Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 21, 2011 14:11:21 GMT -5
Quick poll to test peoples' faith in the current US Congress.
The full poll question should be: Of the $1.25 trillion in "automatic" cuts triggered by the supercommittee failure, how much will Congress ultimately wind up cutting?
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Nov 21, 2011 14:12:26 GMT -5
I believe that a large portion will be cut not all or nearly enough but, a large portion.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 21, 2011 14:14:00 GMT -5
I'm not quite as optimistic. I see the Pentagon holding on to their $500 billion, by hook or by crook.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 21, 2011 14:21:50 GMT -5
There were no cuts proposed or passed. ALL supposed cuts are from a baseline projected increase. Rand Paul explains this:
“I think we need to be honest about it,” the Kentucky Republican said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
“The interesting thing is there will be no cuts in military spending. This may surprise some people, but there will be no cuts in military spending because we’re only cutting proposed increases. If we do nothing, military spending goes up 23 percent over 10 years,” he told host Candy Crowley. “If we sequester the money, it will still go up 16 percent. So spending is still rising under any of these plans. In fact, if you look at both alternatives, spending is still going up. We’re only cutting proposed increases in spending.”
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Nov 21, 2011 14:23:26 GMT -5
zero to $300B...government doesn't seem to cut, it shifts money around but rarely do the amounts ever seem to go down. I actually lean more towards the zero portion of this answer.
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Nov 21, 2011 14:34:08 GMT -5
They are congress. Does anyone actually expect them to earn their keep?
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Nov 21, 2011 14:55:12 GMT -5
F.... Congress. Balance the GD budget you jackwagons!!
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Nov 21, 2011 14:57:11 GMT -5
There were no cuts proposed or passed. ALL supposed cuts are from a baseline projected increase. Rand Paul explains this: “I think we need to be honest about it,” the Kentucky Republican said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “The interesting thing is there will be no cuts in military spending. This may surprise some people, but there will be no cuts in military spending because we’re only cutting proposed increases. If we do nothing, military spending goes up 23 percent over 10 years,” he told host Candy Crowley. “If we sequester the money, it will still go up 16 percent. So spending is still rising under any of these plans. In fact, if you look at both alternatives, spending is still going up. We’re only cutting proposed increases in spending.” Someone gets it other than me(and a few others)...THERE ARE NO CUTS BEING PROPOSED...
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 21, 2011 15:00:38 GMT -5
F.... Congress. Balance the GD budget you jackwagons!! It's clear to me that it's up to us. I lean GOP, because they're a good platform for winning elections for conservatives, but I am increasingly convinced the GOP is to big, bloated, nd corrupt to be managed any longer. We're gonna have a intubation IMHO, where th Democratic Party completely collapses, the GOP become he be home of liberalism, and a libertarian or Constitutionalist party springs up.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Nov 21, 2011 17:27:46 GMT -5
Automatic cuts, which means no cuts at all, and a knock down, draq out over tax increases, but not necessariy in that order..
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Nov 21, 2011 17:37:49 GMT -5
The government is the only place where you can increase spending by less than you originally planned and then pat yourself on the back for "saving" money.
At the rate we're spending, we'll likely be doing the whole debt ceiling fiasco again next summer.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 21, 2011 17:45:28 GMT -5
The government is the only place where you can increase spending by less than you originally planned and then pat yourself on the back for "saving" money. At the rate we're spending, we'll likely be doing the whole debt ceiling fiasco again next summer. You haven't met my sister. She is constantly "saving money" shopping.
|
|
wyouser
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:35:20 GMT -5
Posts: 12,126
|
Post by wyouser on Nov 21, 2011 17:49:17 GMT -5
hey, 235 years practice with "kicking the can" down the road. These guys are masters of illusion
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 21, 2011 20:10:46 GMT -5
Eh... try 'middle of next January'. That's the projected deadline for the next debt ceiling breach.
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on Nov 21, 2011 20:26:12 GMT -5
The government is the only place where you can increase spending by less than you originally planned and then pat yourself on the back for "saving" money. At the rate we're spending, we'll likely be doing the whole debt ceiling fiasco again next summer. Make that January or February of 2012. ETA: Oops. Sorry Virgil. I didn't read all the posts before I posted.
