Politics

[Downinthebend]

I'm fine with the sequester.

 

[chicago51]

I'm fine with the sequester.

It certainly will lower the deficit.

Honest question:

Are fine with it because you don' think it actually will hurt the economy or you think will hurt the economy but reducing the deficit is more important?

Or do think that it will be an epic disaster that Obama will get blaimed for as it will roll back three straight years of small but consistent job growth?

 

[MJ12666]

You realize that the sequester was proposed by Obama and that in 2013 it will amount to $85 million of 2013 projected spending of $3.6 trillion. This is not even a rounding error.

 

[MJ12666]

My mistake, $85 billion not million, but still a rounding error considering $3.6 trillion in projected spending.

 

[Downinthebend]

My mistake, $85 billion not million, but still a rounding error considering $3.6 trillion in projected spending.

Do you know how many of the "cuts" are just reductions of projected spending increases?

 

[chicago51]

Do you know how many of the "cuts" are just reductions of projected spending increases?

The 85 billion is cuts this year. The total sequester is worth 1.2 trillion over 10 years.

I am disappointed it cuts food stamps. Education and green energy are important to me personally but the food stamps is the one thing I wish we could take out.

I do hope it works. I do think we need to cut back on defense spending. A net job loss is inevitable but hopefully things rebound quickly. The job gain streak though is likely to end at 36 months.

I have been reading some stuff on modern monetary theory. Basically it is double book keeping. You balance the private money with public money. Government deficits represent private savings. The concept of modern monetary theory is how to balance them. Basically when the economy is bad the government bumps it up. However when the economy does better the government pulls back. If we have full employment government investment should stop because when you pump in more money into the economy than you need you get inflation.

 

[Downinthebend]

The 85 billion is cuts this year. The total sequester is worth 1.2 trillion over 10 years.

I am disappointed it cuts food stamps. Education and green energy are important to me personally but the food stamps is the one thing I wish we could take out.

I do hope it works. I do think we need to cut back on defense spending. A net job loss is inevitable but hopefully things rebound quickly. The job gain streak though is likely to end at 36 months.

I have been reading some stuff on modern monetary theory. Basically it is double book keeping. You balance the private money with public money. Government deficits represent private savings. The concept of modern monetary theory is how to balance them. Basically when the economy is bad the government bumps it up. However when the economy does better the government pulls back. If we have full employment government investment should stop because when you pump in more money into the economy than you need you get inflation.

That part never happens, because people say "don't stop spending, you'll plunge us into a recession". Sunny day Keynesian is a myth. So we get massive government spending all the time leading to a large deficit and eventually massive inflation. Ask Britain about their bout with keynesian previous to margret thatcher.

 

[Bluto]

That part never happens, because people say "don't stop spending, you'll plunge us into a recession". Sunny day Keynesian is a myth. So we get massive government spending all the time leading to a large deficit and eventually massive inflation. Ask Britain about their bout with keynesian previous to margret thatcher.

Would it also be fair to ask how the austerity measures put in place by the current government are working out as well?

UK heading for triple-dip recession as GDP shrinks 0.3% in fourth quarter

 

[Buster Bluth]

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/sKFHe0Y6c_0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

A pretty great lecture for anyone interested in foreign policy. There's a good TED talk that can work with this. I'll find it.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I've give you the "TL;DR" version of that:

There are four schools of thought in terms of Post-Cold War foreign policy. 1) Isolationism - We have two gigantic oceans guarding us from any invasion and thousands of nukes as a deterrent, we will probably never fight a war on our soil (true). 2) Off-Shore Balancing - Being cognizant that there are only three areas in the world that matter (a. Europe, b. East Asia, c. Persian Gulf) and that we remain on the sidelines (i.e. in the ocean) and make sure no power arises to overwhelm the region. 3) Selective Engagement - Also being cognizant, and but using the force of the military to keep absolute peace. 4) Global Domination - The US will run the entire world, with of course special attention for the three significant areas mentioned.

Both Republicans and Democrats are #4, Global Dominaters. The Professor is a #2. Republicans are neo-conservatives who believe that the military can be used and is so powerful that allies aren't needed, and that we can shape the world with a big stick. Democrats are "liberal imperialists" who want international organizations to green light everything and are, frankly, pussies for putting the boots on the ground (see: Rwanda, Bosnia, Serbia) but will use military force to dominate the world regardless.

While he still points out how Bush failed miserably, I actually came away from the lecture more impressed with Bush than before. It wasn't some "let's get Saddam for my dad!" thing. I'll explain. The neo-Con model believed that the US military was so strong that it could dominate any opponent with breathtaking speed, the professor likens it to "float like a butterfly, sting like a bee." The Persian Gulf War in 1991 showed this. The US absolutely obliterated Saddam's crew. After 9/11, Bush made several key mistakes (among them, not saying why they really hated us, accusing countries like Iran, Syria, and Iraq of aiding Al-Qaeda, and declaring war on basically all terrorists), but the military nevertheless went into Afghanistan and creamed the Taliban. In a month they pushed them right into the hills.

