This is why it is impossible to have an honest negotiation with the Democrats

[dude1394]

[SeanL]

Those numbers are in billions, so those small white spaces come out to a lot.

[chumdawg]

I don't understand the argument made by the original post.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by SeanL

Those numbers are in billions, so those small white spaces come out to a lot.

The point is its small compared to the massive budget, and it NEVER goes down.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by dude1394

The point is its small compared to the massive budget, and it NEVER goes down.

Actually that is not how economists look at it. They look at it as a percentage of the deficit not overall spending. When you just post spending you are completely ignoring the fact that the vast majority of it is paid for by tax receipts.

[dude1394]

More from the great mark stern..

"Can you pierce the mists of time and go back all the way to the year 2007? Back then, federal spending was 40 percent lower than it is today. In a mere half-decade, has all that 40 percent gravy become so indispensable to the general welfare that not even a teensy-weensy sliver of it can be cut?

If you really believe that, then America is going to die, and a gullible citizenry willing to give this laughable charade the time of day will bear ultimate responsibility. We have seen the boobs, and they are us."

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by SeanL

Actually that is not how economists look at it. They look at it as a percentage of the deficit not overall spending. When you just post spending you are completely ignoring the fact that the vast majority of it is paid for by tax receipts.

How they look at it is( unless they are running a government agency or shilling for the dems is )... The government is scheduled to go up by x percent every year because we haven't passed a budget in 4 years. Now this is not going to go up as much per the graph and everyone is freaking out. I call bullshite.

If the admin wants to change the allocations of cuts bring it on, but Obama is only interested in growing government, he could give a rats ass who he furloughs to get it.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by dude1394

How they look at it is( unless they are running a government agency or shilling for the dems is )... The government is scheduled to go up by x percent every year because we haven't passed a budget in 4 years. Now this is not going to go up as much per the graph and everyone is freaking out. I call bullshite.

Well that graph is bullshite because the vast majority of that spending is paid for by tax revenues. Secondly, we were told that out of the 800 billion stimulus that the 535 million lost in solyndra was a lot of money.

Now you are saying that out of the 900 billion dollar deficit, the 85 billion (this year alone!) that will be cut from the budget is insignificant. That is conservative hypocrisy at its extreme.

Originally Posted by dude1394

If the admin wants to change the allocations of cuts bring it on, but Obama is only interested in growing government, he could give a rats ass who he furloughs to get it.

Changing allocations would be preferable to a certain extent, but in the grand scheme of things that is like moving the deck chairs on the titanic. You will be getting 85 billion in cuts either way while the economy is going through sluggish growth.

Anyhow, I thought that the conservative message was that the sequester cuts were all Obama's idea? So does Obama want to cut government or "grow government"? You guys need to get your story straight.

[dude1394]

Hey I love the sequester, what I do not like is seeing our elected reps causing as much people pain as possible to keep their snouts deep in the trough.

Only a democrat can look at a graph of our budget going up every frickin year and first scream that the sky is falling and secondly just make up crap. That is the amount of spending projected for our government, period. What is shows is that even with the sequester it goes up and up and up. There is nothing there about whether the money is borrowed, collected or just made up. It is a very simple graph.

[dude1394]

I'm not saying it is insignificant of an amount, I'm saying it is insignificant because the budget continues to increase, not decrease. Yes I say a decrease in the increase of the budget should have little impact on our economy and almost no impact on the federal government. I expect what you would see is the agencies are just picking the easiest people to screw over and the ones that will harm the populace the most.

How about some middle management firings, some projects delayed, boondoggles cancelled and unneeded new buildings with someone's name on it.


These beauracrats and the lying sack of **** Obama should be ashamed of themselves, but like animal farm they don't have shame anymore. Liars and thieves.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by SeanL

Anyhow, I thought that the conservative message was that the sequester cuts were all Obama's idea? So does Obama want to cut government or "grow government"? You guys need to get your story straight.

