Is this the beginning of fiscal responsibility

[amdx]

Well, I see there has been an agreement to cut the size of the
increase in spending for 2013. Ok, not really an agreement, but it's a cut!

yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee,
yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo,
yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee,
yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo,
yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee,
yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo,
yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee,
yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo,
yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee,
yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo,
yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee,
yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo,
yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee,
yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo,
yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee,
yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo,
yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee,
yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo,
yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee,
yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo,
yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee,
yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo,
yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee,
yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo,
yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee,
yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo,
yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee,
yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo,
yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee,
yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo,
yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee,
yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo,
yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee,
yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo,
yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee,
yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo,
yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee,
yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo,
yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee,
yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo,
yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee,
yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo,
yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee,
yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo,
yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee,
yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo,
yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee,
yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo, yippee, yahoo,

 

[[email protected]]

Dreamer.  Obama will have his way with you... you will end up raped,
with nary a preparatory kiss :-(

                                        ...Jim Thompson

But the sequester is Obama's idea, no? if Congress can not figure
out what is important and cut where it is not important, then a small
2% cut across the board. Well it looks like Obama thought Congress
was smarter than it really is.


Dan

 

[hamilton]

But the sequester is Obama's idea, no? if Congress can not figure
out what is important and cut where it is not important, then a small
2% cut across the board. Well it looks like Obama thought Congress
was smarter than it really is.


Dan

The sequester was created by the Republicans to push the Democrats into
cutting programs.

Looks like it back-fired !!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_Control_Act_of_2011

 

[[email protected]]

But the sequester is Obama's idea, no? if Congress can not figure

out what is important and cut where it is not important, then a small

2% cut across the board. Well it looks like Obama thought Congress

was smarter than it really is.

They're not cutting anything, they're covering a small fractional increase in the national debt.

 

[[email protected]]

The sequester was created by the Republicans to push the Democrats into

cutting programs.



Looks like it back-fired !!



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_Control_Act_of_2011

The majority of Americans approve of the cuts, they want more of it. The Republicans are looking better not worse. Democrats only wanted more of the same that got the country in this mess in the first place.

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

Who is this "hamilton" bird-brain?

I was wondering if he named himself after Alexander, if he's ignorant enough
to think they have something in common.

 

[[email protected]]

I was wondering if he named himself after Alexander, if he's ignorant enough
to think they have something in common.

Oh, he's at least that ignorant.

 

[[email protected]]

The sequester was created by the Republicans to push the Democrats into
cutting programs.

Looks like it back-fired !!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_Control_Act_of_2011

Sorry, but your reference shows the Democrats were for it and
originated it.

"Ultimately, the solution came from White House National Economic
Council Director Gene Sperling, who, on July 12, 2011, proposed a
compulsory trigger that would go into effect if another agreement was
not made on tax increases and/or budget cuts equal to or greater than
the the debt ceiling increase by a future date. The intent was to
secure the commitment of both sides to future negotiation by means of
an enforcement mechanism that would be unpalatable to Republicans and
Democrats alike. President Obama agreed to the plan. House Speaker
John Boehner expressed reservations, but also agreed.[15]"


Dan

 

[[email protected]]

wrote in message









Where are you getting your (mis)information?



<

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...op-guns-energy-immigration-sequester/1934233/

That pie chart shows 70% approval of controlling budget deficit as essential this year. Looks like a majority approval of the cuts to me.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...-year-high-in-poll-republicans-at-bottom.html

Same thing about public perception. Do you have any idea of just how ignorant the majority of Americans are?

http://www.people-press.org/2013/02...uck-four-in-ten-say-let-the-sequester-happen/




Why put the brakes on the spending when the economy is obviously improving?

Everybody knows that it's the Repugnicans that are still whining and acting

the part of sore losers and trying their damnedest to make things worse. The

deficit is actually shrinking, so why do the right-whiners want to throw a

monkey turd into the economy?



< http://spacecoast.craigslist.org/pol/3651872043.html >

I wouldn't put much credence in assessments based on instantaneous rates. The deficit can be falling while the national debt is increasing.

http://beforeitsnews.com/eu/2013/02...ing-fast-neither-did-i-but-it-is-2510332.html

The gap in approval of democrats and republicans is not so small that a little public education can't cure it. Once people realize the fraud and falseeconomy of the democrats' proposition, perceptions will change. Poor and ignorant people love the idea of government, or anybody, sticking it to big business and the wealthy, because they're too stupid to realize they pay for that wealth, and the end result will be an across the board increase in cost of living for everybody.
The bloated and inefficient government should be number one on the hit list.. Republicans are the only ones going after that, Dems aren't going to touch it because it's just a big jobs program to their supporters.

