Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

so how super(committee) screwed are we here? Follow

#1 Nov 20 2011 at 12:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,905 posts
Will the disfunctional idiot comittee pull something out of their *** by wednesday?
Yes :10 (27.0%)
No :27 (73.0%)
Total:37


My bet is on us finding out what happens in the political equivelent of nuclear brinksmanship when neither side blinks. Both sides are being stupid here, and everyone directly involved in that committe needs to hit the unemployment line as soon as possible so they can fully appriciate the magnitude of their idiocy.



Edited, Nov 19th 2011 10:31pm by Kaolian
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#2 Nov 20 2011 at 2:19 AM Rating: Excellent
**
479 posts
My 17 years in Federal Service and being a veteran has me somewhat protected. However, those we have hired within the last 5 years have already had several briefings on what to expect from a RIF (Reduction In Force). Leadership has already broken out the "Oh sh*t" file on our next steps, and it's not pretty.

Seriously, some one really needs to *****-slap the idiots in DC. They are so worked up in their "Us against Them" game that they have completely lost sight of actually leading or providing direction. I don't care what fence any of them sit on, the situation they have created is a complete joke. Much like many of their platform stances.



edit due to spelling phail

Edited, Nov 20th 2011 11:26am by klausneck
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Pack your own lunch and bring nothing but Pixie Stix and Pop Rocks and get your liberty on.
#3 Nov 20 2011 at 8:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
They actually only have until Monday night since they're required to have 48 hours to vote on it by midnight Wednesday. I'm not too worried about the idea of the automatic cuts but rather that Congress will now work to block the cuts they promised to make if the committee fails. That'll be an even more epic failure in the eyes of the world and the finance industry.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4 Nov 20 2011 at 10:13 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
Avatar
***
1,089 posts
I have no idea what this thread is about!
____________________________
SSubZero wrote:

MNK: "OK we're gonna go in and get those items."
WHM: "Did you have a plan?"
MNK: "Plan? I was going to walk through the front door and start punching people."
#5 Nov 20 2011 at 10:26 AM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,016 posts
Peimei wrote:
I have no idea what this thread is about!

The United States reached its "debt limit"
Haranguing about how to best resolve our financial crisis
Disagreement over government budgeting
Creation of a bipartisan "supercommittee" tasked to come up with a working budget which would at the very least least keep us financially solvent
Wharrgarbl ensues
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#6 Nov 20 2011 at 10:26 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
They'll pull something out of their ***. Either a last minute plan or some "untrigger the trigger" BS. Considering half of the automatic $110b cuts comes from Defense Spending, none of them want to look like they don't care about America and it's staunch defenders and blah blah blah. Ultra-Patriotism is destroying this country.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#7 Nov 20 2011 at 1:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The whole defense tizzy is coming from the right. Now the GOP is in the situation of having (with the Democrats) failed to forge a compromise but also trying to say that half of that $1.5T reduction in the deficit shouldn't happen and fighting to pass legislation saying "We were never serious anyway". Not an enviable position.

I seriously doubt anything will pass at this point. There's not enough time to put together and agreement, have the CBO score it, undergo the mandatory 48 hour discussion/study period and then vote on it. The pressure just isn't there: there's no shutdown or default looming, just the mandatory cuts. The Democrats aren't really hurt by the entitlement cuts (they don't affect benefits) and the GOP is going to fight tooth & nail to restore the defense cuts.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#8 Nov 20 2011 at 2:48 PM Rating: Decent
****
7,819 posts
The scarry part is that "We put them there." I work for the state and the amount of wasted money is staggering with zero accoutability.
____________________________
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/ImGatomon/Request.jpg

. “Power even if it is raw uncontrolled potential is just as dangerous as a trained assassin. It is unpredictable and deadly if your are not prepared." ~Gatomon From the story A Fox Among Wolves.
#9 Nov 20 2011 at 3:09 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
I really need to be caught up on the news Smiley: frown Everyone just watches movies and sports...Smiley: mad
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#10 Nov 20 2011 at 3:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,905 posts
That whole "defense tizzy" should certanly include democrat panic. The very first things on the chopping block are national guard disaster response funds, maintenance programs for our existing, rapidly aging hardware platforms, and pay to keep our armed forces staffed at the required levels. Not to mention all of the research and development programs, the new construction of additional ford class aircraft carriers which will save billions in operating costs over the cost of running a nimitz class, the replacement airframes for our 30 year old F-15 and F-16 fleets which are reaching end of structural life just when china is starting to build stealth light bombers, etc. You either have to have a credible nuclear deterrent or a strong conventional force. You can't dramatically downdraw both and expect the world to respect your military.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#11 Nov 20 2011 at 3:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The military budget is bloated and largely unsupervised anyway. Maybe this will give them some incentive to learn to spend properly.

