Remember Those Automatic Defense Cuts? Looking Pretty Darned Unlikely!
(h/t Mark Fiore)
Now, you knew they weren't going to allow any more cuts to the military, right? They'll tie themselves in knots to cut anything but. And why the hell are we talking about deficit reduction during a depression, anyway? (Call it a recession if you want, but I don't agree.) So if there's one thing we can count on, it's that any deep cuts will come out of things that benefit people like us, because Democrats are compulsively cooperative with their oppressors:
WASHINGTON — As pessimism mounted this week over the ability of a bipartisan Congressional committee to agree on a deficit-reduction plan, lawmakers began taking steps to head off the large cuts in Pentagon spending that would automatically result from the panel’s failure.
Members of both parties and both chambers said they increasingly feared that the 12-member committee would be unable to bridge deep partisan divisions and find $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction as required under the law that raised the debt ceiling and created the committee in the summer.
As talks sputtered, one panel member publicly lamented that the process was not working, and the group was chastised by a bipartisan group of budget experts (Editor's note: No progressive experts invited, of course!) at a public hearing for failing to show progress. Several members of Congress, especially Republicans on the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, are readying legislation that would undo the automatic across-the-board cuts totaling nearly $500 billion for military programs, or exchange them for cuts in other areas of the federal budget.
Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, has drafted a bill that would replace the military reductions that would occur under a process known in Congress as sequestration with 5 percent cuts to other, unspecified parts of the federal budget, and a 10 percent decrease in pay for members of Congress. In the House, similar measures are being assembled.
i did get a somewhat sarcastic chuckle about the idea that a dept of war budget reduction was going to be the penalty for failing to come up with a way to hurt the economy (deficit reduction). it was a non-threat, something that would never happen. it would be akin to dominique strauss kahn promising to castrate himself if he acted like a oversexed pig again. it. just. will. never. happen.
so in steps lindsey graham, pathetic slug of a person, to propose a swap... any guesses as to what sen graham would cut before the dept of war budget?
correct: everything
The GW Bush Depression.
The only time I will capitalize that fucker's name.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
I prefer to call him GW Botch. He fucked up everything he ever touched.
Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
The right wing installed him to bankrupt the country so the 1% could loot what was left, and damn if he didn't accomplish that in spades.
OOOhh, that'll show 'em...
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
Boot all their asses out of office.
NOBODY 2012
Darth Cheney et.al, to take an across the board cut? And while we are at it, how about asking them to pony up some tax money for the last 10 years of the endless war they are profiting from? HA HA HA HA! OOOOHHHH, almost fell off my chair! I forgot they are no longer an American Co.
Shouldn't there be a provision in defense spending that money for contractors is for AMERICAN contractors? NOT DEFECTORS! DUBAI?!?!?!?!?!?! WTF
It's "funny" how you left out this portion of the article you quoted:
You probably just stopped reading the article before it got to that point. Just how are you different then the Faux Propaganda again?
And it seems as if the debt deal is working too, it's "funny" how you didn't report this story from Huff Po yesterday about Boener agreeing that the debt deal will include new tax revenues:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/04/john...
I guess anything that doesn't fit your narrative doesn't get included, does it?
Oh, and to answer your question as to why we're talking about cuts, the answer is because the members of the frustrati (translation, you) went into full pout mode, convinced people that all was lost and we might as well stay home and gave us a Republican House. Fortunately we have a Democratic President who outsmarted the Republicans.
from the link you provided
so, how is this debt deal working?
Decreasing the overall tax rate AND taking out the loopholes will have the overall effect of decreasing taxes to small businesses that are the prime sources of new jobs and increasing the taxes on huge corporations. No more GE and Exxon paying 0 taxes. And, it will raise revenue by 800 million. Sounds like a win all the way around to me.
the "entitlement" reforms, the flat tax, and the reduction in taxes paid by the wealthy?
is that part of the winning formula?
