Who'll Stop the Rain?

nodoginnafight

No Party Affiliation
Dec 15, 2008
11,755
1,070
175
Georgia
Who is committed to spending cuts?

Democrats say spending cuts legislation can't be linked. I get that - it holds people hostage. But in defeating an amendment to Sandy relief that would reguire a coresponding $50 billion cut in discretionary spending Republican Hal Rogers of Kentucky didn't say the cuts are needed but shouldn't be linked. He said:

"This is a true emergency. This is a true catastrophe and to offset the size that they're talking about would devastate the regular agencies. It's just too big to handle except through an emergency process."

If I read the budget correctly there is a total of about $1.5 trillion in discretionary spending. And cuting $60 billion "would devastate the regular agencies"???

The idea that $60 billion in cuts is "devastating" does not bode well for our ability to make real spending cuts.

Just MHO - but what am I missing here?
 
Who is committed to spending cuts?

Democrats say spending cuts legislation can't be linked. I get that - it holds people hostage. But in defeating an amendment to Sandy relief that would reguire a coresponding $50 billion cut in discretionary spending Republican Hal Rogers of Kentucky didn't say the cuts are needed but shouldn't be linked. He said:

"This is a true emergency. This is a true catastrophe and to offset the size that they're talking about would devastate the regular agencies. It's just too big to handle except through an emergency process."

If I read the budget correctly there is a total of about $1.5 trillion in discretionary spending. And cuting $60 billion "would devastate the regular agencies"???

The idea that $60 billion in cuts is "devastating" does not bode well for our ability to make real spending cuts.

Just MHO - but what am I missing here?

You are part of the problem if you think spending cuts cannot be 'linked.'
 
I think Sniper meant "you" in a general (not personal) sense. But regarding the larger issue, we seem to be doomed when over half of our population is unable to balance a checkbook, much less comprehend issues like federal spending and the national debt.
 
woodie and snippy...together.....to known budgetary experts.

SO what do you all want to cut? Specifically? And how much?

Seems like the rethugs in Congress can't quite come up with that info. So how about you guys? Cause it sure is hard to debate what and how much to cut if no one puts their wish list out there. Dems say no cuts, rethugs say nothing. Where is the middle ground?
 
I think Sniper meant "you" in a general (not personal) sense. But regarding the larger issue, we seem to be doomed when over half of our population is unable to balance a checkbook, much less comprehend issues like federal spending and the national debt.

sniper stalks me on these boards like a jilted hairdresser, flinging personal insults and vulgarities. I know what he/she meant.

But no one seems serious about spending cuts. Neither party has shown any fiscal responsibility and neither has any real fiscal credibility imho. I also deduct points from the GOP for hypocrisy.

But zero to -1 isn't really a victory now is it?
 
Who is committed to spending cuts?

Democrats say spending cuts legislation can't be linked. I get that - it holds people hostage. But in defeating an amendment to Sandy relief that would reguire a coresponding $50 billion cut in discretionary spending Republican Hal Rogers of Kentucky didn't say the cuts are needed but shouldn't be linked. He said:

"This is a true emergency. This is a true catastrophe and to offset the size that they're talking about would devastate the regular agencies. It's just too big to handle except through an emergency process."

If I read the budget correctly there is a total of about $1.5 trillion in discretionary spending. And cuting $60 billion "would devastate the regular agencies"???

The idea that $60 billion in cuts is "devastating" does not bode well for our ability to make real spending cuts.

Just MHO - but what am I missing here?

Don't forget that "spending cut" in politi-speak mean smaller increases in spending not decreases.
 
Who is committed to spending cuts?

Democrats say spending cuts legislation can't be linked. I get that - it holds people hostage. But in defeating an amendment to Sandy relief that would reguire a coresponding $50 billion cut in discretionary spending Republican Hal Rogers of Kentucky didn't say the cuts are needed but shouldn't be linked. He said:

"This is a true emergency. This is a true catastrophe and to offset the size that they're talking about would devastate the regular agencies. It's just too big to handle except through an emergency process."

If I read the budget correctly there is a total of about $1.5 trillion in discretionary spending. And cuting $60 billion "would devastate the regular agencies"???

The idea that $60 billion in cuts is "devastating" does not bode well for our ability to make real spending cuts.

Just MHO - but what am I missing here?

Don't forget that "spending cut" in politi-speak mean smaller increases in spending not decreases.

if the overall result is spending at a level that is equal to or less than our revenue, I couldn't care less about the semantics or the spin.
 
Who is committed to spending cuts?

Democrats say spending cuts legislation can't be linked. I get that - it holds people hostage. But in defeating an amendment to Sandy relief that would reguire a coresponding $50 billion cut in discretionary spending Republican Hal Rogers of Kentucky didn't say the cuts are needed but shouldn't be linked. He said:

"This is a true emergency. This is a true catastrophe and to offset the size that they're talking about would devastate the regular agencies. It's just too big to handle except through an emergency process."

If I read the budget correctly there is a total of about $1.5 trillion in discretionary spending. And cuting $60 billion "would devastate the regular agencies"???

The idea that $60 billion in cuts is "devastating" does not bode well for our ability to make real spending cuts.

Just MHO - but what am I missing here?

Defense falls under discretionary spending. Defense makes up a majority of discretionary spending. So any cut in discretionary spending implies cuts in defense spending.

Since our post-9/11 defense spending is at levels not seen since World War II, you would think cutting defense spending since we are not in a world war would be one of the most common sense things in the Universe. After all, we are spending way above what we spent during the nuclear arms race and Vietnam and Korea, and it is inarguable that during the Cold War we had a greater existential threat than we do today. But still, we are spending way, way above that period. Even after adjusting for inflation, we are spending more than twice what we spent at the post-WWII peak.

So why are defense cuts not even on the table? I've been asking this for a while.

Then it hit me why yesterday.

Remember after 9/11 how the liberals went on for years and years and years about Bush ignoring the warning signs and how he allegedly just let 9/11 happen through his complete lack of vigilance?

Yeah. That's why.

Another terror attack on America is inevitable. We all know this in our bones.

So would you want to be the President who cut our defense spending, a HUMONGOUS portion of which is spent on the massive intelligence community that was built post-9/11, and be that guy when the next terror attack happens?

Who will be the scapegoat?

Yeah. The defense budget cutters. That's who.

Since 9/11, our secret society of intelligence gathering has exploded to the point it is approaching the size of our active duty military. I kid you not. We're talking about close to a million people. And much of that intelligence gathering is done by corporations. Privately owned and operated profit-driven businesses.

If you want a symbolic representation of this massive growth, ponder the Pentagon. Built during WWII, it is the largest office building on the planet.

Until now. It is matched by the new Department of Homeland Security building in DC, which is only one of many thousands of structures built for our giant intelligence complex.

So...yeah.
 
Last edited:
The overall DHS headquarters consolidation is the largest current construction project in the US and the largest federal project since construction of the Pentagon. All phases of the construction program, estimated to be US$3 billion to US$4 billion, are scheduled for completion during 2016.

US Department of Homeland Security Headquarters - Phase 1 | Tishman Construction

2ue6us8.jpg
 
Why can't the Republicans just get to the job of negotiating the federal budget without using some other issue as blackmail?

They've used everything they can find to create brinksmanship and crisis as a way to avoid negotiating the budget.

It really looks like they do not want to cut spending and they do not want a balanced budget - they just want these continued political battles.
 
Who is committed to spending cuts?

Democrats say spending cuts legislation can't be linked. I get that - it holds people hostage. But in defeating an amendment to Sandy relief that would reguire a coresponding $50 billion cut in discretionary spending Republican Hal Rogers of Kentucky didn't say the cuts are needed but shouldn't be linked. He said:

"This is a true emergency. This is a true catastrophe and to offset the size that they're talking about would devastate the regular agencies. It's just too big to handle except through an emergency process."

If I read the budget correctly there is a total of about $1.5 trillion in discretionary spending. And cuting $60 billion "would devastate the regular agencies"???

The idea that $60 billion in cuts is "devastating" does not bode well for our ability to make real spending cuts.

Just MHO - but what am I missing here?

Defense falls under discretionary spending. Defense makes up a majority of discretionary spending. So any cut in discretionary spending implies cuts in defense spending.

Since our post-9/11 defense spending is at levels not seen since World War II, you would think cutting defense spending since we are not in a world war would be one of the most common sense things in the Universe. After all, we are spending way above what we spent during the nuclear arms race and Vietnam and Korea, and it is inarguable that during the Cold War we had a greater existential threat than we do today. But still, we are spending way, way above that period. Even after adjusting for inflation, we are spending more than twice what we spent at the post-WWII peak.

