Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats

[GasBandit]

A lot of people are making a big deal out of the fact that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell stood up and endorsed a moratorium on earmarks. The vote on it is today... but it's non binding and non enforceable... so what the hell is the point?

Pelosi wants to send a $250 gift check to every single Social Security recipient. The cost of her little "thank you" campaign? $14 billion. That we don't have. Short of the votes to knock Princess Pelosi out of leadership, Blue Dog Democrats have targeted her authority to appoint allies to influential positions.

All this grousing over "tax cuts for the rich." When was the last time you went to a poor person for a job? There's a question that I want you to think about as you read this information from an article in City Journal about entrepreneurs.

In the spirit of bipartisanship and sanity, the first thing on the chopping block should be an ineffective organization that wastes money, violates our rights, and encourages us to make decisions that imperil our safety .. the Transportation Security Administration.

Yeah ... this is the way to handle our high school students. Make failure impossible. Inflated self-esteem can be decidedly counterproductive.

Neither the White House nor Congress seems to understand that growing regulatory burdens and policy uncertainties undermine business confidence and the willingness to expand. Unless that changes, our mediocre recovery may mimic Japan's.

Barack Obama reveals his true self when he veers from the teleprompter. Here's a roundup of off-hand comments that are bound to haunt him.

When Americans next elect a president in 2012, a 2-to-1 majority of U.S. investors say a Republican in the White House would be the better outcome for the economy. My kingdom for a viable 3rd party, even if it isn't Libertarian.

In Arizona, since 2000, the amount of public funding needed to maintain the elected officials' retirement system has increased by 325%.

"Socialism may impoverish and enslave, but it is the means by which the intellectual can hope to become the enslaver: through the creation of bureaucracies to advance and perpetuate fashionable progressive agendas." Wow, couldn't have said it better myself!

Coming soon to a government-run health system near you! (warning: Daily Mail Story)

Here's when we need a loser pays system.

Nanny state alert! Call the cops! We have an illegal bake sale on the corner!

Officials in the Pennsylvania government school district need to get a sense of humor.

Facepalm of the day: Andy Harris (R)-MD - "Gimme my gubmint healthcare!"

 

[AshburnerX]

In the spirit of bipartisanship and sanity, the first thing on the chopping block should be an ineffective organization that wastes money, violates our rights, and encourages us to make decisions that imperil our safety .. the Transportation Security Administration.

Honestly... at this point I don't imagine ANYONE would be coming to their defense. Yes, security is necessary for things like airplanes as it DOES occasionally catch the dumb criminals, but if your focusing all your attention on catching people AT the airport, you've already lost the war. The TSA needs to be gutted and replaced with people who actually know what they are doing... or just people who won't illegal save body scan images to to laugh/gawk/fap to later.

OK, the people who did that WEREN'T with the TSA, but I honestly don't expect them to do much better.

 

[GasBandit]

Listen to this statement from former assistant TSA administration Mo McGowan. He says it, point blank. He says, "Nobody likes the 4th amendment being violated when going through the security line, but the truth of the matter is we are going to have to do it."

Germany is warning that their intelligence agencies have uncovered what they believe to be an imminent terrorist attack, either in Europe or the United States.

This is the "well duh" portion of the Nuze. Rep. John Mica, one of the authors of the original TSA bill, writes, "When the TSA was established, it was never envisioned that it would become a huge, unwieldy bureaucracy which was soon to grow to 67,000 employees." Wow! You created a government agency that you didn't expect to grow and become completely incompetent? Either this guy was really optimistic about our government's ability to limit itself or he is completely incompetent when it comes to US history.

Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) was convicted Tuesday on 11 counts of violating House ethics rules. Now what?

California in the tank ... Texas economy growing. The differences? This from Forbes Magazine.

"GOP Budget Cowardice" You think the Republicans are dedicated to reducing the deficit? Better read this.

According to the new Politico poll, only 26% of the public believes that Barack Obama will be reelected as president in 2012. But you know what I think of polls.

President Obama and members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus are pushing Congress to pass the DREAM Act before adjourning the lame duck session.

While there may be some opportunities to make it more difficult for the Department of Health and Human Services to implement ObamaCare, a large portion of the implementation battle will take place at the state level.

Unbelievably, Barack Obama and the Democrats continue to insist that their economic stimulus plan was a huge success.

Federal government employees owe $3.3 billion dollars in delinquent tax payments.

Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe is going down swinging, insisting he'll still send earmarks to his state even though his fellow Senate Republicans are poised to adopt a two-year ban on pet projects.

They thought he was nuts?

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said using a cell phone while driving is so dangerous that devices may soon be installed in cars to forcibly stop drivers -- and potentially anyone else in the vehicle -- from using them.

 

[Krisken]

Hehe, Obamacare. That never gets old.

 

[Covar]

Neither does listening to libs claim it's the fault of Republicans.

 

[AshburnerX]

According to the new Politico poll, only 26% of the public believes that Barack Obama will be reelected as president in 2012. But you know what I think of polls.

The opposition still need to find a powerful candidate to go against him and unfortunately they don't have one right now. Sarah Palin would be laughed out of the primaries (and won't run, as she makes FAR too much money as a "spokesperson") and McCain lost his mojo a LONG time ago. Other than those two, who have them got?

 

[makare]

Neither does listening to libs claim it's the fault of Republicans.

Well as long as the repubs are all NO U that's what you are going to have to listen to.

 

[Krisken]

Neither does listening to libs claim it's the fault of Republicans.

Well as long as the repubs are all NO U that's what you are going to have to listen to.[/QUOTE]
Is he replying to me? I swear, some people don't understand this whole "I'm ignoring you" thing.


Edit: I'd like to add- I've never said it was all the fault of Republicans, Covar. That you think that is all I've said despite constantly saying otherwise on many occasions says more about your biases than my own.

 

[GasBandit]

According to the new Politico poll, only 26% of the public believes that Barack Obama will be reelected as president in 2012. But you know what I think of polls.

The opposition still need to find a powerful candidate to go against him and unfortunately they don't have one right now. Sarah Palin would be laughed out of the primaries (and won't run, as she makes FAR too much money as a "spokesperson") and McCain lost his mojo a LONG time ago. Other than those two, who have them got?[/QUOTE]

Two years can be a long time in politics, so it is hard to say. Ron Paul maybe? You also have to take into account things like maverick independents - for example, there's a theory being bandied about too that if Bloomberg decides to throw his hat into the ring, it might cost Obama the election (by costing him New York) - EVEN if Sarah Barracuda is the GOP Nominee. And I'm not sure you're correct she'd be laughed out of the primaries. It depends on whether tea-party fervor grows or diminishes over the next two years. Despite her foibles and the campaign of personal destruction launched against her, she's very charismatic and popular with the tea party plebs. And remember, even "crazy" Sharron Angle got 40% of the vote against Harry Reid.

A lot depends on how the republicans behave over the next two years.. if they drop the ball, it could very well be the end of the party. Literally.

 

[Tress]

Any poll that suggests any results of the 2012 election is going to be completely inaccurate right now. So many factors could change things that it's impossible to predict how things will go down. People are always more critical of a sitting president without knowing who the other options are. Sarah Palin would probably guarantee an Obama reelection. But who's to say some amazing GOP candidate won't step into the spotlight between now and then? Also, if people turn on the Republican-run House over the next 2 years (as they just did with the Democrats) it would make Obama look better. Not to mention that a lot of events could happen in the next two years. Obama could cure cancer. If the nation were attacked in some way and Obama handled it well, his popularity would go through the roof. If he handled it poorly, the 26% in that poll would be remembered fondly. If the economy dramatically recovered, or if it turned into a clusterfuck that dwarfs the Great Depression, it would affect his chances.

So really, why worry about the implications of a poll on the election this far out?

 

[GasBandit]

 

[AshburnerX]

According to the new Politico poll, only 26% of the public believes that Barack Obama will be reelected as president in 2012. But you know what I think of polls.

The opposition still need to find a powerful candidate to go against him and unfortunately they don't have one right now. Sarah Palin would be laughed out of the primaries (and won't run, as she makes FAR too much money as a "spokesperson") and McCain lost his mojo a LONG time ago. Other than those two, who have them got?[/QUOTE]

Two years can be a long time in politics, so it is hard to say. Ron Paul maybe? You also have to take into account things like maverick independents - for example, there's a theory being bandied about too that if Bloomberg decides to throw his hat into the ring, it might cost Obama the election (by costing him New York) - EVEN if Sarah Barracuda is the GOP Nominee. And I'm not sure you're correct she'd be laughed out of the primaries. It depends on whether tea-party fervor grows or diminishes over the next two years. Despite her foibles and the campaign of personal destruction launched against her, she's very charismatic and popular with the tea party plebs. And remember, even "crazy" Sharron Angle got 40% of the vote against Harry Reid.

A lot depends on how the republicans behave over the next two years.. if they drop the ball, it could very well be the end of the party. Literally.[/QUOTE]

I could see Ron Paul happening, but only if he doesn't fold up and toe the party line like he's 90% likely to. Republicans talk big until they actually get elected, but very few actually follow through once they learn the realities of Washington Politics. Sarah Palin could win the primary, but there is NO WAY she could win the presidency. She is too divisive a figure (mainly because she can't keep her fucking mouth shut when she should) and lacks moderate appeal that is going to be key in the next election. She'd also need to overcome the image she herself has willfully cultivated over the last two years.

 

[Krisken]

I'm a Michael Bloomburg fan myself. I know he probably isn't super popular with Republicans, but I think he is one of the right leaning potential candidates which can appeal to moderates on the other side.

 

[GasBandit]

Which is why if, for some reason Bloomberg DID decide to run for president as an independent (following the renom of Obama and nomination of Palin as the GOP candidate), it's plausible to believe he could pull enough votes from the moderates to make them electorally irrelevant. The idea goes that then NO candidate receives enough electoral votes to be declared winner, which throws the election into the House of Representatives, where each state gets one vote regardless of population... and compare the number of red states to blue states.

Keep in mind that I'm not endorsing Palin for prez here... I'm just saying those who don't like her shouldn't feel she's safely out of the way just yet.

 

[Krisken]

Which is a stupid way of doing things. I also find the Electoral College system to be mind numbingly stupid. I'd much rather have a President selected based on majority votes.

 

[GasBandit]

I think if anything, we are very close to disproving the notion that a democratically elected representative government can endure. As the oft quoted saying goes, we're just voting ourselves largesse from the general coffers, now.

How does that OTHER saying go? It's the worst form of government except for everything else?

 

[Krisken]

While I understand your concerns, I really don't think the situation is quite as dire as you make it out to be. I seem to remember the rumblings on the Left 6 years ago about how "it is the worst time in American History" etc etc. We endured that, we'll endure this, we'll endure the next person in the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives.

 

[GasBandit]

Within our lifetimes. It all comes down. Mark my words.

 

[Krisken]

Tell ya what, if this event occurs, I'll deliver you a plastic poncho to keep us dry from the rain.

 

[Krisken]

Well, he would win the biggest dick contest.

 

[GasBandit]

If you want to see how taxes can affect behavior, look no further than this study by Americans for Tax Reform.

This column in Politico might give us some better insight into why lawmakers decided to keep Nancy Pelosi as the Democrat leader.

Yesterday the Republicans approved a rules change, imposing a moratorium on congressional earmarks. But it looks like some of them are already willing to break that pledge (remember, it is non-binding .. there are no repercussions except holding them accountable and they way you do that is by going to the polls). Yesterday Lisa Murkowski clinched the Senate race up in Alaska. She has said that she is "going rouge" against Mitch McConnell's support on the earmark ban. Clearly we know that James Inhofe of Oklahoma did not approve of the ban, and apparently Senator Thad Cochran has indicated that he may seek earmarks. Others like Tennessee's Lamar Alexander and South Carolina's Lindsey Graham say that they might also use earmarks in "emergency" situations.

More illustration of how bass-ackwards everything is today - Networks Allow a Scant Four Minutes For Rangel Conviction, Devote 120 Minutes to Royal Wedding.

Lisa Murkowski on Wednesday became the first Senate candidate in more than 50 years to win a write-in campaign.

House Republicans plan to force a floor vote on defunding NPR in response to the firing of analyst Juan Williams last month.

The Cato Institute's Daniel Mitchell has five observations about the deficit plan offered by former Senator Pete Domenici and Clinton Administration Budget Director Alice Rivlin.

The Massachusetts health insurance connector has turned into a legal pit bull by aggressively going after people who say they can't afford mandated insurance -- or the penalties imposed for not having it. Coming soon to your neighborhood, courtesy of ObamaCare.

While the Bush and Obama administrations may have increased the size and scope of government in the US, a number of European countries have turned to free market solutions...

Is the problem really that we don't know Barack Obama? It may be quite the opposite - we know his philosophies all too well.

Now here is something Michele Bachmann and I can agree on: Barack Obama is not in line with the thinking of this American people.

The steep fiscal crisis that many states face includes staggering retirement costs for their workers, estimated at some $3 trillion in unfunded future promises. It is only going to get worse, folks, unless we make some drastic changes. SPENDING changes, not taxing changes.

What do you think .. bullying or political correctness over a comment about the Taliban in a government school.

 

[Krisken]

If you want to see how taxes can affect behavior, look no further than this study by Americans for Tax Reform.

Didn't read the article, I must admit.

This column in Politico might give us some better insight into why lawmakers decided to keep Nancy Pelosi as the Democrat leader.

She wasn't voted as the Democratic party leader. That is the President's job when the party has one in the White House.

Yesterday the Republicans approved a rules change, imposing a moratorium on congressional earmarks. But it looks like some of them are already willing to break that pledge (remember, it is non-binding .. there are no repercussions except holding them accountable and they way you do that is by going to the polls). Yesterday Lisa Murkowski clinched the Senate race up in Alaska. She has said that she is "going rouge" against Mitch McConnell's support on the earmark ban. Clearly we know that James Inhofe of Oklahoma did not approve of the ban, and apparently Senator Thad Cochran has indicated that he may seek earmarks. Others like Tennessee's Lamar Alexander and South Carolina's Lindsey Graham say that they might also use earmarks in "emergency" situations.

This is no surprise. Even Rand Paul changed his mind almost as soon as the election was over, stating that he would get as much money for his state as he could. According to Politico, in 2009 16.5 billion was spent on earmarks, which makes up a pretty small chunk of the 2.7 trillion spent on the budget in 2009. It's good that they are working to lower the earmarks, but I just don't see how it will make a dent.

More illustration of how bass-ackwards everything is today - Networks Allow a Scant Four Minutes For Rangel Conviction, Devote 120 Minutes to Royal Wedding.

Ayeah, he's a crook. Likely get a slap on the wrist, too. Pretty stupid system, if you ask me.

Lisa Murkowski on Wednesday became the first Senate candidate in more than 50 years to win a write-in campaign.

Congrats to her and her campaign. While I don't really agree with many of her stances, I find her preferable to Joe Miller. He was.... interesting.

House Republicans plan to force a floor vote on defunding NPR in response to the firing of analyst Juan Williams last month.

Ok, this is just stupid. Good to know they aren't afraid to publicly stick their tongues up the media's ass whenever they get the chance.

The Cato Institute's Daniel Mitchell has five observations about the deficit plan offered by former Senator Pete Domenici and Clinton Administration Budget Director Alice Rivlin.

For anyone who is curious who the Cato Institute is and who funds them. I can already tell you what it says even without reading it- needs more tax cuts for the rich, less government involvement in regulating financial districts, etc. Also, Penn and Teller are members of the Cato Institute. Explains their shows a bit better, doesn't it?

The Massachusetts health insurance connector has turned into a legal pit bull by aggressively going after people who say they can't afford mandated insurance -- or the penalties imposed for not having it. Coming soon to your neighborhood, courtesy of ObamaCare.

Hoho, Obamacare. One thing that confuses me is this- if people who make less than $50,000 a year are exempt from the fines, then how come those who make more are being called "Cash strapped residents"? What the hell are they spending their money on?

While the Bush and Obama administrations may have increased the size and scope of government in the US, a number of European countries have turned to free market solutions...

Dear god, this is so riddled with unfounded opinion journalism, there really is no point.

Is the problem really that we don't know Barack Obama? It may be quite the opposite - we know his philosophies all too well.

I have no idea what this article was about. I'm not sure the author did either.

Now here is something Michele Bachmann and I can agree on: Barack Obama is not in line with the thinking of this American people.

Considering Michelle Bachmann hasn't scored above a "Lie" on Politifact.com in 13 attempts, she is not what I would link to. Ever. Unless you're saying that the American people are always WRONG.

The steep fiscal crisis that many states face includes staggering retirement costs for their workers, estimated at some $3 trillion in unfunded future promises. It is only going to get worse, folks, unless we make some drastic changes. SPENDING changes, not taxing changes.

I would argue that both are in order. Taxes are at a lower rate than they should be, but spending is out of hand in many cases. See? Interesting compromise there.

What do you think .. bullying or political correctness over a comment about the Taliban in a government school.

Neither. Both sides blew this way out of proportion. Get the two kids to talk it over and fucking let it go. Should not be national news.

 

[GasBandit]

Now here is something Michele Bachmann and I can agree on: Barack Obama is not in line with the thinking of this American people.

Considering Michelle Bachmann hasn't scored above a "Lie" on Politifact.com in 13 attempts, she is not what I would link to. Ever. Unless you're saying that the American people are always WRONG.[/quote] Heh heh heh... you know, they might be.

The steep fiscal crisis that many states face includes staggering retirement costs for their workers, estimated at some $3 trillion in unfunded future promises. It is only going to get worse, folks, unless we make some drastic changes. SPENDING changes, not taxing changes.

I would argue that both are in order. Taxes are at a lower rate than they should be, but spending is out of hand in many cases. See? Interesting compromise there.

We don't have a revenue problem. Granted I'm getting these figures from wikipedia, but they are sourced in .govs - we're pulling in enough tax revenue total, even during a bitter recession, to have been several dozen billion in the black on 2004's budget. The problem isn't taxes are too low, the problem is that spending is outpacing tax revenue by several orders of magnitude. We've gone from trillion dollar budgets to three trillion dollar budgets in a very short amount of time. Making taxes keep up with that is economic suicide.

 

[Krisken]

What do you propose cutting? This is the same situation many Republicans who just got voted in are facing. On everything which makes up the largest amounts of the budget, no one wants to cut them. Defense? Goodness no. Medicare/Medicaid? Not politically viable, so no. So what?

 

[GasBandit]

What do you propose cutting? This is the same situation many Republicans who just got voted in are facing. On everything which makes up the largest amounts of the budget, no one wants to cut them. Defense? Goodness no. Medicare/Medicaid? Not politically viable, so no. So what?

To start, 10%. From everything. EVERYTHING. Including defense. That would be a good first step, and it won't outright kill anything... and when the screaming stops and the dust settles and people see that the world did in fact NOT come to an end, we can cut more.

 

[Krisken]

Those are definitely interesting ideas. I worry that 10% from education would have a greater hit since it is already strapped for cash, but I'd be willing to see what effects this type of plan would have on the programs already in place. It would be nice if someone could do that type of research.

 

[Dave]

10% from everything? I'm down with that.

Then look at everything on an item-to-item basis. There's a lot of pork out there and we need to shut that bar-b-q down.

 

[Krisken]

Again, $16.7 Billion of the 2.7 Trillion budget in 2009 went to earmarks.

 

[Covar]

Force a mandatory 10% budget cut and watch how much waste is discovered in education. The system is very top heavy, going to stuff that will never even see the teachers let alone the students.

 

[GasBandit]

Those are definitely interesting ideas. I worry that 10% from education would have a greater hit since it is already strapped for cash, but I'd be willing to see what effects this type of plan would have on the programs already in place. It would be nice if someone could do that type of research.

Education shouldn't be in the federal purview anyway. It's a state/local issue. A national bureaucracy throwing money at a state bureaucracy probably isn't the best way to improve education.

But consider - if we were to cut 10% from everything per year, every year, we'd stop adding debt within 5 years. Then after a while of putting the additional funds toward the national debt, the interest stops being so odious. We get our sovereignty back, foreign powers lose a lot of their leverage against us (particularly and probably most importantly, China), and it's that much less money we need to collect in taxes.

 

[Krisken]

I disagree (vehemently) on education being a state issue, but that is for another time.

Yes, I understand your idea and the desire, I'm just not sure it would be feasible. Like I said, I'd like to see a study with actual numbers which would support the survival of all the programs getting cut.

 

[Tress]

I'm typically against broad cuts with no targets, like the 10% cut you guys are discussing. It seems like those cuts always go right past any wasteful spending/pork and cut right into the more necessary services. A 10% cut in education spending would mean massive teacher layoffs and slashing school programs like art and music, while the DoE continues to spend money on studies to see if students like math or extra funds for school principals to redo the carpeting in their offices.

 

[GasBandit]

I'm typically against broad cuts with no targets, like the 10% cut you guys are discussing. It seems like those cuts always go right past any wasteful spending/pork and cut right into the more necessary services. A 10% cut in education spending would mean massive teacher layoffs and slashing school programs like art and music, while the DoE continues to spend money on studies to see if students like math or extra funds for school principals to redo the carpeting in their offices.

So, instead, we're supposed to reward bad funds management with more funds? There comes a point where you have to stop throwing money at a problem and assuring yourself that you did all you could.

 

[Krisken]

I think I've pretty much said my piece on the subject, so I'll let the rest of ya's duke it out a bit and only interject here or there.

 

[Tress]

I'm typically against broad cuts with no targets, like the 10% cut you guys are discussing. It seems like those cuts always go right past any wasteful spending/pork and cut right into the more necessary services. A 10% cut in education spending would mean massive teacher layoffs and slashing school programs like art and music, while the DoE continues to spend money on studies to see if students like math or extra funds for school principals to redo the carpeting in their offices.

So, instead, we're supposed to reward bad funds management with more funds? There comes a point where you have to stop throwing money at a problem and assuring yourself that you did all you could.[/QUOTE]

Did I say any of that? Please show me where I said that.

What I'm saying is that you need to target cuts. Get specific about what needs to go and what doesn't. You know, actually do the hard part and show some intelligence rather than a clumsy "just cut it all!" approach.