Fundamental flaws in the Republican Party

[thegreekdog]

Cantor is one of the worst human beings on the planet. He sponsored H.R. 1119 - employers can decide not to pay overtime pay, at their discretion.

He and Paul Ryan are also behind the sequester. Basically, he is really loving watching America fail right now. He wants to see America fail so that he can attempted a policy coup more in line with his vision of apocalyptic feudalism. On the Federal level, the Republican party is the biggest threat to America since Japan, '42.

“As you know, the sequester was designed to force action to deal with the deficit and debt. We passed a bill 300 days ago to deal with this. As recently as December the Senate still hasn’t done anything. So I do expect the sequester to take effect, because the Senate hasn’t acted, the president is around the country campaigning instead of governing. So I think what you’ll see happen next week is we will pass an appropriations Measure that gives the administration more flexibility.”

Obama has not been campaigning
Bills passed 300 days ago are no longer valid
Boehner refuses to allow any sequester bills to be discussed

You're delusional. Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan don't want to cut anything.

Further (as to your alarmist biggest threat since 1942 comment)...

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-0 ... government
http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/201 ... oo-stupid/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderic ... -servants/

Apparently the president's continuation of his campaign (as well as golf trips... remember when people used to lambast President GW Bush for taking vacatoins?) has worked on you!

[thegreekdog]

Oh, this is my favorite one.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/bloombe ... -posturing

“There’s a lot of posturing: ‘I’m going to lay off my employees today unless you do something. We’re going to close the hospitals down. We’re going to take all the prisoners from jail and put them on the streets,’” Bloomberg said, mocking the warnings. “Spare me. I live in that world. I mean, come on, let’s get serious here.”

And yeah, this sort of alarmism is happening on both sides of the aisle. The Republicans and conservative pundits are talking about how the military will be hamstrung (for example). It's disgusting really because if someone just looked at the GAO and CBO numbers, one would understand these are pennies. It's not even a spending cut, it's less of a spending increase.

[BigBallinStalin]

Oh, this is my favorite one.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/bloombe ... -posturing

“There’s a lot of posturing: ‘I’m going to lay off my employees today unless you do something. We’re going to close the hospitals down. We’re going to take all the prisoners from jail and put them on the streets,’” Bloomberg said, mocking the warnings. “Spare me. I live in that world. I mean, come on, let’s get serious here.”

And yeah, this sort of alarmism is happening on both sides of the aisle. The Republicans and conservative pundits are talking about how the military will be hamstrung (for example). It's disgusting really because if someone just looked at the GAO and CBO numbers, one would understand these are pennies. It's not even a spending cut, it's less of a spending increase.

Hah, I wish. Then government may actually be more efficient than the market in resolving these issues, but since enough voters are gullible, then the rhetoric works.

[Juan_Bottom]

You're delusional. Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan don't want to cut anything.

You're delusional. Paul Ryan just ran for Vice President on a platform of spending cuts.

Apparently the president's continuation of his campaign (as well as golf trips... remember when people used to lambast President GW Bush for taking vacatoins?) has worked on you!

WOW
If you're going to be passive aggressive at least know what the fffffffffff you're talking about.

& the president cannot be campaigning, because he is not running for anything. He already has the friggin' job.

You're delusional. Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan don't want to cut anything.

Further (as to your alarmist biggest threat since 1942 comment)...


And yeah, this sort of alarmism is happening on both sides of the aisle. The Republicans and conservative pundits are talking about how the military will be hamstrung (for example). It's disgusting really because if someone just looked at the GAO and CBO numbers, one would understand these are pennies. It's not even a spending cut, it's less of a spending increase.

You always follow my comments about politics with snippets about how I don't know what I'm talking about; But! your facts are always old or misplaced. I follow politics verrry closely. I'm embroiled in this.

