Billion-Dollar Budget Cuts, We Hardly Knew Ye

Yesterday, I noted that the GOP's budget cut promises sank from $100 billion to $61 billion and then resulted in a deal party leaders claimed cut $38 billion but really cut just $14 billion. I ended the post with a question: "Any bets on how many days before the cuts disappear entirely?" I didn't intend the question to be taken literally. Perhaps I should have: The Congressional Budget Office now says the deal will reduce this year's budget deficit by just $352 million. 

Comments

[Barack Obama]

Let me be clear:

"Ha ha!"

[ClubMedSux]

Pardon my hasty photoshop job, but I think this expresses your sentiment, and mine.

[Pat D King]

I may not agree with everything he says, but Trump's got balls!

[Id]

Hear that? That's the sound of a shutdown next Thursday.

[Name Nomad]

... right after we find out that this deficit reduction bill actually ended up costing $730 billion somehow.

[Hobo Chang Ba]

Is the Libya war in the budget, or did Obama abandon his early criticisms of Dubya keeping wars off-budget?

[Id]

What war?

[wylie]

The 'Kinetic' one.

[cynical]

That's a military action.

[wylie]

Yeah, but it gets different treatment come budget time, ya noob 😛

[wylie]

Ok, so we're back to my argument of "what constitutes a tank."

"War isn't War unless we explicity declare it as such. The use of military force does not constitute a war, even if the results require us to maintain a presence in the occupied liberated territories for an indefinite period of time."

Thank god the constitution only prescribed 'War' powers and left out any mention of 'Do Whatever The Fuck You Want With Those Bombs' part.

[Xenocles]

The invasion and toppling of the incumbent government is the kinetic action; the subsequent large presence is nothing more than a long-term police action. Hope this clears things up.

[wylie]

(Semantics is FUN!!!, how can I get a job with the WhiteHouse where I subvert the English language so that it serves my political/personal needs?!)

[Well]

"When war funding is factored in the legislation would actually increase total federal outlays by $3.3 billion relative to current levels"

[Bill Gates]

Pocket change, bitches!

[C-Dog]

On the plus side, this is just more proof that the system is going to keep rolling faster and faster towards collapse.

[TheZeitgeist]

I like my analogy of rising alpha in a fissioning bomb-core. All the mushroom-spizzarkle results from the last ten generations or so of neutrons; the previous seventy-something just made the core warm.

I'd say we're in about generation 72 out of 80 by that analogy. When it comes apart, physicists call it 'disassembly' and that's apt for our financial system as well.

It will have to blow itself apart for no other force can quench the insidious reactions now. Its too late for anything else. We blew it as a polity already.

[Hobo Chang Ba]

Yep. Time to buy gold.

[cynical]

No, that time was several years ago. And I hope when you say "buy gold", you mean "come into possession of gold, which you will then place in a secure and hidden location." Ideally, chests, maps, traps, and pirate curses will all be involved.

Buying the paper rights to gold means shit, even assuming the gold traders are being honest. When the government shows up with their guns demanding the physical reserves of gold, and you show up with a slip of paper, I think you're going to get bumped in priority.

[wylie]

Ideally, chests, maps, traps, and pirate curses will all be involved.

Your gaming newsletter, my subscription, etc...

[CoyoteBlue]

Well, it's the thought that counts.

We are so fucking doomed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoCZ07hwoZ4

[Warty]

I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.

[kilroy]

Fuck it. I'm watching Fight Club tonight and getting totally fucking drunk.

A REASON to DRINK!

[Pham Nuwen]

You fool! You have to be more subtle with it. Such as "REASON has been going downhill since Postrel left..." or "For a magazine called REASON ..." et cetera.

[kilroy]

How's that working out for you? Being clever subtle?

[Pham Nuwen]

Now see here, sir! I don't make up the rules. I just follow them.

http://reason.wikia.com/wiki/Drinking_game

[sage]

D'oh! You missed the reference. You were supposed to reply "Great." And he would reply "Keep it up, then." Who's the fool now, hmmmmm?

[Pham Nuwen]

What? Did I miss a Fight Club reference? *sigh*

[Anonymous]

lol, oldfag alert.

[John]

We are fucking doomed. These people cannot cut spending. They are incapable of it. Before Obama we at least had a decade or so before the whole thing went down. But he raised spending so much that we are going to go broke now rather than in a ten or fifteen years. And since no one in Washington can cut anything, there is no stopping it.

We are cursed with a completely vile and corrupt poltical class that is looting the entire country. And there doesn't seem to be any stopping them until the whole thing goes to shit and there is nothing left to steal.