Anyway, whether you want to agree that its warranted or not, the tizzy is a GOP thing.
Almalieque wrote:
I really need to be caught up on the news Smiley: frown Everyone just watches movies and sports...Smiley: mad

Can't you connect to news sites via the internet?

Edited, Nov 20th 2011 4:02pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#12 Nov 20 2011 at 3:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
Kao, I know you're a massive proponent of keeping our military funded at ridiculous levels, but do you seriously think that even if we cut our military spending in half we would be in any more danger than we are now? We're at the point where a positive change in foreign policy is going to see dramatically larger effect than any correlating positive change in our military.
#13 Nov 20 2011 at 4:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,905 posts
The main issue here is that our entire airforce, most of our submarine force, our entire air refuling wing, over half of our cargo aircraft, a good portion of our assault rifle inventory, and about 1/3rd of our navy are all reaching end of usable hardware life. Airplanes in particular can only fly so many hours before you either have to completely rebuild the structural components including the wing spars and fusalage. Ships that don't get adequatly maintained, rust out and sink.

Is there bloat in the military? certanly. but there is also a huge amount of money spent on maintaining obsolete equipment. Building an entire new fleet of F-22's and scrapping all the F-15's would literally be cheaper than maintaining our existing fleet. or ****, building an entire new fleet of F-15's. We lie to ourselves and say "Oh, the F-22 is sooo much more combat effective than the F-15, that each one of those aircraft counts as 20 of the old style!" except that when you lose one of those, you also lose the equivelent of 20 aircraft. Very soon, we aren't going to have the capacity to move men and materials to foreign countries. We won't be able to support refueling efforts. We won't be able to replenish ships at sea. These capabilities are critical. Abandoning them leaves is vulnerable.

Our nuclear deterrent is being reduced steadily as well. Our current president has made it a mission to eliminate nuclear weapons wherever possible, primarily from our own ******** At the same time, China is dramaically expanding their launch capabilities, building up their military, particularily in the form of a navy, airforce and nuclear balistic missile equipped submarine forces.

At the same time, you have our southeast asia foreign policy. Australia, Thailand, Sri lanka, South Korea, Taiwan. These countries should sound familiar to you, because they are the countries that follow the words "Made in" on the bottom of most of your electronic devices. Well the ones that aren't made in china already for the most part. China means to exert economic control over this area of the planet. This same area of the planet where a single flood managed to wipe out 70% of the hard drive production capability on the planet. Sure, positive change in foreign policy is great and all. Negitive change in that region with our economy in the fragile state it is in, would absolutly destroy us right now.

We have a large military than most. We have an even larger area of control to protect than most. The national guard is underequipped. Our domestic interceptor fleets are too small to effectivly repell an invasion, but they didn't have to be because we have a credible nuclear deterrent. Soon, we won't. Nuclear bombs are useless if you cannot deliver them to target. our nuclear ICBM fleets have been reduced to 450 missiles, with more reductions possible given the current administration. Most of those warheads are smaller "tactical" nuclear warheads. Our ohio balistic missile submarines have had their missile complements halved by treaty, and the older boats are due for replacement with no replacement in sight.

So yes, if we were to cut our current military spending in half, I believe we would be in danger. I believe china would sieze on that oppertunity, and we wouldn't be able to do **** about it without resorting to nuclear options. If we were not facing the huge wall of aircraft about to hit mandatory retirement age in the next 10 years, it might be a different story. if we had replaced those on the schedule they were supposed to be replaced, it would be another story. If china wasn't building out their military at a high rate of speed, it would be another story. But this is the one we are playing out.

The fact that a relitivly benign superpower exists in the world prevents more wars than it causes. The tiny conflicts we call "war" these days are nothing compared to the conflicts of the past. And every single conflict of the past was caused by people who cut spending too far and left themselves open while others built.

