[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
A+++ post here. [/quote]
It was, you just happened to miss his point completely.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
A+++ post here. [/quote]
It was, you just happened to miss his point completely. [/quote]
You must hve missed MY point…I was telling him it was a good post and he was completely right. What am I missing here chief?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
So, in a macro sense, you guys have to deal with the same things the private sector has been dealing with…
Sucks Brah, but the world will not end. We will adapt and overcome. [/quote]
My whole post was addressing the FALSE talking point that all these cuts are just coming out of growth and not actual spending, like there won’t be any fucking impact at all. I never said that we couldn’t adapt, that the world would end, or that we weren’t dealing with stuff that others have been, so I have absolutely no idea why you think your two statements above were pertinent to that discussion.
And while we’re at it, please link to these “intellectually honest” articles you’ve been reading on it. I’d love to hear another side (or shoot holes in it and point out why its bullshit).
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
^
VTBalla34,
Do you think the best thing for the economy is for people to spend more money?
I’m sorry you are being furloughed, that sucks.
[/quote]
How else would the economy grow if the goods and services being made were not purchased?
I don’t think the furlough will end up happening, but I could be wrong. Either way I’ll be straight. I’ve got more than enough socked away for a rainy day and am used to living below my means. Many other people aren’t so fortunate.
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
^
VTBalla34,
Do you think the best thing for the economy is for people to spend more money?
I’m sorry you are being furloughed, that sucks.
[/quote]
How else would the economy grow if the goods and services being made were not purchased?
I don’t think the furlough will end up happening, but I could be wrong. Either way I’ll be straight. I’ve got more than enough socked away for a rainy day and am used to living below my means. Many other people aren’t so fortunate. [/quote]
Maybe we are at a point where realistically the economy shouldn’t grow at least not very much or not yet. What I mean is, I don’t think we should push the economy to grow because right now that means growth through debt. Ultimatly, as painful as it will be, I beleive the way to a stronger economy is first to save money by not purchasing goods with credit and then moving towards limited use of debt. Debt on a long term appreciable asset makes sense, but there aren’t very many of those.
I think most will be fine, even if they haven’t saved like you have. It still sucks though.
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
What am I missing here chief?[/quote]
An ability to see the point he was making.
Your sarcastic whine isn’t lost on the reader.
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
My whole post was addressing the FALSE talking point that all these cuts are just coming out of growth and not actual spending,[/quote]
Oh my, you worte a word in all caps, it must be true.
Sure there will.
It just won’t be the rapture like Bam talks about, and doesn’t even have to be all that bad.
Lets see here…
Others were talking about those things. My post, that you quoted, was in reference to them.
So that about sums up pertinent.
[quote]
And while we’re at it, please link to these “intellectually honest” articles you’ve been reading on it. I’d love to hear another side (or shoot holes in it and point out why its bullshit).[/quote]
If I have time, I’ll compile your reading list for you. As of right now I don’t. But this is a good start.
http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/Sequester%20Presentation%20.pdf
LOL you act like Obama is the only one saying this is going to be bad news. You do realize the bipartisan committee that designed it made it so it would be extraordinarily painful right? Both sides are correctly identifying that this is a bad idea…I would say I’m surprised you are so naive to think it wont be, but nothing I really read in here really surprises me anymore.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
If I have time, I’ll compile your reading list for you. As of right now I don’t. But this is a good start.
[/quote]
Thank you for that opinion piece. After wading through the obama bashing and GOP nut hugging, I finally got to some numbers, which he supposedly gotten from the CBO website he linked to. That link provides the following gems:
[quote]
The fiscal policies that reduce the deficit will lead to less demand for goods and services, thereby holding down economic growth this year… If not for that fiscal tightening, CBO estimates, economic growth in 2013 would be roughly 1½ percentage points faster than the 1.4 percent real (inflation-adjusted) growth that the agency now projects, under current laws, from the fourth quarter of calendar year 2012 to the fourth quarter of 2013. [/quote]
So instead of economic growth, we are getting economic contraction. That is a good start.
[quote]
In the absence of sequestration, CBO estimates, GDP growth would be about 0.6 percentage points faster during this calendar year, and the equivalent of about 750,000 more full-time jobs would be created or retained by the fourth quarter.[/quote]
Only a measley .6 percentage point growth? pshhh…who needs that right?
I’ll also point out that the Op Ed you linked as your sources states the spending will only be $42B less, which is technically true. But unless you think you can procure a major weapons program in one single year, is irrelevant. The actual impacts, meaning work that is not getting done, amounts to $85B. To short that represents a total (or willful) misunderstanding of how the DOD and other acquisition agencies actually operate. It makes a nice soundbyte for the ignorant though ahem
Sweet, a graph that showed exactly what I said, which is a 10% cut in DOD program funding. I didn’t realize you were on my side here? Because that CERTAINLY doesn’t show anything about the ramifications of the cuts on the economy. Remember, the defend cuts were designed to be ESPECIALLY painful such that they were so unpalatable another more sensical resolution could be made.