[Pham Nuwen]

So it was totally cool so long as we could kick it down the road before Obama came along?

[Not an Economist]

He didn't say that. All he said was Obama made it worse.

[Pham Nuwen]

Apologies. Seeing as how he said "before Obama we at least had a decade or so before the whole thing went down." Ten or fifteen years from now Washington will still say there is nothing to cut in the budget regardless of who is in the white house.

[Tulpa]

We'd be a lot more likely to get serious spending cuts if the GOP didn't treat the Bush tax cuts like they were written into the Bill of Rights.

[GinSlinger]

*khwah?*

We'd be more likely to see spending cuts if we could raise revenue?

Pass that over here after you hit it.

[dbcooper]

Eh, if more of the spending was paid for by tax and less financed by debt then perhaps the average joe would be more concerned about rising spending?

[wylie]

Which is exactly the reason why spending has to be reduced instead of trying to increase revenue with more taxes.

[Joshua Corning]

Eh, if more of the spending was paid for by tax and less financed by debt then perhaps the average joe would be more concerned about rising spending?

Keeping the fruits of your labor is liberty. A stable currency is not an individual right but a community right.

You libertarians in name only can suck it!!!

[cynical]

What makes you think the spending would be paid for by tax on the average joe, when the rhetoric on the lips of every Democrat is "them folks what got more stuff than you ain't paying enough, that's why we're broke."

[Britt]

It's not revenue problem, it's a spending problem. It's time to stop playing the statist game of compromising by increasing the theft.

Especially since everytime they do that the deal is tax hikes now, with cuts coming in the future which never arrives.

I would be open to that kind of deal if it was held to, but it never is. It's the political equivalent of promising not to come in her mouth.

[wylie]

It's the political equivalent of promising not to come in her mouth.

Which is why I should be a politician. I know such a promise is made to be broken, and wouldn't promise it.

"OK, but don't cum in my mouth."

"Eh, suddenly, I'm not so horny. What was that budget thing you wanted to talk about?"

[prolefeed]

Riiiiiiight. Because nothing -- NOTHING -- gives Congress the incentive to cut spending like having more cash coming in.

* facepalm *

[Tulpa]

The point is, offer to support ending the tax cuts if and only if the Dems agree to significant spending cuts. ie, in the same bill as the ending of the tax cuts.

[wylie]

The point is, your offer falls on deaf ears.

[Tulpa]

OK, but at least make the offer to show you're serious about closing the deficit rather than just posturing. That's not what the GOP is doing; they're asking the Dems to give up their goodies, while they themselves refuse to roll back the tax cuts and military spending.

[wylie]

but at least make the offer to show you're serious about closing the deficit rather than just posturing.

Making an offer you KNOW wont be accepted ISN'T posturing? Learn something new everyday, right?

[mad libertarian guy]

Even better.

How about, in the same bill, we have a cut for cut equivalence for Team Red programs and Team Blue Programs.

Wanna cut some of the defense budget? Sure, but the DoE will take an equivalent hit.

[wylie The Progressive]

Wanna cut some of the defense budget? Sure, but the DoE will take an equivalent hit.

Now you're just talkin crazyness!

[robc]

Or, you know, vote for that one Senator's proposal that cuts $500 billion.

[wylie]

I must've missed the part where I get to vote on how a particular legislator will vote for a particular bill, after they've already won the election.

Damn I'm slow.....but at least I'm not as slow as the people who voted for Obama in '08 expecting him to do what he campaigned on.

[nekoxgirl]

If it would get the Democrats on board with massive cuts to warfare/welfare state, I'd think it would be worth it to raise taxes to 90's levels. Raising taxes would hurt the economy but not as much as endless 1.5 trillion dollar deficits will. But I really don't think the Democrats will be satisfied with anything less than pre-Reagan level taxes.

[Fatty Bolger]

You're right, on both counts.

[robc]

I would trade the Bush tax cuts for a Balanced Budget Amendment (with no off budget bullshit games).

When the states pass the Amendment, the tax cuts can be repealed. I would make that compromise.

But anything short of that? Fuck no.

[wylie]

If it would get the Democrats on board with massive cuts to warfare/welfare state, I'd think it would be worth it to raise taxes to 90's levels.

Let me introduce you to "campaign promises not attained" and "I straight up fucking lied to you, so suck it up and give me more of your money."

[IceTrey]

I don't know about you, but I'm going to get my kicks before the whole shithouse goes down in flames.

[shrike]

Nice Morrison ref.