Not only do I stand by my statement that THE REPUBLICAN PARTY TODAY IS THE BIGGEST THREAT TO AMERICA SINCE JAPAN 1942 (I did not say it was the sequester) I will gladly elaborate because I feel like you've gone down the wrong rabbit hole. The sequester hasn't been predestined by the Republican Party to hurt the President, or to hurt the country's wealth. It wasn't even designed to hurt the major parties, that's just a delightful side effect. Cantor and Ryan are playing a game that's so far above what is being written. And this is especially true of Ryan ATM, because they're trying to destroy the public trust in the Federal Government, which is something Ryan's decided to work toward. That's their goal, and that's why the Republican Party is such an enormous threat. The public opinion polls show that there is a dismal view of the Republican party, and of congress, but they don't care that they are destroying themselves. Now, that's not to say that the Democrats are blameless here, because they've reneged on a few budget promises to bully the Republicans. But they seem to be totally stupid in all of this, and that doesn't make them the apocalyptic threat that the Republican Party is. Most of the Republicans themselves don't seem to understand either.

[Night Strike]

What's their definition of "vacation days"?

they're trying to destroy the public trust in the Federal Government

Great! Of course, I don't think they're doing a good enough job of it. Since you must have failed to remember, this country was founded on a distrust on a centralized government. In fact, it was so distrusted that a centralized government was virtually non-existent for the first 8 years of the country. They realized that a little bit of a central government was necessary, so they made one as small as workable and then limited it even further by passing the Bill of Rights. Today's government hardly resembles that of the original Constitutional government, so I think a bunch more distrust is not only warranted, but necessitated.

[thegreekdog]

Paul Ryan just ran for Vice President on a platform of spending cuts.

Yes... and?

WOW
If you're going to be passive aggressive at least know what the fffffffffff you're talking about.

& the president cannot be campaigning, because he is not running for anything. He already has the friggin' job.

I am questioning the president's use of time. I'm not questioning whether he's lazy. I suspect one cannot become president if one is lazy. Current polls appear to indicate I'm racist, so I suppose that may be it. From a political perspective, the president is doing a great job right now of making this whole issue the Republicans' problem and only the Republicans' problem. He's doing that by making speeches and not being around to hold discussions. It's really a great strategy. Anyway, that's what I'm referring to. Or, I'm racist.

You always follow my comments about politics with snippets about how I don't know what I'm talking about; But! your facts are always old or misplaced. I follow politics verrry closely. I'm embroiled in this.

There is a tradeoff here. When I post links and actual facts, you either don't respond or you scare up a strawman. So what is the incentive for me? The GAO and the CBO are easy to find.

http://www.federal.iastate.edu/sites/de ... ration.pdf

about $109 billion per year.
The total annual spending cut of about $109 billion is divided equally between defense and nondefense spending. Thus, each such category of spending must be reduced by roughly $55 billion annually. Generally speaking, these cuts are divided proportionately between the discretionary and nonexempt direct spending within each broad category. Since defense spending is largely discretionary and much direct spending is exempt, sequestration primarily will affect discretionary spending ($813 billion of the $984 billion in non-interest savings).

* Cuts ranging from 10.0 percent in 2013 to 8.5 percent in 2021 in the caps on new defense discretionary appropriations, for a total cut in budget authority of $492 billion, which is estimated to yield $454 billion in outlay savings.
* Cuts ranging from 7.8 percent in 2013 to 5.5 percent in 2021 in the caps on new nondefense discretionary appropriations, for a total cut in budget authority of $322 billion, which is estimated to yield $294 billion in outlay savings.
* Cuts ranging from 10.0 percent in 2013 to 8.5 percent in 2021 in mandatory budgetary resources for nonexempt defense programs, generating savings of about $0.1 billion.
* Cuts of 2 percent each year in most Medicare spending because of a special rule for that program, producing savings of $123 billion, and cuts ranging from 7.8 percent in 2013 to 5.5 percent in 2021 in mandatory budgetary resources for other nonexempt nondefense programs and activities, yielding savings of $47 billion. Thus, savings in nondefense mandatory spending would total $170 billion.