This proved to the Democrats that the idea of "float like a butterfly sting like a bee" works. Small numbers of American ground forces with amazingly sophisticated "smart bombs" was too lethal for anyone to handle. So, they got on board big time with the Neo-Cons. When Israel got wind that because Afghanistan was so successful that we were going to go after Iraq, they came over and said "whoa! Go after Iran! They're the real threat!" and our reply? "We will, after Iraq, and before Syria." This tells us that Washington was convinced that they were just going to blitzkreig through the Middle East and in a matter of one administration completely reshape the region for a pro-American democratic movement that they sought post-Cold War. The professor insinuates that American power was to be on such a display that "everyone would have just surrendered" at that point. I assume he's talking about the member of the Axis of Evil not yet mentioned, North Korea.

Think about it. You take the greatest fighting force and knock down the Middle East powers like dominoes, and then point the gun at Korea last in hopes they surrender. The US doesn't want anything to do with invading Korea, now or back then. The terrain and fifty years of fortifications for a million-man army would be absurd to deal with. So, they wanted to flex their muscle first.

Of course, it fell flat on its face. Afghanistan was revealed to be Vietnam II, and the US didn't prepare for insurgents in Iraq at all. I would argue that if you tweaked the policy of invasion and occupy, it could be done. They didn't do it.

 

[Downinthebend]

Would it also be fair to ask how the austerity measures put in place by the current government are working out as well?

UK heading for triple-dip recession as GDP shrinks 0.3% in fourth quarter

Anytime you talk about Austerity you've already got problems, problems caused by unsustainable spending in the first place.

 

[GoIrish41]

As a federal government employee, I can tell you that almost everyone around the office today is absolutely freaking out because Congress will be notified today about a furlough that would give every DoD employee 1 day off a week without pay for the remainder of the fiscal year (beginning April 23). That is a 20% pay cut for five months. What kind of hardship would it cause you and your family if you had to take that kind of pay cut? These people did nothing wrong and they are being used as pawns in a stupid political game after supporting two wars for the past decade. This is disgraceful. I'm the first to acknowledge that the Defense budget should be cut, but punishing federal workers is not the way to do it.

 

[Ndaccountant]

As a federal government employee, I can tell you that almost everyone around the office today is absolutely freaking out because Congress will be notified today about a furlough that would give every DoD employee 1 day off a week without pay for the remainder of the fiscal year (beginning April 23). That is a 20% pay cut for five months. What kind of hardship would it cause you and your family if you had to take that kind of pay cut? These people did nothing wrong and they are being used as pawns in a stupid political game after supporting two wars for the past decade. This is disgraceful. I'm the first to acknowledge that the Defense budget should be cut, but punishing federal workers is not the way to do it.

I am sorry to hear that and I hope that you are able to manage.

The sad truth is that Congress has had ample time to work together to solve this over the last year and half. The problem is, neither side was willing to compromise and kept passing stop gaps. When this happens, at some point the **** hits the fan and those that have done nothing wrong suffer. Piecemeal government doesn't work.

With all that said, I do know many private companies that have done the same thing (forced friday off with no pay for a decent period of time) and I myself took some unpaid time last year. It certainly stings but it is part of managing costs and I am sure people would much rather take a temporary pay cut than to have a certain % of the workforce laid off.

 

[GoIrish41]

I am sorry to hear that and I hope that you are able to manage.

The sad truth is that Congress has had ample time to work together to solve this over the last year and half. The problem is, neither side was willing to compromise and kept passing stop gaps. When this happens, at some point the **** hits the fan and those that have done nothing wrong suffer. Piecemeal government doesn't work.

With all that said, I do know many private companies that have done the same thing (forced friday off with no pay for a decent period of time) and I myself took some unpaid time last year. It certainly stings but it is part of managing costs and I am sure people would much rather take a temporary pay cut than to have a certain % of the workforce laid off.

No question about it. I think I will manage OK, but I have a lot of people who work for me who do not make nearly as much money as I do and I worry about them. I'm just glad that they are not being put out on the street. This Congress is garbage.

 

[gkIrish]

Obama to give Ohio State commencement speech | The Columbus Dispatch

President is the commencement speaker for my graduation...assuming I get to go. NBD

Perhaps Buster knows whether graduate students can go to the general graduation ceremony?

 

[chicago51]

As a federal government employee, I can tell you that almost everyone around the office today is absolutely freaking out because Congress will be notified today about a furlough that would give every DoD employee 1 day off a week without pay for the remainder of the fiscal year (beginning April 23). That is a 20% pay cut for five months. What kind of hardship would it cause you and your family if you had to take that kind of pay cut? These people did nothing wrong and they are being used as pawns in a stupid political game after supporting two wars for the past decade. This is disgraceful. I'm the first to acknowledge that the Defense budget should be cut, but punishing federal workers is not the way to do it.

