DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: rumborak on November 22, 2011, 01:51:47 AM
-
I mean, seriously, did anyone in either camp (Dems, GOP) believe they could agree on 1.2 trillion dollars of cutting?
I guess the good news is that defense will see big cuts too.
rumborak
-
How are you so sure defense is getting cuts?
Isn't the US government obsessed with the spending of funds on the military?
(If that is true, though, I say that's a good thing; the immense military budget really needs a downsizing)
-
It's written into the law apparently. I don't know the details, but apparently military will lose a good chunk.
rumborak
-
Apparently they can still undo that portion of the law if they so choose.
And no, there's been numerous other super committee's, basically, and they've all gotten ignored. It's all for show.
-
The original law saw automatic cuts of $1.2 trillion with half being in defense and the other half in other areas. However, Congress can repeal or change the law, and there's already movement afoot to do that. I would love to see the cuts to defense. I was reading something the other day that said people are saying it would cripple our military, but in reality it will bring spending back to 2007 levels.
And to answer the original question, no I didn't think they would be able to compromise on anything. I don't think the Democrats and Republicans could even agree on what to have for lunch these days.
-
I hate fucking politicians! A bunch of arrogant assholes filled with stubborn pride that couldn't give two shits about the country they think they are serving. Fuck um all!
-
Much of the time, I bet the Repubs and Dems just manufacture "bipartisanism" to give the illusion to the parties' demographics that each one is out to better their respective demographic, when in actuality, they both are simply 2 marketing groups for the sake of being able to gain the greatest possible # of votes for tools paid of to make policies paying off corporations.
-
Much of the time, I bet the Repubs and Dems just manufacture "bipartisanism" to give the illusion to the parties' demographics that each one is out to better their respective demographic, when in actuality, they both are simply 2 marketing groups for the sake of being able to gain the greatest possible # of votes for tools paid of to make policies paying off corporations.
You are correct.
Here is reality. You have two groups that wear two different masks to appeal to the two biggest factions of all people. You have the so called, "anything goes" party, and the so called party of "morality". They are both full of shit, so whether you're for gay marriage, or you are pro life, the group you think represents you is a facade. They don't give a rats ass about you. They both have an agenda that obviously has they're and not you're best interest at heart.
-
...Anyway, yes, these military cuts were sorely needed. Anyone who says we're crippling our military hasn't taken a good look at the military and technological power harnessed by the DoD these days. If you compare our air force to, say, that of China, we're not only ahead of them, we're ahead of them technologically by two full generations of fighter technology. We spend more on defense than the next 43 countries combined. We have enough nukes to destroy an entire hemisphere of the planet. I think we'll be OK.
-
I mean, seriously, did anyone in either camp (Dems, GOP) believe they could agree on 1.2 trillion dollars of cutting?
I guess the good news is that defense will see big cuts too.
rumborak
Making Government smaller is the first step (and the most needed step) of many to chip at the deficit. It's too bad the fat cats are afraid of doing the right thing.
-
I really think that each party is worse than the other.
-
The most laughable part of it all is that over the 10 year period they were trying to cut 1.2 Trillion dollars from....the United States is scheduled to spend 44 Trillion dollars! This entire 'Super Committee' dog and pony show was a joke anyway....really...cut 1.2 Trillion dollars from 44 Trillion. What's the F'n point? Even if they would have come to an agreement it would have been of no consequence or meaning...it'd had been a BS project here and there or whatever. If you're going to truly dig in and cut then cut something like 15 or 20 Trillion, that's a cut. The suggestion that cutting 1.2 Trillion would have made some sort of difference is an insult actually but I expect nothing less from these Crooks that are controlling our country...both (R) and (D). ALL crooks....ALL useless. Absolutiely fed up with and sick and tired of Politicians PERIOD.
-
The most laughable part of it all is that over the 10 year period they were trying to cut 1.2 Trillion dollars from....the United States is scheduled to spend 44 Trillion dollars! This entire 'Super Committee' dog and pony show was a joke anyway....really...cut 1.2 Trillion dollars from 44 Trillion. What's the F'n point? Even if they would have come to an agreement it would have been of no consequence or meaning...it'd had been a BS project here and there or whatever. If you're going to truly dig in and cut then cut something like 15 or 20 Trillion, that's a cut. The suggestion that cutting 1.2 Trillion would have made some sort of difference is an insult actually but I expect nothing less from these Crooks that are controlling our country...both (R) and (D). ALL crooks....ALL useless. Absolutiely fed up with and sick and tired of Politicians PERIOD.