So "children not getting educated, parents losing day care, and people not getting healthcare assistance..." not alarmist?

http://reason.com/archives/2013/02/28/o ... lse-alarms

In an effort to remove the hot-potato issue of excessive government spending from the 2012 presidential campaign, and calling the bluff of congressional Republicans who always seem to favor domestic spending cuts but increased military spending, President Obama suggested the concept of "sequester" in late 2011.

See? President Obama is smart. Does that make me racist?

His idea was to reduce the rate of increased spending by 2 percent across the board—on domestic and military spending.

I bolded the important part. There is more and it's good.

Not only do I stand by my statement that THE REPUBLICAN PARTY TODAY IS THE BIGGEST THREAT TO AMERICA SINCE JAPAN 1942 (I did not say it was the sequester) I will gladly elaborate because I feel like you've gone down the wrong rabbit hole. The sequester hasn't been predestined by the Republican Party to hurt the President, or to hurt the country's wealth. It wasn't even designed to hurt the major parties, that's just a delightful side effect. Cantor and Ryan are playing a game that's so far above what is being written. And this is especially true of Ryan ATM, because they're trying to destroy the public trust in the Federal Government, which is something Ryan's decided to work toward. That's their goal, and that's why the Republican Party is such an enormous threat. The public opinion polls show that there is a dismal view of the Republican party, and of congress, but they don't care that they are destroying themselves. Now, that's not to say that the Democrats are blameless here, because they've reneged on a few budget promises to bully the Republicans. But they seem to be totally stupid in all of this, and that doesn't make them the apocalyptic threat that the Republican Party is. Most of the Republicans themselves don't seem to understand either.

Well first, I take umbrage with the idea that there were not bigger threats than Japan in 1942.

I would like you to elaborate especially considering that Congressional approval has been low for a long time, long before the sequestration threat. Unless you can further explain this, the post above basically confirms that you're delusional.

[thegreekdog]

Another one of my favorites:

http://reason.com/reasontv/2013/02/26/5 ... re-committ

Fun title.

5 Sequester Facts to Know Before Committing Suicide

1. The Cuts Are Tiny!

The actual cuts in fiscal year 2013 are only $44 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The rest don’t even take place until 2014 or later. Whether you use $44 billion or $85 billion we’re talking about 1 or 2 percent of total government spending.

2. Spending is Still Going Up!

Even with the sequester, the federal government is expected to spend more this year than it did last year. The government spent $3.5 trillion in 2012 and i expected to spend $3.6 trillion in 2013 (see Summary Table 1).

3. The Pentagon Won't Starve!

The largest chunk of cuts will come out of the defense budget, which has doubled over the past decade. The Pentagon will still have about $500 billion at its disposal, not counting war-related and emergency appropriations.

4. You Can't Cut Nonexistent Programs!

The White House’s Office of Management and Budget says the sequester will cut a whopping $2 million from the $20 million budget for the National Drug Intelligence Center. That sounds pretty bad - until you realize the Drug Intelligence Center closed its door in June 2012.

5. It Was All Obama's Idea!

The whole damn sequester was the Obama administration’s idea. As the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward has reported, despite Obama’s denials to the contrary, “the automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House” as part of the deal to raise the debt limit back in August 2011.

So as members of the president’s cabinet and party rail against the draconian nature of the sequester and the unfairness of it all, it’s worth keeping in mind that these cuts are genuinely puny.

And that the president has nobody to blame but himself.

I'm still interested in hearing about the conpsiracy theory though; maybe it's time to change the subject of your theory from Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor to the president.

[Juan_Bottom]

Do you see what I'm saying about how you don't keep up with Politics? Not only has everyone been saying that they were probably behind it, one of them admitted it two days ago.

[Night Strike]

Do you see what I'm saying about how you don't keep up with Politics? Not only has everyone been saying that they were probably behind it, one of them admitted it two days ago.

Yep, the White House finally made some admissions after the enactment had passed.