You are so full of it. Of course it was his idea, because as he has stated (and his lieutenants have stated) that he didn't think the republicans would be willing to cut defense so much. Obama wants to grow government, always has, always will. He only thought he was o so clever that he had found a way to get republicans to agree to ANOTHER tax increase because they wouldn't want to see our country's defenses compromised, not that he gives a crap about it, nor his liberal constituents.

Even now the libs should be pretty happy with it, they get to cut the military's much more than normal.

[dude1394]

Nicely stated

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._spending_cuts

Let's Speak Plain English About Spending Cuts
A Commentary By Scott Rasmussen
in Political CommentaryEmail thisShareThis
RELATED ARTICLES
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Sequester Puts Elected Washington on Trial By Scott Rasmussen
54% Say Raising Taxes More Likely To Hurt Economy Than Spending Cuts
Most Voters Still Understand Sequester Cuts Aren’t Cuts in Current Spending


Friday, March 01, 2013

To borrow a phrase, Mainstream America and Washington's Political Class have become two nations separated by a common language.

This gap was highlighted by a recent Pew Research Center poll showing that "for 18 of 19 programs tested, majorities want either to increase spending or maintain it at current levels."

On the surface, those results appear to support the Political Class conceit that voters like spending cuts in the abstract but not in specific programs. That's the way it was reported by most media outlets.

But the reality is quite different. The Pew results actually show support for what official Washington would consider massive spending cuts.

Just to be clear, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Pew poll questions or results. The raw numbers are similar to what we find at Rasmussen Reports. The problem is with the way the numbers were reported.

The questions were asked using the language of America, but they were reported using the language of the Political Class.

To most Americans, maintaining spending at current levels would mean spending the same amount in 2013 as we spent in 2012. However, to those experienced in the mysterious ways of Washington, maintaining spending at current levels means spending $3.5 trillion this year and $4.5 trillion in five years. To most Americans, that's a trillion dollars in spending growth.

The Political Class, on the other hand, would consider holding spending unchanged at current levels to be a massive spending cut. Why? Because it wouldn't allow for the trillion dollar spending growth that is already built into the budget.

With this understanding, the numbers from Pew take on an entirely different tone. Consider the Pew numbers for roads and infrastructure projects: 38 percent want more spending, and only 17 percent favor a spending cut. But a plurality (43 percent) wants to hold infrastructure spending steady. Since the Political Class would consider holding spending steady to be a "cut" in spending, 60 percent in the Pew poll favors what official Washington calls cuts.

It's worth noting that when you get to specific spending cuts, public support is even higher than it is for cutting abstract categories like "infrastructure." Most voters, for example, want to stop subsidies for Amtrak and are ready to freeze highway spending until the economy is stronger.

Using this understanding, the Pew data shows that voters prefer what the politicians call budget cuts in 17 out of 19 programs.

Some in the Political Class may simply be confused themselves. Others, however, are being intentionally deceptive. They are more interested in protecting government spending than in representing the American people.

Clearly, it would be a challenge to hold federal spending constant when so much growth is already baked into the budget for future years. Fortunately, though, as highlighted in my book "The People's Money," the American people are willing to support specific cuts when reasonable alternatives are presented.

So when politicians claim that sound polling data like the Pew study shows a lack of public support for spending cuts, they're either wrong or deliberately trying to deceive us. Voters shouldn't need a translator to understand what the Political Class is saying. But those in the Political Class bubble just don't speak plain English anymore.

[SeanL]

I think you are confused how these spending cuts work. Most of the budget is exempt from sequester. The only part that will be part of sequester is discretionary spending. So while sequester wouldn't be such a big deal if it was spread evenly, it is all coming from one part of the budget. So those programs and services that are within that part of the budget will be taking a big hit.

[dude1394]

No I am not, that's why the republicans offered Obama discretion on where they cam from and he as usual voted present. Obama designed it to be as painful as possible.

