March 31, 2011

The Real Budget Debate?
— Ace

Many people argue this, including, I think, Miss80sBaby. That the difference between $33 billion and $61 billion is trivial when neither sum is even 1% of our current yearly deficit (nevermind the whole budget, or the whole debt) and that the real fight is over structural, multiyear spending.

It's a good argument. My problem with it, though, is that I am tired of the Tomorrow, Tomorrow, Manana, Manana non-plan plan for reducing spending. We cannot be told always that big changes are coming in the future. That's how we got here -- we just kept permitting these problems to grow worse as we talked always about future changes.

So here's my basic problem: If you don't have the guts to fight for possibly-unpopular and fairly trivial cuts now, why on earth should I believe you're suddenly going to be filled with piss and vinegar and fighting spirit tomorrow, especially when it comes to the untouchable, third-rail, middle-class welfare programs?

I think we have to fight on all of this and am really tired of feeling the fool because I bought into another "we promise we'll do all this great stuff next year" claim.

Posted by: Ace at 09:42 AM | Comments (221)
Post contains 201 words, total size 1 kb.

1
Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow...


Posted by: Soothsayer, Republican Whip at March 31, 2011 09:44 AM (gM4zK)

2
Yes, and you know what else?

There is no Master Plantm in the works. The Republicans are not playing the Democrats; they have no grand plan they're about to spring on the Democrats.


Posted by: Soothsayer, Republican Whip at March 31, 2011 09:46 AM (gM4zK)

3

The real issue is all about Washington power.

'IF' the entrenched Old Guard Dems and Repubs band together to squash somthing as SMALL as 100 billion in cuts which the American People essentially voted for... they will then retain power.

Its all about the maintenence of the Washington DC inside the beltway bubble... and putting those TEA party folks in their place...

Posted by: Romeo13 at March 31, 2011 09:46 AM (NtXW4)

4 I am tired of the Tomorrow, Tomorrow, Manana, Manana non-plan plan for reducing spending. This is an entirely legitimate concern. Here is what we will hear if we have a GOP House and Dem Senate and WH in 2013: "We only have the House, we can't ask for the whole loaf." If we have a GOP Congress but a Dem WH: "We only have the Congress, we need the Presidency and we can't override vetoes easily, that's not reality in DC." If we have both Chambers and the WH: "We can't pass such far-reaching cuts without bipartisan votes. The voters will reject our leadership and our victory will be for nothing. Let us consolidate for a year and tackle the big issues down the road. Don't forget how the Democrats overreached." As Monty points out, there is no evidence of broad political will to find a solution to this dilemma. The train will just have to wreck. The problem is no one knows just how or when it will.

Posted by: George Orwell at March 31, 2011 09:48 AM (AZGON)

5
Again, I know for a fact the Republicans will be serious fiscal hawks...

right around this time next year.

I'm done being massaged by these guys.

Posted by: Soothsayer, Republican Whip at March 31, 2011 09:48 AM (gM4zK)

6 Until people on are side gree to that these reforms need to happen,like Vic,  it's a nonstarter, unfortunately.

You've said it yourself, Ace. People are all for cuts until their program gets hit, and entitlement reform is the program for way too many people.

I fear that people are going to have to actually get boned before they realize they don't like it in the ass too much. 

Posted by: taylork at March 31, 2011 09:48 AM (5wsU9)

7 I think the main point of the "structural reform" argument (at least, mine) is that we should do it for the '12 budget.  Not tomorrow, today.  But today in a way that also influences and directs tomorrow.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at March 31, 2011 09:48 AM (8y9MW)

8

Tomorrow, Tomorrow, Manana, Manana

Oooooh!! the word game! Banana nana nana fo fanna....BANANA!

 

Posted by: easily distacted republican caucus at March 31, 2011 09:48 AM (pr+up)

9 Wow.  That's a lot to think about right there.  Uh.....I don't know.  Who did you say you were?

Posted by: Congressman "Can't" Cantor at March 31, 2011 09:50 AM (SeKSx)

10
Yesterday I made the point that a govt shutdown would reflect negatively on the Republicans. They can't shut down govt departments until they themselves make sacrifices, e.g., ending their pension plans, cutting their salaries and benefits, etc.


Posted by: Soothsayer, Republican Whip at March 31, 2011 09:50 AM (gM4zK)

11 Just remember, you wingers cannot ever muster the will to cut our funding. And we are such a small item that a seventh decimal point or so would cover us. Besides, what would you do without our tote bags, reruns of old British TV and infomercials for self-help gurus?

Posted by: NPR at March 31, 2011 09:50 AM (AZGON)

12 The deficit for this year is going to be in excess of $1.6 trillion dollars.  There is no point spending weeks (while Treasury keeps selling bonds) in arguing over $30-$60 billion in cuts.  The minimum acceptable number in cuts has to be in excess of $300 billion.  Perhaps some of the reps are not pushing too hard because the proposals are so ludicrously small.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at March 31, 2011 09:50 AM (SNs7J)

13 Just take a look at the debt clock. The numbers are staggering.

Posted by: sTevo at March 31, 2011 09:50 AM (IQo5y)

14

I think we have to fight on all of this and am really tired of feeling the fool because I bought into another "we promise we'll do all this great stuff next year" claim.



Just stick around with all of us in Team DOOM, sir.  The Republicans will betray you, every time they have a chance.

Do not get your hopes up for '12, nor '14, nor '16.  Washington won't do anything.  As you said yesterday, the will to do what needs doing does not exist in the political class.

Just brace for impact.

Posted by: KinleyArdal at March 31, 2011 09:51 AM (VMkqN)

15 no no no , Amnesty now then we'll seal the border

Posted by: Ben at March 31, 2011 09:52 AM (wuv1c)

16 Sorry, I was channeling PBS @11. We're so ideologically similar it's like schizophrenia.

Posted by: NPR at March 31, 2011 09:52 AM (AZGON)

17 They'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a cheeseburger today. Honest.

Posted by: ParanoidAnxietyGirlInSeattle at March 31, 2011 09:53 AM (RZ8pf)

18 But Ace told us that we have to vote for Republicans that raise spending instead of cutting because otherwise we'd have Democrats that would raise spending instead of cutting.

Posted by: Evil Red Scandi at March 31, 2011 09:53 AM (M+Vm5)

19 Shorter Ace: How about these fucks just act like they are competent for one day so I can believe that it is even possible in the future.

Posted by: Mr Pink at March 31, 2011 09:53 AM (S35ta)

20
Okay, so the Republicans pussed out on NPR and Planned Abortionhood.

Can someone tell me what they got in return for pussing out?


Posted by: Soothsayer, Republican Whip at March 31, 2011 09:53 AM (gM4zK)

21 Ace - spot on. This is why I thought that it was wrong to castigate Demint and Bachmann for holding out for $250B in cuts. Because they would have provided a right-side anchor. But everyone pissed all over them, and they are crazy and EXTREME, so guess what, the GOP is going to get rolled on the $61B. If Boehner had said, you know, wow that really makes a lot of sense, $250B, then the Dems could have expended all their EXTREME fire on that number, and we could have "settled" on $100B or even felt okay with saying that $61B is "annualized" out to $100B. But no, the GOP also shat upon Bachmann and Demint, so they couldn't use them as foils against the Dems - because they ended up being on the same side as the Dems on that issue. By making the number really small, then the difference is really small, the Dems are at an advantage. They can say, look, this $30B difference doesn't make a difference, the only thing is that the EXTREME GOP is trying to kill Big Bird.

Posted by: blaster at March 31, 2011 09:53 AM (l5dj7)

22 These fake shutdowns are going to reflect negatively on pretty much everyone when the bonds crash and the real shutdown happens.

Posted by: Scraping the Couric off my shoes at March 31, 2011 09:54 AM (F/4zf)

23 It's a good argument. My problem with it, though, is that I am tired of the Tomorrow, Tomorrow, Manana, Manana non-plan plan for reducing spending.

I can see that point, but I am also of the opinion that the CR is a side show. You can not cut money from a budget that has already been spent. That goose has already been cooked.

We have to get this side show over with and move on to the 2012 budget which is due in May. THAT is the one that they ran on and IS the hill to die on. It will be the House's first real budget.

Until people on are side gree to that these reforms need to happen,like Vic,  it's a nonstarter, unfortunately.

I suppose you are referring to SS. I have already said I am willing to see some cuts there AFTER all of the other insane welfare BS is cut first. The we can start cutting SS by cutting the fraud from SSDI which will cut the SS expenditures by 51%.

Posted by: Vic at March 31, 2011 09:54 AM (M9Ie6)

24 I want the shutdown now.  If we're going to lose (w/ 60b or 30b cuts), why not fight first?  With new media, maybe we'll win this time.  At least this time we don't have Gingrich.

We should constantly talk about the election--that this is what voters wanted.

Posted by: rdbrewer at March 31, 2011 09:54 AM (93Uee)

25 It's not so much as us loosing as the deems winning. The idea that they can successfuly fight and win to hold onto $30B in Gov. Programs is discouraging. The GOP looks weak. We could actually defend and kill whatever program we want now, including Obamacare. Just pass a budget in the house that does all that and let the Govt. Shut down untill Obama and the dem. Senate crystal uncle. At the least it would do is keep the issue in the news. Controversy is welcome and good when you have the facts on your side. Shut it down.

Posted by: Serious Cat at March 31, 2011 09:55 AM (bAySe)

26 Can someone tell me what they got in return for pussing out? They won labels as granny-snuffers, school-haters and job-killers. So they have that going for them.

Posted by: George Orwell at March 31, 2011 09:56 AM (AZGON)

27 0 0 This being a smart, military and historically literate blog $54.50 (Billion) or Fight! -

Posted by: BumperStickerist at March 31, 2011 09:56 AM (h6mPj)

28 No no baby. I promise I'll pull out

Posted by: GOP to Base at March 31, 2011 09:56 AM (wuv1c)

29 Ace, do you think we should be cutting border security?  Because there were cuts for border fencing and E-Verify in the GOP bill passed in the House. 

We should be focused on cutting entitlements, not on relatively tiny cuts in discressionary spending, some of which are in areas like border security where we should actually be spending more.   . 

Posted by: Jon at March 31, 2011 09:57 AM (Xt7UU)

30 as for Obama's strategy in Libya - He apparently read his Rumsfeld. I'm waiting for him to say: You Support the Rebels You Have ... -

Posted by: BumperStickerist at March 31, 2011 09:57 AM (h6mPj)

31 You Support the Rebels You Have ...

-

Posted by: BumperStickerist at March 31, 2011 02:57 PM (h6mPj)

I have a different take: "You go to war with the President you have"

Posted by: robtr at March 31, 2011 09:59 AM (MtwBb)

32
They won labels as granny-snuffers, school-haters and job-killers.

At least they got something.

Posted by: Soothsayer, Republican Whip at March 31, 2011 09:59 AM (gM4zK)

33 Funny but this shit about the defecit isn't even about ideology, its about competence. Fuck if ur left or right but isn't the part of the job when writing a "budget" to make sure you are not going "overbudget"? Isn't that like budgeting 101, I mean I can't "budget" my salary out per year by admitting in advance that I'm going to spend twice as much as I earn then argue with my fiance about spending on starbucks oncw a week. That is unless the entire point of one of those ideologies is to bankrupt half the country because of some misplaced sense of socialism or social justice or whatever fucking ism you wanna use.