[thegreekdog]

Do you see what I'm saying about how you don't keep up with Politics? Not only has everyone been saying that they were probably behind it, one of them admitted it two days ago.

I see what you're saying that I'm not a conspiracy theorist who takes things out of context.

http://www.politicususa.com/eric-cantor ... ester.html

"Real Liberal Potlics" - yep.

So when you said "they" did you mean Cantor, Ryan, and Obama or what?

[Night Strike]

So because they rejected a "Grand Bargain", that probably would have been way worse than the sequester for the American people, they are by default the ones who came up with and caused the sequester?

[thegreekdog]

So because they rejected a "Grand Bargain", that probably would have been way worse than the sequester for the American people, they are by default the ones who came up with and caused the sequester?

It's the master plan for... whatever it is JB thinks they are going to do. I don't know... alien control or something.

You're too conservative for Reason.com, Night Strike, but you should read it sometimes.

[Night Strike]

You're too conservative for Reason.com, Night Strike, but you should read it sometimes.

Any article recommendations?

[thegreekdog]

You're too conservative for Reason.com, Night Strike, but you should read it sometimes.

Any article recommendations?

Click on the link I provided a page ago; there are other articles in there. You may not like the parts about cutting defense spending though.

[Night Strike]

You're too conservative for Reason.com, Night Strike, but you should read it sometimes.

Any article recommendations?

Click on the link I provided a page ago; there are other articles in there. You may not like the parts about cutting defense spending though.

If it talks about cutting some of the hundreds of international bases and black sites, then I'm all for it.

[BigBallinStalin]

You're too conservative for Reason.com, Night Strike, but you should read it sometimes.

Any article recommendations?

A fun one about both political parties:
http://reason.com/archives/2012/09/25/w ... bad-for-us

This one isn't reason.com, but it's an interesting one about the democratic process--specifically civic participation through politics:
http://www.libertarianism.org/publicati ... s-us-worse

[Juan_Bottom]

they're trying to destroy the public trust in the Federal Government

Great! Of course, I don't think they're doing a good enough job of it. Since you must have failed to remember, this country was founded on a distrust on a centralized government. In fact, it was so distrusted that a centralized government was virtually non-existent for the first 8 years of the country. They realized that a little bit of a central government was necessary, so they made one as small as workable and then limited it even further by passing the Bill of Rights. Today's government hardly resembles that of the original Constitutional government, so I think a bunch more distrust is not only warranted, but necessitated.

It's not at all that I've failed to remember. I'm an American historian. The run though, is that I find much of what happened when the US was founded to be irrelevant in contemporary America & today. As Dylan sang, the times they are a changin'. For example, a bunch of rich white slavers just couldn't form a government today like they could then. And while we did have a weak centralized government, George Washington himself headed an army to enforce the government's laws during the Whiskey Tax Rebellion... The founders were willing to enforce the policy of the central government by force if necessary.
John Adams, who was easily one of the best leaders any government ever had, warned of the danger of having a weak central government, & that it would inevitably lead to disunion. He was right; our weak central government was a cause of the Civil War. Southerners complete lack of faith and inherit distrust of government also played a major role. So when we talk about remembering history, remember that Southern politicians and warhawks did whatever they could to erode the trust of government during the 1800s, eventually leading to a Civil War. This is quite similar to what the Republican Party is doing today, but with global consequences.
I'm not saying that a Civil War is our future, but I am saying that treason, like the kind being exhibited by the Republican Party will lead to a lot of pain for a lot of people. They are playing a very dangerous game.


With that said, I am all for f*cking sh*t up and rebelling, even if it's for no other reason than to rebel. But not like this. I find this revolting, though it doesn't shake my faith in government; it shakes my faith in humanity.
And you're a mod, you've seen me f*ck sh*t up and rebel with little ground to stand on. So you know that I'm serious when I say that.

I see what you're saying that I'm not a conspiracy theorist who takes things out of context.

