1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Budget talks: This is getting nasty

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by printdust, Jul 13, 2011.

Page 60 of 214
  1. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    A fucking awesome episode.
     
    YankeeFan, Jul 25, 2011
    #709
  2. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    No shit. MDT?

    I like the idea of it, but is there a city besides Denver in it?

    Salt Lake maybe?
     
    YankeeFan, Jul 25, 2011
    #710
  3. deskslave

    deskslave Active Member

    I defy you to get through the rest of your day without humming "the garbageman can! Oh yes, the garbageman can."
     
    deskslave, Jul 25, 2011
    #711
  4. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    And, this is why guys -- for the most part -- can get along.

    You end up at a cocktail party, or some other function, with your wife/girlfriend where you don't know anybody, and all you have to do is talk about the Simpsons, Seinfeld, baseball, and you've got a new best friend.
     
    YankeeFan, Jul 25, 2011
    #712
  5. Bubbler

    Bubbler Well-Known Member

    My feeling on the Tea Party is well known, but both sides need to get off their ideological high horses and get to work.

    I don't have much time for hardcore liberals who consider Obama or the Congress proposals a "capitulation". Are they what I'd want? No. But the cliff this nation will go over otherwise is a much worse option.

    It's not capitulation, its called political reality, and there's no time for bullshit games anymore. I'm tired of this idiotic game of political chicken and I think most sane people on both sides of the political spectrum are too.
     
    Bubbler, Jul 25, 2011
    #713
  6. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    It is difficult to find a compromise with people who don't want one. Even as this is being posted, Boehner is altering his last proposal to include elements of the proposal previously rejected by the Senate. The whole idea is, Obama must be made to say, "I surrender." This is not a good faith attempt to solve a problem.
    It's a dangerous game. Obama is a weak man. A stronger, more willful President might use such Congressional malfeasance to shred the Constitution and ask the people to back him -- which they probably would, as the President is almost always more popular than the Congress (at least one party usually kind of likes the President).
    Precedent has a way of biting you in the ass.
     
    Michael_ Gee, Jul 25, 2011
    #714
  7. Bubbler

    Bubbler Well-Known Member

    I don't think we're there yet as far as the nuclear option is concerned, but it seems we're headed that way. If this drags into mid-week, Obama better be prepared to exercise that constitutional option come hell or high legal water.

    I think its too late to save the credit rating. The damage has been done. The credit agencies have made up their minds that our government is compromised of dysfunctional morons bent on political gain at all costs. And they're right, of course.

    The whole fiasco is depressing beyond belief.
     
    Bubbler, Jul 25, 2011
    #715
  8. suburbia

    suburbia Active Member

    I agree on Obama being weak. I'm no fan of Bush II's policies. But at least he had the you-know-whats to not only fight fire with fire, but to be the first one to fire, and therefore establish the narrative to his advantage.

    That being said, Obama probably would have lost this fight anyway.

    If he had stuck to his guns and the predicted catastrophe occurred, he would have gotten blamed because the sitting President always gets blamed when the economy goes in the crapper, regardless of who, if anyone, is actually at fault.

    If he unilaterally allows the U.S. to continue borrowing money by citing the 14th amendment, he triggers a lawsuit from the House on grounds that he violated the House's power to initiate fiscal policy and the separation of powers between the Legislative and Executive branches. The case almost certainly would go to the Supreme Court, which, given its current makeup, is at least 50-50 to rule against Obama. Then what?

    Where Obama screwed up was by conceding ground too early in the negotiation and by not using the bully pulpit effectively. He needed to be Alec Baldwin from Glengarry Glen Ross. Instead he was Mr. Magoo.
     
    suburbia, Jul 25, 2011
    #716
  9. Magic In The Night

    Magic In The Night Active Member

    Which is the whole reason we're in this mess to begin with.
     
    Magic In The Night, Jul 25, 2011
    #717
  10. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    One little trinket stuck out at me when I was listening to Harry Reid today. Part of his "compromise" plan included $40 billion in cuts by getting rid of fraud, waste and abuse.

    I looked, and that number is on par with what the Federal government spent in TOTAL in 1950.

    Putting that aside, here's my question. He is saying there is $40 billion in fraud, waste and abusive Federal spending that his plan will eliminate over the next 10 years. Why was that fraud and waste ever in our Federal budget in the first place? And with the $3 to $4 trillion in outlays our Federal government now dispenses, do you really think there isn't trillions of dollars worth of fraud, waste and abuse in what they are doing in D.C.?