 

[P E Schoen]

wrote in message

That pie chart shows 70% approval of controlling budget deficit as
essential this year. Looks like a majority approval of the cuts to me.

They approve controlling the deficit, but not just by spending cuts. Most
people (the 99%) also want more revenue even if it involves higher taxes
(mostly on the 1%). Not surprising. But that's how a democracy works.

Same thing about public perception. Do you have any idea of just how
ignorant the majority of Americans are?

They may be ignorant and/or apathetic (I don't know and I don't care), but
they ARE the majority, and will ultimately determine public policy unless
big money can influence (bribe) more members of congress. Our senators and
representatives do NOT reflect the will of the majority of human citizens
(not the corporate "Citizens United" crap).

I wouldn't put much credence in assessments based on instantaneous rates.
The deficit can be falling while the national debt is increasing.

It is in relation to the GDP, which has been improving at a healthy rate due
to deficit spending. It takes a while for the spending (an investment,
really) to be reflected in the economy, and as it improves, revenues
increase.

The gap in approval of democrats and republicans is not so small that a
little public education can't cure it. Once people realize the fraud and
false economy of the democrats' proposition, perceptions will change. Poor
and ignorant people love the idea of government, or anybody, sticking it
to big business and the wealthy, because they're too stupid to realize
they pay for that wealth, and the end result will be an across the board
increase in cost of living for everybody.

Public education or brainwashing? Many republicans want to teach creationism
and belief in corporate denialist propaganda about global warming and
resource depletion. Their economic theories are based on escalating and
unsustainable growth for short-term profits and the ultimate detriment of
future generations.

The bloated and inefficient government should be number one on the hit
list. Republicans are the only ones going after that, Dems aren't going to
touch it because it's just a big jobs program to their supporters.

And Republican policy has increased the frustration of those who are
disadvantaged and causing the Democratic party to increase in numbers. The
furloughs and loss of jobs caused by the sequester, which was caused by
right-wing opposition, further discredits the Republicans and will shift
more people to the Democratic side. What's wrong with government jobs? They
provide needed services for the huge segment of the population who are not
fortunate enough to be able to afford them from the private sector.
Right-whiners chant that the government cannot create jobs, and I call BS.

Paul

 

[cameo]

They approve controlling the deficit, but not just by spending cuts.
Most people (the 99%) also want more revenue even if it involves higher
taxes (mostly on the 1%). Not surprising. But that's how a democracy works.

What the hell are you talking about? Did you forget that Obama already's
got his tax increase when the Bush tax cut was eliminated for incomes
over 400K? Most people who want increased taxes are not the ones who
would also pay those taxes. How moral is that? It's about time to
supplement the old battle cry "No taxation without representation" with
"No representation without taxation." That would at least result in a
REAL balanced approach that Obama likes to repeat at every chance he gets.

 

[Joerg]

What the hell are you talking about? Did you forget that Obama already's
got his tax increase when the Bush tax cut was eliminated for incomes
over 400K? Most people who want increased taxes are not the ones who
would also pay those taxes.

Exactamente! What the vast majority of people fails to understand is
that this "stick it to the man" attitude has hard longterm consequences
for them. Because money has feet, it can walk away, and eventually does.
Back into bank accounts, into gold, or to outsourcia. In all cases it
takes jobs with it, jobs that will simply vanish for the American people.

[...]

 

[miso]

The majority of Americans approve of the cuts, they want more of it.

The Republicans are looking better not worse. Democrats only wanted more
of the same that got the country in this mess in the first place.
Uh, the Democrats ran the MERS program to allow for the trading of
credit default swaps? I don't think so.

The GOP looks like the douche bags that they are.

So now that Hagel is sec def. it is about time to **** over Arizona.

 

[P E Schoen]

"Joerg" wrote in message

cameo wrote:

Exactamente! What the vast majority of people fails to understand
is that this "stick it to the man" attitude has hard longterm
consequences for them. Because money has feet, it can walk
away, and eventually does.
Back into bank accounts, into gold, or to outsourcia. In all cases it
takes jobs with it, jobs that will simply vanish for the American people.

The jobs already vanished when the housing and banking bubble burst in 2008.
But many people have good government jobs that are now severely threatened
by the sequester (particularly in MD and the greater DC area). There is (or
at least may be) a huge ripple effect which will put the brakes on the
economy just as it was gaining momentum and encouraging investors to put
their money into local businesses rather than outsourcing or putting it into
banks and precious metals or diamonds or whatever.

History has shown what can happen when big business squeezes the lifeblood
from workers (especially in the 1890-1910 robber baron era), as well as when
it swings too far the other way (as happened until recently with greedy
labor unions). The fact is that there is really not enough meaningful and
necessary work to keep everyone employed full-time at top dollar, when there
are highly educated and motivated people in other countries who are willing
to work harder and better for much less.

