WSB Forum » Politics

(17 posts)

Interesting how things get spun in these days.


  1. Listen to The administration about the sequestration these days. Now read what Bob Woodword has to say about this. No wonder we can't get anything don in Washington DC

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bob-woodward-obamas-sequester-deal-changer/2013/02/22/c0b65b5e-7ce1-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_print.html

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  2. Genesee Hill
    Member Profile

    Genesee Hill

    Perhaps a good chance to right-size the U.S. military. We will see. Feel the pain, Doc Hastings and Cathy McMorris-Rogers. Or whatever your 'baggin names are. Feel the pain.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  3. Genesee, what do you mean? Seems you believe the military should be a different size than it is now; how does one know what size is right?

    And what's the issue with those two... 'bags? Of 535 congresspeople, a dozen of which are from Washington, why single out those two?

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  4. It's a good thing our own Norman Dicks wasn't around to see this bloodbath. During his 36-year-long stint in Congress, Dicks was one of the biggest military appropriations guys there, always bringing home the bacon for his heavily militarized home district.

    Don't get me wrong though. Military spending under Dicks isn't bad . . . because he's a Democrat.

    In other words, one of the good guys.

    Look! The City of Bremerton even named a new building for him, out of gratitude for his "services."

    Behold: The Norm Dicks Government Center

    Photo: City of Bremerton

    $25 million, six story, 100,000 SF, office building and parking garage. Primary tenants include local, state and federal agencies, including office of Congressman Norm Dicks . . .

    http://www.ci.bremerton.wa.us/display.php?id=581

    Rah-Rah! Sis-boom-BAH!

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  5. wakeflood
    Member Profile

    wakeflood

    Not that it should matter to anyone who cares about this issue but Woodward's been talking out of both sides of his a$$ on the "whose idea was this whole thing, anyway??" deal.

    I'd post links to his quotes going back to the initial sequester propossal vs. current but really, it's useless he said, he said.

    What's important is that they actually find meaningful cuts to defense over the coming years, and raise revenue on the backs of the very wealthy. I wouldn't object as much if their $ were doing anything productive in society but they demonstrably AREN'T and haven't been. Where's the family wage jobs, job-creators?? Oh yeah, we stopped calling them that. It's nice that you've made the next 12 generations of your relatives filthy rich and bought Congress with the change that fell out of your couch, but how about churning 15% of that back into the country you played to get it? Or is that asking too much??

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  6. wakeflood
    Member Profile

    wakeflood

    And for those who are interested, here's a breakdown of how the sequester will affect this state. Likely we're less impacted than some/many? but as usual, the cuts are to those who can least make do without.

    Things like millions of meals for hungry low-income seniors. And lots of cuts to early education, other safety net things.

    And for those of you who enjoy this type of "austerity", you might be interested in the reduction of small business loans and guarantees. You know, job creators. As well as furloughing 29,000 civilian defense contractors immediately.

    And the hits just keep onnnnnn comin!

    Here's the link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/sequester-factsheets/Washington.pdf

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  7. wakeflood
    Member Profile

    wakeflood

    Sure am glad to see that it looks very likely that the billions of dollars of infrastructure improvements are being fast-tracked through as hoped!

    Wait...sorry...that got silently filibustered months ago and never given an up or down vote.

    Oops, my bad.

    Enjoy your second-tier country, you lovers of austerity. You champions of trickle-down. You promoters of upward wealth transfer.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  8. wake, don't believe the hype.

    When they set this deal up, both sides knew exactly what they were doing. Trust me: they were both winking and nodding furiously at each other the whole time.

    I gotta give 'em credit, actually. It was a brilliant way to push through needed cuts without taking any blame.

    For future reference, here's how it's done:

    Step 1: Schedule automatic cuts, but make it so those cuts don't take place until several months AFTER you ink the deal, and make them contingent on both parties failing to make a deal on cuts beforehand. [wink]

    Step 2: Continue posturing and failing to reach an agreement until the clock runs out. [wink-wink]

    Step 3: When the cuts happen, blame the other guy. [wink-nod-wink]

    ************************

    Although I feel bad for them, low-income people will survive this — with help from the rest of us.

    Maybe this could even be a good thing, in the sense that it might encourage communities to start coming back together. As a nation, we've really lost our sense of community in the past 30 years or so, and I miss that.

    In any case, I think it's clear that the days of Americans looking to government to provide all those things that were once provided by families and communities are over.

    Remember: It takes a village.

    Not a government. A village.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  9. wakeflood
    Member Profile

    wakeflood

    The simple fact of the matter is, that the GOP signed on to the cuts they never wanted FULLY expecting Romney to be sitting in the WH as we speak.

    They would have swept away the cuts to defense, hacked the guts out of entitlements, given away more corporate and wealthy tax breaks and the deficit would be GROWING for decades. The Ryan plan on steroids.

