GOP fails to implement its own budget

[stormkroe]

What a great show of intentional misunderstanding. When Bhoener says he will 'repeal' something he can only be referencing his own part. They were 'repealed' in the House, it's dishonest (or retarded?) to claim he was lying because he couldn't somehow magically make the senate agree. Or do you really think that Bhoener just figured he would do the senates job too?
This is like a smartass 15 year old arguing with his mom that she never recycles because the dropoff center was caught landfilling all the bottles they receive. This might be happening to you, so will you stick to your guns and say that you possibly don't recycle? Of course not. You sort it out, drop it off, do your part, and you call it 'recycling' even though nothing has actually been recycled. And we understand this because we learned communication skills as children.
Also, according to post #54 (which I haven't tried to verify) 8 repeals were passed through the house AND senate, making the claim of 0 repeals a lie.

The only 'Gotcha' mistake that can be pinned on Fern is assuming there would be no idiotic posters to put invented implications in his posts.

 

[DominionSeraph]

The Ryan budget already passed. (Hey, dumbasses above, note news reports say it passed. Wanna 'splain how that is when it never got through the Senate?)

pass [pas, pahs] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1. to move past; go by: to pass another car on the road.
2. to let go without notice, action, remark, etc.; leave unconsidered; disregard; overlook: Pass chapter two and go on to chapter three.
3. to omit the usual or regular payment of: The company decided to pass its dividend in the third quarter of the year.
4. to cause or allow to go through or beyond a gate, barrier, etc.: The guard checked the identification papers and then passed the visitor.
5. to go across or over (a stream, threshold, etc.); cross.

 

[fskimospy]

What a great show of intentional misunderstanding. When Bhoener says he will 'repeal' something he can only be referencing his own part. They were 'repealed' in the House, it's dishonest (or retarded?) to claim he was lying because he couldn't somehow magically make the senate agree. Or do you really think that Bhoener just figured he would do the senates job too?
This is like a smartass 15 year old arguing with his mom that she never recycles because the dropoff center was caught landfilling all the bottles they receive. This might be happening to you, so will you stick to your guns and say that you possibly don't recycle? Of course not. You sort it out, drop it off, do your part, and you call it 'recycling' even though nothing has actually been recycled. And we understand this because we learned communication skills as children.
Also, according to post #54 (which I haven't tried to verify) 8 repeals were passed through the house AND senate, making the claim of 0 repeals a lie.

The only 'Gotcha' mistake that can be pinned on Fern is assuming there would be no idiotic posters to put invented implications in his posts.

Ahhh, so Boehner shouldn't be judged on what is actually accomplished, just on the protest votes his chamber makes. Gotcha. I will assume that you give Obama credit for "passing" every piece of legislation that he says he would sign then. I await your excuses as to why Obama is magically different.

It is correct that Boehner has successfully repealed a few small provisions, but overall his efforts have been a miserable failure. Maybe if he understood how to work with other branches of government it could have been better.

 

[stormkroe]

Ahhh, so Boehner shouldn't be judged on what is actually accomplished, just on the protest votes his chamber makes. Gotcha. I will assume that you give Obama credit for "passing" every piece of legislation that he says he would sign then. I await your excuses as to why Obama is magically different.

It is correct that Boehner has successfully repealed a few small provisions, but overall his efforts have been a miserable failure. Maybe if he understood how to work with other branches of government it could have been better.

I absolutely 100% give Obama credit for the things he 'passes', only to get stopped by the balance if powers. You know who else does this? EVERYONE. It's just that
'giving credit' is often changed to 'blaming' if the context is negative, but it means the same thing. That's why I find it juvenile to keep prying at a technicality that no one would assume unless they were intentionally trying to misunderstand Fern (who has a history of admitting when he is wrong and apologizing).

Once the huge roadblock of 'I assume politicians are magically different so everyone does too' is overcome, dialog will be much more enlightening.

 

[Jhhnn]

HOR Repubs use the ACA as hostage to gain concessions elsewhere. They have a whole bunch of hostages. They send the Senate little pieces of the ACA hostage (fingers, ears, toes) along with threats to kill the rest if they don't get what they want.

What Dems really need to to is force them to carry out their threats, to shut down the govt. I say we quit paying Congress critters first, start permanently shutting down pork barrel military installations & defense contractors, particularly in Red States, let 'em see what their trash talk really means.