It's funny that no one has actually stated the actual percentage cuts each agency gets. Probably because dems don't want to state how miniscule they are and reps dont want to engage a discussion on them with all of the chicken littles running around lying about the apocalypse.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Nicely stated

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._spending_cuts

Let's Speak Plain English About Spending Cuts
A Commentary By Scott Rasmussen
in Political CommentaryEmail thisShareThis
RELATED ARTICLES
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Sequester Puts Elected Washington on Trial By Scott Rasmussen
54% Say Raising Taxes More Likely To Hurt Economy Than Spending Cuts
Most Voters Still Understand Sequester Cuts Aren’t Cuts in Current Spending


Friday, March 01, 2013

To borrow a phrase, Mainstream America and Washington's Political Class have become two nations separated by a common language.

This gap was highlighted by a recent Pew Research Center poll showing that "for 18 of 19 programs tested, majorities want either to increase spending or maintain it at current levels."

On the surface, those results appear to support the Political Class conceit that voters like spending cuts in the abstract but not in specific programs. That's the way it was reported by most media outlets.

But the reality is quite different. The Pew results actually show support for what official Washington would consider massive spending cuts.

Just to be clear, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Pew poll questions or results. The raw numbers are similar to what we find at Rasmussen Reports. The problem is with the way the numbers were reported.

The questions were asked using the language of America, but they were reported using the language of the Political Class.

To most Americans, maintaining spending at current levels would mean spending the same amount in 2013 as we spent in 2012. However, to those experienced in the mysterious ways of Washington, maintaining spending at current levels means spending $3.5 trillion this year and $4.5 trillion in five years. To most Americans, that's a trillion dollars in spending growth.

The Political Class, on the other hand, would consider holding spending unchanged at current levels to be a massive spending cut. Why? Because it wouldn't allow for the trillion dollar spending growth that is already built into the budget.

With this understanding, the numbers from Pew take on an entirely different tone. Consider the Pew numbers for roads and infrastructure projects: 38 percent want more spending, and only 17 percent favor a spending cut. But a plurality (43 percent) wants to hold infrastructure spending steady. Since the Political Class would consider holding spending steady to be a "cut" in spending, 60 percent in the Pew poll favors what official Washington calls cuts.

It's worth noting that when you get to specific spending cuts, public support is even higher than it is for cutting abstract categories like "infrastructure." Most voters, for example, want to stop subsidies for Amtrak and are ready to freeze highway spending until the economy is stronger.

Using this understanding, the Pew data shows that voters prefer what the politicians call budget cuts in 17 out of 19 programs.

Some in the Political Class may simply be confused themselves. Others, however, are being intentionally deceptive. They are more interested in protecting government spending than in representing the American people.

Clearly, it would be a challenge to hold federal spending constant when so much growth is already baked into the budget for future years. Fortunately, though, as highlighted in my book "The People's Money," the American people are willing to support specific cuts when reasonable alternatives are presented.

So when politicians claim that sound polling data like the Pew study shows a lack of public support for spending cuts, they're either wrong or deliberately trying to deceive us. Voters shouldn't need a translator to understand what the Political Class is saying. But those in the Political Class bubble just don't speak plain English anymore.

Scott Rassmussen?! LOL! Same guy who predicted a Romney landslide is going to dispense his wisdom on our nations fiscal policy?

Ras and the rest of the conservative media just tells you what you want to hear, not necessarily the facts. That is how they get their following.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by dude1394

No I am not, that's why the republicans offered Obama discretion on where they cam from and he as usual voted present. Obama designed it to be as painful as possible.

It's funny that no one has actually stated the actual percentage cuts each agency gets. Probably because dems don't want to state how miniscule they are and reps dont want to engage a discussion on them with all of the chicken littles running around lying about the apocalypse.

Actually you posted a chart of all spending, so yes you are confused.