Actually, the sequester, and such measures as the 1 day a week furloughs for
government employees, is exactly what is needed in the long term, where
people take a 20% pay cut along with a 50% increase in free time to enjoy
life. But this sequester comes at the wrong time, and it is a bit too
drastic, so it will have a chilling effect on the economy. We really need to
consider a "prosperous way down", and work to achieve it gradually and
voluntarily, rather than having this reality slap us hard upside the head.
http://prosperouswaydown.com/

Paul

 

[josephkk]

Dreamer. Obama will have his way with you... you will end up raped,
with nary a preparatory kiss :-(

...Jim Thompson

And he will have his way with you too JT. BOHICA

?-)

 

[cameo]

Actually, the sequester, and such measures as the 1 day a week furloughs
for government employees, is exactly what is needed in the long term,
where people take a 20% pay cut along with a 50% increase in free time
to enjoy life. But this sequester comes at the wrong time, and it is a
bit too drastic, so it will have a chilling effect on the economy. We
really need to consider a "prosperous way down", and work to achieve it
gradually and voluntarily, rather than having this reality slap us hard
upside the head.
http://prosperouswaydown.com/

The most obvious cuts with the least amount of negative consequence
would be the wholesale elimination of some federal agencies and
departments, such as Education Dept that don't educate any kids and
duplicate functions states do already. The laid-off Ed Dept employees
could be offered teaching jobs in some urban schools perhaps where they
could show what they preach.

 

[Joerg]

"Joerg" wrote in message


The jobs already vanished when the housing and banking bubble burst in
2008. ...

The ones I know about vanished well after that, for reasons that most
Obama-fans are in denial about. For example the medical device tax. That
has very directly cost jobs, scores of layoffs end of last year. I've
predicted that, was laughed at, now nobody is laughing anymore.

... But many people have good government jobs that are now severely
threatened by the sequester (particularly in MD and the greater DC
area). ...

We need less government. Government is usually the least effective
pathway to get a job done. Socialist countries have demonstrated that
time and again.

... There is (or at least may be) a huge ripple effect which will put
the brakes on the economy just as it was gaining momentum and
encouraging investors to put their money into local businesses rather
than outsourcing or putting it into banks and precious metals or
diamonds or whatever.

So what's the alternative? More wanton spending and consequential debt
accumulation? Sky-high taxes where people's motivation to work dwindles?

History has shown what can happen when big business squeezes the
lifeblood from workers (especially in the 1890-1910 robber baron era),
as well as when it swings too far the other way (as happened until
recently with greedy labor unions). The fact is that there is really not
enough meaningful and necessary work to keep everyone employed full-time
at top dollar, when there are highly educated and motivated people in
other countries who are willing to work harder and better for much less.

I am of quite the opposite opinion. There would be enough work if
government would leave us alone. Case in point: I have no employees
because I have seen time and again how businesses get punished for that.
I know, because I ran one with >100 employees.

Actually, the sequester, and such measures as the 1 day a week furloughs
for government employees, is exactly what is needed in the long term,
where people take a 20% pay cut along with a 50% increase in free time
to enjoy life. But this sequester comes at the wrong time, and it is a
bit too drastic, so it will have a chilling effect on the economy. We
really need to consider a "prosperous way down", and work to achieve it
gradually and voluntarily, ...

Absolutely not. That is like the alcoholic saying "Give me just one more
bottle, then I'll stop". Or the smoker who wants just one more pack.
That has never worked.

... rather than having this reality slap us hard
upside the head.

Americans have managed to survive the 2% payroll tax increase without
much of a sweat and we did not go into the abyss. I fully expect the
government to perform the same now.

http://prosperouswaydown.com/

The link doesn't work, just sits there and then times out.

 

[Joerg]

P E Schoen wrote:

[...]

Americans have managed to survive the 2% payroll tax increase without
much of a sweat and we did not go into the abyss. I fully expect the
government to perform the same now.


The link doesn't work, just sits there and then times out.

It works, just not for you >:-}

It's only a slyly written anti-energy piece... so nothing lost.

Now it works here as well, maybe something was stuck at my ISP. Anyhow,
not a very useful link IMHO. I agree that we will have to make do with
less in the future, in many ways. There is no way around it. But an ever
increasing spending apparatutus and increasing taxes are _not_ the path
to success of any kind.

 

[Joerg]

Sounds like a long-term solution, since killing all the dependent
individuals (including children) will leave nobody at all in 85 years
or so.

Huh? The self-sufficient folks in Pennsylvania and surroundings will
have 5-6 children within a rather short time. Per family, which is still
a self-sufficient entity.

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

Send them all back to their home planets, if you can find the right
universe(s).

Sounds like a long-term solution, since killing all the dependent
individuals (including children) will leave nobody at all in 85 years
or so.