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on Nov 21, 2011 20:27:58 GMT -5
The government is the only place where you can increase spending by less than you originally planned and then pat yourself on the back for "saving" money. At the rate we're spending, we'll likely be doing the whole debt ceiling fiasco again next summer. You haven't met my sister. She is constantly "saving money" shopping.Hey, I resemble that remark.
|
|
ripvanwinkle
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 22:36:42 GMT -5
Posts: 1,431
|
Post by ripvanwinkle on Nov 21, 2011 20:59:23 GMT -5
"You haven't met my sister. She is constantly "saving money" shopping. " Sound like my ex-wife. She would spend $300 shopping and let me know she "saved"$75. Or she would spend $1,500 on video poker and come home and be excited she won $600. We had seperate bank accounts after that. ;D
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 21, 2011 23:32:38 GMT -5
I'm seeing a trend in the poll results. It goes a long way toward explaining why Congress is polling at 14% approval.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,440
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 22, 2011 0:44:53 GMT -5
hey, 235 years practice with "kicking the can" down the road. These guys are masters of illusion i don't understand this sentiment at all. we had the problem licked, or virtually licked, many many times, including as recently as 2000. or to put it another way, just because the 535 bastards that inhabit the capital NOW can;t do it, does NOT mean it can't be done.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 22, 2011 2:25:00 GMT -5
If you're talking about the vaunted "Clinton surplus", that subject ties in with the $119 trillion figure we've discussed. Pres. Clinton "borrowed" heavily from the endowment (diverted funds that would ordinarily have been invested into SS) to pay Uncle Sam's bills, not unlike you or I cheating on our pay-in schedule to an IRA or RRSP by buying a new set of car tires rather than depositing the cash into our retirement fund. Pres. Bushes 41 and 43 did it too, although not to same magnitude as Clinton. However, Bushes 41 and 43 ran up hefty deficits as a result of not raiding the fund. (I will clarify that by "raiding the fund", I mean "not paying monies into the fund that were intended for it". I do not mean "withdrawing money from social security", which did not happen.)
Neither approach is "better"—at least at a glance—since Pres. Clinton's approach avoids interest surcharges on a mounting public debt but loses a commensurate amount of interest by underfunding the endowment, and the Pres. Bush approach vice versa. If you combine the two (public deficit plus SS funding shortfall), you wind up with a curve that looks pretty much exponential, going back even as far as 1985.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Nov 22, 2011 7:53:17 GMT -5
Eh... try 'middle of next January'. That's the projected deadline for the next debt ceiling breach. Using the spending rate since the debt ceiling increase was signed on August 2nd, it took us 106 days to spend 700 billion...one third of the $2.1 trillion increase. At that rate, it should take another 212 days to spend the remaining $1.4 trillion which should put us around mid June. Is my math off or are they just going to start early?
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Nov 22, 2011 7:56:17 GMT -5
I'm seeing a trend in the poll results. It goes a long way toward explaining why Congress is polling at 14% approval. But it sure doesn't explain why the majority of these aholes will be reelected. Marco Rubio is the only one of my senators and/or congressmen I'd consider reelecting at this point in time.
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Nov 22, 2011 8:38:26 GMT -5
Our Congress earned their 13% approval rating!
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 22, 2011 8:49:20 GMT -5
Our Congress earned their 13% approval rating! I can't believe it's that high. In 2010, the TEA Party trusted the GOP to halt the current spending, and stop the Obama agenda in its tracks. They've done very little. They're nuts if they think this is how we'll re-elect them.
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Nov 22, 2011 8:53:55 GMT -5
Good to know the tp hates them too. Although from my perspective, the tp is why most americans hate congress. I would like to know who the 13% are! How can people be that dumb?
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Nov 22, 2011 9:46:20 GMT -5
There were no cuts proposed or passed. ALL supposed cuts are from a baseline projected increase. Rand Paul explains this: “I think we need to be honest about it,” the Kentucky Republican said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “The interesting thing is there will be no cuts in military spending. This may surprise some people, but there will be no cuts in military spending because we’re only cutting proposed increases. If we do nothing, military spending goes up 23 percent over 10 years,” he told host Candy Crowley. “If we sequester the money, it will still go up 16 percent. So spending is still rising under any of these plans. In fact, if you look at both alternatives, spending is still going up. We’re only cutting proposed increases in spending.” I was actually going to ask this question since the government is the only place I know where either not getting a raise or not getting as much of a raise as expected is also considered a cut.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 22, 2011 10:57:14 GMT -5
The increases were provisional, Florida. The ceiling would be hiked by $1.2 trillion if the supercommittee failed to come to an agreement, or hiked ($1.2 trillion + an additional $1.5 trillion = $2.7 trillion) if the committee came to an agreement and agreed to cut as much or more as $1.25 trillion from the federal 10-year budget. The logic being that a provisional $2.7 trillion cap would incentivize Congress to act. Whoops.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,440
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 22, 2011 11:29:45 GMT -5
If you're talking about the vaunted "Clinton surplus", that subject ties in with the $119 trillion figure we've discussed. there you go again. practicing accrual accounting for obligations that don't exist.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,440
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 22, 2011 11:31:31 GMT -5
Pres. Clinton "borrowed" heavily from the endowment (diverted funds that would ordinarily have been invested into SS) SS has never been a "trust". ever. it is a pay-as-you-go system. stop making it sound like something unusual happened here. it didn't.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,440
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 22, 2011 11:32:45 GMT -5
oh, and none of that changes a thing, btw, Virgil. the budget was STILL nearly balanced in 2000.
|
|