Posted by: Mr Pink at March 31, 2011 09:59 AM (S35ta)

34 I think the Republican's biggest mistake was in going in so small so as to appear "reasonable". They should've gone balls to the wall right from the start, then grudgingly accepting hundreds of billions in cuts instead of the measly tens of billions we're getting now.

Posted by: Iblis at March 31, 2011 09:59 AM (9221z)

35 Look back on GOP spending behavior when they had all three prizes. That's right, spend spend spend. The tabby doesn't change his stripes. At best he can get a bleach job.

Posted by: George Orwell at March 31, 2011 09:59 AM (AZGON)

36 You've said it yourself, Ace. People are all for cuts until their program gets hit, and entitlement reform is the program for way too many people.

Posted by: taylork at March 31, 2011 02:48 PM (5wsU9)

I'm willing to give up my mortgage interest deduction and child tax credits.  There's a 3-4 grand in additional revenue from me each year, now cut a few thousand a year from a medicare and medicaid recipient.  Multiply  the revenue number by 100 million and the spending cut number by 40 million affected, and see what the deficit looks like.  I'm guessing the budget still isn't balanced, so close the EPA, FDA, and the Dept of Education.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at March 31, 2011 10:00 AM (SNs7J)

37

Ace says:

I think we have to fight on all of this and am really tired of feeling the fool because I bought into another "we promise we'll do all this great stuff next year" claim.

It's the Chicago Cubs promise, and they suck.

Posted by: Ghost of John Brown at March 31, 2011 10:00 AM (cBcNP)

38 You all saw Man on Fire. Ewok on Fire. It didn't just cut taxes, eviscerated the motherfuckers.

Posted by: humphreyrobot at March 31, 2011 10:00 AM (EiH7n)

39 I have a different take: "You go to war kinetic military action with the President you have" Shame on you.

Posted by: George Orwell at March 31, 2011 10:00 AM (AZGON)

40 No baby, just the tip

Posted by: GOP to Base at March 31, 2011 10:01 AM (wuv1c)

41 Ace: "My problem with it, though, is that I am tired of the Tomorrow, Tomorrow, Manana, Manana non-plan plan for reducing spending."

Of course. And the answer should be, "We should've begun the cutting yesterday. And the day before. And the day before that. Ad infinitum." I'n not falling for the General J. Wellington Wimpy battleplan of "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today."

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 31, 2011 10:02 AM (swuwV)

42 If Boehner had said, you know, wow that really makes a lot of sense, $250B, then the Dems could have expended all their EXTREME fire on that number, and we could have "settled" on $100B or even felt okay with saying that $61B is "annualized" out to $100B. But no, the GOP also shat upon Bachmann and Demint, so they couldn't use them as foils against the Dems - because they ended up being on the same side as the Dems on that issue.

By making the number really small, then the difference is really small, the Dems are at an advantage. They can say, look, this $30B difference doesn't make a difference, the only thing is that the EXTREME GOP is trying to kill Big Bird.



Posted by: blaster at March 31, 2011 02:53 PM (l5dj7)

This goes to basic, good buisness negotiating skills. These fuck-wits couldn't sell condoms at he AL-Jiz-Heera Bar and Grill.

 

 

Posted by: dananjcon at March 31, 2011 10:04 AM (pr+up)

43 31 You Support the Rebels You Have ...

-

Posted by: BumperStickerist at March 31, 2011 02:57 PM (h6mPj)

I have a different take: "You go to war with the President you have"

Heh.  People have mentioned Steyn's channeling of Pelousi today, with the quip "You won't what rebels you are supporting until you fund them".

/Good thing there are only about 1,000 of them.  Ghadaffi is going to survive.  Even a pimply-faced 10 year old who spends most of his time on the comp knows that you can't just ride down the road in a lightly-armored and lightly-defended caravan and not expect to be ambushed on your flanks from the roads.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at March 31, 2011 10:04 AM (9hSKh)

44
Let's break it down.
Two major mistakes made by the Republicans.

1. They started way too low, even for this CR. Never start at what you *think* the other side will agree to.

2. They did not, and still aren't communicating with the American people. The Republicans are doing all this behind closed doors, for the most part. They need to be out there all day, every day, making their case to every media rump swab they can find.


Posted by: Soothsayer, Republican Whip at March 31, 2011 10:05 AM (gM4zK)

45 I'd bet the Moron Caucus could find 100 Billion to whack from the budget. We'd cry like little babies who's crack pipes have been taken away, just over the elimination of Bacon Subsidies.

But we'd get it done. We'd stand proudly crying with Boenher, ... yeah, crying, and going, "huh-huh-huhh, 'boner'," over and over. And then we'd go raid Michael Moore's refrigerator, since he'd be hoarding sides of bacon like Kennedy's cubans.

And we'd make it 100 Billion, too, because ones and zeroes are just easier than other kinds of numbers. Like 73 and 42. It even hurts to type those.

Posted by: K~Bob at March 31, 2011 10:06 AM (eqkfX)

46 I think the Republican's biggest mistake was in going in so small so as to appear "reasonable". They should've gone balls to the wall right from the start, then grudgingly accepting hundreds of billions in cuts instead of the measly tens of billions we're getting now.
Posted by: Iblis at March 31, 2011 02:59 PM

I don't think there is anyone in our party up there that knows the basics of negotiation.  I mean, Boehner took shutdown off the table immediately.  Even if he would never shut it down, he shouldn't have done that. 

If you walk onto a car lot to trade in your car for a new one and immediately tell the salesman, "rest easy, I am not going to walk out no matter what," you have ceded a large chunk of your bargaining power.  Stupid.

It's usually Lindsey Graham that pulls shit like this.

Posted by: rdbrewer at March 31, 2011 10:06 AM (93Uee)

47 Never forget that even Republicans are politicians. No one gets to high Congressional office without some skill at negotiating deals. Even city councilmen are sharp at this. The problem is not that the GOP can't negotiate. They can. The problem is they won't. They know how to go in asking for the moon or holding out for favors. That is the stock and trade of politics. If you see a normally successful politician apparently negotiating badly, there is a good chance that he is doing so because he wants to. They don't want big cuts. There are many reasons for that.

Posted by: George Orwell at March 31, 2011 10:06 AM (AZGON)

48 Unfortunately, I think the burning will have to start before they really do anything.  We have some strong Tea Party type congress people right now, but without being in a true leadership position, all they can do is express ideas.  The inside-the-beltway elitists are still in charge.

Posted by: Congressman at March 31, 2011 10:07 AM (SeKSx)

49

I switched to the shutdown camp. Boehner is trying to put pressure on Ryan over the details of entitlement reform and I have a bad feeling that there is about to be a civil war within the Republican ranks. Jim Jordan, head of RSC, missed a perfect opportunity earlier to make his point with Boehner and fight with the budgeteers; it's a shame he didn't. Now even Cantor has broken ranks.

So I say continue with the plan to unveil the budget on Tuesday, pass the Shutdown Prevention Act, then when Reid does something pull the switch. At that point, go to the people and start educating them about the block grants for and cuts to Medicaid and the plan to voucherize Medicare. Use this as a test and see how people respond.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 31, 2011 10:07 AM (UO6+e)

50
who wants to get pissed off?

Posted by: Soothsayer, Republican Whip at March 31, 2011 10:08 AM (gM4zK)

51 RE: ParanoidAnxietyGirlInSeattle@17

Sorry about the echo. I have to confess I learned most everything I know from cartoons, so my reference to Popeye was more an homage. Or I didn't read the comments. One or the other.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 31, 2011 10:09 AM (swuwV)

52 So I say continue with the plan to unveil the budget on Tuesday, pass the Shutdown Prevention Act, then when Reid does something pull the switch. At that point, go to the people and start educating them about the block grants for and cuts to Medicaid and the plan to voucherize Medicare. Sounds reasonable. Let Reid light the fuse.

Posted by: George Orwell at March 31, 2011 10:09 AM (AZGON)

53 Math would be easier for politicians if the Council For Math And Stuff would just declare Prime numbers to be any number that starts with '1' and has zeroes the rest of the way.

Posted by: K~Bob at March 31, 2011 10:10 AM (eqkfX)

54 I feel like this is a similar theme to why we can't drill our own oil.

The timing is never right, even though this has been a persistent problem we've known about for decades.

Congress: We're like the husband that slowly warms his wife up to the idea of anal  sex.

Posted by: taylork at March 31, 2011 10:10 AM (5wsU9)

Posted by: Soothsayer, Republican Whip at March 31, 2011 10:10 AM (gM4zK)

56 Ace,

Getting politicians to stop spending other people's money is like getting alcoholics to stop drinking.

It happens when they hit "bottom".  In this case, that would be when the gov't literally can't borrow enough money to pay its bills.

I'm really just not optimistic that anything even CAN change until the proverbial car hits the wall.

Posted by: looking closely at March 31, 2011 10:10 AM (6Q9g2)

57 I don't understand politicians. Even if they're just thinking of the next election . . . this shit is coming down within that timeframe! There's only two Presidential election cycles before 2020; people who are likely to be candidates THEN are in Congress NOW. How the hell do they expect to run for office if the country's going bankrupt?

Posted by: Trimegistus at March 31, 2011 10:11 AM (myYF0)

58

The 2012 entitlement reform suggestions, with details to follow:

"[Ryan's] plan reportedly would turn Medicaid, which provides fee health coverage for the poor and is facing a massive spending increase under President Obama’s national health care law, into a block grant program for states instead of a program administered in Washington.

On Medicare, the insurance program for senior citizens, Ryan would repace a system in which people pay in all their lives and then get government insurance to a system in which seniors would get vouchers to buy insurance on the open market." -- FNC

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 31, 2011 10:11 AM (UO6+e)

59 Until the American people realize we are in serious trouble there will be no fix to any of these problems.
Problem is by the time they come to this realization it will be to late.

The MFM is making sure the majority are kept in the dark, OB lies and the MFM swears to it.

The D's say the R's are doing such and such and the MFM swears to it.
And the Majority of the people say it must be true, I heard it on the news.



 

Posted by: MarkC at March 31, 2011 10:11 AM (yPPVC)

60 Will the GOP eventually throw up its hands and agree to taxes? Maybe a nice, stealthy VAT? I keep fearing this, that they will go Bush the Elder on us.

Posted by: joncelli at March 31, 2011 10:12 AM (RD7QR)

61 Routine sock fail.  Move along.

Posted by: Soona at March 31, 2011 10:12 AM (SeKSx)

62 “Never give in, never give in, never; never; never; never - in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense”
- Churchill

Posted by: proudvastrightwingconspirator at March 31, 2011 10:12 AM (hyRD4)

63 Well I'm one of those who has been pointing out that there is very little difference between $30 and $60 billion but not because I don't want to see them make cuts. My problem is that whether they cut $30 or $60 or even $100 billion it's not enough. It's like a 500 pound guy, Michael Moore for example, claiming he is going on a diet and deciding whether he will cut 1/4 of a chip, a 1/3 of a chip or 1/2 of a chip from the family size bag of potato chips he is eating along with 6 Big Mac, 82 Ho Hos, 2 whole chickens, 4 meat lovers pizzas and washing it down with a bakers dozen of McDonald's milk shakes.