So why are defense cuts not even on the table? I've been asking this for a while.

Then it hit me why yesterday.

Remember after 9/11 how the liberals went on for years and years and years about Bush ignoring the warning signs and how he allegedly just let 9/11 happen through his complete lack of vigilance?

Yeah. That's why.

Another terror attack on America is inevitable. We all know this in our bones.

So would you want to be the President who cut our defense spending, a HUMONGOUS portion of which is spent on the massive intelligence community that was built post-9/11, and be that guy when the next terror attack happens?

Who will be the scapegoat?

Yeah. The defense budget cutters. That's who.

Since 9/11, our secret society of intelligence gathering has exploded to the point it is approaching the size of our active duty military. I kid you not. We're talking about close to a million people. And much of that intelligence gathering is done by corporations. Privately owned and operated profit-driven businesses.

If you want a symbolic representation of this massive growth, ponder the Pentagon. Built during WWII, it was the largest office building on the planet at the time, and still is the largest office building in Washington, DC.

Until now. It is matched by the new Department of Homeland Security building, which is only one of many thousands of structures built for our giant intelligence complex.

So...yeah.

I could go the whole two-wrongs-don't-make-a-right route. Blaming Bush for 911 is as idiotic as blaming Obama for Sandy Hook Elementary School. We cannot spend enough or regulate enough to guarantee our safety against an attacker who is ready to die and eager to take out as many others as he/she can on the way out.

And certainly people don't have that much difficulty in understanding that there is just as much waste and corruption in defense spending as there is anywhere else in government.

I cannot give in to the cynical ... yet. I have to think that someone is ready to lead on this issue and someone is ready and willing to make the case to the American people.
 
Why can't the Republicans just get to the job of negotiating the federal budget without using some other issue as blackmail?

They've used everything they can find to create brinksmanship and crisis as a way to avoid negotiating the budget.

It really looks like they do not want to cut spending and they do not want a balanced budget - they just want these continued political battles.

I think BOTH sides think they just point fingers and blame the other side. To them, it's not a battle to balance the budget, it's a PR battle to make sure the other guys get more blame than they do.
 
I could go the whole two-wrongs-don't-make-a-right route. Blaming Bush for 911 is as idiotic as blaming Obama for Sandy Hook Elementary School. We cannot spend enough or regulate enough to guarantee our safety against an attacker who is ready to die and eager to take out as many others as he/she can on the way out.

And certainly people don't have that much difficulty in understanding that there is just as much waste and corruption in defense spending as there is anywhere else in government.

I cannot give in to the cynical ... yet. I have to think that someone is ready to lead on this issue and someone is ready and willing to make the case to the American people.

I am not blaming Bush for 9/11. I am saying perception is reality. No President wants to be blamed for the next 9/11, an event which is as inevitable as the sun rising tomorrow.

Cutting defense would be the driving wedge of the scapegoaters. They would poison the well ahead of time.

This is the state of our political landscape today. Perceptions are all that matter any more, not reality. A simple observance of the complete detachment from reality of the partisans these days is all the hard evidence you need.

So Obama is not going to put up a big fight to cut defense. He does not want to be "the one who got all those Americans killed". Just look how the loons have worked so hard to stick that label on him for Benghazi. The ultimate motive behind that whole deal was to protect the MIC.

I wish I could be optimistic that someone will have the courage to stand up and make a stand, but I'm afraid the lunatic fringe is in charge of both camps these days. And every last one of them is too chickenshit to stand out only to be beheaded for being a "RINO" or "America Hater" or whathaveyou.
 
Last edited:
I say stop payment on all of their salaries until both parties come together including the president, and come up with the cuts and balance the budget. Put the money we would've paid them and put it toward the deficiet. It may not be much, but it's a start. Also quit paying them for life, execpt the president. We should take care of them, they know to much.
 
I say stop payment on all of their salaries until both parties come together including the president, and come up with the cuts and balance the budget. Put the money we would've paid them and put it toward the deficiet. It may not be much, but it's a start. Also quit paying them for life, execpt the president. We should take care of them, they know to much.

I can live with all of that.
 