You can wish for "Peace in our time" all you want, but it doesn't mean the germans aren't going to invade Poland anyways...
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#14 Nov 20 2011 at 4:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The cuts are over ten years. Unless the defense budget is far, far smaller than anyone had guessed, this is in no way near to "cut in half".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#15 Nov 20 2011 at 5:07 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
To be fair, that was my hypothetical and not his take on the actual situation.
#16 Nov 20 2011 at 6:19 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,243 posts
I voted yes. I predict they will agree to appoint a superduper sub-committee.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#17 Nov 20 2011 at 6:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Eventually they'll have a two man Ultimate Subcommittee.

Two senators enter!! One senator leaves!!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#18 Nov 20 2011 at 7:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,318 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Eventually they'll have a two man Ultimate Subcommittee.

Two senators enter!! One senator leaves!!



Isn't that an election?
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#19 Nov 20 2011 at 7:20 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,055 posts
Samira wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Eventually they'll have a two man Ultimate Subcommittee.

Two senators enter!! One senator leaves!!



Isn't that an election?


Yeah, but if we could directly vote on legislation, we'd lose out on a lot of entertainment value.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#20 Nov 20 2011 at 8:38 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
Oh boy, John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi in a steel cage.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#21 Nov 20 2011 at 9:30 PM Rating: Excellent
**
585 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Oh boy, John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi in a steel cage.


Sell tickets and run it on pay per view and put that towards the debt.
____________________________
.
#22 Nov 20 2011 at 9:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Oh, like we weren't already screwed...
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#23 Nov 21 2011 at 3:36 AM Rating: Good
**
479 posts
So much for Budget Director Lew's comment that the sequester was "meant to be an unpalatable option that all parties want to avoid."

Jophiel wrote:
The military budget is bloated and largely unsupervised anyway. Maybe this will give them some incentive to learn to spend properly.


Don't take this the wrong way, but the DoD isn't the only guilty party here when it comes to ******* away funds. Don't get me wrong, I've worked in the DoD for 20 years now and I'll tell you they suck when it comes to being smart with their contracts. However, they aren't the only reason why our debt is sky high. You can't tell me all the other departments of Uncle Sugar penny pinch during the fiscal year and give back what they don't use.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Pack your own lunch and bring nothing but Pixie Stix and Pop Rocks and get your liberty on.
#24 Nov 21 2011 at 6:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Never said it was. But no one here, including me, is getting worked up about the other half of the cuts. And I haven't heard of any legislative efforts to say "We were never actually serious about those anyway."

Edited, Nov 21st 2011 6:36am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#25 Nov 21 2011 at 11:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,004 posts
The cuts don't take effect until after next election right? So there's still time for whoever wins the election to push through some random bill that changes everything around again? Or am I turned around on this?

Anyway more on topic,

RavennofTitan wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Oh boy, John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi in a steel cage.


Sell tickets and run it on pay per view and put that towards the debt.


Pelosi would win in a heartbeat; Boehner wouldn't hit a girl. He'd leave a shell of a man, bloodied and covered in claw marks still arguing that he has the moral high ground. Smiley: nod
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#26 Nov 21 2011 at 11:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The cuts are to take place in 2013. I've read an article or two though saying that the defense budget has to be submitted fairly early into 2012 for various budgeting reasons; namely so it can be included in the overall budget. Since the 2013 federal budget is supposed to be taken care of in 2012 (recent years not withstanding), pushing everything out past the elections isn't going to be especially viable.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#27 Nov 21 2011 at 12:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,004 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The cuts are to take place in 2013. I've read an article or two though saying that the defense budget has to be submitted fairly early into 2012 for various budgeting reasons; namely so it can be included in the overall budget. Since the 2013 federal budget is supposed to be taken care of in 2012 (recent years not withstanding), pushing everything out past the elections isn't going to be especially viable.


Ahh I see.

Still feels like a game of political hot-potato. I get this feeling that both sides know changes need to be made, and any substantive changes will likely be unpopular. Meaning little political will to actually do anything to fix it. My Smiley: tinfoilhat side wonders if you're better off just losing an election to tap into the resulting 'popular outrage' after the changes have been made. Hoping of course, the other side can't come up with a new creative way to string the country along and then toss the problem back in your lap. Smiley: rolleyes

Ugh I'm cynical this morning... Smiley: lol
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#28 Nov 21 2011 at 12:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
someproteinguy wrote:
Still feels like a game of political hot-potato. I get this feeling that both sides know changes need to be made, and any substantive changes will likely be unpopular. Meaning little political will to actually do anything to fix it.