Posted by: JackStraw at March 31, 2011 10:12 AM (TMB3S)

64 It's usually Lindsey Graham that pulls shit like this.

Posted by: rdbrewer at March 31, 2011 03:06 PM (93Uee)

Who gets on TV more, you or me? I'm bi-winning.

Posted by: Senator Graham at March 31, 2011 10:12 AM (eqkfX)

65 You should be tired from hyperventilating at every misleading report.  How long have you been at this?  You are aware the media is the PR wing of the Democratic Party, right?

Mission Accomplished for Chuck and Harry and Sloe Joe:  they have sown discord with a single release.  All the fools on the right (and unfortunately this is proving we have plenty) are ready to eat their own young over this.

The real issue is and always has been the 2012 budget.  There was never much that could be done in the middle of the fiscal year - just devoting the resources to figure out what is in the myriad authorizations Pelosi and Reid passed without a budget would distract us from crafting a sound budget for the FY that begins in October. 

Yet you and all these other morons are soiling your pants over $100-$61-$33-$30 billion, or whatever figure is dallied about for the remainder of FY 2011.  It's chump change, and you are a bunch of chumps.

Thanks for playing into the Democrats' hands and clogging our side's inboxes with worthless wailing and gnashing of teeth over nothing.

Posted by: Adjoran at March 31, 2011 10:14 AM (VfmLu)

66

AH, hahahahaha!

whos your daddy?

Posted by: guy who keeps warning you about the GOP at March 31, 2011 10:15 AM (K/USr)

67 The problem is that the earthquake and nukes in Japan, as well as Libya, have taken most of the bandwidth. The 2011 budget talk has devolved to short blurbs about shutdowns and continuing resolutions, with little discussion of the actual cuts themselves. Congressman Ryan plans to present his 2012 budget this coming Tuesday, and that has to be the prime focus of the discussion from now until September. The Republicans need to get this shutdown talk over and done with, even if it means taking only $33B in cuts, because they need to be able to go "balls to the wall" to educate the American people as to why entitlements need to be restructured and cut. Yes, some of us TEA Party types will be disappointed because we didn't get more right now, but this cycle of continuing resolutions is giving us nothing major to coalesce around, as would a massive 2012 budget that will hopefully provide some entitlement reform.

Posted by: Reno_Dave at March 31, 2011 10:16 AM (YJBiO)

68 56 - Wow. That made me want to punch that chick from the state. She most definitely lied to that guy.

Posted by: gesc at March 31, 2011 10:18 AM (A22+V)

69 Trimegistus: "How the hell do they expect to run for office if the country's going bankrupt?"

Because we can still count on the wisdom of the American voter. Oh, look! A squirrel!

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 31, 2011 10:18 AM (swuwV)

70 53 Sounds reasonable. Let Reid light the fuse.

He and Schumer desire this, I say let's give it to them. If the Republicans are smart and actually follow Ryan's strategy for FY '12, they could get the '11 budget, tax reform, entitlement reform, and budgetary process out of this whole mess. But I'm worried because Boehner has repeatedly sided with the appropriators over the budgeteers and the trend will kill any potential for meaningful reform if he keeps kicking the fiscal cons. He made a promise that he would allow Budget to address entitlement reform and bring that debate before the people; now it's time to deliver.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 31, 2011 10:19 AM (UO6+e)

71 Congress: We're like the husband that slowly warms his wife up to the idea of anal  sex.

Posted by: taylork at March 31, 2011 03:10 PM (5wsU9)

UR DOIN IT WRONG

Posted by: San Fransisco at March 31, 2011 10:19 AM (eqkfX)

72 4Senate and WH in 2013:

"We only have the House, we can't ask for the whole loaf."

If we have a GOP Congress but a Dem WH:

"We only have the Congress, we need the Presidency and we can't override vetoes easily, that's not reality in DC."

If we have both Chambers and the WH:

"We can't pass such far-reaching cuts without bipartisan votes. The voters will reject our leadership and our victory will be for nothing. Let us consolidate for a year and tackle the big issues down the road. Don't forget how the Democrats overreached."

I wish I had a nickel for everytime I've read that same BS from John Boner's guy here at AOSHQ, who posts as Hollowjoint, and others. Odd that he hasn't shown up on this thread. Embarrassed I guess.

Posted by: guy who keeps warning you about the GOP at March 31, 2011 10:19 AM (K/USr)

73 Congress: We're like the husband that slowly warms his wife up to the idea of anal  sex.

Drill here, drill now.

Posted by: bawney fwank at March 31, 2011 10:19 AM (9/An0)

74 History is so much faster than any Top Heavy Management tactics. You too can live and think like a really big important CEO. Those politicians run the country the way old people fuck. thanks to Gustav Hasford and Stanley Kubrick for the elderly sexual education

Posted by: humphreyrobot at March 31, 2011 10:20 AM (EiH7n)

75 It gets really sad when you consider the fact that the GOP should have been attaching a repeal of Obamacare to every CR (since ObamaCare expands MediCAID - the exact opposite of everything that needs to be done now - which must be deeply cut in order for any other budget cuts to have an effect).  These pathetic debates over $30 billion or $60 billion are just evidence of how devoid Washington is of any seriousness.  The GOP is allowing itself to be manhandled by democrat girls over inconsequential issues when they should have been on the attack from the start and all the way through.  But, the GOP really doesn't understand what's happening in America.  They think they can squander this last election, even though it happened IN SPITE of them.  This is how things tend to look just before

Posted by: iknowtheleft at March 31, 2011 10:22 AM (G/MYk)

76 I'm coming for you, America. It's too late to stop it. Get the butter.

Posted by: The Fucksaw of DOOM at March 31, 2011 10:22 AM (PgmR7)

77

I say it's time to take whatever we can get.  If the number sounds big, that helps from a psychological standpoint, even if not from a pure numbers standpoint.  For right now we still have the luxury of being able to absorb a lot of excess spending, because the economic resources of the country are so vastly underutilized (especially the labor resource).  The government can suck up a lot of that slack.  This gives us time to get a plan together, and a more solid congressional majority, before inflation gets out of hand.  Until real inflation sets in (driven by money supply and government consumption, rather than demand from around the world) we don't really have a problem.

This should be the plan: 

1.  Republicans talk about the deficit, make lots of noise about reducing it.

2.  Get 'some' reduction that sounds big in raw numerical terms, to help re-establish some street cred as the party of fiscal responsibility.

3.  Use that, along with Barkey's screw ups, to win more ground in the next election.  THEN take on spending more seriously with a free hand.  If inflation has set in by that time, so much the better.  It will justify more radical action.  People will be less eager to sympathize with govt workers making 6 figures. 

 

Posted by: Reactionary at March 31, 2011 10:23 AM (xUM1Q)

78 Amen.

You really have to wonder what the hell is going on when most of the people with balls in the Republican Party are women.

Negotiating 101 is you never start small. Never. But the trick is to not set unrealistic expectations also. So you do the math up front;

What the opposition says is achievable x some denominator which exceeds your goal = final negotiating position.

 
The Republican Party obviously sucks at both math and negotiation.

Posted by: Marcus at March 31, 2011 10:23 AM (CHrmZ)

79 Thanks for playing into the Democrats' hands and clogging our side's inboxes with worthless wailing and gnashing of teeth over nothing.

Posted by: Adjoran at March 31, 2011 03:14 PM (VfmLu)

You're right. We should just shut up and take it. Again.

Posted by: Fool Me Again, Please at March 31, 2011 10:23 AM (eqkfX)

80

Cantor: There Is No $33B Deal

"House Majority Leader Eric Cantor just told me in a CNBC interview that there is no deal on budget cuts for the continuing resolution. 'Well, I can say with definite answer, there is no deal,' he said. 'So, yes, there’s a lot of talk about some number being out there. That number is not the $61 billion we’re looking for.'

How's that for an answer?

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 31, 2011 10:23 AM (UO6+e)

81 There are several problems here that keep getting overlooked.

First a lot of people are blaming Republicans for this budget. Keep in mind that the current spending was designed and implemented by the Democrats last Spring. You can't cut what is already spent.

A lot of people are saying the Republicans are not getting out the message. Well the answer to that is how can they? The only people getting face time on the news are the Dems, the RINOs, and an occasional real conservative who commits a minor gaffe.

The 2012 budget coming up in May is where the rubber will meet the road. But we must remember one other thing. Unless the Republicans are going to go for what they promised and then allow shutdowns at each phase we are going to lose there too.

There are only two fixes for this problem:

Fix one and the preferred one: Article V convention to require payment of taxes as a qualification for voting. maybe also reign in congress's ability to legislate and spend on stuff not specified.

Since that first one is not likely to happen the second will happen sooner or later. The whole system will collapse and we will get a "leader for life" to lead us out of the darkness of debt. He will start b7y defaulting on all previous debt and WWIII will ensure.

At that point we are in true Monty DOOM. Look out for the guys on dune buggies fighting for gasoline.

Posted by: Vic at March 31, 2011 10:24 AM (M9Ie6)

82 The Republicans need to get this shutdown talk over and done with, even if it means taking only $33B in cuts, because they need to be able to go "balls to the wall" to educate the American people as to why entitlements need to be restructured and cut. 

Posted by: Reno_Dave at March 31, 2011 03:16 PM (YJBiO)

I disagree.  The GOP needed to ignore any shutdown talk.  Let the Dems drone on about how they're going to shut down their beloved federal/galactic government.  Let the Dems do it.  All the GOP needed to do was call the Dems "liars" - including the Indonesian, who does little else but lie - and stop apologizing for the sub-human nature of the left.

But ... the GOP is scared of shadows.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at March 31, 2011 10:25 AM (G/MYk)

83

I agree with Ace on this, although at some point we will have to roll a bit, since we do not control anything beyond the House. The Democrats are betting that a shut down will eventually cuase enough pain that they will be able to lump ALL the economic woes and bad tidings onto it, and then try to win the "blame game" by holding the republicans and the eeevuul Tea Party activists as responsible.

Boehner and the House caucus should be trumpeting how trivial the overall cuts really are- at every opportunity.  Keep highlighting democrat intransigence on doing ANYTHING about the deficit. Beat them up for being irresponsible and weak willed. Continue to press for some actual leadership from Obama on this issue.  Be aggressive. The message should be "The Democrats are bankrupting the country and won't even sign off on a crappy 1% reduction" or words to that effect. ADMIT this is next to nothing of what needs to be done- "We know there needs to be a lot more done, but we can't even get them to work with us on these piddly little cuts. What is the point? We are ready when they are". Keep them on the defensive.

Everyone knows the budget is screwed, and the tired old "soak the rich" arguments are not flying anymore. Everyone is hurting to some degree, and everyone realizes there is something fundamentally wrong with the Government and its spending. We cannot keep letting them paint us into a box, defending a $2 billion cut here, a defunding there, etc etc etc.

The states that are taking the tough, necessary measures to solve their budget woes tend to have R control all the way through.  We are not going to be able to effect any real necessary changes as long as Obama is in the White House and Reid runs the Senate. So use this to our political advantage.

Posted by: Gerry Owen at March 31, 2011 10:25 AM (4ABat)

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 31, 2011 10:27 AM (UO6+e)

85 56
Here's a vid of a jerkoff cocksucker state employee.

watch it

Posted by: Soothsayer, Republican Whip at March 31, 2011 03:10 PM (gM4zK)

Now thats some infuriating shit! WTF is going on around here??