Well said!
-
Wow, strange for me to be the optimist. I thought they would get it done. I liked how the compromise bill was set up a few months ago, with the automatic cuts to entitlements and defense spending. It was a good approach, and now reasonable consequences will kick in; ones that they couldn't agree on 4 months ago, but now have no choice in.
Obama has made it crystal clear that he'll veto any legislation to alter the automatic cuts, and rightfully so.
-
Wow, strange for me to be the optimist. I thought they would get it done. I liked how the compromise bill was set up a few months ago, with the automatic cuts to entitlements and defense spending. It was a good approach, and now reasonable consequences will kick in; ones that they couldn't agree on 4 months ago, but now have no choice in.
Obama has made it crystal clear that he'll veto any legislation to alter the automatic cuts, and rightfully so.
What do you mean? In terms of balancing the budget or what?
-
It's written into the law apparently. I don't know the details, but apparently military will lose a good chunk.
rumborak
Details (https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielmitchell/2011/11/01/sequestration-is-a-small-step-in-right-direction-not-something-to-be-feared/)
-
Wow, strange for me to be the optimist. I thought they would get it done.
Grover Norquist had other plans
-
The most laughable part of it all is that over the 10 year period they were trying to cut 1.2 Trillion dollars from....the United States is scheduled to spend 44 Trillion dollars! This entire 'Super Committee' dog and pony show was a joke anyway....really...cut 1.2 Trillion dollars from 44 Trillion. What's the F'n point? Even if they would have come to an agreement it would have been of no consequence or meaning...it'd had been a BS project here and there or whatever. If you're going to truly dig in and cut then cut something like 15 or 20 Trillion, that's a cut. The suggestion that cutting 1.2 Trillion would have made some sort of difference is an insult actually but I expect nothing less from these Crooks that are controlling our country...both (R) and (D). ALL crooks....ALL useless. Absolutiely fed up with and sick and tired of Politicians PERIOD.
Well said!
I dont think it is well said. Cutting half the budget immediately isnt really realistic. Cutting 10% is a realistic and attainable goal to start.
-
Yeah, I get the anger, but it would literally be impossible to cut much more than the targeted amounts that the sequestration clause in the supercommitte legislation calls for.
-
The most laughable part of it all is that over the 10 year period they were trying to cut 1.2 Trillion dollars from....the United States is scheduled to spend 44 Trillion dollars! This entire 'Super Committee' dog and pony show was a joke anyway....really...cut 1.2 Trillion dollars from 44 Trillion. What's the F'n point? Even if they would have come to an agreement it would have been of no consequence or meaning...it'd had been a BS project here and there or whatever. If you're going to truly dig in and cut then cut something like 15 or 20 Trillion, that's a cut. The suggestion that cutting 1.2 Trillion would have made some sort of difference is an insult actually but I expect nothing less from these Crooks that are controlling our country...both (R) and (D). ALL crooks....ALL useless. Absolutiely fed up with and sick and tired of Politicians PERIOD.
Well said!
I dont think it is well said.
Well, I do.
-
I'll admit I haven't followed this closely but this is what I feel will happen: No way in hell the automatic cuts to defense will kick it. Democrats will "give in" to the Republicans demands at the zero hour and it will be hailed as a "great compromise."
-
The most laughable part of it all is that over the 10 year period they were trying to cut 1.2 Trillion dollars from....the United States is scheduled to spend 44 Trillion dollars! This entire 'Super Committee' dog and pony show was a joke anyway....really...cut 1.2 Trillion dollars from 44 Trillion. What's the F'n point? Even if they would have come to an agreement it would have been of no consequence or meaning...it'd had been a BS project here and there or whatever. If you're going to truly dig in and cut then cut something like 15 or 20 Trillion, that's a cut. The suggestion that cutting 1.2 Trillion would have made some sort of difference is an insult actually but I expect nothing less from these Crooks that are controlling our country...both (R) and (D). ALL crooks....ALL useless. Absolutiely fed up with and sick and tired of Politicians PERIOD.