[dude1394]

Nope...not confused at all. I know the overall is miniscule compared to overall budget, in fact it is no cut AT ALL. But I also know that Obama designed it to hurt as many as possible therefore the majority of cuts fall on defense and the rest on discretionary. About 45billion this fiscal year.

I also know that Obama was offered the ability to move those funds around so they would NOT cause as much pain as they will (little I would expect) and as usual, he voted present.

I still believe that programs, capital investments (that have been planned and now can be cancelled) and other spending can be done instead of immediately furloughing personnel. But as usual, the pigs at the trough have to make sure the farmyard keeps feeding them. Liars...

I do hope that the house pulls those agencies in front of them to explain their reasonings. And certainly I"m hoping that someone gets ahold of the emails that I expect Obamas staff told agencies to make it look hard.

[dude1394]

And another reason...Everyone hype the pain....ooops until caught...

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/01/politics/budget-faa/
"
Washington (CNN) -- Two days after a Federal Aviation Administration official told contractors that steps were being taken to shut down 168 air traffic control towers on April 1, the agency gave the towers an unexpected reprieve Friday, saying the official's comments were "unauthorized."
In a telephone conference call on Wednesday, an FAA official told contractors who operate the towers they would soon be receiving a letter giving notice that 168 towers would be closed on the first day of April because of government-wide spending cuts that were set in motion on Friday night.
Another 16 towers would be closed on September 30, the end of the fiscal year, the official said.
But the news -- devastating to the three companies and hundreds of employees who staff the towers -- was short-lived.
On Friday, the FAA arranged a second conference call, retracting without explanation the earlier call, according to Spencer Dickerson, head of the U.S. Control Tower Association.
The contractors were told that the first call "was not an authorized call," Dickerson said.
But Dickerson questioned that.
The Wednesday conference call "wasn't just some coffee break conversation at the water cooler," he said, saying it included FAA officials and representatives of all three contractors who operate FAA control towers in the United States."

[dude1394]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/us...uts.html?_r=1&
Obama:
"“Federal prosecutors will have to close cases and let criminals go,” Mr. Obama said, flanked by law enforcement officers at the White House. “Tens of thousands of parents will have to scramble to find child care for their kids.”"

Not Obama:
"
But officials conceded that day care centers are almost certainly not going to be padlocked on March 1. Border patrols will be staffed throughout that day and the days to come. Federal agents will continue to conduct investigations, and criminals will not immediately be “let go,” as Mr. Obama suggested.
“The scheduling will depend on what the workload is, what the cases are, what can wait,” said Nanda Chitre, a spokeswoman for the Department of Justice. “There’s going to be impact all across law enforcement. But we’ve tried to give as much flexibility as possible.”

[dude1394]

Funny only two Pinocchios even from Obamas own paper.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...42df_blog.html
"
“Up to 70,000 children would lose access to Head Start and early Head Start services.”
This estimate comes from a letter written by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Let’s provide some context for that figure for the program, which is intended to be a sort of pre-school for low-income children and their families.
First of all, the budget for Head Start has been supercharged in recent years, jumping from $6.87 billion in 2008 to $7.97 billion in 2012. Enrollment, which was slightly over 900,000 for a decade, jumped to 964,000 in 2011 after receiving a $2 billion appropriation in the stimulus law, also known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).
Moreover, though the stimulus was intended to be temporary, the 7 percent boost in the size of Head Start has become permanent. Here’s how the administration put it in 2012 budget documents:

Programs that received expansion funding under ARRA will have these funds added to their regular base funding. The FY 2011 appropriation added one-half of the annual funding for these expansion programs to the base. This FY 2012 appropriation adds the remaining one-half to the base. This funding will allow expansion programs to continue to serve the full enrollment levels approved under the Recovery Act expansion.

So, in effect, the sequester — which would order a cut of $422 million in Head Start — would begin to unravel an expansion in the program recently engineered by the administration.
The 2008 enacted amount for Head Start, translated into 2013 dollars, would be $7.45 billion. The post-sequester total for Head Start would leave the program at $7.55 billion. So the Obama administration would still be slightly ahead of the game even after sequester."