 

Posted by: dananjcon at March 31, 2011 10:27 AM (pr+up)

86 Mission Accomplished for Chuck and Harry and Sloe Joe:  they have sown discord with a single release.

Oh no, not discord!  How ever shall the Republic survive if there is DISCORD?!?!?

Yet you and all these other morons are soiling your pants over $100-$61-$33-$30 billion

Pop quiz - who pledged to cut $100 billion from the budget during the 2010 elections?
a) A unicorn
b) Crazed pants-soiling morons
c) Speaker John Boehner and confederates

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at March 31, 2011 10:28 AM (TpXEI)

87 guy who keeps warning you about the GOP Don't say I didn't warn you.

Posted by: George Orwell at March 31, 2011 10:28 AM (AZGON)

88 Then the repubs need to tell us that.  Maybe they have I we haven't seen it.  Perhaps Ace could invite some congress critter like Rand Paul, or Ryan to write an exclusive post for AoSHQ to give us a candid explanation as to exactly what's happening.  Something like that could also show these people that the MFM is not the only media outlet.

Posted by: Soona at March 31, 2011 10:28 AM (SeKSx)

89 Interesting-- the Politico link says that Medicare will also be receiving cuts.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 31, 2011 10:28 AM (UO6+e)

90 Pop quiz - who pledged to cut $100 billion from the budget during the 2010 elections? a) A unicorn b) Crazed pants-soiling morons c) Speaker John Boehner and confederates The answer is... shut up!

Posted by: adults who understand DC is a complex, nuanced place at March 31, 2011 10:30 AM (AZGON)

91 87 guy who keeps warning you about the GOP

Don't say I didn't warn you.

Posted by: George Orwell at March 31, 2011 03:28 PM (AZGON)

Pffft...Pikers!

 

Posted by: Nostrodamis at March 31, 2011 10:30 AM (pr+up)

92

Lucy - the ruling class
Charlie - taxpayers
football - promises of returning to sanity

rinse...
repeat...

I am so effing done with the GOP. Third party or I resign the battle field. It's futile to stand there with a few like minded folks and get steamrollered for nothing. We were doing so well up until the GOP decided to go dimocrap lite. It makes me angry as hell and sick to my stomach to see what's coming.

Posted by: chuck in st paul at March 31, 2011 10:32 AM (EhYdw)

93

How's that for an answer?

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 31, 2011 03:23 PM (UO6+e)

Cantor's a clueless pussy.  He can take that $61 billion and shove it up his ass.  It's a repeal of ObamaCare that was called for.  You can't deal with MediCAID (the worst offender of the un-Constitutional federal "entitlements") without getting rid of ObamaCare (since ObamaCare supercharges MediCAID and gets it revved up to suck up every saving that any other cut would accomplish, and then some).  In order to deal with out-of-control federal "entitlements", ObamaCare MUST go.  That is the biggest issue and the main issue that these GOP pussies were voted in on.

The repeal of ObamaCare needs to be attached to the budget.  Let the Dems "shut" the federal government down.  If America can't figure out what the whole story is, then this nation hasn't much of a chance, anyway.  Let's find out how much of America is really left to save - since there's almost nothing of America left in Washington.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at March 31, 2011 10:32 AM (G/MYk)

94 We need to make the "Making False Statements" law apply to politicians, judges, and MFMers when their statements can reach voters. Unworkable? Of course. Starve the fucking beast.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at March 31, 2011 10:32 AM (Pzf4N)

95

More from the Cantor link:

"Mr. Cantor emphasized bringing the spending levels back to 2008. So he added, 'Nobody is rallying around that $33 billion number. That number is not a number that I subscribe to.'”

Somebody has either become incredibly brave or has just been posturing the last few days, and I'm not sure which. But I do know he wants to be speaker and that he backs the RSC more than Boehner does. However, this soundbite is going to comer back to haunt him if he just outright lied.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 31, 2011 10:33 AM (UO6+e)

96 If America can't figure out what the whole story is I was told there would be no reading comprehension.

Posted by: the American voter at March 31, 2011 10:33 AM (AZGON)

97 How do you measure and arrive at data measuring how many are not looking for work that can be measured and are not receiving unemployment? How about data on people solving their economic problems by other means, such as working overseas. Love to have data on which states/countries American doctors are moving too plus other proffesions. China?

Posted by: humphreyrobot at March 31, 2011 10:33 AM (EiH7n)

98

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 31, 2011 03:27 PM (UO6+e)

 

I seem to remember Mark Levin talking about a plan that would introduce a balanced budget ammendment to the Constitution at the same time the 2012 fiscal budget is brought up.  I hope I heard that right.  I doubt it would pass but it might be a good stage-setter for the next election. 

Posted by: Soona at March 31, 2011 10:34 AM (SeKSx)

99 @95 self And another thing: People on the right have been so pussy about "criminalizing politics" that the left has been getting away with all kinds of crime by calling it mere politics.

Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at March 31, 2011 10:34 AM (Pzf4N)

100

Fix one and the preferred one: Article V convention to require payment of taxes as a qualification for voting.

I agree in principle, but please be more precise.  Nobody in the US doesn't pay tax.  We are taxed on virtually every single transaction we make in this country. 

The whole system will collapse and we will get a "leader for life" to lead us out of the darkness of debt. He will start b7y defaulting on all previous debt and WWIII will ensure.
Posted by: Vic at March 31, 2011 03:24 PM (M9Ie6)

If the government refuses to restrain spending and consumes too much of the productive capacity of the country, there will indeed be big problems.  That's why deficits are bad if they are too large.  But default is never necessary (we make all the $ we want instantly from nothing).  We may have a short period of hyperinflation followed by an artibrary "reset" as happened in Germany.  And nobody will go to war to "collect" on debt even if we chose to default.  Certainly not with the US.  We have lots of nukes.  Central American nations have defaulted plenty of times, yet no invasion.

Posted by: Reactionary at March 31, 2011 10:35 AM (xUM1Q)

101

94  ...It's a repeal of ObamaCare that was called for.  You can't deal with MediCAID (the worst offender of the un-Constitutional federal "entitlements") without getting rid of ObamaCare (since ObamaCare supercharges MediCAID and gets it revved up to suck up every saving that any other cut would accomplish, and then some).  In order to deal with out-of-control federal "entitlements", ObamaCare MUST go.  That is the biggest issue and the main issue that these GOP pussies were voted in on.

Issa and Walsh have a bill that covers that, and there are several more being written. Where they stick them is anyone's guess. I would also think there would be no funding to implement ObamaCare in the next budget.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 31, 2011 10:36 AM (UO6+e)

102 The whole system will collapse and we will get a "leader for life" to lead us out of the darkness of debt Well, I'm down with the leader for life bit. But the money thing ain't my bag.

Posted by: B. Hussein Obama at March 31, 2011 10:36 AM (AZGON)

103

Issa and Walsh have a bill that covers that, and there are several more being written. Where they stick them is anyone's guess. I would also think there would be no funding to implement ObamaCare in the next budget.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 31, 2011 03:36 PM (UO6+e)

Nothing is the same as attaching an ObamaCare repeal to a CR or budget.  That forces the issue and forces votes to be recorded.  And it's the right thing to do.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at March 31, 2011 10:38 AM (G/MYk)

104 Posted by: adults who understand DC is a complex, nuanced place at March 31, 2011 03:30 PM (AZGON) Boy, am I tired of hearing that. I'm also tired of hearing "is this the hill you really want to die on?" First of all, fag: the next time I see you make a fist on any issue will be the first. Second: It's the hill we're ALL going to die on if you don't grow some balls! Further: if you use the words "realpolitik" or "wonk" you need a fucking beating.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 31, 2011 10:38 AM (PgmR7)

105 You know what?  Fuck this.  How fucking hard is it to say "ALL discretionary spending - including defense - has now been cut 20%"?

Across the freakin' board.  That's the only way to do it.

Then start on entitlements separately.  Don't mix this shit because it will get muddied with cries of killing grandma, etc.

First - cut the worthless programs - if you cannot do that, cut everything across the board!

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at March 31, 2011 10:38 AM (f9c2L)

106 Zero balance budget - make them justify every BS item every year. And of you say the Fed is too big - that identifies the problem

Posted by: Mike H at March 31, 2011 10:38 AM (LdYLm)

107 99 I seem to remember Mark Levin talking about a plan that would introduce a balanced budget ammendment to the Constitution at the same time the 2012 fiscal budget is brought up.  I hope I heard that right.  I doubt it would pass but it might be a good stage-setter for the next election. 

The Senate is doing that. Supposedly, Ryan is also offering his own amendment to cap spending. Budgetary process reform and multiple spending caps were also mentioned numerous times as being likely items in the '12 budget.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 31, 2011 10:39 AM (UO6+e)

108 You know what?  Fuck this.  How fucking hard is it to say "ALL discretionary spending - including defense - has now been cut 20%"?

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at March 31, 2011 03:38 PM (f9c2L)

Even if that plan is workable, and I'm not sure it is, if we got the blame for a sudden 20% reduction in government consumption (even if just on the discretionary side) we'd get killed.  The shock to the economy would be terrible.  Target the unpopular first.  It's the only way to gain traction without committing political suicide.

Posted by: Reactionary at March 31, 2011 10:42 AM (xUM1Q)

109 Further: if you use the words "realpolitik" or "wonk" you need a fucking beating. Posted by: Empire of Jeff Mr. Empire of Jeff, i like to use the Trailer Park Model to focus the World in to manageable bite-size chunks. We need to totally destroy trailers #27 and #29 and this would also add much needed parking spaces too.

Posted by: humphreyrobot at March 31, 2011 10:45 AM (EiH7n)

110 The we can start cutting SS by cutting the fraud from SSDI which will cut the SS expenditures by 51%.

Posted by: Vic at March 31, 2011 02:54 PM (M9Ie6)

Per the most recent trustees report, for 2010 expenditures for the Old Age & Survivors portion of SS was $586 Billion, for disability it was $128 Billion. So, even if every single cent of disability was fraudulent, that still represents only 18% of SS expenditures.

Posted by: somebody else, not me at March 31, 2011 10:46 AM (7EV/g)

111 OT:

“I’m tired of reading the Constitution...”

– Congressman Jim McDermott (D-VA)

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 31, 2011 10:46 AM (UO6+e)

112

We're currently talking about the 2011 budget when we're already about half way through the fiscal year.  We're not going to solve our budgetary problems this fiscal cycle.

Yes, there's the danger that tomorrow will never come, but the House bill that cuts a relatively insignificant $61 billion has already passed.  Be it $61 billion or $33 billion, it at least can show the voters- who are unlikely to be affected- that cuts the Dems call "extreme" aren't impacting them.

The discretionary budget (including defense) is around $1000 billion.  Does anyone really think that cutting that by, say, 25% ($250 billion) all at once would pass public muster?  You and I might be fine with that, but it's tough enough convincing the public that the world won't end if NPR or PBS are defunded, much less programs for "our most vulnerable citizens" (a favorite phrase of MN liberals).

Entitlement reform is where the meat is, and that's not on the table for the 2011 budget.