No argument there.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#29 Nov 21 2011 at 1:56 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Still feels like a game of political hot-potato.
The list of things that aren't would be a shorter list.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#30 Nov 21 2011 at 5:51 PM Rating: Excellent
$title{308642}
*****
0X317A posts
The real issue, I think, will be the thread of getting our financial rating downgraded again and other things of this nature. Those are much more real and immediate(ish) consequences of this failing.
____________________________
Since 1 March 2004

Rift Signature
#31 Nov 21 2011 at 8:44 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Anyway, whether you want to agree that its warranted or not, the tizzy is a GOP thing.


No, it's really not. The Dem politicians will stay quiet about it, and they'll let their water carriers on the left wing make it out like it's just the GOP who cares about this, but there are a **** of a lot of Dems who are tied at the hip to numerous defense projects likely to be first on the chopping block. They just hope that it wont come to that and that they wont be the ones who have to step out and prevent those cuts, so they can have their cake and eat it too.


I get that folks on the left have political reasons for painting things in such simplistic terms, but that doesn't make it true.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#32 Nov 21 2011 at 9:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Anyway, whether you want to agree that its warranted or not, the tizzy is a GOP thing.
No, it's really not.

Smiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laugh

Ah, you.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#33 Nov 22 2011 at 10:05 AM Rating: Excellent
They're totally in a tizzy by not being in a tizzy? That's, interesting.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#34 Nov 22 2011 at 10:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm sure there's select Democratic congresscritters who are upset about defense cuts due to situations in their specific district. Just like there's Republican critters who'll praise a stimulus-funded train station being built in their district as the best thing since sliced bread. But if you think the level of hand-wringing on both sides is anything near parity, you need to get the lead levels in your house checked.

Gbaji's "they're all upset but it's secret upset!" bit is him trying to make himself feel better about the resolution thus far. Saying that the Democrats are just as worried makes it sound less like the Republicans just got rolled.

Edited, Nov 22nd 2011 10:17am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#35varusword75, Posted: Nov 22 2011 at 10:53 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Kao,
#36 Nov 22 2011 at 10:54 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
Was wondering when the stupid would pipe up.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#37 Nov 22 2011 at 10:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
The GOP should absolutely refuse to work with these scoundrels.

They did. Enjoy the defense cuts Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#38 Nov 22 2011 at 11:02 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,008 posts
In other news, Glenn Beck yesterday announced that he thinks Obama will win the election. If you're one of his millions of listeners/viewers and happen to care what he thinks.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#39 Nov 22 2011 at 11:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,004 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Of course this could lead to violent revolution, just like what's going on in greece. That's what happens when you create a society where 10's of millions of citizens rely on others for their very basic needs of food and shelter.


So if they make ya'll mad enough you'll start acting like liberals? Smiley: dubious
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#40 Nov 22 2011 at 3:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Gbaji's "they're all upset but it's secret upset!" bit is him trying to make himself feel better about the resolution thus far. Saying that the Democrats are just as worried makes it sound less like the Republicans just got rolled.


You do realize that rank and file Republicans are far more willing to allow the programmed cuts to take effect than rank and file Democrats, right? The hand wringing and tizzies and whatnot are what the media spin is focusing on. The Dem politicians and their pundits are sitting quietly hoping that all the media focus on the military cuts and how much the GOP wont want them will build ground for some way around the cuts themselves. You have to know that it would be far more of a disaster for them if the programmed cuts go through.

Conservatives want cuts. If those cuts also hit the military, that sucks, but we'll take it. Getting equal cuts in domestic spending is a huge bonus as well. The charade playing out in Washington is not the same as what families are sitting around their kitchen tables talking about. I guarantee you that nearly every conservative is weighing tax increases versus the programmed cuts and will happily accept the latter. It'd be nice to find a way to cut spending in ways that don't impact the military as much, but cutting spending is better than raising taxes.


It's the left who is deathly afraid of these cuts.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#41 Nov 22 2011 at 3:43 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
gbaji wrote:
Conservatives want cuts.