No way, you're a huge conspiracy theorist. I mean-ah, you try to sound impartial, but you're pretty clearly Conservative Libertarian, and as such, you've fallen head-over-heels for the current fox-news type of Conservative news. I think. You talk a lot about conspiracy's in government, just like they do. You're even taking Obama's "suggestion" of a sequestor as some kind of proof... of what exactly? Complacency or something?
Examples that deal directly with things that you've said would be that both partys are entirely sold-out to corporations with rampant corruption, that Dennis Kucinich was kicked out of his party for being just too good, and that both partys are identical because they are both so corrupt. viewtopic.php?f=8&t=184125&p=4030043 The deal isn't that they are so obnoxiously corrupt, it's that you have no appreciation for the immeasurable size of our government or the speed at which such a massive machine moves. I seriously suspect that because you feel like you sold out to corporations as a tax-evasion lawyer, so too you feel like everyone is easily corrupted by corporations or something. I just can't make sense of your opinions without some kind of fix. Part of it I know is that you don't follow politics as closely as I have to, but you follow them closer than the average person and you like to debate them. That's fine, but your information is always behind and you're still condescending about it. I can remember you repeating yourself about how fascinating it is that voters in California keep voting themselves more benefits and deeper in debt. But that was about 30 days after the pledge to balance the budget - which was pretty well covered by Californian press, and like 2 days before they finally balanced it. I didn't call it because I didn't care to, but I did make a thread about it. And there have been other examples.

And when I'm making this point about the slowness of government, I'm saying; look at our goddamn American History, everything from women's rights to monopoly busting takes painfully massive amounts of time to change. The only exception as Dick Cheney said, is when there's a catastrophe to get all of our people to participate.

^^^ And more to the point, each time I showed you why you where wrong in that link, and that you were hypothesizing about conspiracy's, you just walked away without owning up. I'm completely comfortable with saying that I cannot prove that Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor are trying to destroy public trust, but I can point to a string of evidence which is currently being dissected and accepted by free thinkers of both parties. My last write-up about it has over 20,000 shares on Facebook. And that's great that everyone gets this, because information is the key to winning any war. Saxi can prolly tell you more about my duo-identity.
I have no idea why you think that Cantor and Ryan pushed for the sequester, or why you think Obama is working with them secretly or is responsible for their actions or whatever you're alleging. Frankly I don't care because you're very obviously wrong. I'm atmosphere on this b and I left you on the ground.

And another thing - these cuts aren't trifle or ignorable or unimportant like you are mockingly stating. This isn't all wasted funds, this is money that many American families were depending on.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... n-one-faq/
http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesea ... ester+cuts

There is a tradeoff here. When I post links and actual facts, you either don't respond or you scare up a strawman. So what is the incentive for me? The GAO and the CBO are easy to find.

http://www.federal.iastate.edu/sites/de ... ration.pdf

This is all irrelevant to any point that I have ever made about Cantor and Ryan trying to destroy the public trust in government. There's no tradeoff, you're just trying to make points about stuff that don't impact anything I said, so I ignore it. In fact I already told you that the Sequester itself had nothing to do with the point I made so the CBO would be pretty unimportant as a rebuttal.

[BigBallinStalin]

JB doesn't understand that the complainers of sequestering can throw out any proposal they like in order to induce panic, with the intention of prevention a budget reduction.

Of course, they could admit, "Gee, guess we have to cut back on our (ridiculous) investment projects instead of decreasing more valuable resources (e.g. labor)," but that would be 'unreasonable' if one's goal is to induce panic in order to maintain one's current budget.

[Juan_Bottom]

JB doesn't understand that the complainers of sequestering can throw out any proposal they like in order to induce panic, with the intention of prevention a budget reduction.

Of course, they could admit, "Gee, guess we have to cut back on our (ridiculous) investment projects instead of decreasing more valuable resources (e.g. labor)," but that would be 'unreasonable' if one's goal is to induce panic in order to maintain one's current budget.