I have the live album where he says just prior to that -

"I am a Saggitarius"!

Chick in audience "I am too!"

Morrison "But I don't believe in that shit"

Same chick "I don't either!"

[Joshua Corning]

We are fucking doomed.

I am thinking about buying Naomi Kline's "The Shock Doctrine" and using it as a strategy guide.

When you get a lemon make lemonade.

[Hobo Chang Ba]

Wasn't it the Republicans who insisted on the defense spending?

[TrickyVic]

"""These people cannot cut spending. They are incapable of it."""

It's not just capitol hill. The citizenry sends people to capitol hill to do things for them. Rs and Ds alike. To do things you need money, therefore unless America changes what it wants from government, government isn't going to change. Don't blame the political class. There's much blame to go around.

Yes, we are doomed.

[Bingo]

Yup, we're screwed. Don't forget that the "vile and corrupt political class" was elected by a populace that largely agrees with the looting as long as they get some of the largesse.

[Episiarch]

The funny thing is that the average populace is too stupid to understand how much they're being looted, even if they are getting some largess. The only ones who make out are public sector employees and a few others. Do you think the average person ever gets back in largess as much as they've had taken from them?

[Bingo]

I don't think the average person even cares. In the average voters mind we need government involved in all these things just for the basic functions of life. It all adds up to a huge, intrusive, expensive parental figure to provide for us and guide us from cradle to grave and, on average, is FULLY supported by the populace. And it will never decrease in size because someone, somewhere will always be able to convince others that without the Department of ________ there would be no ________.

In the minds of the people, the government and all it's functions are what is keeping their neighborhood from becoming Roadless Somalia overrun by Drug-dealing Muslim Atheist Homosexual Illegal Mexicans. And the moment we cut any of those functions, well say goodbye to peace and prosperity. Old people will starve and bridges collapse and terrorists will be blowing up airplanes 24/7 etc.

We're a nation of scared goddamn children and I wish the government HAD shut down so people would stop pissing their pants about budget cuts.

Goddamn I need a drink.

[wylie]

Goddamn I need a drink.

Lemme chip in on that bottle, so you can pass it this way. Cheers (to the end of civilization as we currently know and enjoy it.)

[Jim]

Actually Epi, I think a lot of people get way the hell more out than they pay in. Shit, what about the nearly half who don't pay any income tax? They get WIC, medicaid, food stamps, etc, and they're not paying in SHIT.

They have absolutely no vested interest in changing things, because they already barely get by with a bunch of free shit, i.e. services received without contributing taxes towards them. If you cut these people off, I honestly believe a lot of them (initially) would starve, because they're barely getting by already, and that's with their income not being taxed already (thus negating the standard "but they'll save in taxes thus enabling them to afford more services" line).

SLD: I think it's the correct thing to do; a lot of them need to starve, to get this ball rolling. The sad and sorry fact is, not everyone on earth gets to live a life of luxury, or even relative security, without bankrupting everyone else. There's just not enough shit (oil, gold, food, good jobs, etc) to fulfill all the wants of 6 1/2 billion people. People have to learn to get less healthcare, for example, at least for a decade or more while the market gets sorted out (assuming we wind down medicaid & medicare). And if the shit like licensing and regulation don't relax at the same time, to enable the supply to increase, there's just going to have to be a lot of people on charity, or being supported by family members, etc.

Upshot: gov't intervention is so deeply rooted by this point, that there will have to be a generation of pretty nasty withdrawal before things can right themselves. People will starve. Kids with cancer will be refused treatment because they can't pay. Fat fucks will get fatter and have heart attacks. Old people will die, because a lot of them don't have real income past SS. But it has to be done, because we can do it now, and get a swift kick in the nuts, or we can wait until the entire thing crashes down around our heads in a firestorm of debt and inflation, and then we'll really see Somalia.

[Jim]

Sorry, the above rant is NOT my hypothesis of what would happen if the paltry Ryan budget is enacted, I mean if we went cold-turkey, cut the gov't by >50%, and stopped borrowing money. Which I believe is necessary, because any plan that proposes to balance a budget over the course of decades isn't even a "starting point", like so many people here claim: it's bullshit political theater based on the premise that EVERY congress is going to stick to da plan for the next 30 years. Lots of luck with that.

[Bingo]

I actually don't think a total collapse would play out that way.

Worst case scenario is US defaulting, government collapsing, and then some sort of overpowered executive that combines the worst impulses of the right and the left is put in to correct things.

