Politics As Usual

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You (and I mean all of you) that don't think we couldn't easily cut 4% of a $10 trillion budget are out of your minds.

Oh. My. God.

Please do some basic research before engaging in a discussion like this.

Start with the actual amount of the budget.

Next steps would be to address the portions of the budget that won't affect the current deficit regardless of how much they are cut. We've been over the SS trust fund issue enough that maybe even you are having a glimmer of understanding.

Finally -- this may be too much for you -- figure out what portions of the budget are absolutely untouchable. Interest payments on the Reagan/Bush debt are the biggie. But you've been pretty clear that you would not cut military spending -- hell, you probably want to double, because doubling military spending while cutting taxes and eliminating the deficit is the core of faith-based Republicanism.

Now consider what percentage you need to cut from the remainder. I'm sure that you think you have the political will to do that, but that probably explains why you don't hold an office anywhere.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I know. I got budgeted numbers confused with the size of the economy.

That was just a little whoopsie that didn't affect your core argument, I'm sure.


Fuck, did you see the size of that bug?

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm kinda tired of the concept that this macho bullshit cuts only one way, politically. They were all fully of this shit right up to the point when Bush (wisely) backed down and decided not to make the rubble bounce in Fallujah. Then, silence. If they really believed this crap, you'd think they would say that Bush is a pansy for backing off, but the silence tells you that it was just a line. Meanwhile, conservatives are lining up to piss on John Kerry, who actually risked his life in Vietnam, to help re-elect Bush, who spent the war in Texas and Alabama in a cushy gig where he could campaign for GOP senatorial candidates.

There is no doubt that Bush & co. made a mistake in Fallujah, and you thinking it was a wise move is silly. Its just one more in a series of mistakes they've been making since the beginning, and it all ties in to elections etc.

Let them choose their leaders, tell them we'll back off, and back off. But the first time there's widespread trouble in a town (hundreds mutilating American bodies), go in heavy. We've seen the same pattern time after time in the same places.

Its part and parcel why the military rank and file is likely to sit out the next election. They've been set up and clay pigeons by an indecisive, disorganized and unprepared administration. The admin wants them to stand there, but it doesn't want them to react to problems.

Time magazine this week has a story of a reporter going through there and encountering numerous foreign fighters, ex-Saddam types etc etc etc. At first, I thought the Fallujah brigade was a serious effort, but reports since the marines backed off indicate that nothing has changed.

You want to see a peaceful Fallujah? Go back in time 2 months, let all the women and children leave, and invite all the men back. Granted, it wasn't the best timing, what with the Sadr thing going on, but its as good as you'll get.

As others here have indicated (including me), one of the benefits of being in Iraq is that it draws militant muslims from everywhere towards targets (American soldiers) that can actually shoot back. The problem is, a micromeddling group of pentagon civilians has done their utmost to make sure they do not. Which is exactly why we hear the same stories from the same places on a daily basis. You think the marines wanted to leave Falluhah?

Nope, that was your cocaine-snorting leader and his neo-con bodies that bowed to pressure and allowed that to happen.

Hello

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm kinda tired of the concept that this macho bullshit cuts only one way, politically. They were all fully of this shit right up to the point when Bush (wisely) backed down and decided not to make the rubble bounce in Fallujah. Then, silence. If they really believed this crap, you'd think they would say that Bush is a pansy for backing off, but the silence tells you that it was just a line. Meanwhile, conservatives are lining up to piss on John Kerry, who actually risked his life in Vietnam, to help re-elect Bush, who spent the war in Texas and Alabama in a cushy gig where he could campaign for GOP senatorial candidates.

Wow. We've come full circle.

Bush's national guard "service" is the double-anal of this board.


(Aside to Ty -- you know I agree with you, except the part about Bush actually doing the gig.)

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch



Fuck, did you see the size of that bug?

Hey, Sidd, it's the next morning. Piling on really ought to stop at midnight.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Hey, Sidd, it's the next morning. Piling on really ought to stop at midnight.

I have the continuing-hangover exemption. Why do people tempt me with alcohol on a work-night?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm kinda tired of the concept that this macho bullshit cuts only one way, politically. They were all fully of this shit right up to the point when Bush (wisely) backed down and decided not to make the rubble bounce in Fallujah. Then, silence. If they really believed this crap, you'd think they would say that Bush is a pansy for backing off, but the silence tells you that it was just a line. Meanwhile, conservatives are lining up to piss on John Kerry, who actually risked his life in Vietnam, to help re-elect Bush, who spent the war in Texas and Alabama in a cushy gig where he could campaign for GOP senatorial candidates.