I couldn’t open this link for some reason.
You did realize I asked for articles that have led you to believe there are no bad impacts from the mindless sequestor, right? Because so far all I’ve seen is a CBO article that says the opposite. Yes, Virginia, there ARE impacts to mindless reaper slashing programs, regardless of what agency.
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
LOL you act like Obama is the only one saying this is going to be bad news. [/quote]
As someone who is supposed to be the leader of all the voiceboxes in DC, it is reasonable that I focus on what his opinion of the situation is, no?
If we, as a nation, can’t absorb this, than all hope is lost.
And as I believe I said earlier, the same shi happened in 1986, and it was so very very awful that no one remembers it… And they re-issued it after SCOTUS stopped the first pass.
[quote]I would say I’m surprised you are so naive to think it wont be,
[/quote]
I would say I’m surprised you feel that assumptive conjecture holds any water, or the unimaginative slights to the “forum at large” you love to kick around as you post here…
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
Thank you for that opinion piece. [/quote]
It is from the Times… Give me a break. A 2 min google search to make you, the king of personal attacks and putting down the very place you choose to spend your time…
That is about the effort your posts deserve.
Oh my, the last 4 years have been so hot, I can’t imagine what wild times the lack of spending the sequester is preventing.
[quote]
Only a measley .6 percentage point growth? pshhh…who needs that right?[/quote]
More yawns.
Oh so hold on… No wait, I really don’t care because:
You really just can’t have a conversation without insulting those that you are speaking to online can you?
I’m done with this if it continues, fyi. Not that I expect you to change or be upset by that, just to let you know you can get the last word in, and call me names too if you’d like.
[quote]
Sweet, a graph that showed exactly what I said, which is a 10% cut in DOD program funding. I didn’t realize you were on my side here? Because that CERTAINLY doesn’t show anything about the ramifications of the cuts on the economy. Remember, the defend cuts were designed to be ESPECIALLY painful such that they were so unpalatable another more sensical resolution could be made.[/quote]
No, more like they were there to put establishment republicans on blast and do two things:
- fold on the issue because Defense is the golden cow
- lose when their electorate finds out they were okay with Defense cuts.
And I believe that is only cuts to certain portions of DOD, as I believe the DOD is bigger than your job… So that doesn’t really put me anywhere near “your side”, and whatever side that may be other than “but my job guys…” or “the super booming economy is going to shrink guys”
[quote]
I couldn’t open this link for some reason.[/quote]
I still can, maybe I have some cookie or cashe or whatever computer term it is from the place I found it from…
[quote]
You did realize I asked for articles that have led you to believe there are no bad impacts from the mindless sequestor, right?[/quote]
Um no, you asked for articles based on a short back-and-forth about a talking point.
So either you are moving the goal posts or confused.
Either way, I don’t remeber saying there wouldn’t be any bad impacts. You may have read into my statements however you did, but I’m not sure I said it wouldn’t have bad results. I am pretty sure, this entire thread, I’ve spoke about it not being as bad as the left predicts, nor was it all that awful in the 80’s…
Great…
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
As someone who is supposed to be the leader of all the voiceboxes in DC, it is reasonable that I focus on what his opinion of the situation is, no?[/quote]
Not unreasonable at all. I didn’t realize you were acknowledging the majority of those from both sides of the aisle were on board with this being a pretty bad thing, and Obama was just speaking for them all. I construed that as you being divisive. My bad.
[quote]
If we, as a nation, can’t absorb this, than all hope is lost. [/quote]
It’s not that it can’t be absorbed. We absorbed the Great Depression and the housing crash as well. That don’t make it a good fucking idea. There are MUCH smarter ways to implement defense reduction than a mindless slash of 10% across the board. That is just asinine.
[quote]
And as I believe I said earlier, the same shi happened in 1986, and it was so very very awful that no one remembers it… And they re-issued it after SCOTUS stopped the first pass. [/quote]
Well you did say that something happened in 1986, akin to this sequestor, but didn’t actually elaborate on what that something was. I did a quick google search and found the tax reform act of 1986, but haven’t yet drawn the link from that to whatever it is you think happened. Would you be so kind as to indulge me? I’d like to understand the similarities between what happened in 1986 and now.
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
That don’t make it a good fucking idea. There are MUCH smarter ways to implement defense reduction than a mindless slash of 10% across the board. That is just asinine.[/quote]
This requires power hungry assholes to work together, and please voters at the same time…
If we can’t have a conversation from two sides of an issue without backhanded insults, how can we expect others to arrange such cuts?
In the end, fuck it, if this is what it takes to trim spending, this is what it takes.
Found mention of it here while reading the Journal:
FOund this on a quick google search
But actually spent about a hour with my boss going it, and what he remember etc… That I can’t link, lol.