    And if you think that's crazy, you didn't ready Ryan's plan and you're in denial about what the GOP does to spending when they're in power.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  10. In case you haven't noticed, both parties have been lavishing gifts on their constituencies for decades, without any thought to how it'll be paid back.

    There's a lot of crossover there, too. Repubs spend a lot on entitlements for their consituencies (the elderly) and Dems spend a lot on military contracts for theirs (Blue-state military bases).

    Hey! Have you seen the sexy new Norm Dicks Government Center? It's conveniently located near Bangor Submarine Base, Naval Station Everett, and the Puget Sound Naval Shipyards.

    Pretty swell, huh? You betcha!

    Go get 'em, Tiger . . .

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlSQAZEp3PA

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  11. Government contractors in the Intel area are already being laid off due to ending the wars overseas. Part of the DOD defense spending is already being reduced by 40 Billion in this area. (It grew during the Iraq and Afghan wars). This was under Gates and Obama. Just an FYI. But you may have heard that the sequestor is causing it, which is not true.

    From what I gather the sequestor will not be baseline cuts. Rather each department was expecting an 8% increase but they will only get a 5% increase. So to them, that is a cut. A 3% cut. I don't know if those are the numbers but it is the game they play with numbers.

    In 2013 these departments are not going to get the regular increase. It will be smaller. But it will still be an increase.

    The Federal Government with the sequester in place will still spend more in 2013 than in 2012.

    This is not Austerity. This is a grain of wheat in a pile of wheat.

    The federal government wastes more than what the sequester takes out.

    That is not to say it isn't going to affect some people. But this doom and gloom line is politics as usual.

    What the sequestor does is take money from every departments budget and cuts an equal percentage from all of those budgets. It does not allow money from, say a travel budget to be moved to a payroll budget, so that the travel budget takes the brunt of the cuts while leaving the payroll budget in a better position.

    44 Billion will not be spent in a 3.7 Trillion budget of 2013 (Hey, Reid, when ya gonna pass a real budget!!!!). This is not a large amount of money comparatively. Now, I wish I had 44 Billion myself.

    Each department is still getting a budgetary increase, just not as much as they expect and it is across the board. A better approach would have been to take the cuts from more non essential budgets.

    We can't gripe really. We elected these guys. One crisis to another.

    My prediction. Recession in late summer. I hope I am wrong

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  12. yep, it will affect some people...but that's OK as long as it's not affecting you? Totally fed up with the inaction of congress, specifically the Republican House....what a waste of money they are.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  13. We're talking $22 billion here. It's not as though we're not gonna spend anything. If the sequester happens, the first year is $44 billion. Half of that's defense. We're still going to spend $3.5 trillion or $3.3 trillion MORE THAN LAST YEAR , even if we don't spend the $22 billion. In perspective:
    A million seconds is 13 days.
    A billion seconds is 31 years.
    A trillion seconds is 31,688 years

    $0.00 will be cut. nada, zip. Yet the sheep portend gloom and compare this to Hitler? Amusing.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  14. I didn't compare it to Hitler - please tell where that was in this thread...that's disgusting for anyone to do. However, I don't think "nothing will happen", either. Rose colored glasses? As a senior citizen on Medicare and Medicaid, let me be the judge when it happens.

    Did you notice that none of this will effect Congress in any way?

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  15. JanS You may be mad at the Republican house but on five separate occasions they have tried to over rule or change the sequester "rules" Back then, when he voted for this Obama said he would veto any changes to the sequester. The Senate would not act.

    I know you favor the Democrats, but the Senate is not bringing votes to the floor. I am irritated at certain Republicans and Democrats too.

    The house is passing legislation. It is not lefty friendly but if some of this stuff was ssssoooooo important, the Dems should have passed it in 2009 and 2010 when they had the votes.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  16. Regarding Congress. Isn't it amazing how nothing affects them personally? What a bunch of overpaid hooligans. I wish they were accountable for spending our dollars. I love legislation that would ding them if they didn't balance the budget. One can hope.

    Lets leave Adolf out of this Tesla if you don't mind. The numbers are getting out. People are getting tired of the newest budgetary problem. And lo and behold. Bob Woodward, Politico and some of the others are actually reporting the news and not being cheerleaders for Jay Carney and his circus press performers.

    Although the President and his propogandists are trying to make this doom and gloom, only 1 in 4 Americans is even aware of it. Unlike the fiscal cliff where 70% were concerned.

    Posted 1 year ago #         
  17. Rich, I think the public is so fed up that they have stopped paying attention. Instead, it's "Whatever!"

    I am fed up with all of them, basically. They are yelling about Obama not doing this or not doing that, yet they don't bring up that they just took time off and weren't even in DC.

    Maybe we should tie their salaries to getting things done.

    Posted 1 year ago #         

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.

All contents copyright 2014, A Drink of Water and a Story Interactive. Here's how to contact us.
Header image by Nick Adams. ABSOLUTELY NO WSB PHOTO REUSE WITHOUT SITE OWNERS' PERMISSION.
Entries and comments feeds. ^Top^