It will be a tax increase on the wealthy. The wealthy are the ones that are taking advantage of the loopholes. As pointed out a hundred times on this very board, the wealthy corporations aren't paying the taxes, the small LLCs and small businesses are the ones paying.
you kid yourself if you actually believe that loopholes will be closed, that the wealthy won't devise some other devious way to game the system. corporations and the rich will always find ways to skirt the rules that apply to the non-wealthy, it is a simple and sad fact.
the rightwing will dangle the carrot (close the loopholes) and try to fool people in to agreeing to a flat tax in exchange. then, when the smoke clears, new and improved loopholes will come to existence, and we will be screwed with a flat tax.
No to flat tax decades ago. No to flat tax now. Vote republicans into the dust bin of history.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
Did you mean billion perhaps?
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
You are correct. Thank you.
"Without real reform on the entitlement side, I'm not even going to put any new revenue on the table," Boehner said. Entitlement programs include Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
In other words, same old same old. Boner will do zero to increase taxes on those with the greatest ability to pay until the poor and middle-classes cough up more. Even then, don't expect him to deal.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
Yeah, that's what he said about planned parenthood and funding for public television and that's what he said at the LAST meeting. Obama still has a veto pen, and the senior Democratic member of the finance committee said that it wouldn't be successful.
Plus WHY are you defending Susie here? She's obviously pulling out a bullshit interpretation of the article JUST to make the Obama administration look bad. There's no way anyone can possibly read this article with any honesty at all and conclude that the article is saying that abandonment of military cuts is a fait accompli.
If this were a right winger using the same tactics you'd condemn it. But because it's a message you happen to agree with, "What's a little lying among friends? It's for a worthy cause."
If she HAD to put a slant on the article, a FAR fairer title would be: "Republican's getting desperate as the Triggers draw near." That's actually the sum total of what the article is saying. That they don't want the military cuts and they're TRYING to change the rules to stop it. It's a desperate ploy that won't work. But Susie, as usual, has the worst possible spin just to make Obama look bad. She has an agenda, and it's NOT to the truth..
"Plus WHY are you defending Susie here? She's obviously pulling out a bullshit interpretation of the article JUST to make the Obama administration look bad. There's no way anyone can possibly read this article with any honesty at all and conclude that the article is saying that abandonment of military cuts is a fait accompli."
ricky, is that you posting under an alias?
If I were a psychopath, I would join the republican party, and get in on the gravy train taking the Teabircher morons to the cleaners.
Can you read that article and tell me with ANY honesty that the article says anything about the cuts being unlikely? The article says that the Republicans are TRYING to prevent them, THAT'S ALL.
The fact is that she knows damn well that the majority of people don't bother reading the articles she links to, in fact most don't bother reading past the first few paragraphs. She deliberately used that fact to paint a false picture. She was lying. She was lying by omission, She was lying by fact. But she was still lying. Defend her all you want, but unless if you can read that overall article and make it say something different, the truth is she lied.
I never read Susie's articles until ricky makes corrections and gives us the facts.
I just wanted to know if he changed avitars and was sporting an alias?
If I were a psychopath, I would join the republican party, and get in on the gravy train taking the Teabircher morons to the cleaners.
taxpayer insured FDIC accounts, just like Bank of America, according to Susie.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
But I do think that "insipid" is a perfect handle for him.
"Whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, the Republicans are not the least bit interested in solving it. They are interested in two things, and two things only: making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it."
I prefer to point out truly stupid things; like Susie posting that the estimates of unreported deaths from liposuction exceed the number of deaths from car accidents. I do this just so some Susie fans can prove they prefer to defend an author or commentator based on shared ideology rather than logic. Kind of like FOX viewers.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
worried about the defense cuts. And while I agree that the possibility of abandoning cuts was not imminent, the quotes by both Dems and 'Thugs leaned heavily against allowing them. I don't take Susie's headline as being hyperbolic.
And I didn't even see Pres. Obama's name mentioned once. If she were trying to "make him look bad", she'd probably refer to him at least once by name, no? I think you're chasing ghosts there.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
What is boehner even doing in office at this point. He needs to be voted out. He can spend his time drinking martinis and playing golf on his own money, not ours.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
..when Cheney was Sec Defense under Bush The Elder, and they decided to terminate ALL full-time military positions not necessary in Times Of Peace, to save taxpayers' money (oh yeah!) with the intent of contracting them out (he-he) in times of war ..
.. paid Halliburton (of which Cheney was not yet the CEO) $5.4 million to study whether it would be a good idea or not .. Halliburton thought it would be a GREAT idea ..
