That's precious little Barry wants to play with the gop now. The GOP doesn't have the power to repeal obamacare right now but they might in 2yrs. Of course if the economy is recovering that takes away an advantage they have. The Democrats have twice as many seats up in 2012 as the GOP. If the economy is still struggling the GOP can take a majority in congress and the presidency.
Remind me again why we should work with the Democrats on anything?
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown.
Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown.Follow
I love how varrus wants the GOP to keep the economy horrible for the next two years.
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
varusword75 wrote:
That's precious little Barry wants to play with the gop now.
You have no idea what's going on, do you?
Although you trying to sit at the grown-ups table is pretty precious in of itself.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Xarus,
and I love how the liberals forced a lot of insane govn spending down americans throught. Jophed was willing to sacrifice a few seats so long as they were able to force obamacare on the people. I see this as the only real oppurtunity to fix what the liberals in congress have been purposely f*cking up the last 4yrs.
Quote:
love how varrus wants the GOP to keep the economy horrible for the next two years
and I love how the liberals forced a lot of insane govn spending down americans throught. Jophed was willing to sacrifice a few seats so long as they were able to force obamacare on the people. I see this as the only real oppurtunity to fix what the liberals in congress have been purposely f*cking up the last 4yrs.
Jophed,
What's precious is your assumption that the GOP should work with Obama and the liberals on anything for the next two years. All they need to be doing is investigating the spending from the white house and congress over the last 4yrs.
What's precious is your assumption that the GOP should work with Obama and the liberals on anything for the next two years. All they need to be doing is investigating the spending from the white house and congress over the last 4yrs.
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
The space program is important. I'd have to see more details on what they actually want to cut there, but if its their much touted "let the civilians build the next shuttle" program, that coupled with constellation cancellation and cessation of the shuttle program essentially means we cede all presence in space for the forseeable future. I know we won't get a permanent colony established in my lifetime unless I upload myself to the machine collective, but we need to start thinking about ways to do so. Orbital power satilites are relitivly cheap and efficient with no atmosphere to get in the way of the sunlight. Microwave transmission to a power collector in space is easy and safe. What we cna't do yet is build a space tether of some sort to make that feasable and allow us easy access to orbit. We should dramatically increase the space budget to make that occur, because we are close on several fronts, and that would essentially solve our energy issues for the forseeable future. Well that, and the National ignition lab funding needs to be increased.
On this subject:
The federal budget for funding commercial space travel is 6 billion over 5 years. I remember when they announced this very thing, and it wasn't very long ago. It was part of Obama's new plan for the space program. NASA's gotta be at wit's end with how the feds indian give them money.
Yeah, I believe that most of this money is supposed to go to the creation of a commercial shuttle that's intended to transport NASA astronauts to the ISS for the duration of the station's life. Training of astronauts, crews, and such. The alternative is that we pay Russia for a ride for the next X amount of years. Problem with that is that we lose all the relevant jobs, and miss out on an opportunity to bolster the commercial space sector. If we're going to go that far, then we might as well just fold NASA entirely, because I don't know what purpose it'd be serving. Sure, there are some nebulous plans for the heavy lift rocket, but they'll never meet their proposed deadline, and will probably die to budget cuts anyway.
But commercial space flight is going to continue advancing, no matter what. Virgin Galactic and the others seem to be progressing more or less on schedule, regardless of federal plans. Perhaps the government should just allot all of their resources to commercial interests. They've at least got the incentive and capital to do what ought to be done. NASA, with the wishy-washy way the government's been handling them, have been pretty neutered for a while. I think it's clear that their resources (tech, manpower, etc.) could be put to better use.
So basically I dunno. The 6 billion benefits commercial spaceflight, but in a weird, indirect sort of way. And it ties the money into defunct programs like the space shuttle and ISS. I think it could be put to better use than that. I guess I'd rather see the funding halved and restructured, or something like that. Might be a better compromise.
Edited, Nov 11th 2010 12:16pm by Eske
varusword75 wrote:
What's precious...
No, not really. But it's kind of fun to watch you lack understanding.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
MDenham wrote:
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
Hmm, how about we start tarifing the sh*t out of anything China buys, and tax the crap out of any corporation that moves their workforce overseas but still operates in the U.S. to evade U.S. labor costs.
I really, really hate this stupid, stupid misunderstanding.
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
MDenham wrote:
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
Hmm, how about we start tarifing the sh*t out of anything China buys, and tax the crap out of any corporation that moves their workforce overseas but still operates in the U.S. to evade U.S. labor costs.
I really, really hate this stupid, stupid misunderstanding.
*cough*
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Sure. But it's more than a bit dishonest to allocate several trillion in new spending during a two year period of time...
Oh, you were serious when you started off saying "This is a dumb list because it contains too much neither side will bend on" and then followed up with "Let's just get rid of all the stuff Democrats passed and I don't like while saving all the stuff we're 'invested in' that might touch the stuff I do like". I figured you were just kidding or something.
