond Award" Old Pio would run away with that contest.

They could always move to mouthy, superficial, bull sh*t artistville.

I guess they could move to Texas.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

Right...just remember that you all think sequestration is a good thing right now. I don't want to hear any *****ing about it in 6 months.

Im sure there will be b***ing because cuts will be painful for someone and we're going to have to make a lot more cuts if we're ever going to get where we need to be. I accept the fact that I'm not going to be happy about where all these cuts come from and they will probably hurt my bottom line but as long as I'm not "picked on" for something and other cuts are not made, I will bite my tongue.

 

[GopherBigGuy911]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

Im sure there will be b***ing because cuts will be painful for someone and we're going to have to make a lot more cuts if we're ever going to get where we need to be. I accept the fact that I'm not going to be happy about where all these cuts come from and they will probably hurt my bottom line but as long as I'm not "picked on" for something and other cuts are not made, I will bite my tongue.

I would much rather have Austerity now instead of waiting till it is too late like Greece, Italy, Spain, and other Libtard Euro countries. Take the pain now instead of down the road.