This again has literally nothing to do with any of my points.
As the Texans are like to say, I can explain this sh*t to you, but I can't understand it for you.

[BigBallinStalin]

JB doesn't understand that the complainers of sequestering can throw out any proposal they like in order to induce panic, with the intention of prevention a budget reduction.

Of course, they could admit, "Gee, guess we have to cut back on our (ridiculous) investment projects instead of decreasing more valuable resources (e.g. labor)," but that would be 'unreasonable' if one's goal is to induce panic in order to maintain one's current budget.

This again has literally nothing to do with any of my points.
As the Texans are like to say, I can explain this sh*t to you, but I can't understand it for you.

If you post crap like this:




which you used to justify the following:

And another thing - these cuts aren't trifle or ignorable or unimportant like you are mockingly stating. This isn't all wasted funds, this is money that many American families were depending on.

then I'll take the time to explain why it's crap.

Now, I have to take the time to connect the dots for you, which is why I don't often take you seriously.

One day, you'll stop being a unwitting victim of political/bureaucratic rhetoric.

[Juan_Bottom]

then I'll take the time to explain why it's crap.

Now, I have to take the time to connect the dots for you, which is why I don't often take you seriously.

One day, you'll stop being a unwitting victim of political/bureaucratic rhetoric.

Awwww
125,000 people losing their rental assistance, and possibly having their families evicted is just rhetoric crap to you. I just don't know what you have against the poor or Holocaust Victims, but don't you think that it's kinda stupid of you to attack a small & trivial point that I brought up to get tgd to stop mocking these cuts as though they mean nothing to no one?
Like, this is all you've got?
Dismissing 373,000 adults and children losing their mental illness treatments? Like "f*ck them?"
You suck at debating actual rhetoric. Nobody was even taking about rhetoric.
If you want to stick to "some of these cutbacks are fine," well then fine because the details of the sequester itself doesn't have anything to do with my point. As I said. But if you're going to join the "poor people aren't worth my respect" dismissal party then just save your time because I don't care.


All y'all who care not for the suffering of the less fortunate absolutely disgust me.

[thegreekdog]

No way, you're a huge conspiracy theorist.

Yeah? How's that?

I mean-ah, you try to sound impartial, but you're pretty clearly Conservative Libertarian, and as such, you've fallen head-over-heels for the current fox-news type of Conservative news.

I don't watch Fox News. I've given you my sources and never a once has it been Fox News. But yeah, I'm a conservative libertarian; I don't think those people watch Fox News.

You talk a lot about conspiracy's in government, just like they do. You're even taking Obama's "suggestion" of a sequestor as some kind of proof... of what exactly? Complacency or something?

Well, there's conspiracy and there's fact. This is the same go round we always have. I've provided you with information, namely that the sequestration was, at least partially or mostly, the fault of the president. Further, I've provided you with how the budget gets allocated and that any cuts that you whine about above are the fault of the president. Even further, I've provided you with the specific dollar amounts associated with each cut for the first year of the cuts. I've provided all that information to you to show you that (1) the sequestration isn't bad; (2) it was not something cooked up by Cantor and Ryan to screw the country (which you still haven't explained; and (3) it was mostly the fault of your savior and our current president.

Examples that deal directly with things that you've said would be that both partys are entirely sold-out to corporations with rampant corruption, that Dennis Kucinich was kicked out of his party for being just too good, and that both partys are identical because they are both so corrupt. viewtopic.php?f=8&t=184125&p=4030043 The deal isn't that they are so obnoxiously corrupt, it's that you have no appreciation for the immeasurable size of our government or the speed at which such a massive machine moves. I seriously suspect that because you feel like you sold out to corporations as a tax-evasion lawyer, so too you feel like everyone is easily corrupted by corporations or something. I just can't make sense of your opinions without some kind of fix. Part of it I know is that you don't follow politics as closely as I have to, but you follow them closer than the average person and you like to debate them. That's fine, but your information is always behind and you're still condescending about it. I can remember you repeating yourself about how fascinating it is that voters in California keep voting themselves more benefits and deeper in debt. But that was about 30 days after the pledge to balance the budget - which was pretty well covered by Californian press, and like 2 days before they finally balanced it. I didn't call it because I didn't care to, but I did make a thread about it. And there have been other examples.