 

Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 31, 2011 10:47 AM (SY2Kh)

113

The Senate is doing that. Supposedly, Ryan is also offering his own amendment to cap spending. Budgetary process reform and multiple spending caps were also mentioned numerous times as being likely items in the '12 budget.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 31, 2011 03:39 PM (UO6+e)

These are essentially useless acts.  There will clearly have to be an out for "emergencies" and we have all seen how Barky and the Dems love to make up emergencies like they were going out of style.  The "emergency out" was the way all the TARP slush fund made its way into anything and everything but actual toxic assets.  We have seen how such legislation is no protection against the sorts of enemies of Western structure as we have gotten with the Indonesian and his lunatic junta.  They are not restrained by anything so dainty as a written law or its clear intent. 

We are dealing with a major political party that thinks running out of state to stop legislation from lawfully being passed and then attacking the alternative legislation that was passed for some delusional infractions of procedural recommendations for meetings ... These are the people we are dealing with.  And on our side, we have pussies and idiots who can't understand jack shit, evidently.  In such an institutional environment, such balanced budget laws just become public jokes.  Everything is an "emergency" and the spending just continues on.

The GOP has a chance to do something NOW, with the budget bill.  They have to take this opportunity.  It is strong legislative leverage that they will not see again.  But, instead, they are running away from it and promising pie in the sky come morning.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at March 31, 2011 10:47 AM (G/MYk)

114 Posted by: Reactionary
------
Ok.  The problem is we have no real power to demand anything.  Obambi can veto any budget he doesn't like and it has to get through the Senate first anyway.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at March 31, 2011 10:48 AM (f9c2L)

115 Target the unpopular first.  It's the only way to gain traction without committing political suicide.

Posted by: Reactionary at March 31, 2011 03:42 PM (xUM1Q)

 

Heh.  The WH and congressional budgets.

Posted by: Soona at March 31, 2011 10:48 AM (SeKSx)

116 I agree in principle, but please be more precise.  Nobody in the US doesn't pay tax.  We are taxed on virtually every single transaction we make in this country.

A substantial amount of Income Tax (more than a token amount). Positive flow as well. EIC is welfare not a tax return.

Posted by: Vic at March 31, 2011 10:48 AM (M9Ie6)

117

@5: "I'm done being massaged by these guys."

"Massage"....so *that's* how you get around us....

Posted by: Anti-Sodomy laws at March 31, 2011 10:49 AM (xy9wk)

118 Here is a tip...The republican establishment is full of cowards who will never do what you ask in any serious way. You either remove them from office through the ballot box and replace them with actual conservatives with guts who are not afraid of the fraudulent media, OR this will be the norm and our slow motion track wreck will continue. It is quite simple. This is not rocket science.

Posted by: Dan at March 31, 2011 10:50 AM (mXBxH)

119 So, even if every single cent of disability was fraudulent, that still represents only 18% of SS expenditures.

The numbers I saw that I linked to weeks ago in a Monty SS DOOM thread had over 200B in SSDI going out, most of which was either fraud or for payments that were not intended to be made in the program (non-disability).

Posted by: Vic at March 31, 2011 10:51 AM (M9Ie6)

120 Ace, just to correct the math a bit, the deficit is about $1.6 trillion. $33 billion is about 2% of the deficit, and $61 billion is about 4% of the deficit, not less than 1%. Still the raw numbers themselves and not the percentages show that the deficit dwarfs either one of these proposed cuts.

Posted by: magnetism87 at March 31, 2011 10:51 AM (4wWTR)

121 Hate to use the military like this, but attach a repeal of Obamacare to any Congressional approval or funding for the action in Libya.

Posted by: Reno_Dave at March 31, 2011 10:52 AM (YJBiO)

122 Reactionary: "The shock to the economy would be terrible. Target the unpopular first.  It's the only way to gain traction without committing political suicide."

We're already committing economic suicide. What is there to lose? I don't think it is political suicide, but what if it was? The reality is that we can try a last ditch effort to halt an almost immediate collapse which might - might - save the country or we can ignore the inevitable because we fear the political hit, give up, and guarantee an even faster collapse.

We really are out of options. It doesn't much matter what letter is next to your name when the SHTF. Both party apparatuses will be mud.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 31, 2011 10:53 AM (swuwV)

123

Here is a tip...The republican establishment is full of cowards who will never do what you ask in any serious way.

You either remove them from office through the ballot box and replace them with actual conservatives with guts who are not afraid of the fraudulent media, OR this will be the norm and our slow motion track wreck will continue.

It is quite simple. This is not rocket science.

In Fantasyland, yes- it's that simple.

In the real world, it becomes "You remove them from office through the ballot box and they're replaced by a Dem who will fuck you much harder and faster than the Republican you tossed out."

Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 31, 2011 10:53 AM (SY2Kh)

124 You can't cut what is already spent.

OK for the 2nd half of this fiscal year we cut just half of what needs to be cut.  That's still trillions not billions.

Posted by: Scraping the Couric off my shoes at March 31, 2011 10:53 AM (F/4zf)

125

@25: "The GOP looks weak."

Looks?  Looks?  Try "is".

Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at March 31, 2011 10:54 AM (xy9wk)

126 A substantial amount of Income Tax (more than a token amount). Positive flow as well. EIC is welfare not a tax return.

Posted by: Vic at March 31, 2011 03:48 PM (M9Ie6)

OK.  I could probably go with that.  Personally I'd also like to see a property ownership requirement, and a literacy test.  That alone would go a long way.  And also a small voting fee.  Maybe $20.  Those measures would screen out a lot of the trash.

Posted by: Reactionary at March 31, 2011 10:54 AM (xUM1Q)

127 Reactionary: "Target the unpopular first."

I agree with this; however, define "unpopular" And who does the defining? The nut just got a lot tougher.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 31, 2011 10:55 AM (swuwV)

128 114 They can shut-down the government numerous times between now and October, if you think about it. This issue needs to be addressed, multiple aspects of the 2012 budget need to be tackled, and they also have the debt ceiling. I agree they need to drive a harder bargain but they can't do everything now and in the way we'd like. So if they indeed shut-down the goverment several times in this way, let's wait to see their conditions. The fact of the matter is that we simply don't know what's attached to the Shutdown Prevention Act and the '12 budget is being held close to the vest. We shall know more by Tuesday.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 31, 2011 10:56 AM (UO6+e)

129 Deficit.  Deficit.  Deficit.  What's Charlie Sheen been up to lately?

Posted by: Soona at March 31, 2011 10:57 AM (SeKSx)

130 Are we being engineered to be more accepting of more and more war? Or is all of these conditions just happen to be similar to WWII? That's a real question.

Posted by: humphreyrobot at March 31, 2011 10:57 AM (EiH7n)

131

@61: "Will the GOP eventually throw up its hands and agree to taxes? Maybe a nice, stealthy VAT? I keep fearing this, that they will go Bush the Elder on us."

Of course they will.  Ultimately, more taxes means more money for the government (of which they are a part), more power, more control, and more loot to distribute to friends and patrons.

Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at March 31, 2011 10:59 AM (xy9wk)

132 We're already committing economic suicide. What is there to lose? I don't think it is political suicide, but what if it was? The reality is that we can try a last ditch effort to halt an almost immediate collapse which might - might - save the country or we can ignore the inevitable because we fear the political hit, give up, and guarantee an even faster collapse.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 31, 2011 03:53 PM (swuwV)

A heroic final battle, and glorious defeat, always carries a strong emotional appeal.  The Brave 300 and all.  But I don't think it will do to go out in a blaze of glory.  And I don't think the "collapse" will be as fast as many of us think.  After all, the Soviet Union limped along for a long time under overt communism - and most of the famine was engineered, and they still had a strong military.  Europe has worse socialism than us, and is only really threatened by the Muz and voluntary lack of reproduction.  Civilization is a fly wheel - it takes a long time to wind down - and we haev massive productivity per capita compared to the old days.  If we can deal with the energy problem we're going to be fine economically. 

As I see it, our goal is to delay the inevitable.  Our side has already lost.  The Left has won the culture war, and is destroying the younger generations more thoroughly every year.  It's about "peace in our time" and delaying the worst until after our deaths.  That's my goal.  If we burn up all our strength now, we'll have none to slow the onslaught in coming years.

 

Posted by: Reactionary at March 31, 2011 11:00 AM (xUM1Q)

133

In the real world, it becomes "You remove them from office through the ballot box and they're replaced by a Dem who will fuck you much harder and faster than the Republican you tossed out."

Maybe that's why women vote democrat so much.

Posted by: Soona at March 31, 2011 11:01 AM (SeKSx)

134

@81: "How's that for an answer?"

Still lame.  Even the full $61 doesn't even measure up to a fart in a hurricane.  He's still trying to tell us that a shit sandwich will taste like ice cream because it has 10% less shit.

Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at March 31, 2011 11:04 AM (xy9wk)

135 I agree with this; however, define "unpopular" And who does the defining? The nut just got a lot tougher.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 31, 2011 03:55 PM (swuwV)

Fair enough.  But given how soaked with waste the government is, and how many programs are doing stupid things, we should be able to find something.  If we can't find enemies that are universally unpopular, then we should hit departments or functions that are at least hated by the right-leaning folks to cement our base.

Sadly a key player missing from our team is a good propagandist.  I don't mean a good liar - I mean someone who can tell the ugly truth about our enemies and get people persuaded and motivated.  The R's SUCK at that.  They're hopeless.  And that's why they lose so often when they should win on the merits. 

We've got to sell this.  Otherwise we'll get killed.

My thought - offer national sales tax (NOT a VAT) as a replacement for income tax.  Phased in over X years.  Promise the irradication of the IRS.  I bet that would pull many to our banner right there.

 

Posted by: Reactionary at March 31, 2011 11:05 AM (xUM1Q)

136 In the real world, it becomes "You remove them from office through the ballot box and they're replaced by a Dem who will fuck you much harder and faster than the Republican you tossed out."

So in the 'real world' only one man can win as a Republican in a given area, and that man has to be a milquetoast?

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at March 31, 2011 11:06 AM (TpXEI)

137

“I’m tired of reading the Constitution...”

– Congressman Jim McDermott (D-VA)

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 31, 2011 03:46 PM (UO6+e)

VA is screwed but not by McDermott--he is screwing WA

Posted by: Hrothgar at March 31, 2011 11:08 AM (DCpHZ)

138

138 VA is screwed but not by McDermott--he is screwing WA

Corrected it next thread up. Tepid Air had reported the congressman as being Jim Moran.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 31, 2011 11:09 AM (UO6+e)

139 I'm telling you, I will sign up for a five-year stint in Empire of Jeff's Imperial Legions. But only if there's rape and pillaging.

Posted by: George Orwell at March 31, 2011 11:09 AM (AZGON)

140

@106: "Don't mix this shit because it will get muddied with cries of killing grandma, etc."

Spin control: when the Dems say "killing grandma", counter with "reducing her carbon footprint.  We care about Gaia.  Why do you want to destroy our planet?"

Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at March 31, 2011 11:11 AM (xy9wk)

141 Reactionary: "...And I don't think the 'collapse' will be as fast as many of us think.  After all, the Soviet Union limped along for a long time under overt communism - and most of the famine was engineered, and they still had a strong military."

Then failing and letting the Progressives lead the decline at whatever rate because we committed "political suicide" with our offensive isn't that much of a risk. The commies will be in charge and, well, we'll live with it. And that's kinda the rub. We have very little chance of saving the nation unless we do something drastic, but to delay is to guarandamntee the fail. So maybe we should establish if there is any conservatism left at all, now, rather than live an illusion and have our only weakening voices attrit.