Dude I wrote my republican Senator Mark Kirk. I have trying to get some concerned folks to put the pressure on. The president is trying with these press conferences and now these news interviews he is doing with certain local networks.

I know that Senator Durbin and Mike Quigly do not want the sequester as I got replies during the fiscal cliff deal.

You have republican senator or two in PA I believe. . Write to them not as democrat or republican but as an American that is going to be affected.

senate.gov you can write a short message online does not have to take long. If the pressure is put on the GOP they will crack.

 

[chicago51]

I am sorry to hear that and I hope that you are able to manage.

The sad truth is that Congress has had ample time to work together to solve this over the last year and half. The problem is, neither side was willing to compromise and kept passing stop gaps. When this happens, at some point the **** hits the fan and those that have done nothing wrong suffer. Piecemeal government doesn't work.

With all that said, I do know many private companies that have done the same thing (forced friday off with no pay for a decent period of time) and I myself took some unpaid time last year. It certainly stings but it is part of managing costs and I am sure people would much rather take a temporary pay cut than to have a certain % of the workforce laid off.

Neither side is willing to compromise?

The progressive caucus in the House has a budget that balances in 10 years and is upper
class taxes and gradual defense cuts. That is a true lefty budget that folks like me want.

The GOP has taken a hard line since the beginning of no tax increase on anyone.

Now President has offered 50/50 tax reform to cuts. He has put Medicare reform and the possibly of a chained CPI on social security on the table something liberals are mad at him for. How is this not a comprise? So far 2/3 of deficit reduction have been spending cuts.

 

[chicago51]

In other news did anyone here how China and the United States are pretty much are in an declared hacking war? Supposedly we threatened them today with trade sanctions.

 

[DSully1995]

In other news did anyone here how China and the United States are pretty much are in an declared hacking war? Supposedly we threatened them today with trade sanctions.

pretty sure it been going on for awhile now, just in the public eye now. Supposedly theres one sleeper virus thats in like a third of the worlds computers, it hasnt done anything, but it might just be waiting for a time to turn it on and unleash. Pretty intriguing stuff

 

[Bluto]

Anytime you talk about Austerity you've already got problems, problems caused by unsustainable spending in the first place.

or wealth concentration that is so extreme in one direction that it allows for creation of this idea of spending on social welfare and benefits being unsustainable.

 

[chicago51]

or wealth concentration that is so extreme in one direction that it allows for creation of this idea of spending on social welfare and benefits being unsustainable.

It kind of goes along with the shoot Santa Clause theory that liberals like me have about the GOP.

Okay Social Security Medicare Medicaid food stamps unemployment insurance were democrat policies. If you look at polling these are pretty popular even with republican voters. So any republican lead government killing Santa would have a great deal of backlash against them.

So what do about Santa if you are the GOP?

The answer is be the party of tax cuts. You cut taxes to a level that raises the national debt when you have the power. As representatives and senators of the GOP you are to keep quiet on the debt when you hold the White House. Then when a democrat holds the presidency you yell and scream about the debt.

Why? To get the democrats to shoot Santa Clause and kill their own programs because it is too unpopular for a GOP president to do. Then when a democrat does that you blame the democrats for the cuts.

 

[Downinthebend]

or wealth concentration that is so extreme in one direction that it allows for creation of this idea of spending on social welfare and benefits being unsustainable.

Its rather disingenuous to name that as the cause in the european countries and not their massive spending programs, in my opinion.

 

[chicago51]

Its rather disingenuous to name that as the cause in the european countries and not their massive spending programs, in my opinion.

Some European coutries have spending problems.

If the United States taxed like some countries in Europe or like we did until 1981 we would not have debt problem.

By the way a lot of the European debt issues is because the Euro. Individual countries in the EU still operate as independent countries but they don't control their own ability to issue currency. So they have to borrow at crazy high rates. As a result the debt has exploded. The United States will never run out of dollars. Sure it is constrained by inflammation and other factors but nobody is going to question the full faith and credit of the United States maybe a couple of republicans.

The fact is nations should have deficits right now it is a recession. If you have a deficit that means you have a private sector savings. The Euro though has exploded debts in Greece and Spain. The Euro is why EU is going up in flames.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Neither side is willing to compromise?

The progressive caucus in the House has a budget that balances in 10 years and is upper
class taxes and gradual defense cuts. That is a true lefty budget that folks like me want.

The GOP has taken a hard line since the beginning of no tax increase on anyone.