If they're so ready to inflict pain, make them feel it too.

When they can't see the forest for the trees, cut down the trees closest to 'em so they can get some perspective.

Aaaiiieee! No! No! Noooo! Don't cut my trees, just cut your trees!

 

[ivwshane]

HOR Repubs use the ACA as hostage to gain concessions elsewhere. They have a whole bunch of hostages. They send the Senate little pieces of the ACA hostage (fingers, ears, toes) along with threats to kill the rest if they don't get what they want.

What Dems really need to to is force them to carry out their threats, to shut down the govt. I say we quit paying Congress critters first, start permanently shutting down pork barrel military installations & defense contractors, particularly in Red States, let 'em see what their trash talk really means.

If they're so ready to inflict pain, make them feel it too.

When they can't see the forest for the trees, cut down the trees closest to 'em so they can get some perspective.

Aaaiiieee! No! No! Noooo! Don't cut my trees, just cut your trees!

Sadly, congress is required by law to be paid. Funny how that works, they get cost of living adjustments, free healthcare, and guaranteed pay and they don't do shit!

 

[fskimospy]

I absolutely 100% give Obama credit for the things he 'passes', only to get stopped by the balance if powers. You know who else does this? EVERYONE. It's just that
'giving credit' is often changed to 'blaming' if the context is negative, but it means the same thing. That's why I find it juvenile to keep prying at a technicality that no one would assume unless they were intentionally trying to misunderstand Fern (who has a history of admitting when he is wrong and apologizing).

Once the huge roadblock of 'I assume politicians are magically different so everyone does too' is overcome, dialog will be much more enlightening.

No, I'm quite certain we give credit for what they accomplish, not what they say they want to accomplish. If Fern thinks that Boehner has lived up to his promise by ineffectively flailing at the ACA that is his business. Had the Republicans been less extreme they might have actually been able to get more of what they wanted. Instead, they threw a temper tantrum.

Words have meaning. Repealing a law means repealing it, not casting a protest vote. For Fern to misuse the word and then start calling everyone else ignorant and liars invites others to turn it back on him.

 

[her209]

Bullshit.

Boehner said he'd repeal laws (at least according to the poster I was responding to) and he did. Boehner's not responsible for the senate. It's bullshit to try to say he didn't do what he said he would. He got it repealed in the House. That's all he can do, all can he claim responsibility for.

Fern

Is that anything like Obama closing Gitmo?

 

[OutHouse]

Lol, what cuts? The ones that make government not function or the imaginary ones that one cut waste?

or cut way back on the foreign aid and all the secret off the books shit?

 

[ivwshane]

or cut way back on the foreign aid and all the secret off the books shit?

Yes that would be part of the imaginary cuts that never happen.

 

[gloom111]

What Dems really need to to is force them to carry out their threats, to shut down the govt. I say we quit paying Congress critters first, start permanently shutting down pork barrel military installations & defense contractors, particularly in Red States, let 'em see what their trash talk really means.

I would suggest you seriously think about what you said here.

First, it looks like you're suggesting that putting Americans out of work in red states would help the Democrats. This is exactly what would happen if you shut down more military installations inside CONUS. Congress and the DOD have shut down more installations inside CONUS than anywhere else in the world.

Second, out of the 55 base closures since 1995, including those slated to occur, only one base was actually outside the Continental United States and Alaska. That base was located in Guam, which is still a US territory. So the 91 billion dollars a year funding bases outside our borders is okay because they aren't in red states?

Third, we are not an expansionistic empire, but we do piss off several political entities that are or would like to be. As long as we continue to defend the world from these nations, we need a strong and functional military. Until we change our foreign policy, the moment that situation ceases to exist, so will we. This is arguable of course, but the logic behind it is sound, and while it may not be fact, it is very likely.

Last, you seem to be under the assumption that the Republicans in Congress aren't representing their constituents because you don't approve of what they are or aren't doing. I would argue that the people who put these Republicans in office are quite aware of politics and what their elected official are doing, so forcing more base closures as a punishment for being uncooperative with the Democratic party would cause further polarization between the parties, not less. Of course, all this is useless conjecture, seeing as Congress decides which bases close, not the Democrats, not the Republicans, but both of them. In the current political climate, I'm wondering what makes you think these closures would get through the House.

