haha, nice try but I'm not buying it. Spin it anyway you want.

BoatShoes;1394681 wrote: If the government buys a smaller percentage from the department store than they did the year before that is indeed a reduction in government spending.

Ummm, ok but you're ignoring scale and efficiency when you make that statement. A 2% increase in sales basically never justifies a 2% increase in expenses. That's not how you would run a successful business.

Govt spending should be DECREASING ever so slightly as a % of GDP over time due to efficiency and scale. Under Obama it has exploded.

BoatShoes;1394675 wrote:You fail to understand that the increase in spending as a percentage of GDP was not a systematic problem.

Sigh....just when it was starting to look like you were getting a clue. The two are not mutually exclusive, the increase in spending is INDEED a systematic problem that pre-dates Obama...and then the great redistributor put his foot on the gas.

BoatShoes;1394681 wrote:This isn't right but it seems intuitive. Best way to think of the economy is a giant department store with all of the goods and services we produce in a year. In most years, the department store gets at least a little bigger, so it doesn't make sense to compare what the government buys in the department store from year to year in nominal dollars. If the government buys a smaller percentage from the department store than they did the year before that is indeed a reduction in government spending.

Unbelievable, and incorrect, but exactly par for the course for liberal progressive think.

The fact is, government has grown by 60% over the last 8 years; the economy has barely budged. Ergo, the government is devouring us; the government is unaffordable. It is time to de-fund government, for decades.

QuakerOats;1395059 wrote:The fact is, government has grown by 60% over the last 8 years; the economy has barely budged. Ergo, the government is devouring us; the government is unaffordable. It is time to de-fund government, for decades.

And the sky is falling once again, according to the OC's resident "chicken little".

fish82;1394416 wrote:I'm not subscribing to anyone's talking points. It's his bill. He proposed it, and he signed it. What's so hard to understand?

Nothing hard to understand about the 174 Republicans in the House who voted for this bill. Obama may have authored it, but without those 174 Republicans it wouldn't have seen the light of day.

stlouiedipalma;1395092 wrote:Nothing hard to understand about the 174 Republicans in the House who voted for this bill. Obama may have authored it, but without those 174 Republicans it wouldn't have seen the light of day.

It's called taking what you can get. Those 174 Repubs signed an imperfect bill that guaranteed imperfect cuts. You know, don't look a gift horse....

Everyone assumed it would force people to negotiate. But as the great divider has cranked-up his rhetoric congressmen are realizing that imperfect cuts are better than none.

Obama has kind of backed himself into a corner and I'm not sure even his gift for bullshit can shine this turd.

All that said, I laughed at the "extreme austerity" of the original proposal, and I laugh at it now. WE ARE DOOMED if we can't shave a mere $85B off gubmit spending. That's a fucking rounding error and the politicians are acting like it's the end of the world.

stlouiedipalma;1395088 wrote:And the sky is falling once again, according to the OC's resident "chicken little".

You sound as if you are fine with your kids and grandkids being completely enslaved to BIG government for their lifetimes. An extra $86,000 in debt per taxpayer just in obama's first term, and you just shrug it off; pathetic.

come on now, you know his kids aren't going to be paying any taxes.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has said the cuts would harm the readiness of U.S. fighting forces. He said the "vast majority" of the Defense Department's 800,000 civilian workers would have to lose one day of work per week, or 20 percent of their pay, for up to 22 weeks, probably starting in late April
.
Wow. A lot to comment on there. Basically it illustrates multiple problems with the culture in the beltway:
1) Why do we have 800k civilian workers employed by the Dept of Defense? Seems a bit much
2) UP TO 22 days without pay?!? The private sector laughs at your pain and sacrifice.
3) Not long ago, total comp for gubmit employees probably lagged the private sector by 20% or more (for a variety of justifiable reasons). Now it probably outpaces the private sector...see above.

I'm not criticizing Panetta for the comment - I understand what he's saying and why. But it just illustrates the absurdity of what is driving this mess.

800k civilian workers in the defense department. Let's put that number in perspective - more people than employed in the ENTIRE US auto industry!

gut;1395600 wrote:800k civilian workers in the defense department. Let's put that number in perspective - more people than employed in the ENTIRE US auto industry!

We have to keep that in perspective. We need one bureaucrat earning 75K plus great benefits to procure the bullets, one to procure the guns, and another to ship them to one of several active U.S. combat zones...or to the Muslim Brotherhood depending upon the need.

gut;1395600 wrote:800k civilian workers in the defense department. Let's put that number in perspective - more people than employed in the ENTIRE US auto industry!

We have to keep that in perspective. We need one bureaucrat earning 75K plus great benefits to procure the bullets, one to procure the guns, and another to ship them to one of several active U.S. combat zones...or to the Muslim Brotherhood depending upon the need.

all this talk of cuts and it effecting the government's abiliity to work is pure political BS.

Federal Government Expenditures

2003 $2,157bn
2004 $2,293bn
2005 $2,472bn
2006 $2,660bn
2007 $2,730bn
2008 $2,900bn
2009 $3,518bn
2010 $3,721bn
2011 $3,630bn
2012 $3,796bn

2013 (no cuts) $3,803bn
2013 (sequester) $3,718bn

Yes, March 1st is going to be the end of the world! Waaaaaaahhhhhhhhh!!!!! The government will only be able to function on 3.7 trillion dollars. How ever will they pay the bills. Every single politician, 100% of them, should be fired. Bunch of liars the lot of them.

tk421;1395605 wrote:Every single politician, 100% of them, should be fired.