Next worst case, and far more likely in my opinion, is the Federal gears just slowly grind to a halt and become irrelevant. People are unhappy, and a lot of talk is made about secession. At this point, either the Fed Gov fixes itself, or regions and states start to secede. Most will probably re-implement the social safety nets and bureaucracy that the Feds provide, but others might cut or even reinforce and expand the same institutions. The biggest loser in a non-violent secession scenario is the military industrial complex, because the individual states don't have the willpower, manpower, or wealth to afford luxuries like "nation building". Basically, the US starts to look a hell of a lot like the EU.

Best case scenario, but I fear it's less likely, is that some miracle happens and the legislative branch and executive branch incrementally reset themselves to a smaller role while pushing a lot of responsibilities onto the states.

Most likely scenario is that we continue on the current course, and the only reason why we haven't collapsed is that the rest of the world is so much more fucked up than we are.

But I don't see a future where people end up starving, or where you need to stock up on guns, gold, gas, and liquor. The French Revolution is pretty much a worst case scenario as far as Western collapses go and people didn't starve and society didn't fall apart.

[0x90]

"Don't forget that the 'vile and corrupt political class' was elected by a populace that largely agrees with the looting as long as they get some of the largesse is effectively presented with the choice of electing Thug A or Thug B, and has been successfully inculcated to believe this to be a justly legitimate form of governance."

[wylie]

THIS * infinity.

[wylie]

says the deal will reduce the budget deficit by just $353 million.

To be fair, based on the rest of the post, I really expected this part to be more along the lines of "increased the budget by 353mil".

[wylie]

errr, "..increased the deficit...", not budget.

[R C Dean]

No diff, Wylie. Every dollar that spending is increased is a borrowed dollar.

[wylie]

I don't know, because my mind rejects all finacial ideas. My brother just had an "Accounting 101" class, so being clear on the terms used is paramount right now.

[Joh[nn]y Lo[n]gtorso]

Jury doesn't convict Bonds of perjury, just obstruction. Relevance? This is your tax dollars at work.

[wylie]

drop in the bucket, pocket change, vital service, blah blah blah

*vomit*

damn, i really thought i could manage without the puking.

[GSL]

Yup.

[Team Blue]

These $38 billion... errrr $353 million in cuts are draconian!!!1!

[shrike]

So the CBO rightfully has credibility when they piss on the budget cut numbers but they have none when they project Obamacare to be a net positive gain for the debt?

Obamacare, as bad as it is, is 100x more fiscally responsible than the Bushpigs Medicare Welfare for Pharma Part D Act.

[Esteban]

Who here supports Medicare Part D?

Also CBO scores on a one year budget deal score for a health care overhaul over 10 and 20 year periods are not the same thing.

[wylie The Progressive]

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST, Esteban, get with the fucking program already! If you disagree with the left, then YOU'RE A SHILL FOR THE RIGHT! "THE MIDDLE GROUND" IS A MYTH, JUST LIKE SLIPPERYSLOPES!!!111ONEONEONE

[wylie The Progressive]

oh, and, Somalia.

[prolefeed]

The CBO is NOT claiming here that their numbers are unreliable because of Congress gaming the system. They did loudly proclaim the gaming with Obamacare.

When someone says the numbers they're giving you are not credible, I tend to believe them.

[shrike]

They did loudly proclaim the gaming with Obamacare.

Link?

Proof?

[Joshua Corning]

The CBO knows their numbers were pure fantasy last March. Don't take my word for it. The chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services came out a month later and said um, minor correction, instead of saving $142 billion over the budgetary window, it costs 318 billion dollars.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/4094948.....re_Fantasy   

Also i am pretty sure reason's own peter Sudderman covered this when it happened..

yup he sure did:

http://reason.com/blog/2010/04.....re-than-ex

[Tman]

You claim to be good with math, yet you keep playing this stupid broken record.

Let's do some arithmetic.

Medicare Welfare for Pharma Part D Act:
Projected net expenditures from 2009 through 2018 are estimated to be $727.3 billion

Obamacare:
CBO:If the clock were started in 2011, the first full year that the bill could possibly be in effect, the CBO says that the bill's ten-year costs would be $1.2 trillion.

Don't you get tired of this?

[Episiarch]

shriek is a partisan scumbag. They never get tired of this. In fact, they seem to get off on it. They'll argue with the other TEAM, the same talking points (sometimes reversed!) all. Day. Long.

I don't get it, but then, I'm not a hypocritical unthinking partisan dipshit with zero integrity and sycophantic and collectivist tendencies.

[shrike]

You are correct - I am partisan for the smallest government.

The Bushpigs ran spending from $1.6 trillion to $3.5 trillion - about where spending is now.