Well said!
I dont think it is well said.
Well, I do.
But it's not practical or realistic and anyone who knows anything about how an economy of this size works would have to agree that you can't cut that much. Even 10% is pushing it quite a bit and that will be felt far and wide.
-
The most laughable part of it all is that over the 10 year period they were trying to cut 1.2 Trillion dollars from....the United States is scheduled to spend 44 Trillion dollars! This entire 'Super Committee' dog and pony show was a joke anyway....really...cut 1.2 Trillion dollars from 44 Trillion. What's the F'n point? Even if they would have come to an agreement it would have been of no consequence or meaning...it'd had been a BS project here and there or whatever. If you're going to truly dig in and cut then cut something like 15 or 20 Trillion, that's a cut. The suggestion that cutting 1.2 Trillion would have made some sort of difference is an insult actually but I expect nothing less from these Crooks that are controlling our country...both (R) and (D). ALL crooks....ALL useless. Absolutiely fed up with and sick and tired of Politicians PERIOD.
Well said!
I dont think it is well said.
Well, I do.
But it's not practical or realistic and anyone who knows anything about how an economy of this size works would have to agree that you can't cut that much. Even 10% is pushing it quite a bit and that will be felt far and wide.
I know, I just said that to fuck with Eric. :biggrin: It would be nice if were weren't eternally fucked.
-
:lol Well, alrighty then :lol
-
I'll admit I haven't followed this closely but this is what I feel will happen: No way in hell the automatic cuts to defense will kick it. Democrats will "give in" to the Republicans demands at the zero hour and it will be hailed as a "great compromise."
I don't think so. This was crafted as sort of a MAD strategy. Both sides lose bigtime if it didn't get done. If you let them off the mat, then you've really caved monumentally. I don't think Obama would have any choice but to veto any attempt to undo the deterrent.
The most laughable part of it all is that over the 10 year period they were trying to cut 1.2 Trillion dollars from....the United States is scheduled to spend 44 Trillion dollars! This entire 'Super Committee' dog and pony show was a joke anyway....really...cut 1.2 Trillion dollars from 44 Trillion. What's the F'n point? Even if they would have come to an agreement it would have been of no consequence or meaning...it'd had been a BS project here and there or whatever. If you're going to truly dig in and cut then cut something like 15 or 20 Trillion, that's a cut. The suggestion that cutting 1.2 Trillion would have made some sort of difference is an insult actually but I expect nothing less from these Crooks that are controlling our country...both (R) and (D). ALL crooks....ALL useless. Absolutiely fed up with and sick and tired of Politicians PERIOD.
Well said!
I dont think it is well said. Cutting half the budget immediately isnt really realistic. Cutting 10% is a realistic and attainable goal to start.
Plus, as I understand it, they're not trying to cut overall spending as much as they're trying to lessen deficit spending. You can't weigh the 1.2 trillion against the entire budget. You have to weigh it against only the amount that's unfunded.
-
I'll admit I haven't followed this closely but this is what I feel will happen: No way in hell the automatic cuts to defense will kick it. Democrats will "give in" to the Republicans demands at the zero hour and it will be hailed as a "great compromise."
I don't think so. This was crafted as sort of a MAD strategy. Both sides lose bigtime if it didn't get done. If you let them off the mat, then you've really caved monumentally. I don't think Obama would have any choice but to veto any attempt to undo the deterrent.
This is what I get for not reading up on things before commenting. I didn't realize the Supercommittee announced it failed to reach a deal, and that negotiations were ending. I am surprised, actually. Figured the Dems would acquiesce as usual. I'll be impressed if the President sticks to his guns and vetoes legislation designed to remove the automatic cuts, especially since his boy Panetta said cutting defense at all would trigger a "doomsday" scenario :lol
-
At the people here who think the automatic cut law will be revoked by Congress, I think this time actually not. The consequences could be very dire in terms of market perception and credit rating because it would cement in the fact that the US government is incapable of tackling its problems.
rumborak
-
We could cut the defense budget if we ended our wars. I don't think we should cut the defense budget in ways that would put troops in danger or make them under equipped. And I strongly believe we shouldn't cut the budget for Research and Development for the military. Staying ahead of all other countries in military technology is really important for maintaining security.