Now President has offered 50/50 tax reform to cuts. He has put Medicare reform and the possibly of a chained CPI on social security on the table something liberals are mad at him for. How is this not a comprise? So far 2/3 of deficit reduction have been spending cuts.

If both sides were serious, Simpson Bowles would be enacted.

The facts are spending has been somewhat reduced and taxes have been increased. But, neither side wants to give in to the other whether it is more taxes or reforming entitlements.

 

[Ndaccountant]

or wealth concentration that is so extreme in one direction that it allows for creation of this idea of spending on social welfare and benefits being unsustainable.

I still want to know what people think of the facts in the WSJ article previously posted that pointed to the cultural changes that have occurred over the last 40 years and what it means in the long run. We have a cultural problem in this country that has devalued marriage, family, religion and community.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

I still want to know what people think of the facts in the WSJ article previously posted that pointed to the cultural changes that have occurred over the last 40 years and what it means in the long run. We have a cultural problem in this country that has devalued marriage, family, religion and community.

Boom.

 

[pkt77242]

If both sides were serious, Simpson Bowles would be enacted.

The facts are spending has been somewhat reduced and taxes have been increased. But, neither side wants to give in to the other whether it is more taxes or reforming entitlements.

^ I approve this message even as a liberal. The important part is intelligent spending cuts. Defense needs to be cut and we need to do things to Social Security and Medicare such as raising the retirement age slowly (I think 68 or so in the next 10 years is pretty realistic with maybe an exemption for manual labor jobs (think construction) to still retire at 65). I also think we need to set a minimum tax rate for people who make more than 1 million a year (think Buffet Rule).

 

[chicago51]

O

^ I approve this message even as a liberal. The important part is intelligent spending cuts. Defense needs to be cut and we need to do things to Social Security and Medicare such as raising the retirement age slowly (I think 68 or so in the next 10 years is pretty realistic with maybe an exemption for manual labor jobs (think construction) to still retire at 65). I also think we need to set a minimum tax rate for people who make more than 1 million a year (think Buffet Rule).

I like first Simpson Bowles proposal better than the second/most recent proposal. Simpson Bowles was orginally 50/50 in revenue and cuts; where President Obama is with his proposals. Obama gets there a bit differently but he gets to 50/50 just like Simpson Bowles.

Then the new Simpson Bowles essentially split the difference between Obama's 50/50 and the GOP's all cuts no new revenue plan. The problem with them splitting the difference is that Obama's plan is already a compromise.

The fact is Simpson Bowles is far more popular mainstream than they are on the hard right or left. A liberal radio host today called them the cat food commission.

 

[NDFan4Life]

As a federal government employee, I can tell you that almost everyone around the office today is absolutely freaking out because Congress will be notified today about a furlough that would give every DoD employee 1 day off a week without pay for the remainder of the fiscal year (beginning April 23). That is a 20% pay cut for five months. What kind of hardship would it cause you and your family if you had to take that kind of pay cut? These people did nothing wrong and they are being used as pawns in a stupid political game after supporting two wars for the past decade. This is disgraceful. I'm the first to acknowledge that the Defense budget should be cut, but punishing federal workers is not the way to do it.

I work for the DHS. When I read about the furloughs the DOD is proposing, I freaked out to say the least. In NC, "middle-class" is considered those making about $50,000. I can assure you, I make a lot less than that. DHS is smaller than the DOD, but my feeling is that when the DOD does something, the other departsments will soon follow. What pisses me off the most is that Congress isn't even in session this week, and they've had ample opportunity to get this all worked out. No wonder their approval rating is 8%. They all need to get a swift kick in the a$$ and be reminded that they work for us. I'm so disgusted with both parties right now. Neither one cares for the little guy.

Good luck surviving this. I hope things work out for the best, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

 

[chicago51]

I work for the DHS. When I read about the furloughs the DOD is proposing, I freaked out to say the least. In NC, "middle-class" is considered those making about $50,000. I can assure you, I make a lot less than that. DHS is smaller than the DOD, but my feeling is that when the DOD does something, the other departsments will soon follow. What pisses me off the most is that Congress isn't even in session this week, and they've had ample opportunity to get this all worked out. No wonder their approval rating is 8%. They all need to get a swift kick in the a$$ and be reminded that they work for us. I'm so disgusted with both parties right now. Neither one cares for the little guy.

Good luck surviving this. I hope things work out for the best, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Good luck to you as well. Didn't your governor just slash unemployment beneifits in your state so if any in NC loses their jobs it would be even worse now?

The funny thing is that I republicans say that is terrible and I hear democrats say this is terrible. If it sucks why not just not do it?

The thing is Congress can actually vote just to turn off the sequester. They can say "you know what we have to negoiate the budget anyway in the coming months there are real people that are going to get hurt by this thing lets just not do it". Sure they can vote on the Sentate Dems plan to replace it if they want but if they can not agree to anything by March 1st why not just turn the thing off?