See, I'm afraid the collapse can come at an alarming, unpredictable rate. You cannot predict the ripples, the magnitude, or the duration.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 31, 2011 11:13 AM (swuwV)

142

OK.  I could probably go with that.  Personally I'd also like to see a property ownership requirement, and a literacy test.  That alone would go a long way.  And also a small voting fee.  Maybe $20.  Those measures would screen out a lot of the trash.

Posted by: Reactionary at March 31, 2011 03:54 PM (xUM1Q)

Didn't we try that and had it working until the Progressives came along and fixed it.
It is so obvious that we generate a version of the "tragedy of the commons" once everyone gets to vote to take money from others to enrich themselves.  For some reason the phrase "skin in the game" comes to mind, but I must be misinterpreting that.

Posted by: Hrothgar at March 31, 2011 11:13 AM (DCpHZ)

143 weasel zippers: “We estimate, and I believe these are very conservative estimates, that H.R. 1 would lead to 70,000 kids dying,” USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah testified before the House Appropriations State and Foreign Ops subcommittee. Vapors! We is killing childrens! Bad bad Republicans.

Posted by: George Orwell at March 31, 2011 11:14 AM (AZGON)

144

@115: "The problem is we have no real power to demand anything."

Actually, we can demand whatever we want - we can demand literally anything in this universe or undreamt of.  Getting it is the hard part.

Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at March 31, 2011 11:14 AM (xy9wk)

145 140 I'm telling you, I will sign up for a five-year stint in Empire of Jeff's Imperial Legions.

But only if there's rape and pillaging.

Posted by: George Orwell at March 31, 2011 04:09 PM (AZGON)

I'm there... and it looks like we only need bout 1000 in the Legion to be able to get the US Gov Air Support.

Posted by: Romeo13 at March 31, 2011 11:14 AM (NtXW4)

146

Why doesn't someone ask the MFM 'Do you feel like you are being used when Dean and Schumer think they can count on you to be their partisan megaphones, and not an impartial reporter of facts?

Yeah OK, stop laughing.

Posted by: Schwalbe : The at March 31, 2011 11:15 AM (UU0OF)

147

Posted by: Hrothgar at March 31, 2011 04:13 PM (DCpHZ)

Hmmm... personally I think we need to amend the Constitution, so that if you don't pay a POSITIVE net Income Tax (if we keep income tax), that you don't get to vote.

Or... he who pays the piper, gets to call the tune...

Posted by: Romeo13 at March 31, 2011 11:16 AM (NtXW4)

148 We didn't even need Imperial Legions or 214 Tomahawk missile to kill 70,000 children. Just ask USAID chief Shah. Man, we Republicans are some scary efficient warriors. Tread lightly, peons.

Posted by: George Orwell at March 31, 2011 11:17 AM (AZGON)

149

@133: "As I see it, our goal is to delay the inevitable.  Our side has already lost.  The Left has won the culture war, and is destroying the younger generations more thoroughly every year.  It's about "peace in our time" and delaying the worst until after our deaths.  That's my goal.  If we burn up all our strength now, we'll have none to slow the onslaught in coming years."

Enjoy the war, the peace will be terrible.

Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at March 31, 2011 11:17 AM (xy9wk)

150 Enjoy the war, the peace will be terrible. Well played, sir. Well played.

Posted by: George Orwell at March 31, 2011 11:18 AM (AZGON)

151 See, I'm afraid the collapse can come at an alarming, unpredictable rate. You cannot predict the ripples, the magnitude, or the duration.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 31, 2011 04:13 PM (swuwV)

AD:  you are right on.  History demonstrates amply that small events can kick off major shifts in society and nations.  Sarajevo and Fort Sumpter come to mind.  The Berlin Wall that we had come to know and love vanished in short order.  Events of a fine Tuesday morning in September altered the landscape and the world on 9/11. 

Posted by: Hrothgar at March 31, 2011 11:18 AM (DCpHZ)

152 Reactionary: "If we can't find enemies that are universally unpopular, then we should hit departments or functions that are at least hated by the right-leaning folks to cement our base."

I like simple. Because I think that way. 20% thereabouts reduction across the board on everything... then start eliminating departments (DoEd, HHS, DoE, etc.). Then entitlement reform but entitlement reform there will be. I guess it's a three stage plan.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 31, 2011 11:19 AM (swuwV)

153

My thought - offer national sales tax (NOT a VAT) as a replacement for income tax. Phased in over X years. Promise the irradication of the IRS. I bet that would pull many to our banner right there.

Posted by: Reactionary at March 31, 2011 04:05 PM (xUM1Q)

Make the National Sales Tax large enough to also get rid of Corporate Taxes, and you will see the Economy go through the roof.

Just think... all the imports would then be taxed at the same level as domestic goods.... and our EXPORTS would have a HUGE advantage in foreign markets.

Posted by: Romeo13 at March 31, 2011 11:19 AM (NtXW4)

154 Hrothgar at March 31, 2011 04:18 PM That is at the back of my mind lately. I tend to think our enormous interconnected economy is like a large ship; it can only turn and even shoal slowly. But what if you're right? What would a sudden shock resemble? I don't know.

Posted by: George Orwell at March 31, 2011 11:20 AM (AZGON)

155 Chairman Ryan was just on Hannity. Missed the beginning, but he said it sounds like they are offering $7T over 10yrs for 2012.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 31, 2011 11:20 AM (UO6+e)

156

So in the 'real world' only one man can win as a Republican in a given area, and that man has to be a milquetoast?

No, but for every Rubio who replaces a Crist, you're going to see three O'Donnell's who lose to the Dem.

Are there squishies who could, realistically, be replaced by a more conservative candidate?  Sure, Linsey Graham for instance.  Scott Brown?  Nope.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 31, 2011 11:20 AM (SY2Kh)

157 See, I'm afraid the collapse can come at an alarming, unpredictable rate. You cannot predict the ripples, the magnitude, or the duration.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 31, 2011 04:13 PM (swuwV)


Punctuated equilibrium.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at March 31, 2011 11:21 AM (G/MYk)

158

Hmmm... personally I think we need to amend the Constitution, so that if you don't pay a POSITIVE net Income Tax (if we keep income tax), that you don't get to vote.

Or... he who pays the piper, gets to call the tune...

Posted by: Romeo13 at March 31, 2011 04:16 PM (NtXW4)

Actually, I would prefer that you demonstrate that you have paid property tax at the local level (thus eliminating the need for an intrusive federal IRS).  That, and a demonstrated ability to read and write English would work for me.

Posted by: Hrothgar at March 31, 2011 11:21 AM (DCpHZ)

159

Hmmm... personally I think we need to amend the Constitution, so that if you don't pay a POSITIVE net Income Tax (if we keep income tax), that you don't get to vote.

Or... he who pays the piper, gets to call the tune...

Posted by: Romeo13 at March 31, 2011 04:16 PM (NtXW4)

I would add combat veterans and those serving in the armed forces at the time of the election.

Posted by: somebody else, not me at March 31, 2011 11:21 AM (7EV/g)

160 But what if you're right? What would a sudden shock resemble? I don't know.

Posted by: George Orwell at March 31, 2011 04:20 PM (AZGON)

Think Japan post-tsunami?

Posted by: Hrothgar at March 31, 2011 11:22 AM (DCpHZ)

161 Hannity just grilled Ryan  Also said a friend of his had just let him know that Boner's facebook page is getting hammered with messages that they better not cave.

Posted by: bebe's boobs destroy at March 31, 2011 11:23 AM (cniXs)

162

I would add combat veterans and those serving in the armed forces at the time of the election.

Posted by: somebody else, not me at March 31, 2011 04:21 PM (7EV/g)

Ewwww... Heinlein for the WIN! /smile

Posted by: Romeo13 at March 31, 2011 11:23 AM (NtXW4)

163 $7T over ten years in cuts? I'm not clear. That's around $750 billion per year? If so, that is good news, relatively speaking. But I don't understand how he can project a ten year timespan. Congress will change many times. Elaborate?

Posted by: George Orwell at March 31, 2011 11:24 AM (AZGON)

164

I would add combat veterans and those serving in the armed forces at the time of the election.

Posted by: somebody else, not me at March 31, 2011 04:21 PM (7EV/g)

I like the way you think!  Either local property tax paid or current or past service in the armed forces.

Posted by: Hrothgar at March 31, 2011 11:25 AM (DCpHZ)

165 Let's see what Japan post-tsunami looks like. Just read a bit on Mish's where some jerk on Bloomberg is telling Japan to go Paul Krugman and monetize the debt like there is no tomorrow.

Posted by: George Orwell at March 31, 2011 11:25 AM (AZGON)

166 But what if you're right? What would a sudden shock resemble? I don't know.

Posted by: George Orwell at March 31, 2011 04:20 PM (AZGON)

It would most likely look like the credit crisis of 2008, but this time we would have to ride it all the way through, since we have a brittle economy and no money left to buy very expensive time with.  This was the threat America understood in Nov 2008, and decided to go with national suicide.

Of course, aside from the economic side, there are about 4 separate lines of other very serious problems between Washington and large blocs of states, with Washington actively attacking the various states with respect to ... so we have many possible areas that could spawn the triggering event.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at March 31, 2011 11:25 AM (G/MYk)

167

Actually, I would prefer that you demonstrate that you have paid property tax at the local level (thus eliminating the need for an intrusive federal IRS). That, and a demonstrated ability to read and write English would work for me.

Posted by: Hrothgar at March 31, 2011 04:21 PM (DCpHZ)

So, because I don't own a House, even though I will pay a LOT in taxes this year, I don't get to vote?

Not to mention Military folks who don't own homes because they have to transfer every few years?

Posted by: Romeo13 at March 31, 2011 11:25 AM (NtXW4)

168

I'm done being massaged by these guys.

Great, cause my 3rd chakra needs some serious work.

Posted by: Manbearpig at March 31, 2011 11:26 AM (cniXs)

169 164 $7T over ten years in cuts? I'm not clear. That's around $750 billion per year? If so, that is good news, relatively speaking. But I don't understand how he can project a ten year timespan. Congress will change many times. Elaborate?

I only caught the end of the Ryan interview. The spring budget covers a time-span of 10yrs, and Hannity indicated the number was $6 or $7T over 10. Ryan's previous number was set at $5T over 10yrs but that was before he had read the Obama's budget.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 31, 2011 11:27 AM (UO6+e)

170 162 Hannity just grilled Ryan  Also said a friend of his had just let him know that Boner's facebook page is getting hammered with messages that they better not cave.

Grilled him over what specifically? This budget or the next one? The FY '11 budget is determined by appropriators, which is why H.R. 1 is listed in the Congressional record as Hal Rogers' bill.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 31, 2011 11:28 AM (UO6+e)

171 Of course, aside from the economic side

Grrr.  I meant, "the monetary side".

And, since I'm here, I'd add that a good deal of what we did to "combat" the 2008 credit crisis was to transfer huge liabilities from private concerns onto the public books (and took up tons more liabilites, as with the new FDIC account insurance limits, etc.), so that a re-emergence of the credit crisis would place that much more stress on the public institutions ... stress that is far above their ability to withystand.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at March 31, 2011 11:28 AM (G/MYk)

172 The spring budget covers a time-span of 10yrs, and Hannity indicated the number was $6 or $7T over 10. The number refers to cuts, yes? Now that is a better starting point. Any details on entitlements?