Maybe I missed it, but where on that list was "repeal the health care bill we passed last year", and "cancel all unspent budget allocations from the 2009 stimulus bill", and "eliminate all the green jobs and green energy mandates passed over the last two years". Cause I didn't see them on the list. What I saw on the list was things that have been around for a long time and which therefore people have become dependent on or firmly attached to and for which removing funding is incredibly difficult.
My point was to first eliminate proposed new spending on things we have allocated the money for, but haven't actually spent yet. That way no one feels like they're losing anything because no one has yet gotten anything from them. I thought I was abundantly clear about this, yet you somehow still managed to fail to grasp what I was talking about.
The list includes stuff both Democrats and Republicans care about Joph, so it's unfair to characterize this as me wanting to cut Democrat stuff while saving Republican stuff. I want to cut "new stuff", while putting off both Dem and GOP stuff until after we take that first rational step. My question is why you'd insist on taking that new spending off the table until we make deep cuts in the stuff on the list? That just seems like an approach designed from the start to simply ensure that not only do we not cut any of the old stuff, but we don't cut any of the new stuff either.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
I think they need to prioritize.
...or use a draft system.
...or use a draft system.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
gbaji wrote:
Maybe I missed it, but where on that list was "repeal the health care bill we passed last year"
Actually, the Medicare/Medicaid changes are directly related to the health care provisions and since the bill is scored by the CBO as reducing the deficit, getting rid of it would be rather counterproductive to a plan with the goal of reducing the deficit. And no, I'm not interested in listening to you cry about the CBO score. That's the metric Congress uses and whatever little Heritage Foundation entry you want to dig up is going to go unread.
But I know that you're really more interested in pissing and moaning about the Democrats than you are interested in actual fiscal issues or else you wouldn't be going down this road. Another thing you and Varus have in common!
A quick look says that there's $177 billion in stimulus grants/contracts yet to be paid out although most of that is already made available by disbursement to various agencies and another $45 billion of stimulus money in still unused tax benefits so there isn't much left to be canceled as anything but a political ploy. But we should definitely put off talking about anything tough (...and that the GOP might like...) if we can waggle our partisan penises around and yell about the stimulus instead.
Quote:
The list includes stuff both Democrats and Republicans care about Joph, so it's unfair to characterize this as me wanting to cut Democrat stuff while saving Republican stuff.
Bullshit. When you say "This is a stupid list because what we really should do is just start with repealing everything the Democrats have done for the past two years" it's painfully obvious what your actual intentions are. Hell, you're not even trying to hide it so why you'd want to look stupid denying it is beyond me.
Edited, Nov 11th 2010 6:24pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Maybe I missed it, but where on that list was "repeal the health care bill we passed last year"
Actually, the Medicare/Medicaid changes are directly related to the health care provisions and since the bill is scored by the CBO as reducing the deficit, getting rid of it would be rather counterproductive to a plan with the goal of reducing the deficit. And no, I'm not interested in listening to you cry about the CBO score. That's the metric Congress uses and whatever little Heritage Foundation entry you want to dig up is going to go unread.
Wow. So I'm not allowed to point out that the CBO score is based on 10 years of revenue to pay for 6 years of the program? So if we extend it out past 10 years, it's a massive cost increase. And I'm not allowed to point out that they only got that balance by taking the funding from Medicare in the first place (a program which as we both know is already under water). And I'm not allowed to point out that it also makes assumptions about economic growth factors which are unlikely at best? And I'm not allowed to point out that it also assumes that the "force people to buy health care" part of the bill will pass constitutional muster (which it almost certainly will not)?
It's not about the CBO Joph. It's a classic case of "garbage in, garbage out". If you feed crappy numbers and assumptions into the CBO scoring process, you're going to get the results you wanted. That does not mean that those represent the actual costs. They represent the costs based on the assumptions the scoring process used. And in this case, those assumptions and conditions were pretty wildly manipulated in order to make the numbers work out.
But since you asked nicely, I'm not even going to use that as part of my argument. Feel better?
What I will say is that the list only contains three reference to Medicare, none of which really involve themselves with the health care bill at all (well, except for the reduction of medicare payouts to doctors, which is amazingly another one of the assumptions in the CBO scoring that I'm not going to talk about). We can do or not do those things without affecting the health care bill at all. Or, more relevantly we can roll back the health care bill and not affect the status quo with those thins either. They are not connected.
Quote:
But I know that you're really more interested in pissing and moaning about the Democrats than you are interested in actual fiscal issues or else you wouldn't be going down this road. Another thing you and Varus have in common!
No. I want us to reverse the massive spending of the last two years! How much more clearly can I say this? If it comes across as "pissing and moaning about the Democrats" that's because they were the ones who did it. I'm not supposed to complain when someone does something I don't agree with because they happen to be part of a group which consistently does things that I don't agree with? How the hell does that make any sense?
Quote:
A quick look says that there's $177 billion in stimulus grants/contracts yet to be paid out although most of that is already made available by disbursement to various agencies and another $45 billion of stimulus money in still unused tax benefits so there isn't much left to be canceled as anything but a political ploy.