We have an opportunity to do just that every 2 to 4 years. But for whatever reason we keep sending them back to DC to continue the absurdity.

tk421;1395605 wrote:all this talk of cuts and it effecting the government's abiliity to work is pure political BS.



Yes, March 1st is going to be the end of the world! Waaaaaaahhhhhhhhh!!!!! The government will only be able to function on 3.7 trillion dollars. How ever will they pay the bills. Every single politician, 100% of them, should be fired. Bunch of liars the lot of them.

It will suck, eventually.
The cuts are indiscriminate, so it will impact everyone in some shape or form. But, whatever, it is what it is.

The bigger date is March 27, when the CR runs out, and Gov. may shutdown.

If the Congress passes another Continuing Resolution and not the FY13 budget, that may do more harm than good.
Because, all of these programs that 1. They want to cut, won't get cut and 2. Contracts that are awaiting funds to be awarded will not be awarded.

Here is the funny thing. If people want to cut things, they put it in the FY13 budget, but if the CR is extended, then guess what, programs that do not need funding, get funded....
Our Government at work.

What suddenly is an 8% cut, becomes double that in many offices.

It is a mess.
Yes, the President is hyping it up, but it is the worst solution out of all of them to try and cut the budget.

that's laughable. The same budget we had 2 years ago is going to end the world. Yeah, I believe that. We could go back to the budget level of 2003 and there wouldn't be any problems except for lobbyists and corporations that would complain about not being able to suck on the public tit anymore.

tk421;1396035 wrote:that's laughable. The same budget we had 2 years ago is going to end the world. Yeah, I believe that. We could go back to the budget level of 2003 and there wouldn't be any problems except for lobbyists and corporations that would complain about not being able to suck on the public tit anymore.

And the intelligence agencies.....

At this point we are now talking about a 1% cut this year, and yet we have wailing in the streets and a gnashing of teeth ------------- FUC$%ING hilarious.

Most of us in the private sector just endured a 35% REAL CUT, and have lived with it and managed through it for the last 4 years. This piddly arse government reduction (in the rate of increase) that obama simply can't deal with is the stuff made for comedy hour. And the thought that some people buy into his crying is astounding.

ANY turnaround expert could walk into government today and slash 15% WITHOUT BATTING AN EYELASH ..... and no one would even know it happened. GET ON WITH IT!!!!!!!!!

Yes, because 10 years ago intelligence agencies didn't exist, how ever could they survive on only 2.7 trillion. Why would we ever try and have a balanced budget, obviously from what I've learned on here there will NEVER be any consequences of running trillion dollar deficits, the debt doesn't matter at all. Let's just run it up, I say make the budget 5 trillion. We are going to get there within a decade, Obama's second term will see the first 4 trillion dollar budget. Who cares that historical revenues have never been over 20% of GDP, just run the budget up. I say make expenditures 30%, hell let's go to 40% of GDP. If spending is good, let's go out in style. Screw it.

We print our own money, we can just print more and more and nothing will ever change. Koombya and all that, let's spend as much money as we want. Let's give everyone bentley's and free healthcare, free food and phones for everyone. Fuck it.

...........and this is after the TAXPAYERS already took a 2%+ cut as the social security tax rate increased, and gas has gone through the roof. But God forbid BIG government cuts anything. SHEER LUNACY.

In obama's first term he increased spending by a MASSIVE 52% over the average of the Bush years, and yet here he is today (the little whiner who couldn't manage his way out of a wet paper bag) telling us all that the world will end if he has to give back just 1% of that 52% --------- fuc#$ing astounding.

ahh yes, in the obama world, the SKY IS FALLING.


obama >> THE BIGGEST FAILURE in the history of U.S. presidency. He makes Jimmy Carter look like George Washington.

ptown_trojans_1;1395986 wrote: The bigger date is March 27, when the CR runs out, and Gov. may shutdown.

I can agree with this. Of particular interest is how resolute Repubs are over their insistence that the Senate pass a budget before they'll come to the table over cuts and the debt ceiling.

It's happened before. Does this House have the same resolve? They are getting bolder and more aggressive with discussing the issues plainly, but I think they still fear the fallout from a liberal media - there is little, if any, room to do the right thing and not be demonized for it.

QuakerOats;1396055 wrote:In obama's first term he increased spending by a MASSIVE 52% over the average of the Bush years, and yet here he is today (the little whiner who couldn't manage his way out of a wet paper bag) telling us all that the world will end if he has to give back just 1% of that 52% --------- fuc#$ing astounding.

Pretty disgusting. The only real explanation is that this is political and he's simply campaigning for 2014. Alternatively he sees the fragility of the economy and the teflon POTUS is already busy deflecting blame. Likely both.

What it all clearly isn't is leadership. I'm really astounded. Obama continues to disappoint my very low expectations for him. I hoped after he got re-elected that we would see at least some effort to begin governing. Wrong again.

QuakerOats;1395144 wrote:You sound as if you are fine with your kids and grandkids being completely enslaved to BIG government for their lifetimes. An extra $86,000 in debt per taxpayer just in obama's first term, and you just shrug it off; pathetic.

Quaker, you really need to come up with some better talking points than this tired old cliché. That one has been thrown around since I was in high school.