[dude1394]

Typical Obama... he FINALLY gets caught flat out lying about something. Instead of admitting it, he gets his minions to double down on it. FLAT out lying again.

I'm not sure I've seen 4 pinocchos on top of 4 pinocchios trying to explain the first 4 pinocchios. Heh...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...1394_blog.html

'
— Gene Sperling, director of the White House economic council, on ABC News’ “This Week,” March 3, 2013
“On the issue of the janitors, if you work for an hourly wage and you earn overtime, and you depend on that overtime to make ends meet, it is simply a fact that a reduction in overtime is a reduction in your pay.”
— White House spokesman Jay Carney, news briefing, March 4
At a news conference last Friday, President Obama claimed that, “starting tomorrow,” the “folks cleaning the floors at the Capitol” had “just got a pay cut” because of the automatic federal spending cuts known as the sequester.
The president very quickly earned Four Pinocchios for that statement, especially after senior officials at the Architect of the Capitol (AOC), the federal agency that employ janitors on the House side, and the office of the Sergeant at Arms (SAA), which employs janitors on the Senate side, issued statements saying the president’s comments were not true.
Still, the White House has kept up its spin offensive, claiming that a cut in “overtime” was a de facto pay cut and thus the president was right — or at least not wrong.
So, we wondered: How much overtime do Capitol Hill janitors actually make?

[SeanL]

Funny how you claim Obama is a liar when in the original post you lied about which spending was going to be cut. Hypocrite much?

[dude1394]

Last time I checked I wasn't the freaking president. I don't agree that I lied either.

[dirt_dobber]

Jimmy Kimmel Asks People About Obama Pardoning The Sequester -- Sending It to Portugal

Hilarious short 2 min. video
http://www.ijreview.com/2013/03/4072...t-to-portugal/

[dude1394]

Hilarious, some honesty at the end.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Last time I checked I wasn't the freaking president. I don't agree that I lied either.

So unless you are President then lying is not bad? LOL. Your arguments get lamer and lamer as we move down this thread.

[dude1394]

You are ridiculous. And as stated, I don't agree to your statement. Try to read more carefully.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by dude1394

You are ridiculous. And as stated, I don't agree to your statement. Try to read more carefully.

Then why did you post a chart of all spending with sequester cuts in the same bars?

[dude1394]

Because it shows how paltry these "cuts"are. It's not the republicans fault that Obama was offered the ability to spread it around and decided instead to inflict as much pain as possible. It shows that this government squeals like a pig even when their budget is going up.

But the graph itself doesn't "lie" ( like the administration has been lying about the effects, caught in it multiple times), it just is.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Because it shows how paltry these "cuts"are. It's not the republicans fault that Obama was offered the ability to spread it around and decided instead to inflict as much pain as possible. It shows that this government squeals like a pig even when their budget is going up.

But the graph itself doesn't "lie" ( like the administration has been lying about the effects, caught in it multiple times), it just is.

Why do you feel the need to lie all of time?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by SeanL

Why do you feel the need to lie all of time?

Because I am not. Why do you have to lie about others all of the time.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by dude1394/SeanL

This is why it is impossible to have any discussion in Dallas-mavs Political Arena....

you got THAT right!

seriously, you guys are insufferable in your back-and-forths.... truly awful.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Because I am not. Why do you have to lie about others all of the time.

Yes you did. The cuts are not out of the whole budget, but a much smaller portion of the budget. You lied and baby Jesus cried.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

you got THAT right!

seriously, you guys are insufferable in your back-and-forths.... truly awful.

Thanks mom.

[The Ghost of Championship]

The Federal Reserve has been buying back and retiring every single dime of Obama's spending, which just so happened to save the world. The federal debt hasn't expanded one bit.

They always crucify the saviors.

[ribosoma]

Originally Posted by The Ghost of Championship

The Federal Reserve has been buying back and retiring every single dime of Obama's spending, which just so happened to save the world. The federal debt hasn't expanded one bit.

They always crucify the saviors.

Equating puppet political leaders to religious prophets seems like a pretty well-balanced, rational approach to take.

Since the Fed's inception, the value of the U.S. dollar has dropped by 97%.

Then there's this:

Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve System. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again.

-Remarks by Governor Ben S. Bernanke at the Conference to Honor Milton Friedman, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois


They can come right out and say it and it doesn't even nudge the needle for most Americans. I suspect because most Americans are profoundly ignorant of their own history and rely almost exclusively upon media interests owned by the biggest crooks in the world for their news.


Pardon the interruption of the appeal to authority hour... now, back to your original programming.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by ribosoma

Equating puppet political leaders to religious prophets seems like a pretty well-balanced, rational approach to take.

Since the Fed's inception, the value of the U.S. dollar has dropped by 97%.

Then there's this:


-Remarks by Governor Ben S. Bernanke at the Conference to Honor Milton Friedman, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois


They can come right out and say it and it doesn't even nudge the needle for most Americans. I suspect because most Americans are profoundly ignorant of their own history and rely almost exclusively upon media interests owned by the biggest crooks in the world for their news.


Pardon the interruption of the appeal to authority hour... now, back to your original programming.

well now... THIS is a thoroughly useles post cobbled together from blog posts tht you clearly didn't understand

[The Ghost of Championship]

Originally Posted by ribosoma

Since the Fed's inception, the value of the U.S. dollar has dropped by 97%.

Quite the strawman. Mediums of exchange are specifically designed to constantly expand, and are a convenience, not a store of value. Those who treat it as such are going to get crushed. The US was founded on the concepts of Protestant Work Ethic - invest your surplus rather than hoarding it like the old kingdom economies. Why the moonbat gold crowd wants to go back to the Spanish Inquisition economies is truly mind boggling.

Originally Posted by ribosoma

-Remarks by Governor Ben S. Bernanke at the Conference to Honor Milton Friedman, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois

What both of them are talking about is not printing enough money to counter deflation. This quote contradicts you.

Originally Posted by ribosoma

They can come right out and say it and it doesn't even nudge the needle for most Americans. I suspect because most Americans are profoundly ignorant of their own history and rely almost exclusively upon media interests owned by the biggest crooks in the world for their news.

People who make this claim tend to be the most ignorant of history, as you have shown with your misunderstanding, and thus misuse, of that Bernanke quote.

Originally Posted by ribosoma

Pardon the interruption of the appeal to authority hour... now, back to your original programming.

The opinion of well informed professionals should be respected. You exhibit the Dunning-Kruger Effect well.

[ribosoma]

The burden of proof regarding your interpretation of the Bernanke quote lies on you. It wasn't a discussion between Friedman and Bernanke, it was a speech given by Bernanke alone. If you choose to bend the context to fit your worldview, that's fine, but it's conjecture, and therefore not worthy of any serious discussion.

Steve Keen's 'Debunking Economics' can probably assist those who want some real insight into the economic crisis we are in. Listening to the guys who deliberately crashed the system feign incredulity over how this came to be is a useless endeavor, in my opinion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG3CU1st_l8

[The Ghost of Championship]

Originally Posted by ribosoma

The burden of proof regarding your interpretation of the Bernanke quote lies on you.

I can't hold your hand. If you don't want to learn you don't want to learn.

Originally Posted by ribosoma

Steve Keen's 'Debunking Economics' can probably assist those who want some real insight into the economic crisis we are in. Listening to the guys who deliberately crashed the system feign incredulity over how this came to be is a useless endeavor, in my opinion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG3CU1st_l8

Is that the guy who wants to go back to gold standard depressions? He wants the economy to collapse, right?