 

[gloom111]

or cut way back on the foreign aid and all the secret off the books shit?

I agree with this. Buying allies is a failed policy. I won't say I think I should know where every single dollar is spent, but I think discretionary spending should be a very small part of the budget, and only available to select agencies. Giving money away to foreign interests while claiming to be in a debt crisis is irresponsible.

 

[ivwshane]

I would suggest you seriously think about what you said here.

First, it looks like you're suggesting that putting Americans out of work in red states would help the Democrats. This is exactly what would happen if you shut down more military installations inside CONUS. Congress and the DOD have shut down more installations inside CONUS than anywhere else in the world.

Second, out of the 55 base closures since 1995, including those slated to occur, only one base was actually outside the Continental United States and Alaska. That base was located in Guam, which is still a US territory. So the 91 billion dollars a year funding bases outside our borders is okay because they aren't in red states?

Third, we are not an expansionistic empire, but we do piss off several political entities that are or would like to be. As long as we continue to defend the world from these nations, we need a strong and functional military. Until we change our foreign policy, the moment that situation ceases to exist, so will we. This is arguable of course, but the logic behind it is sound, and while it may not be fact, it is very likely.

Last, you seem to be under the assumption that the Republicans in Congress aren't representing their constituents because you don't approve of what they are or aren't doing. I would argue that the people who put these Republicans in office are quite aware of politics and what their elected official are doing, so forcing more base closures as a punishment for being uncooperative with the Democratic party would cause further polarization between the parties, not less. Of course, all this is useless conjecture, seeing as Congress decides which bases close, not the Democrats, not the Republicans, but both of them. In the current political climate, I'm wondering what makes you think these closures would get through the House.

So it boils down to pork is ok if it's for their voters? The problem I have with that statement is that that hasn't been the republican mantra for the last several years, in facts it's been the opposite, hell! Christie and rand were just arguing about who supported more pork!

 

[gloom111]

So it boils down to pork is ok if it's for their voters? The problem I have with that statement is that that hasn't been the republican mantra for the last several years, in facts it's been the opposite, hell! Christie and rand were just arguing about who supported more pork!

There will always be pork. To believe otherwise is unrealistic. That being said, what I consider pork, and what you consider pork, and what someone without any political affiliation thinks pork is will always be different. Sure, we will all be able to look at the grossly undefendable spending programs and be able to agree occasionally, but as often as not, pork is subject to viewpoint.

If bases need to be closed, then bases need to be closed. Even attempting to close bases in red states just to 'teach those Republicans a lesson' is a disaster waiting to happen, but before putting a ton of US citizens out of work, we have bases over seas that can be closed. If you want to cut our defense spending to match those of Britain (5% GDP), before you're willing to accept a lack of pork in defense then we will have to agree to disagree. That being said, the military funds a great deal of research which often fails to meet their needs but still contributes to the advancement of our society. There are ramification to our technological advancement that will come as a result of hamstringing our military.

 

[berzerker60]

or cut way back on the foreign aid and all the secret off the books shit?

Foreign aid is a tiny, tiny fraction of the budget that mostly goes to getting countries to do things we want, like not collapse into terrorist training zones like the former Afghanistan, or accept dumps of US goods to keep prices high.

 

[gloom111]

Foreign aid is a tiny, tiny fraction of the budget that mostly goes to getting countries to do things we want, like not collapse into terrorist training zones like the former Afghanistan, or accept dumps of US goods to keep prices high.

The problem with this is that their is no guarantee that those countries will do the things we want them to, and once we start sending them aid, we almost never stop. We send aid to Pakistan (2 Bil/yr), and our relations with them are frosty to say the least. We send military aid to Egypt(1.3 Bil/yr), and they are politically unstable. We provide foreign aid to Gaza, and they call us Satan and train terrorists. We keep regimes in power that would fall without us, and when you do that, you very rarely get gratitude in response. No sovereign nation likes to acknowledge the fact that their government can't support itself or requires the aid of another sovereign power financially.

On the other hand, foreign aid is less than 1% of our annual GDP. Most of the countries that receive aid from us are no worse than neutral towards us. Cutting that aid could very well push that neutrality into hostility, but their are no guarantees either way.