Theoretically possible.

gbaji wrote:
If those cuts also hit the military, that sucks, but we'll take it.

Smiley: lolSmiley: laughSmiley: lol
Smiley: laughSmiley: lolSmiley: laugh
Smiley: lolSmiley: laughSmiley: lol


Edited, Nov 22nd 2011 3:43pm by Majivo
#42 Nov 22 2011 at 3:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
You do realize that...

I love it when you say it. It's a guarantee that you're getting ready to spin big time.

Have anything to back up these assertions beyond you insisting that it must be true? I love the "Oh, the media says..." bit which is Gbaji-code for "I'm just saying what I desperately wish was true and any information to the contrary will be dismissed as left wing media propaganda".

Shades of the threads regarding the deficit deal which led to this committee in the first place. Which I accurately predicted would, if failed, lead to the GOP getting more hysterical than the Democrats Smiley: smile

Quote:
It's the left who is deathly afraid of these cuts

I guess that explains why I'm laughing at you right now.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#43 Nov 22 2011 at 3:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,008 posts
gbaji wrote:
If those cuts also hit the military, that sucks, but we'll take it. we'll throw a tizzy and fight them every step of the way.

Smiley: nod
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#44 Nov 22 2011 at 6:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Shades of the threads regarding the deficit deal which led to this committee in the first place. Which I accurately predicted would, if failed, lead to the GOP getting more hysterical than the Democrats Smiley: smile


Which is funny since I haven't seen a whole lot of hysteria among the GOP. What I have seen is a whole lot of liberal pundits jumping up and down and talking about how angry the GOP must be about all of this. Cart leading the horse, right? It's nice to see that you march to the steady beat of liberal assumptions though!

I guess what's so strange about your need to paint this the way you do is that clearly the GOP cares more about not raising taxes than preventing those cuts (both to the military and domestic spending). So it's hard to take your "hysterical" comments seriously, doubly so when I see nothing remotely close to that among my fellow conservatives, or pundits, or politicians. The overwhelming reaction is disappointment that they couldn't come up with more specific cuts to cover the 1.5T, but happiness that our representatives didn't cave and give up tax increases. We'd rather have 1.2T in spending cuts than 1.5T in "deficit reduction" which includes tax increases.


I doubt that's the outcome the Democrats wanted though.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#45 Nov 22 2011 at 6:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Which is funny since I haven't seen a whole lot of hysteria among the GOP.

But then, you're not getting your news from anywhere.

Quote:
I doubt that's the outcome the Democrats wanted though.

After "increase revenue", "force defense to absorb half the hits while shielding entitlements from cuts" was exactly what the Democrats wanted.

Donate enough times to the "right" people and you'll find yourself on every activist e-mail list known to man. Just for giggles, here's a sample letter received today detailing just how upset the Left is about this. Not the rank and file Democrats but the people who care enough to send me newsletters about it...
Quote:
After the Obama administration caved on the Bush tax cuts, and then on the debt ceiling negotiations when Republicans proved that they were all too willing to drive our economy over a cliff in order to advance their radical agenda, it seemed unlikely that Democrats would be able to make a stand on the Super Committee and protect our nation's safety net.

But thankfully, the Democrats didn't play to type. Yesterday, it was announced that Democrats stood up to Republicans in the end and prevented a bad deal on the deficit. As a result of this deadlock, less destructive but still painful cuts to social programs will be triggered along with much needed cuts to defense spending — all to happen in early 2013 when one hopes the economy is stronger.
[...]
The Super Committee saga could have resulted in unprecedented cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. But in the end, Democrats stood united, and refused to cave to Republican intransigence on their demands for massive cuts coupled with permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts. Unlike in past stand offs, Democrats didn't react to Republican intransigence with ever worse compromises.[...]And while Democrats flirted with these cuts, even putting them on the table in their attempts to negotiate, at the end of the day they refused to bend to Republicans' extreme intransigence on the budget.

No hand wringing. No demands that we petition Congress to block these cuts. No claims that these cuts will weaken the nation and all that jazz. Just a congratulatory message (and later a link to sign some thank you letter).

Edited, Nov 22nd 2011 10:08pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 44 All times are in CST
Omegavegeta, Samira, Shojindo, Anonymous Guests (41)