I could go the whole two-wrongs-don't-make-a-right route. Blaming Bush for 911 is as idiotic as blaming Obama for Sandy Hook Elementary School. We cannot spend enough or regulate enough to guarantee our safety against an attacker who is ready to die and eager to take out as many others as he/she can on the way out.

And certainly people don't have that much difficulty in understanding that there is just as much waste and corruption in defense spending as there is anywhere else in government.

I cannot give in to the cynical ... yet. I have to think that someone is ready to lead on this issue and someone is ready and willing to make the case to the American people.

I am not blaming Bush for 9/11. I am saying perception is reality. No President wants to be blamed for the next 9/11, an event which is as inevitable as the sun rising tomorrow.

Cutting defense would be the driving wedge of the scapegoaters. They would poison the well ahead of time.

This is the state of our political landscape today. Perceptions are all that matter any more, not reality. A simple observance of the complete detachment from reality of the partisans these days is all the hard evidence you need.

So Obama is not going to put up a big fight to cut defense. He does not want to be "the one who got all those Americans killed". Just look how the loons have worked so hard to stick that label on him for Benghazi. The ultimate motive behind that whole deal was to protect the MIC.

I wish I could be optimistic that someone will have the courage to stand up and make a stand, but I'm afraid the lunatic fringe is in charge of both camps these days. And every last one of them is too chickenshit to stand out only to be beheaded for being a "RINO" or "America Hater" or whathaveyou.

I knew YOU weren't casting that blame - I was just trying to point out how silly it is for ANYONE to do that.

And I have to believe that more and more Americans are getting sophisticated enough to see through the optics of an issue and accept (even embrace) common sense.
 
I could go the whole two-wrongs-don't-make-a-right route. Blaming Bush for 911 is as idiotic as blaming Obama for Sandy Hook Elementary School. We cannot spend enough or regulate enough to guarantee our safety against an attacker who is ready to die and eager to take out as many others as he/she can on the way out.

And certainly people don't have that much difficulty in understanding that there is just as much waste and corruption in defense spending as there is anywhere else in government.

I cannot give in to the cynical ... yet. I have to think that someone is ready to lead on this issue and someone is ready and willing to make the case to the American people.

I am not blaming Bush for 9/11. I am saying perception is reality. No President wants to be blamed for the next 9/11, an event which is as inevitable as the sun rising tomorrow.

Cutting defense would be the driving wedge of the scapegoaters. They would poison the well ahead of time.

This is the state of our political landscape today. Perceptions are all that matter any more, not reality. A simple observance of the complete detachment from reality of the partisans these days is all the hard evidence you need.

So Obama is not going to put up a big fight to cut defense. He does not want to be "the one who got all those Americans killed". Just look how the loons have worked so hard to stick that label on him for Benghazi. The ultimate motive behind that whole deal was to protect the MIC.

I wish I could be optimistic that someone will have the courage to stand up and make a stand, but I'm afraid the lunatic fringe is in charge of both camps these days. And every last one of them is too chickenshit to stand out only to be beheaded for being a "RINO" or "America Hater" or whathaveyou.

I knew YOU weren't casting that blame - I was just trying to point out how silly it is for ANYONE to do that.

And I have to believe that more and more Americans are getting sophisticated enough to see through the optics of an issue and accept (even embrace) common sense.

Judging by the links and videos which are regularly posted on here from sources widely read and regurgitated by millions of people, and examining and deconstructing the unbelievably retarded and illogical material therein, and listening to the widespread sloganeering generated by such drivel, I am afraid I am no longer optimistic for the forseeable future.

I think we are literally going to have to wait for large numbers of this lost and wasted generation to die off.
 
Last edited:

That's a very interesting video, however it fails to mention increasing revenues as a way to help balance the budget.

It also fails to mention the the Obama administration has been very willing to cut mandatory spending - that the president has wanted a 'Grand Bargain' - a full budget negotiation.

It's the Republicans that refused the Grand bargain that was negotiated last year, and it's the Republicans that have insisted on using blackmail and brinksmanship to avoid negotiating a budget.

The video also fails mention how much of Social Security and Medicare is funded by direct payments into those funds. Those funds are at least partially paid for by the participants. Were those payments included in his revenue numbers? He doesn't say. Technically they aren't revenue.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top