How is any of that a conspiracy theory? It's not like I'm pulling this stuff out of my ass. It's not like I'm going to Alex Jones or Glenn Beck and getting this information. I'm going to trusted news sources from both sides of the political spectrum. Your insider political information comes from Democratic Underground and the SEIU website. I'm merely here to show you how, whether the politician is Democrat or Republican, I can point to things that such politicians do to benefit the people that give them money, whether directly or indirectly. I've been successful doing that. You tend to not respond to those posts, for whatever reason. Like the time I posted about the recent tax increase bill that the president signed and showed the various corporate tax benefits in the bill. All of my information is current; it's not past. I tend to believe you when you say you follow politics closely. I'm just not sure you know how to do independent research, instead preferring to rely on websites that provide information to supplement your existing views on politics and the economy.

Let's take your cool chart for example. Where did you get the chart? What does the chart mean? Do you understand that these aren't actually cuts but reductions to increases in spending?

completely comfortable with saying that I cannot prove that Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor are trying to destroy public trust, but I can point to a string of evidence which is currently being dissected and accepted by free thinkers of both parties. My last write-up about it has over 20,000 shares on Facebook.

Good. Stop fucking talking about your cool shit and give it to me. Stop whining. I asked for this string of evidence two pages ago. Where is it? Democratic Underground hasn't written it yet? Until then, you won't get a cookie for having 20,000 shares on Facebook.

There is a tradeoff here. When I post links and actual facts, you either don't respond or you scare up a strawman. So what is the incentive for me? The GAO and the CBO are easy to find.

http://www.federal.iastate.edu/sites/de ... ration.pdf
This is all irrelevant to any point that I have ever made about Cantor and Ryan trying to destroy the public trust in government. There's no tradeoff, you're just trying to make points about stuff that don't impact anything I said, so I ignore it. In fact I already told you that the Sequester itself had nothing to do with the point I made so the CBO would be pretty unimportant as a rebuttal.

Seriously? I gave you the fucking GAO analysis! I mean, you must be trolling, right? Just send me a pm and tell me you're trolling. I won't tell anyone.

[Symmetry]

Oh dear, another TGD rant about how everyone is stupid and/or trolling him.

[PLAYER57832]

[
Well, there's conspiracy and there's fact. This is the same go round we always have. I've provided you with information, namely that the sequestration was, at least partially or mostly, the fault of the president. Further, I've provided you with how the budget gets allocated and that any cuts that you whine about above are the fault of the president. Even further, I've provided you with the specific dollar amounts associated with each cut for the first year of the cuts. I've provided all that information to you to show you that (1) the sequestration isn't bad; (2) it was not something cooked up by Cantor and Ryan to screw the country (which you still haven't explained; and (3) it was mostly the fault of your savior and our current president.
.

Oh please... its the "fault" of the president if you think that Republicans have a perfect right to sit back and say "hey.... we don't want tax increases so any deal that suggests that just won't fly".. never mind that virtually every economist out there agrees that tax increases and not just spending cuts MUST be a part of the mix.

Furthermore, despite all this whining about "taxing the rich", the fact is that our current rate is still below what it was in the longest growth period in US history.. the 80's being in the midst of that.

The biggest problem with the Republican party is their insistance that taxes and government policies are the sole reason for our failing economy, never mind a change in the tech equation, never mind environmental damage and never mind the problem if a very much way too low minimum wage.


Its funny, for all their claims of wanting idependence, they sure are quick to insist that the government is responsible for THEIR failures.

[thegreekdog]

Oh dear, another TGD rant about how everyone is stupid and/or trolling him.

Hey look! It's Symmetry with a strawman! I'm shocked!