-
Well, maybe the budget should be shrunk to a point where it stretches the limit of the military to wage one war. Right now it's in the position to wage multiple wars, and still have spares.
rumborak
-
Well, maybe the budget should be shrunk to a point where it stretches the limit of the military to wage one war. Right now it's in the position to wage multiple wars, and still have spares.
rumborak
I don't really think the military has the budget for these wars currently. I think we are over budget and are just racking up debt.
-
At the people here who think the automatic cut law will be revoked by Congress, I think this time actually not. The consequences could be very dire in terms of market perception and credit rating because it would cement in the fact that the US government is incapable of tackling its problems.
rumborak
I think we crossed that bridge a long time ago.
-
Our military was designed around the notion of fighting two separate wars. Actually, it seems to have served pretty well in that capacity. I suspect that strategy will be one of the things to get the axe.
-
We could cut the defense budget if we ended our wars. I don't think we should cut the defense budget in ways that would put troops in danger or make them under equipped. And I strongly believe we shouldn't cut the budget for Research and Development for the military. Staying ahead of all other countries in military technology is really important for maintaining security.
To the first, good thing we'll be finished with them this January. ;)
To the second, see what I said above. We'll probably be okay for another few decades, and even then it won't be hard to regain our ground.
-
We could cut the defense budget if we ended our wars. I don't think we should cut the defense budget in ways that would put troops in danger or make them under equipped. And I strongly believe we shouldn't cut the budget for Research and Development for the military. Staying ahead of all other countries in military technology is really important for maintaining security.
To the first, good thing we'll be finished with them this January. ;)
To the second, see what I said above. We'll probably be okay for another few decades, and even then it won't be hard to regain our ground.
I don't agree at all that we can slow down our research and be ok for decades. The stuff the military develops and invents in terms of not only just technology, but also tactics, saves lives and gets the job done faster. It cements our security in the world. It is the reason our enemies really can't do much against us. It keeps us safe passively as well as actively.
Also, the way I see it, is green technologies will most likely be incorporated into the army first. If they can find a way to make it work for them, they will do it. Then that stuff will eventually make its way into the civilian market. I'm sure the army would absolutely love to have a fuel source that is not oil.
-
We could cut the defense budget if we ended our wars. I don't think we should cut the defense budget in ways that would put troops in danger or make them under equipped. And I strongly believe we shouldn't cut the budget for Research and Development for the military. Staying ahead of all other countries in military technology is really important for maintaining security.
To the first, good thing we'll be finished with them this January. ;)
To the second, see what I said above. We'll probably be okay for another few decades, and even then it won't be hard to regain our ground.
I don't agree at all that we can slow down our research and be ok for decades. The stuff the military develops and invents in terms of not only just technology, but also tactics, saves lives and gets the job done faster. It cements our security in the world. It is the reason our enemies really can't do much against us. It keeps us safe passively as well as actively.
Also, the way I see it, is green technologies will most likely be incorporated into the army first. If they can find a way to make it work for them, they will do it. Then that stuff will eventually make its way into the civilian market. I'm sure the army would absolutely love to have a fuel source that is not oil.
That's already started, last I checked as of late May this year. Not that it's been fully implemented, but the procurement has begun as of this past May. And the stuff has already made its way into the civilian market, albeit less so as fuel and moreso as straight-up power generation for like homes 'n' shit. The real irony of Solyndra: it failed because the solar market grew faster than the company could afford to compete with.
And like I said earlier in the thread, we most likely can afford to slow down research, because as I said, we're not only a generation ahead of most countries including our allies, we tend to be a generation and then another generation ahead of most of our potential enemies (not that I consider China an enemy, but some do).
-
If anyone has a history book handy, you'll see how much people get along now compared to 100 years ago.
-
If anyone has a history book handy, you'll see how much people get along now compared to 100 years ago.
In fact, Steven Pinker just recently published a book on that exact topic:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=steven-pinker-violence-is-lower-tha-11-10-18
Regarding the "two generations" figure, I doubt that tbh. 2 generations is 40 years, and even the most behind country can not be more behind than 10 years in this day and age. Most military advancements these days happen on the information processing side (that's where I get my salary from), and that mostly rides on available hardware. Which is available to everyone basically.
rumborak
-
In response to the OP, I had some hopes yes. But I suppose I gave partisan politics in the US a bit too much credit. I liked Obama's reply to the failure last night, saying that these legislated budget cuts are not changing and he will veto any moves to do so - smart politics as well as smart in practise. The legislature needs a real kick up the arse for mucking up an opportunity like this, I mean its $1.5tn in cuts over a decade, so $150bn a year; the US economy is into the many many trillions of dollars, so its not like they are going to be raping the people or anything.
This last three year patch will likely go down in the history of the world as one of the worst instances of political shit fighting ever seen. Its just as if they simply don't understand the implications of poor action or inaction. Its not even about future generations, its about this generation that is going to be completely left behind due to poor economic policy and no opportunity.
-
I can only really compare this to Germany, but I have really never seen a country in such political dysfunction such as the US currently. The closest historical analog would be the Weimar Republic, where you had 3 separate forces vying for power but no real interest in working together.
rumborak
-
If anyone has a history book handy, you'll see how much people get along now compared to 100 years ago.
In fact, Steven Pinker just recently published a book on that exact topic:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=steven-pinker-violence-is-lower-tha-11-10-18
Regarding the "two generations" figure, I doubt that tbh. 2 generations is 40 years, and even the most behind country can not be more behind than 10 years in this day and age. Most military advancements these days happen on the information processing side (that's where I get my salary from), and that mostly rides on available hardware. Which is available to everyone basically.
rumborak
Is that in regards to people in general, or politicians? I guess I was very vague and I meant politicians.
-
Yeah, politics hasn't really changed, it's just our perspective is further and further away from the days past such that nobody was there, and most people didn't pay attention in history anyways. Imagine if we righted that latter part.
-
I don't think most people didn't pay attention. Part of the historical dissonance is that none of us remember the political contentions that riddled the early Great Depression and the emergence of the New Deal, or the politics that divided our country, or anything of that sort.
-
I don't think most people didn't pay attention. Part of the historical dissonance is that none of us remember the political contentions that riddled the early Great Depression and the emergence of the New Deal, or the politics that divided our country, or anything of that sort.
It's pretty well documented. Political parties are the more similar now than they have ever been. People certainly did care back then. In fact, you'd have thousands of people showing up to rallies to hear speeches for several hours. Television sure has made it easier today, but people did pay attention where they could. Not everyone in the past lived in back country log cabins. Many (I'm pretty sure most) Americans lived in cities.
-
I don't think most people didn't pay attention. Part of the historical dissonance is that none of us remember the political contentions that riddled the early Great Depression and the emergence of the New Deal, or the politics that divided our country, or anything of that sort.
It's pretty well documented. Political parties are the more similar now than they have ever been. People certainly did care back then. In fact, you'd have thousands of people showing up to rallies to hear speeches for several hours. Television sure has made it easier today, but people did pay attention where they could. Not everyone in the past lived in back country log cabins. Many (I'm pretty sure most) Americans lived in cities.
I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or trying to correct me, but if it's the latter, I am agreeing with you, just so ya know. :p
And I don't think that's entirely true about our political parties, especially considering that they're about as polarized as ever, not including pre-Civil War divisions. Corruption makes parties similar, but their ideologies, at least as far as I'm concerned, couldn't be further.
Also the game of politics tends to make policies and individual actions more similar than the politicians and the parties themselves.
-
Hmmm, IDK, I think "people" (as in, the populus) tend to forget about political happenings pretty quickly. From my experience, people care most when the political game is beginning, when ideas are being thrown around and they can see what the potential impact is on them. Once things are passed, they don't care and move on to the next thing on the horizon - they know that they can't change what has been passed and they move onto the next battle. I think history shows that.
Its not so much cognitive dissonance as it is cognitive optimisation.
-
I don't think they always do a good job of moving on to the next battle... Reagan famously called Medicare a horrible thing for Elders and health care in this country, he was wrong, and then you had people holding signs saying, "Keep government out of my Medicare!" when Obama tried to reform the system.
Also the game of politics tends to make policies and individual actions more similar than the politicians and the parties themselves.
I'd disagree with this, the game of politics means people cantt even acknowledge they agree, when they do, because of who they are.
-
Yeah thats actually a good example of what I mean, the system was introduced, people hated it because of what they thought would happen; system is in operation, people adjust; government tries to change the system, people get pissed again. There must be a term for that...
-
Yeah thats actually a good example of what I mean, the system was introduced, people hated it because of what they thought would happen; system is in operation, people adjust; government tries to change the system, people get pissed again. There must be a term for that...
Conservatism, more or less. And I think what you're saying is true in a lot of cases. But I also meant how they obviously didn't learn from history, becuase history showed them government intervention in health care can be a very good thing. My own grandmother thought government should stay out of health care, when she loves, LOVES, her Medicare. It's like conservatives in this country forgot the system that was in operation, but they're still angry with the government trying to change the system.
-
Also the game of politics tends to make policies and individual actions more similar than the politicians and the parties themselves.
I'd disagree with this, the game of politics means people cantt even acknowledge they agree, when they do, because of who they are.
No, I agree with that. They disagree over the same exact policy for that very reason. :lol
Case in point: RomneyCare, which became ObamaCare.
-
Oh I gotcha, they're similar in their hypocrisy.
-
Not exactly what I was getting at, but close enough. :P
-
I don't think most people didn't pay attention. Part of the historical dissonance is that none of us remember the political contentions that riddled the early Great Depression and the emergence of the New Deal, or the politics that divided our country, or anything of that sort.
It's pretty well documented. Political parties are the more similar now than they have ever been. People certainly did care back then. In fact, you'd have thousands of people showing up to rallies to hear speeches for several hours. Television sure has made it easier today, but people did pay attention where they could. Not everyone in the past lived in back country log cabins. Many (I'm pretty sure most) Americans lived in cities.
I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or trying to correct me, but if it's the latter, I am agreeing with you, just so ya know. :p
And I don't think that's entirely true about our political parties, especially considering that they're about as polarized as ever, not including pre-Civil War divisions. Corruption makes parties similar, but their ideologies, at least as far as I'm concerned, couldn't be further.
Also the game of politics tends to make policies and individual actions more similar than the politicians and the parties themselves.
Ah, I see we are in agreement for the most part.
If you look back, you'll find that politicians agree on more now than they ever have. It's more now that we agree on wanting the same result on most issues, but have different means. Very few issues (Abortion, Health Care, Taxes on the rich and such) have that polarization. Back with the Whigs and Federalists, they would want to slice each other's throats open over anything.
-
I don't think most people didn't pay attention. Part of the historical dissonance is that none of us remember the political contentions that riddled the early Great Depression and the emergence of the New Deal, or the politics that divided our country, or anything of that sort.
It's pretty well documented. Political parties are the more similar now than they have ever been. People certainly did care back then. In fact, you'd have thousands of people showing up to rallies to hear speeches for several hours. Television sure has made it easier today, but people did pay attention where they could. Not everyone in the past lived in back country log cabins. Many (I'm pretty sure most) Americans lived in cities.
I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or trying to correct me, but if it's the latter, I am agreeing with you, just so ya know. :p
And I don't think that's entirely true about our political parties, especially considering that they're about as polarized as ever, not including pre-Civil War divisions. Corruption makes parties similar, but their ideologies, at least as far as I'm concerned, couldn't be further.
Also the game of politics tends to make policies and individual actions more similar than the politicians and the parties themselves.
Ah, I see we are in agreement for the most part.
If you look back, you'll find that politicians agree on more now than they ever have. It's more now that we agree on wanting the same result on most issues, but have different means. Very few issues (Abortion, Health Care, Taxes on the rich and such) have that polarization. Back with the Whigs and Federalists, they would want to slice each other's throats open over anything.
See I don't think that's true. Granted I don't have any solid evidence for that, and I'm willing to learn if I'm wrong, but surely our images of early American politics are prone to some exaggeration, given our historical distance. Reverse goes for the FDR period and later, for the same reasons actually (tl;dr version: We weren't there, and all we have to go on is people's personal accounts). See for reference what I said about the politics of the two parties as they entered the Sixties.