The S&P 500 up 520 points under Obama after a dive under Dumbya and Dickless "Deficits Don't Matter" Cheney.

Partisan and Proud - for now.

[Episiarch]

Right, exactly what I said: you're a hypocritical unthinking partisan dipshit with zero integrity and sycophantic and collectivist tendencies.

Why fucks like you so strenuously deny what is so screamingly obvious to the rest of us I don't know. Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

Have fun being a scumbag, shriek. You're clearly suited for it.

[TrickyVic]

Sorry we had to cancel the soap opera "Joe and John". But stay tuned for more "Epi and Shrike".

😉

[wylie]

Sorry we had to cancel the soap opera "Joe and John". But stay tuned for more "Epi and Shrike".

Awwww. Well, at least we can hope for an internet petition that results in Joe and John getting a new life on a more appropriate network.

[shrike]

But you are true misanthrope - which is OK.

But I am not. I look for improvement - six sigma - a better way.

Your forlorn exasperation is tiresome. You cleave at nothingness.

[Tony]

The obvious? Would that be the same thing millenarians have been telling us about since forever?

[Tman]

I am partisan for the smallest government.

Then you are apparently very bad with arithmetic and should be shoveled back in to whichever hole you crawled out from.

I just showed you that BOTH programs are running either 3/4 or over a trillion in projected expenditures, pending on which team you hear it from.

You keep playing this stupid "Bushpig" game whilst completely ignoring the fact that Obama hasn't stopped doing any of the stupid things that Bush did, and in fact has made most of them ten times worse.

You don't understand arithmetic if you say things like "Obamacare, as bad as it is, is 100x more fiscally responsible than the Bushpigs Medicare Welfare for Pharma Part D Act.

Small government, how does it fucking work?

[wylie]

You don't understand arithmetic if you say things like "Obamacare, as bad as it is, is 100x more fiscally responsible than the Bushpigs Medicare Welfare for Pharma Part D Act.

Small government, how does it fucking work?

McCain/Kerry WOULDVE BEEN WORSE!!!!1!!!11!!!

...that's how. Booyah.

[shrike]

You only give expenditure numbers.

I want net cost - you neglect the cost savings and tax income under Obamacare.

So your $727.3 billion for PArt D is static and the Obamacare number realizes income and is dynamic and will net cost positive.

[Episiarch]

Hey shriek, shilling for Obama never gets old for you, does it. I can't wait until he fucks you even harder. You'll probably shill just that much more.

Is it painful being such a hypocritical shitheel, shriek? Or more of just a dull ache that you've learned to ignore? I bet it's the latter.

[shrike]

Quit sniffing my ass, you pervert.

[Episiarch]

Fuck you, you fucking hypocritical toady. You don't want to be called out for being a sycophantic Obama cocksucker? Don't do it.

Little pathetic hypocrites like you need and deserve to be dogged relentlessly for the lying little sacks of partisan shit you are.

So go cry somewhere else, big guy. Maybe Tony can take you for an ice cream? Will that make you feel better, little buddy? You want a Happy Meal?

Oh, and please dispense some more of your financial wisdom. That shit NEVER gets old.

[wylie]

I can't wait until he fucks you even harder.

"Obama managed to go further than 'balls-deep', it was amazing. I never came so hard before."

[Tman]

You only give expenditure numbers.

No, I give numbers, period. The "projected cost savings under Obamacare" aren't a number. They are (at best) a misguided interpretation of the potential economic advantages of a socialized health care system. Too bad that a.)it still isn't arithmetic, and b.) you live in a fantasy world if you think that this system is cheaper than what the free market can provide.

I want net cost

I gave you that.

- you neglect the cost savings and tax income under Obamacare.

What number is this? And, as you like to say, who is the source of said number?

So your $727.3 billion for PArt D is static and the Obamacare number realizes income and is dynamic and will net cost positive.

English, DO YOU SPEAK IT MOTHERFUCKER?

[Pham Nuwen]

What I don't get is why even Paul is being taken seriously. His plan "cuts" six trillion over ten years. That's 600 billion. The current budget deficit is what . . . about 1.6 trillion? We're still gonna increase the debt by 10 trillion. And here we are talking about 38 billion like it means something. I don't think that would even round when putting the current deficit up next to it.

[Warty]

Jack Johnson: I say your three cent titanium tax goes too far!
John Jackson: And I say your three cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough!

That's why he gets taken seriously.

[Episiarch]

What do you do when you're out of money? Start a war! Wait, we've got three and we're not getting any loot! What gives?

[Pham Nuwen]

"What exactly will you be cutting and how much of it and can I watch you do it while eating Pork Cracklins?"

[oldtimer]

Oops... 6 T = 6,000 B..

[Pham Nuwen]

My bad. 600 billion a year aka 6 trillion over ten years. I stated it badly.

[robc]

He has said its only 1/3 of the way to balanced.

He offered it as a starting point, not as the ending point.

At $500 billion (which I though it was, not $600, but whatever) in cuts per year, that gets us to balanced in 3 years (10 year scoring is bullshit, budgets are for 1 year only).

[Jerry]

Wow, and the only thing the press talks about here abroad is on how Obama is going to massively cut spending over the next couple of years. These fanboys of Obama really have no limits or shame. And of course the article includes the obligatory quote from some leftish hack prof:

Some economists and political scientists also raise what they see as the danger of Republican cuts slowing or even reversing America's climb out off recession. Thomas Ferguson, professor of politics at the University of Massachusetts, said there was a danger of repeating the mistakes of the Great Depression by chopping spending. "The US would surely take a rather large plunge. They will get Ireland and Greece outcomes. You will crater the US economy if you were to enact the [Republican] bill," Ferguson said.

[Warty]

Thomas Ferguson, professor of politics at the University of Massachusetts, said there was a danger of repeating the mistakes of the Great Depression by chopping spending. "The US would surely take a rather large plunge. They will get Ireland and Greece outcomes. You will crater the US economy if you were to enact the [Republican] bill," Ferguson said.

1)HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
2)There's no danger of chopping spending, don't worry your pretty little head.
3)Professor of politics?
4)HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAsobsobsob

[Pham Nuwen]

That was actually kind of brutal, Warty. Well done.

[Warty]

I aim to please, Naga. Especially when we're talking about your mom.

[Pham Nuwen]

Ha! Try again. My mom's to drunk to be a professor.

[Episiarch]

He was talking about your real mom, Naga. The one who gave you up for adoption in exchange for a guitar.

Ricky: You gave me away?

Jerri: No, no, never! I traded you for a guitar. And all these years I've wondered, what happened to that guitar?

[Pham Nuwen]

Guitar? I thought it was a violin?

Jerri: From now on, this violin is my whole life.
Orlando: Hey, Jerri. Wanna go throw stuff off the overpass?
Jerri: Yeah.
[holds up violin]
Jerri: We can throw this.

[Episiarch]

"Befriending new people can lead to having sex with your children, accidentally."

[Pham Nuwen]

"I've had plenty of babies! Just none I've carried to full term."

[Pham Nuwen]

Damn. I totally fucked reading your comment, Warty.

[mad libertarian guy]

So if we cut spending, what happened to Greece and Ireland and Portugal (and soon to be Italy) as a result of their refusal to cut spending will happen here?

What kind of a fucking world do we live in where the "best and brightest" look at real world actions with real world results (gross overspending by various international governments and their singular result of defaulting on their loans throwing their respective economies in to chaos), yet conclude that if we do the exact opposite, the same thing will happen?

What a fucking hack.

[Sudden]

said there was a danger of repeating the mistakes of the Great Depression by chopping spending

Liar or Fool?

Federal spending had already surged 49% from 1929 to 1932, prior to FDR even taking office. source

[Fatty Bolger]

The man's a "professor of politics."

Obviously both.

[pmains]

I found the NY Times foot stamping over Portugal's insolvency even more amusing. The article is written by a professor in ... wait for it ... sociology! Here's a key sample of his studied studipity:

Why, then, has Portugal's debt been downgraded and its economy pushed to the brink? There are two possible explanations. One is ideological skepticism of Portugal's mixed-economy model, with its publicly supported loans to small businesses, alongside a few big state-owned companies and a robust welfare state. Market fundamentalists detest the Keynesian-style interventions in areas from Portugal's housing policy ? which averted a bubble and preserved the availability of low-cost urban rentals ? to its income assistance for the poor.

You heard it here first. The bond markets are a Galtian plot.

[Jeffersonian]

I've gone from fearing the moment that the bond market sticks a red-hot poker up our ass to actually looking forward to it. I'm just trying to figure out a way to not take too much of a bath in the process.

[P Brooks]

Thank Cthulu!

The neediest and most vulnerable Americans have been spared from misery and degradation!

[Kenton A Hoover]

Forgive the glibness, but it's better than nothing. And we would have ended up with far, far more than nothing if the WH had gotten their way.

[CoyoteBlue]

I'm sorry but it is nothing. $3.5 trillion budget with 40% funded by the Bernanke's xerox machines.

$353 million is nothing.

[shrike]

Please send my your fiat money that you hate so much.

I will give you .80c on the dollar.

Quick - before it falls another 95% (according to Paultard legend).

[prolefeed]

You're offering to give me 80 cents in fiat money in exchange for a buck in fiat money?

I think you need to try that offer over at onlyfoolsallowedhere.com

[Old Mexican]

Re: Prolefeed,

You're offering to give me 80 cents in fiat money in exchange for a buck in fiat money?

He's actually offering you less than a penny for each FRN, prolefeed:
"I will give you .80c on the dollar."

He's nothing more than a con-artist. I offer you .95c for each FRN!

[shrike]

My offer is for .80c in a nickel/zinc/copper/silver alloy the Treasury sponsors!

Rolled by size of course.

I expect Paultards will love my offer.

[Voros McCracken]

Why when they can get a $1 worth of the same stuff for the same price?

[wylie]

Why when they can get a $1 worth of the same stuff for the same price?

Because we have laws that will destroy their lives, duh.

[fish]

If you can make all those pennies copper then you have a deal.

[Tony]

Gold and copper are magic. Check.

[wylie]

Well, since our needs as a civilization actually find lots of practical value in gold and copper, compared to say, a mix of clay particulates (ie, the same dirt you can scoop up anywhere), yes, they are sort of magical.

Try to coil with some iron wire, then switch to copper, and get back to me on how "magical" you think copper is.

[wylie]

...to continue....

Copper is FUCKING AWESOME. I love it. Just the color, and the malleability. The electrical properties are a bonus.

[Tony]

You're right, I regretted my comment as soon as it posted. fish's post was clever.

[wylie]

You're right, I regretted my comment as soon as it posted. fish's post was clever.

ENOUGH WITH THE SPOOFS!

[Otto]

Copper pennies are currently worth about .03 each as copper, and .01 as pennies.

[Otto]

Crap. Refresh prior to posting.

[wylie]

Crap. Refresh prior to posting.

No, no, no.

As Per US Code Section 4 Subsection 20 Paragraph 420:

"Commentors must file a 10W666 before refreshing, followed by the completion of Form 73-66709 to permit the posting of any comments."

ARREST THIS OTTO FOR NONCOMPLIANCE.

[wylie]

Whoops, I neglected to file a "1670 Permission to Cite a Fake US Code" for....*CARRIER LOST*

[P Brooks]

CHOP

CHOP

CHOP

CHOP

CHOP

CHOP

CHOP

[GSL]

Heh. California really does set the trends in politics. Unfortunately.

[John Thacker]

Well, that's sort of true. But the returned high speed rail money of $2.4B definitely *was* going to get re-awarded by the FRA if not cut in this deal. They'd already called for applications for it.

And money that's the result of cutting mandatory programs instead of discretionary is fine with me as well, even if it means lowering the baseline in future years. Weren't we talking about how cutting the budget was impossible with just discretionary money, now suddenly it's bad to cut mandatory money?

[ConfederalRepublicBy2030]

What the fuck is this shit? Will nothing short of insurrection and violent deposition of the federal government restore the republic?

[Fergit' Hell!]

Them Yankees done violated the non-aggression principle fust !

So it's all self defense now!

[ConfederalRepublicBy2030]

I'm being serious here. Perhaps it's time to remind our overlords that "the people preserve the spirit of resistance".

[IceTrey]

THERE ARE NO CUTS! The 2010 budget was 3.4 trillion. The 2011 budget is going to be around 3.6 trillion. The 38 billion they "cut" was off the number Obama ASKED for! THERE ARE NO CUTS!

[Libertarian2]

Somebody finally said it. THANK YOU!

(not to be greedy, but could you get a job as a teevee reporter and say that over the air?)

[Mike]

Folks, it's really very simple: Obama is doing to America what Reagan did to the Soviet Union, i.e., he is hastening national collapse.

The Soviet collapse followed in the wake of that nation's structural economic contradictions and inefficiencies. In addition, by loosening the strangehold that the Communist Party had on the country, Gorbachev created social expectations that no Communist system could meet, thereby undermining the legitimacy of the regime. He didn't cause the collapse; he merely oversaw it.