This may be better
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
No, more like they were there to put establishment republicans on blast and do two things:
- fold on the issue because Defense is the golden cow
- lose when their electorate finds out they were okay with Defense cuts.[/quote]
Wow, do you know something that the rest of us don’t? What is your source for this insider information? Because this is the first time I have heard it claimed anything except to make “painful cuts such that a more palatable agreement could be reached”. So this is really a super secret plan for the GOP to run out establishment republicans? Sneaky. I wonder if the Illuminati had something to do with it? The Free Masons? Werid they can’t seem to win a national election, but have this super secret plot to run out their own.
Well we are certainly entitled to our own opinions. Unfortunately, you aren’t entitlted to your own facts. Regardless of whether or not you “believe” it, it is actually true. The 10% cut is across the board on DOD. I didn’t use the word ignorant as a deragatory, just to say that you are not informed on the actual impacts. That’s not surprising considering where you are starting from, with the belief that it is not across the board. That’s ok, we’re all here to learn.
[quote]
Um no, you asked for articles based on a short back-and-forth about a talking point.
So either you are moving the goal posts or confused. [/quote]
Oh yeah you’re right. My mistake. I asked for articles talking about how we are only cutting the increase in growth and not actual spending. I have yet to see a response addressing that, because your links certainly didn’t. Sorry I thought the goal posts had moved to “no bad impacts” because your links to the “no spending only growth” argument didn’t address that, but did address “no bad impacts” (one of them anyway).
Soooo…still waiting on that I guess.
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
No, more like they were there to put establishment republicans on blast and do two things:
- fold on the issue because Defense is the golden cow
- lose when their electorate finds out they were okay with Defense cuts.[/quote]
Wow, do you know something that the rest of us don’t? What is your source for this insider information? Because this is the first time I have heard it claimed anything except to make “painful cuts such that a more palatable agreement could be reached”. So this is really a super secret plan for the GOP to run out establishment republicans? Sneaky. I wonder if the Illuminati had something to do with it? The Free Masons? Werid they can’t seem to win a national election, but have this super secret plot to run out their own.[/quote]
Again, more implied insults.
You literally think there is no political motives behind making defense hard hit? Really?
Me suggesting that there was a poltical angle behind the make up of the plan being this outragous to you means you aren’t paying any attention to politcs.
[quote]
Well we are certainly entitled to our own opinions. Unfortunately, you aren’t entitlted to your own facts. Regardless of whether or not you “believe” it, it is actually true. The 10% cut is across the board on DOD. [/quote]
Unless military personnel aren’t DOD…
hmmm…
Okay…
Also, does the Sec. of Defense have to get a furlough, because they are DOD…
How about Under Sec?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
Well we are certainly entitled to our own opinions. Unfortunately, you aren’t entitlted to your own facts. Regardless of whether or not you “believe” it, it is actually true. The 10% cut is across the board on DOD. [/quote]
Unless military personnel aren’t DOD… [/quote]
Well they are obviously but it doesn’t matter because military personnel aren’t a PROGRAM. The majority of DOD programs are comprised of both civilian and military members. My director, for instance, is an Admiral.
Yes you’re correct that military personnel are not getting furloughed (though they are taking hits to TA and other benefits), but the fact is that the programs those men and women in uniform support are being cut…wait for it…TEN PERCENT!!!
That’s because civilians and military are not paid out of program funds–those funds are what is paid out to actually run the program. They are under a whole other agency known as Office of Personnel Management, which is also subject to the 10% slashing. The DOD directive was to pay their part of the pie by furloughing civilians. Other agencies are giving different direction to make their cuts happen, but the defense cuts were mandatory.
You may be a bit out of your swim lane here with this one my man.
Edit: Fixed quote.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Also, does the Sec. of Defense have to get a furlough, because they are DOD…
How about Under Sec?[/quote]
No cetain personnel are exempt. I assume they qualify for the exemption.
But again you are confusing the sequestor with the furloughs. Not everyone is getting furloughed does not mean the sequestor does not take 10% of funds across the board. I don’t know why you are still struggling with this.
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
Well they are obviously but it doesn’t matter because military personnel aren’t a PROGRAM. [/quote]
There we are with those capital letters again…
Look, point being “accross the board” implies everyone and every thing. I point out a vast population of “things” unaffected by any cuts. I would say at this point, neither of us is 100% right, nor 100% wrong.
This is largely irrelevant anyway, and the only reason you pounced on that portion of the post was to try and post some lavish, creative insult that made you laugh.
Whatever.
And?
Civilian’s taking the brunt of the pain, and military exempt doesn’t mean “across the board” in any real world sense…
But we are arguing semantics at this point anyway.
Imagine that…
[quote]You may be a bit out of your swim lane here with this one my man.
[/quote]
No, not really.