Posted by: George Orwell at March 31, 2011 11:28 AM (AZGON)

173 I'm still reeling at the statement from USAID chief Shah. 70,000 children dead on account of HR1! Why not claim 700,000? Just as plausible. Eskimos (putatively) have many words for snow. Liberals have none for shame.

Posted by: George Orwell at March 31, 2011 11:30 AM (AZGON)

174 Eskimos (putatively) have many words for snow. Liberals have none for shame.

Posted by: George Orwell at March 31, 2011 04:30 PM (AZGON)

Perfect.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at March 31, 2011 11:32 AM (G/MYk)

175

So, because I don't own a House, even though I will pay a LOT in taxes this year, I don't get to vote?

Not to mention Military folks who don't own homes because they have to transfer every few years?

Posted by: Romeo13 at March 31, 2011 04:25 PM (NtXW4)

The military part was fixed by the Robert Heinlein amendment above.

And yes, if you don't have any permanent local presence, maybe you shouldn't vote in local elections, unless you are willing to pay a right to vote tax. 

You have raised a good point as the idea is to exclude the drones, but there are plenty of property owning drones and transient workers that contribute immensely to the economy.  Off hand, I don't have any great solution, but I sure don't have to like Motor Voter registration.

Posted by: Hrothgar at March 31, 2011 11:33 AM (DCpHZ)

176 No, but for every Rubio who replaces a Crist, you're going to see three O'Donnell's who lose to the Dem.

I wasn't aware there were three times as many blue states as red ones. 

Cynicism isn't reality, and if you believe our message is that unpopular, we aren't going to win.

Scott Brown?  Nope.

If it always comes down to Scott Brown's vote, we sure as hell aren't going to be fixing entitlements.  We aren't going to fix anything.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at March 31, 2011 11:33 AM (TpXEI)

177 So, how many here actually believe that the GOP has the nuts to shoot for the moon and stick to their guns for the '12 budget?

Posted by: Geronimo at March 31, 2011 11:36 AM (MaNP3)

178 Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at March 31, 2011 04:33 PM (TpXEI)
If our message is truly unpopular, AND we cannot make a coherent case for our message (and yes the MFM is stacked against us), then even in a Constitutional Republic we are DOOMED, I say, DOOMED.

Posted by: Hrothgar at March 31, 2011 11:37 AM (DCpHZ)

179 iknowtheleft: "Punctuated equilibrium."

Nice phrase. Yeah, we could easily jump to an unrecognized form. I don't think the Founders would recognize what we have already, and it's been rather tepid compared to introducing global economic catastrophe.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 31, 2011 11:37 AM (swuwV)

180 I don't think the Founders would recognize what we have already Hell, they would be writing a new Declaration.

Posted by: George Orwell at March 31, 2011 11:38 AM (AZGON)

181 Never forget that even Republicans are politicians. No one gets to high Congressional office without some skill at negotiating deals. Even city councilmen are sharp at this.

Posted by: George Orwell at March 31, 2011 03:06 PM

Mike Wallace cornered Boehner who said a shutdown won't happen.  Rookie mistake.  If Boehner had spent a little time working on a used car lot before going to Congress, he wouldn't have fucked that up.

Posted by: rdbrewer at March 31, 2011 11:38 AM (93Uee)

182 George Orwell: "Eskimos (putatively) have many words for snow. Liberals have none for shame."

How about snow-job? We have lots of entries for that.

Posted by: Liberal Thesaurus at March 31, 2011 11:39 AM (swuwV)

183 Remember Ace, twenty nickels make a dollar. We can take this incrementally. We can take $33B or $61B and then use that fact to argue for more. Of course the risk is they pass this reduction and then they all do a Superman pose (hands on hips, looking to the future, a little wind in their hair, and a sunset as background) and collectively say, "Our job is done here!".

Posted by: steve walsh at March 31, 2011 11:40 AM (xDQNc)

184 173  The number refers to cuts, yes?
Now that is a better starting point. Any details on entitlements?

I don't know about the first because I didn't hear the entire interview. As for entitlements:

*Medicaid: Block grants for states; $1T in cuts

*Medicare: "On Medicare, the insurance program for senior citizens, Ryan would repace a system in which people pay in all their lives and then get government insurance to a system in which seniors would get vouchers to buy insurance on the open market." Medicare would also be targeted for cuts.

*Social Security: Boehner said no immediate fixes. The triggers to be added to the bill will require the president to act. No idea what that means in specific terms.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 31, 2011 11:40 AM (UO6+e)

185 Mike Wallace cornered Boehner who said a shutdown won't happen. Rookie mistake. Perhaps a mistake. Or perhaps he actually doesn't want to go there. You are all free to judge.

Posted by: George Orwell at March 31, 2011 11:40 AM (AZGON)

186 Ace, great post, exactly how people are feeling.  In fact I just said something like this on the other post as I came on and just looked at the top thread.  I was furious to hear Ryan on with hannity basically saying obamacare can't be repealed.  What?  They suddenly realized this now?   And, we are supposed to trust the future of our country to a bunch of spineless wussies who gave us the Christmas present of this dastardly health care plan?  I mean in a democratic republic, when you are being inundated with emails, cards, letters, phone calls, you ignore the people and accept that the dems have completely shut you out of the democratic process and just let them ride over you with a tank without nary a peep?   Sorry, something totally stinks here.  Obamacare is closing hospitals and driving doctors out of practice.  That's the reality.  Beck may be bat shit crazy but his prediction that this is just the conduit to grease the skids to a single payor, socialized medical system, destroying the best medical system in the world, is rapidly coming to fruition.  So now we are supposed to believe that the self same people aren't on board with destroying the country from within?  Yeah, I know sounds outlandish but what did my mom always say, oh yeah, "actions speak louder than words".  Obamacare didn't have to happen.  The very few not covered by insurance could have been picked up under the old system by waiver which we all paid for.  We might have groused but it would have been way way better than tis monster in the room, obamacare.  Now, the republicans are behavign the same way with the deficit and the budget.  I'm sort of not interested in wtching them play a game of 5 dimensional chess accompanied by lots of mind games and gotchas.  People, in their own lives, took control right away, what the hell is wrong with our lawmakers?

Posted by: curious at March 31, 2011 11:41 AM (k1rwm)

187 George Orwell: "Hell, they would be writing a new Declaration."

No doubt. Think of the shit Americans have absorbed/accepted compared to the Founders. It seems unfathomable but here we are.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 31, 2011 11:43 AM (swuwV)

188 @185 Well, it's a start. He could have asked for even more and bargained down from there. We will see when May rolls around. I can't see how such a radical change in Medicare can follow a long slog to put Obamacare in place. Not that it's a bad idea; Ryan had better understand such a stand is quite literally A Hill Upon Which To Die.

Posted by: George Orwell at March 31, 2011 11:43 AM (AZGON)

189 I'm still curious as to what exactly Ryan said, in specific terms.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 31, 2011 11:44 AM (UO6+e)

190 Posted by: curious at March 31, 2011 04:41 PM (k1rwm)

You obviously don't understand nuanced politics.  We have to prepare the path forward in a graceful manner so that we don't displease our Demo buds across the aisle and continue to get invites to the best talk shows.  Besides, we're really RINO/progressives at heart and if we ignore the TEA party and the people long enough, they will get tired and STFU like the sheep they are.

Posted by: John Boner's Tan at March 31, 2011 11:46 AM (DCpHZ)

191 190 I'm still curious as to what exactly Ryan said, in specific terms.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 31, 2011 04:44 PM (UO6+e)

To his credit he answered hannity's direct question.  It sort of shocked hannity.

I don't know if hannity has transcripts, it's worth reading.  It made me furious. 

Posted by: curious at March 31, 2011 11:47 AM (k1rwm)

192

And yes, if you don't have any permanent local presence, maybe you shouldn't vote in local elections, unless you are willing to pay a right to vote tax.

Posted by: Hrothgar at March 31, 2011 04:33 PM (DCpHZ)

So the fact that I am back living in the town I grew up in, taking care of my aging Mother in the family home, should exclude me from voting because my name is not on the deed? (although I would be covered under the Military vet portion).

Another problem... in both our plans... Spouses? Do they get to vote even if they don't own property, or make money, because their Spouse does?

But heck, I'd rather go for the National Sales Tax anyway, that way EVERYONE has skin in the game...

Posted by: Romeo13 at March 31, 2011 11:48 AM (NtXW4)

193 To recapitulate: If Ryan proposes such a radical change in Medicare, that seems to demand a thorough disavowal (and, frankly repeal) of Obastardcare. Let's see if they can deliver that. One very tall order. This does not seem quite "pragmatic" in conception. Again, I do not say it is a bad idea.

Posted by: George Orwell at March 31, 2011 11:48 AM (AZGON)

194 189 @185 Well, it's a start. He could have asked for even more and bargained down from there. We will see when May rolls around...

Here's the issue-- the FY '12 budget was always a document that reflects the will of the conference. It isn't why Ryan wants, or what Hensarling wants, or Lankford, Ribble, or any of the others. This budget is a reflection of how much the leadership is willing to give. Boehner, Cantor, and McCarthy have to sign-off on it.   As for entitlements, Ryan has been tackling those since Medicare Part D and Bush's SS reform, so I expect he's going to fight for these. After all, he's written a number of alternative Medicare/group entitlements/health reform bills, and I don't see him giving-up on this now. In other words, entitlement reform is his "baby", he fought Boehner for 4mos to include this in the budget, and I don't see him backing-out on something so meaningful to him. But who knows?

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 31, 2011 11:49 AM (UO6+e)

195

There are no conservatives left. Here in Ohio, which just voted in Senate Bill 5, many of my "conservative" "friends" realized their principle only extends to the end of their noses in the trough.

WAF.

Posted by: Gabriel Syme at March 31, 2011 11:49 AM (g84Si)

196

192 190 To his credit he answered hannity's direct question.  It sort of shocked hannity.

I don't know if hannity has transcripts, it's worth reading.  It made me furious. 

Ryan almost always answers direct questions, and it sometimes gets him into trouble. He doesn't have much political sense sometimes but that's a whole other matter.

I take it the question was whether ObamaCare can be repealed in its current form? My understanding from Mark Steyn and others was that the Dems made it so difficult that only the courts and a conservative super-majority would ever be able to repeal it. That was purposeful.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 31, 2011 11:52 AM (UO6+e)

197 My understanding from Mark Steyn and others was that the Dems made it so difficult that only the courts and a conservative super-majority would ever be able to repeal it. That was purposeful.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 31, 2011 04:52 PM (UO6+e)

 Then the GOP should deem it repealed.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at March 31, 2011 11:54 AM (SNs7J)

198 But heck, I'd rather go for the National Sales Tax anyway, that way EVERYONE has skin in the game...
Posted by: Romeo13 at March 31, 2011 04:48 PM (NtXW4)

If we could get there, it (the National Sates Tax) would solve many problems and since it would be painful and obvious at every transaction (not like a stealth VAT) it would lead to a much more fiscally prudent government.

If you are living in the family home, are taxes being paid on it?

As to spouses, if they can pay the right to vote tax, they would be  good to go.

Posted by: John Boner's Tan at March 31, 2011 11:55 AM (DCpHZ)

199 Cut 20% across the board, you'd hardly notice.

Posted by: Tom at March 31, 2011 11:56 AM (MWXXs)

200

Posted by: John Boner's Tan at March 31, 2011 04:55 PM (DCpHZ)

Hmmm... and add in that ANY other citizenship you have, excludes you from voting in the US Election.

No Dual Citizens should retain the Right to vote IMO...

Posted by: Romeo13 at March 31, 2011 11:59 AM (NtXW4)

201 Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 31, 2011 04:52 PM (UO6+e)

thank God you follow and understand this the way you do.  I just get anecdotal evidence every once in a while that tells me obama care is really really messing up the works already.  It's stuff I couldn't share on a blog as it might be able to be traced back to the people who've told me and they could lose their jobs but, they told me cause they are concerned with what they are seeing and they are lib/dems.   When the American people saw the liquidity problems and saw us monetizing our debt they began paying off their credit cards, sticking to their budgets and not buying anything they didn't really need.  Why?  Cause they were fricken scared of losing their own jobs as they saw their co workers go, one by one, quietly on friday afternoon as the dolts who run these corporations and firms think people are so clueless they don't know exactly what's going on.   In fact, they assumed we were so stupid that we would continue to spend at a record clip and that would keep us moving along for a while.  Instead we didn't do what they predicted and it has so mucked up the system.   As more an more people say out loud "gee, the housing market may have another leg or two down", "gee why does it look like we should be coming out of the recession but we seem to be headed towards another one", "gee it looks like people aren't being laid off anymore but people aren't getting jobs either, where did the jobs go?"....they might realize how really un stupid people are and tell us the truth.

Posted by: curious at March 31, 2011 12:01 PM (k1rwm)

202

No Dual Citizens should retain the Right to vote IMO...

Posted by: Romeo13 at March 31, 2011 04:59 PM (NtXW4)

A few more tweaks, and we will have a pretty good voter registration legislation written.

Posted by: Hrothgar at March 31, 2011 12:01 PM (DCpHZ)

203 198 Then the GOP should deem it repealed.

They could do that but it would Constitutionally and legally mean nothing. It's a strange situation-- we have an act that's been ruled unconstitutional and no court has reversed that order, yet the roots of the slush funds hidden in the bill go so deep that they've been in-effect for months. That's not just the funding Michele Bachmann has mentioned, either. Congressional aides have been digging-through the bill for months, is what I read from an article posted by Rep. Tim Griffin, and they keep finding more of them. The aides who wrote the bill might have forgotten a severance clause but they knew what they were doing when it comes to immediate implementation.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 31, 2011 12:03 PM (UO6+e)

204 Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 31, 2011 05:03 PM (UO6+e)

Why does no one see that from a moral standpoint, writing a bill like that is reprehensible?

Sure can you write an iron clad bill and make sure that only dems know anything about it and shut out the other side of the aisle and the American people.  Yeah obviously they did it.  But, why would you do that?  Why would you want to shut out the other party completely and the American people in a democratic republic?   This is starting to get under everyone's skin cause they are starting to see the moral implications of what was done.  This is why even the libs don't trust government anymore.  How can you run a successful democratic republic if the very people involved have lost all trust in themselves and the system?

Posted by: curious at March 31, 2011 12:07 PM (k1rwm)

205 Congressional aides have been digging-through the bill for months, is what I read from an article posted by Rep. Tim Griffin, and they keep finding more of them. The aides who wrote the bill might have forgotten a severance clause but they knew what they were doing when it comes to immediate implementation.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 31, 2011 05:03 PM (UO6+e)

The answer then is for congress to find all of the slush funds in the various budgets, and cut the budget by that amount for this year, on top of the $61B.  Make that the final offer, and let the dems shut down the government over it.  We'll see who the public sides with.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at March 31, 2011 12:08 PM (SNs7J)

206

202 I only know what I read. It helps to "follow" some lawmakers on both Twitter and Facebook, because that's how you see and hear more about this than what they show on TV. NRO: The Corner is also a good source because many of their reporters are friends with current and former members of Congress. Same with some other insider publications and the financial papers. You can also grab statements from CSPAN and committee websites, along with thomas.gov, the House Clerk's website, the Republican Conference website, etc.

It's actually rather interesting because you can see so much about the personality and the players and how they are playing this game. But the thing is that most people don't have the time or the patience to look at these things, and the people in D.C. know it. I only started learning more about the budgetary process after reading some basic documents on the House Budget Committee website, then spent some free time re-reading some old university textbooks. This entire thing is far harder than it sounds and it's incredibly frustrating at times because few people in D.C. can actually explain it, which is why Chairman Ryan spent so much time educating them as to process. But he sometimes forgets that most people can't follow unless they've done background research.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 31, 2011 12:11 PM (UO6+e)

207

205 Why does no one see that from a moral standpoint, writing a bill like that is reprehensible? [...]

This is the Chicago machine we're dealing with here. Obama has found his bill contains more problems than he thought but whoever wrote it (likely anonymous aides) largely knew what they were doing. The Dems wanted this to stick and be so difficult to repeal that it would be practically impossible to exterminate it. That's why people say that legislation of this magnitude is so incredibly dangerous, is because it's meant to be permanent. ObamaCare is Obama's signature achievement, he fought for it above all other legislation, and he and his socialist buddies don't care about morality. Adding all these strings hidden in dark corners would violate the mind of anyone with a sense of morality, but they don't care about that. In other words, what I'm saying is that they don't follow the rules and they were willing to do whatever it took to make this another sacred cow.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 31, 2011 12:17 PM (UO6+e)

208 House Republicans have released a new ad called "Extreme Spending".

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 31, 2011 12:24 PM (UO6+e)

209 Why does no one see that from a moral standpoint, writing a bill like that is reprehensible?
Posted by: curious at March 31, 2011 05:07 PM (k1rwm)

Moral is as moral does. 

The Chicago Socialist Elite crowd are probably convinced that this is a moral way to write legislation, because the proles aren't capable of knowing what's best for them.  This approach has the advantage of employing a lot of those lawyers that can only get public service jobs and almost certainly forces the key implementation challenges into the courts, which the Progs have been seeding for decades with (you guessed it) public service lawyers.

Posted by: Hrothgar at March 31, 2011 12:30 PM (DCpHZ)

210 "Shah: GOP budget would kill 70,000 children"looks like the dems have started the food fight early

Posted by: curious at March 31, 2011 12:58 PM (k1rwm)

211 This post would be by the same Ace who supported Mike Castle for Senate before and after the primary?

Posted by: phaedrus at March 31, 2011 01:29 PM (LV8XA)

212 Gosh, I wish we had Senator Mike Castle right about now ... for sure he would have put an end to this madness!

Posted by: thirteen28 at March 31, 2011 01:36 PM (AbmsP)

213 Not to quibble, but both are actually more than 1% of the deficit. Heck, $61b is a whole FOUR POINT FIVE PERCENT of the 2011 deficit. So there!

Posted by: Cyfir at March 31, 2011 01:39 PM (THLN4)

214 Ace, did you really think the professional Republicans -- the Mike Castle's -- wanted to cut spending?

Politicians get into the business to wield power, and money is power. Apres moi, le deluge is the mantra of 90% of the DC crowd. They will not change things unless the change benefits them personally.

Posted by: Kent at March 31, 2011 01:55 PM (3ar4L)

215

You are welcome to browse our site and you will find your love items with surprise.The NFL jerseys outlet and the NHL jerseys outlet from our factory are your best choice.Don't hesitate to get your love items!

Reasons for choosing us:·All order only charge 19.99$;buy more,Save more!Cheap nfl jerseys as well as cheap nhl jerseys.

·None tax fee for all customers;discount nfl jerseys and discount nhl jerseys

·Easy ordering system make you enjoy your shopping;

·The Paypal Payment ensure to keep the security of our customers information nfl jersey sale

·It will be delivered within 24 hours after we confirm your payment;

·It usually takes around 7 business days to be delivered;

·Outstanding quality and best service will make you an enjoyable shopping experience. nhl jerseys sale

Your best choice for jerseys with high qualtiy and lowest price.Our mission is to bulid longer cooperation wiht our customer. Choose us you will enjoy the factory price,high quality,vip service. MLB jerseys are high quality with reasonable price same as the cheap mlb jerseys.

Posted by: discount nhl jerseys at March 31, 2011 04:34 PM (OzXN4)

216 The real question is: How do you put the fear of God into 11 Democrats and two Independents to get them to vote for cloture, and then get four of those to vote for the final bill? You have Reid and Hoyer whipping the Dems and making them toe the line, so there is no way to get enough votes to go with the Republicans unless you can shake them to their core.

Posted by: Reno_Dave at March 31, 2011 05:39 PM (YJBiO)

217 The Real Budget Debate will only begin when Politicians recognize this is a problem of how to properly define an individually driven, fully functional set of social marketplace for a civil society.  The most direct path to this goal would have taxpayers given a real choice to send their tax dollars go to support this or than program, while letting this or that program to go away or be forced to merge with others -- you know, like how markets are supposed to work... 

Politicians are not the people to be making these tough choices...  Their proper role under the Constitution is to devise and manage a system to promote the general welfare, while preserving liberty to ourselves and our posterity.  This can't be done with the federal government nanny state politicians and bureaucrats telling everyone what to do and not to do while also deciding who will and won't get funding for this and that activity...    

Posted by: drfredc at March 31, 2011 08:32 PM (puRnk)

218 I get the whole thing about having the guts to fight for the bigger cuts etc. I really do and I agree that the spending is so out of control that $30 billion one way or another is not that big deal. But the bottom line is that the Republicans do not have the White House and they do not have the Senate. They can not do this without some big defections from the Democrats. They just don't have the numbers.

I seem to remember that when it came time to run people against Democrats in states like Nevada and Delaware..I was told by many self appointed true conservatives that it did not matter if Castle won or if Coons won...that Angle was a hellluva candidate and if we could not get someone like her we might as well stick with the Democrat..no Democrat lite they said...Well fine, we still have Harry Reid in control of the  US Senate now that does not give us a lot of choices. But the Democrats are limited on choices too..so hopefully they will do some caving of their own. Otherwise the government shuts down and they blame the Tea Party.

Posted by: Terrye at April 01, 2011 01:29 AM (9iEV2)

219 thanks for your share!!

Posted by: wholesale lingerie at April 01, 2011 04:19 AM (t86IJ)

220

Agreed.  To the ramparts, conservatives.  If our people cave on a few tens of billions, how are they ever going to get done what needs to be done with the 2012 budget?  Hint: they won't be able to anyway, because the donkeys are negotiating in bad faith.  We need to head the donkey herd off at the pass now, and start slitting some metaphorical throats, per your banner.

d(^_^)b
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
"Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive"

Posted by: LibertyAtStake at April 01, 2011 09:43 AM (PmNi0)

221 I have come here to chew bubblegum and burn Korans... and I am all out of bubblegum.Äþ²¨Ã×ÄÈ»éÉ´£¬Äþ²¨»éÉ´£¬Äþ²¨»éÉ´³ö×⣬Äþ²¨»éÉ´¶¨ÖÆ

Posted by: 0574mina at April 02, 2011 05:35 PM (a004l)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
212kb generated in CPU 0.3, elapsed 1.8131 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.5701 seconds, 457 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.