 

[berzerker60]

The problem with this is that their is no guarantee that those countries will do the things we want them to, and once we start sending them aid, we almost never stop. We send aid to Pakistan (2 Bil/yr), and our relations with them are frosty to say the least. We send military aid to Egypt(1.3 Bil/yr), and they are politically unstable. We provide foreign aid to Gaza, and they call us Satan and train terrorists. We keep regimes in power that would fall without us, and when you do that, you very rarely get gratitude in response. No sovereign nation likes to acknowledge the fact that their government can't support itself or requires the aid of another sovereign power financially.

On the other hand, foreign aid is less than 1% of our annual GDP. Most of the countries that receive aid from us are no worse than neutral towards us. Cutting that aid could very well push that neutrality into hostility, but their are no guarantees either way.

We don't pay Pakistan to love us, we pay them to let us drone bomb terrorists in their territory and insert SEAL terms to kill Bin Laden without making a huge international incident out of it.

We pay Egypt to provide stability around the Suez Canal, which is crucial to international shipping and would be a HUGE economic hit if it closed.

 

[ivwshane]

There will always be pork. To believe otherwise is unrealistic. That being said, what I consider pork, and what you consider pork, and what someone without any political affiliation thinks pork is will always be different. Sure, we will all be able to look at the grossly undefendable spending programs and be able to agree occasionally, but as often as not, pork is subject to viewpoint.

If bases need to be closed, then bases need to be closed. Even attempting to close bases in red states just to 'teach those Republicans a lesson' is a disaster waiting to happen, but before putting a ton of US citizens out of work, we have bases over seas that can be closed. If you want to cut our defense spending to match those of Britain (5% GDP), before you're willing to accept a lack of pork in defense then we will have to agree to disagree. That being said, the military funds a great deal of research which often fails to meet their needs but still contributes to the advancement of our society. There are ramification to our technological advancement that will come as a result of hamstringing our military.

It's the hypocrisy I have a problem with. The right lies to the people's faces about their desire to cut government waste and they always paint the left as the big government spenders, when in fact, the opposite is true.

Yes there is good pork and bad pork, a bridge to no where is bad, a request for more tanks when we have hundreds sitting in the desert, unused, is bad pork, spending money for military vehicles that the military says they don't need is bad pork. Hopefully we can agree on that. Personally I'd like to see the military in-sourcing more and greatly reduce the number of contractors they rely on.

 

[cubby1223]

It's the hypocrisy I have a problem with. The right lies to the people's faces about their desire to cut government waste and they always paint the left as the big government spenders, when in fact, the opposite is true.

Two things. 1 - if a Republican does not cut spending, that Republican should be replaced the next election with someone who will cut spending. 2 - You have a problem with lies and hypocrisy? That's rich. Focus on fixing what is within your capacity to correcting, then complain about other people.

 

[ivwshane]

Two things. 1 - if a Republican does not cut spending, that Republican should be replaced the next election with someone who will cut spending. 2 - You have a problem with lies and hypocrisy? That's rich. Focus on fixing what is within your capacity to correcting, then complain about other people.

Sure chief!

 

[BlueWolf47]

Two things. 1 - if a Republican does not cut spending, that Republican should be replaced the next election with someone who will cut spending. 2 - You have a problem with lies and hypocrisy? That's rich. Focus on fixing what is within your capacity to correcting, then complain about other people.

Good to know lies and hypocrisy are unimportant.

 

[gloom111]

It's the hypocrisy I have a problem with. The right lies to the people's faces about their desire to cut government waste and they always paint the left as the big government spenders, when in fact, the opposite is true.

Yes there is good pork and bad pork, a bridge to no where is bad, a request for more tanks when we have hundreds sitting in the desert, unused, is bad pork, spending money for military vehicles that the military says they don't need is bad pork. Hopefully we can agree on that. Personally I'd like to see the military in-sourcing more and greatly reduce the number of contractors they rely on.

The US military is far more thrifty than it has ever been. Most of what ends up looking like waste is R&D that didn't pan out and was cut by the DOD. There are several factors that make out-sourcing a better option. The most important is that a company like Boeing is ideally suited to R&D, can choose the right people for the job, and can release those people once the job is complete. The DOD has to hire permanent employees, find something for them to do, and offer them a pension after they've goofed off for twenty years.