1 John Kerry, as President, won't actually fight. So, who is personally braver isn't really that big an issue. Maybe you could say his time in combat gives him some insights that would be valuable in making decisions re. the troops, but frankly that level of decision is probably below the Preident.

2 John Kerry's Vietnam service doesn't seem like it was actually driven by a sense of duty. Rather, he seems to have had political ambitions early on and deemed service in Vietnam a prerequisite. Turns out he was wrong. Bubba Ho-take blew that one up. One could make the argument that Billy and W were more honest with themselves, and thus more likely to be honest in making decisions now (of course with Bill there'd be a good deal of CF).

3 What is important to me is that the President make decisions based opon what should happen and stick to those decisons. I don't trust JFK to do so. Going into Iraq was a brave ass decision, you might argue a wrong decision, but to put so much on a decision was brave of W. I don't trust JFK to be "brave" this way.

4 Falu(?) can be handled by being isolated, can't it? Over time, might not that be the better decision than killing tons of people good/bad now?

5 If aliens invade, like in Independance Day, then who is braver for battle matters. Maybe then we'd be better with JFK, but remember W is the fighter pilot.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Oh. My. God.

Please do some basic research before engaging in a discussion like this.

Start with the actual amount of the budget.

Next steps would be to address the portions of the budget that won't affect the current deficit regardless of how much they are cut. We've been over the SS trust fund issue enough that maybe even you are having a glimmer of understanding.

Finally -- this may be too much for you -- figure out what portions of the budget are absolutely untouchable. Interest payments on the Reagan/Bush debt are the biggie. But you've been pretty clear that you would not cut military spending -- hell, you probably want to double, because doubling military spending while cutting taxes and eliminating the deficit is the core of faith-based Republicanism.

Now consider what percentage you need to cut from the remainder. I'm sure that you think you have the political will to do that, but that probably explains why you don't hold an office anywhere.

Just when we were having a decent back and forth Sidd, you had to revert back to the old Sidd. It's a shame, but I understand. Makes your fragile ego feel better.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Hey, Sidd, it's the next morning. Piling on really ought to stop at midnight.

Let's be clear. I still stand by my assertion that we could make the cuts and not be any worse for it. I've been fuzzy on the details, for sure, but give me some time.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Let's be clear. I still stand by my assertion that we could make the cuts and not be any worse for it. I've been fuzzy on the details, for sure, but give me some time.

I'll give you some more time, but operating on 4% cuts ($400B of $10T) is a lot easier than 20% cuts ($400B of $2T).

If Congress doesn't hold the line on expenditures, and the tax revenues keeping declining because of cuts, there's no way to solve the problem. Both hard choices have to be made, and neither has been.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Just when we were having a decent back and forth Sidd, you had to revert back to the old Sidd. It's a shame, but I understand. Makes your fragile ego feel better.

It's hardly a decent back-and-forth when you say that everyone who disagrees with you is insane.... and reveal in the process that you lack even a minimal understanding of the fed budget -- you don't know what the SS trust fund is, you overestimate the size by an order of magnitude, etc.

I was merely suggesting that you learn some basics before getting on your soapbox on this subject. And I think you should add to the basics I pointed out this: How much more will gov't revenue decline in the next five years due to Bush tax cuts? Regardless of whether you think the cuts are good or bad, you have to take that into account when talking about balancing the budget. I suspect you're gonna need to make your $400BB in cuts just to maintain the current deficit at status quo.


[cue fantasy line about how the cuts pay for themselves by boosting the economy, and let's all pretend that recent job gains have absolutely nothing to do with 1% interest rates or infusion of gov't deficit spending into the economy]

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'll give you some more time, but operating on 4% cuts ($400B of $10T) is a lot easier than 20% cuts ($400B of $2T).

If Congress doesn't hold the line on expenditures, and the tax revenues keeping declining because of cuts, there's no way to solve the problem. Both hard choices have to be made, and neither has been.

Agreed on all counts except revenues. While I don't hold the view that the tax cuts will pay for themselves completely, the revenue projections have already been adjusted upward from the projections.

efs

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
While I don't hold the view that the tax cuts will pay for themselves completely, the revenue projections have already been adjusted upward from the projections.

Are those revised projections based on a causal relationship between the tax cuts and growth? Or simply that the outlook for growth has gotten better.

Hi Rosy!

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Agreed on all counts except revenues. While I don't hold the view that the tax cuts will pay for themselves completely, the revenue projections have already been adjusted upward from the projections.

efs

Not making interest payments on the national debt will get you there. I would also suggest cutting the salaries of judicial clerks.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Are those revised projections based on a causal relationship between the tax cuts and growth? Or simply that the outlook for growth has gotten better.

Hi Rosy!

Does it matter for this purpose?