.. and then Cheney became "vice" President and launched two official wars .. and declared the entire planet the next battleground for the perpetual wars ..
.. great cuts to the military budget .. right?
When will government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations perish from this Earth?
Not soon enough!
Yep. Hey, when do we find out what shenanigans went on during the meeting between the oil companies and cheeney? He increased his personal wealth by an order of magnitude after that meeting. I'd suggest we 'look back' on this, and a few other important problems we have been sweeping under the rug, for future generations to deal with all the unintended consequences.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
Who are we defending? We don't spend money of defense; we spend money on war.
occupation.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
We are defending all of those american jobs in China, India, Korea, Indonesia..............., etc...,etc....
If I were a psychopath, I would join the republican party, and get in on the gravy train taking the Teabircher morons to the cleaners.
Lindsey Graham bill will not stand a chance!
Obama will protect us with veto power!
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
"...members of Congress... ...are readying legislation that would undo the automatic across-the-board cuts totaling nearly $500 billion for military programs..."
And this legislation will somehow be magically immune from filibusters and vetoes.
...scholar and knows that social security and medicare and stuff is protected by the 14th amendment to the constitution.
even if all the democrats cave in and Lindsay's bill makes it through congress, Obama will strike it down in the spirit of the 14th amendment to the constitution!
(Obama took an Oath)
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
So if no agreement is reached (which looks likely), what happens?
Where's the 2.3 trillion, Rummy?
Contractors usually do their best work off the books.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
Perhaps rummy doesn't 'remember recalling' that either. It may remain a 'known unknown' until we restore equal justice under law.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
"Democrats are compulsively cooperative with their oppressors: ..."
I think that should read: "Democrats are compulsively cooperative with their benefactors".
It's one thing to argue about defense spending when there is no benchmark to compare to. It's quite another to argue about spending when there is a benchmark, namely, what the rest of the world combined is spending on defense. And when we're spending more than the rest of the world combined, it points to incompetence, corruption, or both. And I think it's both.
There is definitely a quid pro quo between between the money spent on Congress and the President by corporations and resulting legislation. There's definitely a quid pro quo between Wall Street spending on politicians and no criminal prosecutions involving the economic collapse of 2008. (There's no call for prosecutions from law and order Republicans either).
There's a lot of lobbying going on to continue defense spending, saying that it creates or preserves jobs. Well, we could spend the same money elsewhere, such as infrastructure, and it would not only provide jobs, but usable end product as well.
When it comes to corporate matters, I think we're dealing with two wings of the corporate party. For example, free trade with Columbia sailed through Congress without substantial disagreement between the two wings.
Actually, Columbia sailed across Texas in a million pieces upon reentry. :(
The Colombian trade deal sailed through Congress unabated, like so much cocaine crossing the border into Texas.
Sorry... Otherwise, well said.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
it's called 'Defense'.
This would be the time to heed Eisenhower's warning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
"The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent. Even when weapons of war are not actually destroyed, their manufacture is still a convenient way of expending labour power without producing anything that can be consumed. A Floating Fortress, for example, has locked up in it the labour that would build several hundred cargo-ships. Ultimately it is scrapped as obsolete, never having brought any material benefit to anybody, and with further enormous labours another Floating Fortress is built."
http://www.george-orwell.org/1984/16.html
Michael Moore was right- the Eagle has 2 right wings.
The lesson from 2010 has not been absorbed by the 'Democrats' in Washington- we stayed home because with a 'Democratic' President and Congress we got nothing done. I'll stay home again and let the tebaggers run the show longer in order to purge these sellouts from our 'Democratic' leadership.
I'm tired of the Rahm attitude toward Progressives and am through with fake Democrats. Obama is going to sign off on the Keystone Pipeline KNOWING America is against it- so he can kiss my ass if he thinks I will lift a finger to see him re-elected. Not one dime and none of my time.
I'll vote for Elmer Fudd first.
Oh boy, you kicked the hornet's nest now.
A world of shit is about to come down on you from Obamabots.
If I were a psychopath, I would join the republican party, and get in on the gravy train taking the Teabircher morons to the cleaners.
Comments are closed on this entry