Obama will do likewise. Like the Soviet Union, Obama is borrowing and spending until we reach the point where it will be mathematically impossible for the American economy to produce the wealth necessary to re-pay that debt or even to keep up with the interest payments. Unlike Gorbachev, Obama will loosen nothing. In fact, he will tighten the noose by making ever-increasing portions of the population dependent on government largesse and by strangling economic development through onerous, destructive federal regulations. These regulations, which have the force of law, are created and enforced daily by bureaucracies that appear to answer to no one. Congress has ceded its authority to these agencies so as to avoid being held accountable for unpopular policies (witness the refusal of Congress to re-assert its authority following the EPA's usurpation of legislative prerogatives with regards to the regulation of greenhouse gases). Should Obama succeed, the collapse of the United States as a coherent, sovereign entity will be inevitable.

Obama IS our Gorbachev. And, like Gorbachev, he expects to be lauded by History for his role in bringing about the end of this "evil empire".

[ConfederalRepublicBy2030]

Perhaps now is the time for revolution? The Redcoats have reappeared, despotic intentions in tow, to enslave us.

[wylie The Progressive]

Enough with the reasons why I voted for Obama. Do you plan to get to the downside eventually?

[wylie]

*initiates revolution against my alter-ego*

[cynical]

After the collapse comes the American Putin.

[CJ]

Obama is doing to America what Reagan did to the Soviet Union, i.e., he is hastening national collapse. ... And, like Gorbachev, he expects to be lauded by History for his role in bringing about the end of this "evil empire".

If I thought he was doing it intentionally, I might even laud him myself. This country needs a reset button.

[TrickyVic]

Is this the win the Rs were bragging about, or did Obama make them look like suckers for letting them think they won?

[wylie]

That's like cutting your own dick off so your opponents look like morons for still having a dick. And THEN boasting about how much bigger your non-dick is compared to theirs.

(I don't think this comparison has much, if any, validity, but i decided to hit submit anyway. Suck It, Comparison Nazis.)

[Rock Action]

You're close, man. It's like making fun of somebody else's dick size, challenging them to a public dick-off, and then castrating yourself the day before the contest.

[wylie]

yes! THAT is the comparison I was trying for.

[Mike M.]

Is this the win the Rs were bragging about, or did Obama make them look like suckers for letting them think they won?

Neither. Both sides willingly decided to cut basically nothing, and lied to make it seem like there were cuts that would be satisfactory to most of the country. What's really happening is that the American people are being played for a bunch of fools.

[wylie]

What's really happening is that the American people are being played for a bunch of fools.

No. A (majority) portion of them are fools.

What do we do for the rest of us?

[Aresen]

So they fudged the books.

Surprise, surprise, surprise.

Ken Lay's bookkeeping was more honest than these guys.

[wylie]

The whole idea of 90-days (60, whatever, like it matters) of executive free-will to use the military is a bad process nowadays.

Congress can be notified of the intent immediately, and if I takes them more than a few hours to approve the action, then, hell, maybe it IS ACTUALLY QUESTIONABLE?!

No, no, the Preztledent is the CiC, so obviously he can tell the military what to do unimpeded by constitutional scholarship.

[A Serious Man]

Hey guys, check out the latest left-wing pathos post circulating the web:

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?
Yeah, me neither.

[wylie]

Clearly, you forgot that day when Libertarians sacrificed 100k newborns to the Demon Fhree Markhet, you terrorist loving, child hating bastard!

[wylie]

Evil Scale, based on the Gods Of Chaos:

Tzneetch < Nurgle < Khorne < Fhree Markhet < Slaneesh

[cynical]

How many eldar do we need to sacrifice to catch up?

[Jim]

Remain faithful to the Emperor, and you will not fail.*

*works for fantasy and 40k

[A Serious Man]

*liberals actually believe that.

No seriously they do. For my government class I'm reading a book called "Democracy for the Few" by Michael Parenti that has a chapter devoted to the corporate-run media and globalization and how it makes us hate left-wing movements that kill people while ignoring the US-Plutocrat-backed right-wing regimes that also kill people. So yes, according to some academics, in a manner of speaking, we really do sacrifice kids upon the alter of capitalism!

[Almanian]

Yeah - I noted this as the latest "non-sequitur" to float around the interwebs.

What has this to do with anything? Why, nothing.

[A Serious Man]

When they say crashed the stock market, I'm assuming they mean destroy the guys responsible, but at the same time they supposedly like the Federal government, so I'm not sure how this makes sense. Hmm, that's a thinker for sure...

[Almanian]

This comment on a gun chat board made me think of Warty, for some reason:

"7.62NATO - because shooting something twice with 5.56NATO is just plain silly."

lulz

[ConfederalRepublicBy2030]

.50 six-barrel minigun. Mounted on your front porch. Mother-fucking fuck yeah.