When the DOD is allocated money, they disperse a large portion of that money to the armed services, which further disperses that money to projects, programs, and divisions/battalions/squadrons/etc. Each of these has a budget, and if they don't find a way to spend their budget, that budget will be cut the following year. Most of the time the budget is very close to what they need, and the military very closely monitors fraud, waste, and abuse. But, they almost always find a way to spend any surplus to ensure they aren't cut the following year, usually on things that will improve the safety or further the mission of their personnel.

With outside contractors, the DOD can reduce the number of essential personnel, which reduces overhead. Contracts are bid upon unless there is Congressional influence which forces the DOD to grant a contract to a certain contractor. Contractors are penalized and fined when they fail to meet their contracts in the time stipulated.

In contrast, I've seen state contractors who sit on a project making almost no progress for several years and then have the state cough up more money to finish it.

Pork as I understand it isn't good or bad, it is items that are tacked onto the end of a good bill that probably wouldn't get through on their own. The DOD rarely gets away with much in the lines of pork because they have a lot more watch dogs keeping an eye on them than most other agencies. I won't say it is pork free, but I will say it's pretty lean.

 

[sunzt]

HOW many people here would vote to have their company cut budgets and axe their own job in order to restructure the company, but the benefits won't be visible for 10+ years?

Anyone? Anyone?

That's the dilemma of a Democracy.

 

[ivwshane]

The US military is far more thrifty than it has ever been. Most of what ends up looking like waste is R&D that didn't pan out and was cut by the DOD. There are several factors that make out-sourcing a better option. The most important is that a company like Boeing is ideally suited to R&D, can choose the right people for the job, and can release those people once the job is complete. The DOD has to hire permanent employees, find something for them to do, and offer them a pension after they've goofed off for twenty years.

When the DOD is allocated money, they disperse a large portion of that money to the armed services, which further disperses that money to projects, programs, and divisions/battalions/squadrons/etc. Each of these has a budget, and if they don't find a way to spend their budget, that budget will be cut the following year. Most of the time the budget is very close to what they need, and the military very closely monitors fraud, waste, and abuse. But, they almost always find a way to spend any surplus to ensure they aren't cut the following year, usually on things that will improve the safety or further the mission of their personnel.

With outside contractors, the DOD can reduce the number of essential personnel, which reduces overhead. Contracts are bid upon unless there is Congressional influence which forces the DOD to grant a contract to a certain contractor. Contractors are penalized and fined when they fail to meet their contracts in the time stipulated.

In contrast, I've seen state contractors who sit on a project making almost no progress for several years and then have the state cough up more money to finish it.

Pork as I understand it isn't good or bad, it is items that are tacked onto the end of a good bill that probably wouldn't get through on their own. The DOD rarely gets away with much in the lines of pork because they have a lot more watch dogs keeping an eye on them than most other agencies. I won't say it is pork free, but I will say it's pretty lean.

Thats too bad I really thought you might have been an honest one to have a conversation with. Clearly you support waste, so long as its wasted on military welfare. My guess is that you work in the defense industry otherwise you wouldn't think that "they almost always find a way to spend any surplus to ensure they aren't cut the following year", is actually smart fiscal policy.

 

[gloom111]

Thats too bad I really thought you might have been an honest one to have a conversation with. Clearly you support waste, so long as its wasted on military welfare. My guess is that you work in the defense industry otherwise you wouldn't think that "they almost always find a way to spend any surplus to ensure they aren't cut the following year", is actually smart fiscal policy.

I didn't say it was smart fiscal policy, I said it's the structure that, as far as I know, is being used. I'd also like to point out that it is a fairly common structure for a government agency, and that the DOD does a better job of monitoring it than most. We aren't seeing clips of DOD personnel dressed up for Star Trek skits for instance. Is their waste in the DOD? Absolutely. Should it be investigated and corrected? Absolutely. Should we axe the entire Defense Department? Only if you want to pledge allegiance to a different flag. I think cuts should be made in many areas of the government.

Now, since you've already written me off, I may as well bring up that some sources claim that as much as 20% of the Federal Healthcare budget is spent on fraudulent claims due to lack of proper over-site. Not waste, not abuse, just plain fraud by criminals. I'll admit I'm a bit more tolerant towards waste than I am towards fraud.