    All of this is the biggest bunch of bullshit going. Their words are meaningless, and even if they do come up with some sort of "plan" it is going to be worthless. In George Bush's last year, 2008, we had a $460 billion budget deficit. I remember Obama promising rainbows and hershey kisses to everyone when he was campaigner Obama and also crypically saying he had the plan to introduce budgets with deficits half as large by the end of his first term. And I remember getting blasted on here when I called bullshit on it all and gave my usual cynical, "Same old bullshit. There is NO difference between a Republican and a Democrat who actually gets into office, except the rhetoric. Their allegiances are to whoever paid for their spot in office."

    In 2009, President Obama put out his budget and 10-year budget projections, which produced a $1.4 trillion deficit the first year (he asked for a budget that would have produced a $1.75 trillion deficit). Few people called him on his promises as a campaigner, and honestly, few people who are all frantic right now (and there is no reason to be), gave a shit about our debt loads then. I remember posting on here sounding an alarm about how we were taking it to new levels. I remember sort of getting an "uh huh" response.

    Just this past February, he put out a ridiculous 10-year budget that introduced $7.21 trillion in cumulative deficits over the next 10 years. That was just 5 months ago. No one cared about our debt loads then. I mean, the Republicans were screaming holy hell about his plan, but show me a Republican president that didn't preside over an expanding government. Bush took our debt from $5.7 trillion to $9.8 trillion.

    First thing. 10 year projections -- on budgets that will never get passed as proposed, are meaningless, particularly when they include projections for GDP growth. GDP growth projections even a year out are meaningless. It's the same reason that whatever plan they agree to will be meaningless, because when they smile and tell you they have agreed to shave $4 trillion off our debt over the next 10 years, I know that every bit of nonsense in their plan will be meaningless and forgotten 3 months down the road, and then thrown entirely out if we get a new president next year, with new spending initiatives.

    And they will still be the same bunch of jackals -- both parties -- that REALLY exist to expand government to serve an ever-growing list of special interests that each take money from to even have their power. Whatever "deal" they make is going to be meaningless.

    Our problem is that government is engulfing us. In 1960 our Federal spending amounted to $92.1 billion. In 1970 it was $196 billion. In 1980 it was $590 billion. In 1990 it was $1.1 trillion. In 2000 it was $1.78 trillion.

    In 2010 it was $3.45 trillion.

    The last boost has been fueled by debt spending, because one idiot says, "We need to 'stimulate' the economy," and another idiot panders to the "let's cut taxes" crowd. We are not at critical mass yet. But our debt now totals $14.3 trillion. When President Obama entered office it was $9.95 trillion. Obviously we can not continue at that pace.

    The problem is that the horse was let out of the barn decades ago, and people just accept trillions of dollars of Federal outlays that are corrupt to the core. And it's not going to change now, because they can just kick the can down the road, still. It won't change until we are in the same boat as Greece, except on a much more massive scale.

    The difference between Greece and the U.S. is that Greece can't meet its debt obligations, the U.S can. John Boehner, Harry Reid, the President have no incentive to change things because they have more time to do more of the same, if they want to. And they will. It's all they EVER do.
     
    The Big Ragu, Jul 25, 2011
    #718
  11. amraeder

    amraeder Well-Known Member

    I get what you're saying, and won't argue the point that Bush II is the reason the budget is as unbalanced as it is today.

    But, I still feel like the whole reason we're in the mess that we're in now is because it somehow, inexplicably, became something "everyone knows" that we have to cut spending right now. How this foolish notion came to pass, I don't know. How it became fatwa boggles the mind. But the fact that somehow this narrative became the prominent one, is to me, the big reason we're where we're at today.
     
    amraeder, Jul 25, 2011
    #719
  12. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    This is why people want to see real cuts. If there's $40B in fraud, waste, and abuse, then deal with that.

    The "Tea Party" want real cuts.

    Even the Boehner plan is silly. They won't spell out the cuts. A six member, bi-partisan, dual chamber, panel of House & Senate members will be appointed to identify cuts.

    Give me a fucking break. Find some areas you can cut.
     
    YankeeFan, Jul 25, 2011
    #720
Page 60 of 214
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page