Sure. It's only a bit over $200 billion. That's not worth saving! Really? I think it is. I happen to think that's a hell of a lot of money and it's a good start. Why shouldn't we do this? Are you seriously arguing that we shouldn't bother saving any money because it doesn't prevent us from being in debt? I'll point out again that that's got to be the most moronic argument possible. So if you can't pay your bills, you just go out and spend money on extra stuff anyway? Why? What kind of person does that? What kind of government does that?
Quote:
Quote:
The list includes stuff both Democrats and Republicans care about Joph, so it's unfair to characterize this as me wanting to cut Democrat stuff while saving Republican stuff.
Bullshit. When you say "This is a stupid list because what we really should do is just start with repealing everything the Democrats have done for the past two years" it's painfully obvious what your actual intentions are. Hell, you're not even trying to hide it so why you'd want to look stupid denying it is beyond me.
You're kidding me, right? So Democrats fought to get tort reform on that list? Cutting federal work force by 10% was the Dems idea? Cutting funding to PBS? Now you're just doubling down on stupid. Of course this is a list in which both groups wrote down the things that they don't like spending money on but they know the other side will fight tooth and nail to keep. I said this in my very first post, and I don't recall you (or anyone else) disagreeing with that).
Holding up *any* cuts until the 'hard choices' on this list are met is really just a call to not do anything at all.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Wow. So I'm not allowed to point out that the CBO score is based on 10 years of revenue to pay for 6 years of the program?
You can point out whatever you want. Pointing it out to someone who cares is another matter. Again, the CBO is the metric Congress, and most likely the commission, uses. If you want to cry about it, take it up with them.
Quote:
What I will say is that the list only contains three reference to Medicare, none of which really involve themselves with the health care bill at all
Actually they do and perhaps you'd be served to try learning something before going on one of your long-winded diatribes. My list is hardly inclusive nor is it meant to be...
Time.com wrote:
The deficit commission endorses some key elements of the Affordable Care Act. The draft proposal recommends speeding up cuts to Medicare Advantage and charity care payments to hospitals, both provisions in the ACA. The commission report also calls for a much stronger Independent Payment Advisory Board, the newly created commission charged with slowing the growth in Medicare spending.
...hey, look, you were wrong again. How about that?
Quote:
No. I want us to reverse the massive spending of the last two years! How much more clearly can I say this?
Right. I know. Crying about Democrats. Got it. Crystal clear.
Quote:
Sure. It's only a bit over $200 billion. That's not worth saving! Really?
The mere fact that it exists doesn't mean it's "worth saving" or a waste to spend it when opposed to anything on the list. But I'm willing to say they should remove all the tax benefits and I just saved us an extra $45 billion. Go me!
Quote:
You're kidding me, right? So Democrats fought to get tort reform on that list? Cutting federal work force by 10% was the Dems idea? Cutting funding to PBS?
Gosh, I didn't realize how magnanimous you were being to the Democrats by allowing us to preserve public broadcasting if only we throw away that health care bill you hate.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahaha....
Ah, you.
Edited, Nov 12th 2010 8:31am by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Since when did mortgage-backed securities and over-leveraged investment firms become the Democrats' fault?
Were you touched as a child by somebody disguised as Bill Clinton or something?
Were you touched as a child by somebody disguised as Bill Clinton or something?
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.
varusword75 wrote:
Why should the GOP give a d*mn what liberal democrats want?
Yeah, yeah. Grown ups are talking.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
varusword75 wrote:
Why should the GOP give a d*mn what liberal democrats want?
Demea wrote:
Since when did mortgage-backed securities and over-leveraged investment firms become the Democrats' fault?
In as much as the Democrats in congress blocked/stymied/whatever attempts to regulate/reign in Fannie & Freddie when Bush was in office, and due to the threats of the Banking committee, led by Mr. Frank, to investigate/punish banks that red-lined low credit scores, at least a good chunk of the problem of the mortgage situation lies squarely on their shoulders.
varusword75 wrote:
On the contrary whiny as liberals are b*tching about how the GOP needs to be bi-partisan now.
Reading comprehension was never your strong suit.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
So, good thing Harry Reid was defeated, right? I mean, it was such a sure thing and all.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Well, he also predicted a win for O'Donnelll!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
The list includes stuff both Democrats and Republicans care about Joph, so it's unfair to characterize this as me wanting to cut Democrat stuff while saving Republican stuff. I want to cut "new stuff"
Yes, but only because the Democrats were in power and made the "new stuff".
When the Republicans fueled the deficit fiasco, gbaji applauded.
\owned
Now of course I am attacking gbaji, not his ideas. He can whine about it, like always. However, discussing either of gbaji's inconsistent positions, themselves, which is what he always asks us to do is silly.
If a person says A>B and B>A in different threads (or, in the case of gbaji, often in the same thread) arguing A>B or B>A with that person is inappropriate. Telling them their self-inconsistency is unacceptable is. And that is, to preempt gbaji, attacking the person not his "ideas".
Recent Visitors: 191
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (191)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown.
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC