GOP willingness to swallow defense cuts is historic
In hindsight, President Barack Obama made one major if understandable miscalculation in the 2011 budget-sequester process. Needing something that would force congressional Republicans to negotiate when the time came, he and his advisers crammed some $500 billion in defense-spending cuts into the bill, believing that congressional conservatives would compromise to avoid implementation of those cuts.
He was wrong. Some Republicans — led by John McCain in the Senate and by House Armed Services chair Buck McKeon, among others — have indeed tried to rally great outrage at the cuts. For example, according to a fact sheet put out by McKeon’s committee:
“In the midst of the most dynamic and complex security environment in recent memory, sequestration would severely diminish America’s global posture. An additional 100,000 soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen would be separated from service. Those reductions would lead to:
– The smallest ground force since 1940
– A fleet of fewer than 230 ships, the smallest level since 1915
– The smallest tactical fighter force in the history of the Air Force.… Cuts to spending for the acquisition of military equipment alone would lead the loss of over 1,000,000 private sector jobs. These cuts could push unemployment back up to 9%. Cuts to active-duty and DOD civilian
personnel would amount to over 350,000 jobs lost.”
(According to data released by McKeon’s committee, Georgia alone has 37,000 civilian defense employees, and furloughs will cost the state some $203 million in payroll between now and October.)
However, despite such dire warnings and in a surprise to the Obama administration, congressional Republicans in general have found defense cutbacks far more acceptable than the revenue increases that would be needed to avoid them. And if even Republicans no longer see the Pentagon as invulnerable, that’s historic.
In fact, that change of attitude will have consequences far beyond the immediate short-term spending battle between Republican and Democrats. It represents a national turning point, with potentially major long-term implications not just for defense spending but for how the United States of America conducts itself overseas. It would seem that the American people are no longer content to spend more on defense than every other major country on the planet combined.
The politics behind the change are fairly conventional. In a recent poll by The Hill, 49 percent of likely voters said they would support cutting defense in order to reduce the deficit, while only 37 percent were opposed to the idea.
Contrast those numbers with a similar question asked about entitlements:
To be honest, I first saw inklings about that change in attitude regarding defense not in polls, but in comments on this blog over the past few years. When a number of conservative Georgians began to voice support for making cuts in the Pentagon budget, I realized that public opinion was changing quickly at the grassroots level, in ways that official Washington had not even begun to understand.
But that too is changing, as the sequester demonstrates.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
407 comments Add your comment
Union
March 4th, 2013
11:08 am
mr. jamvet.. not even close.. they dont call her princess pelosi for nothing out in california
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
March 4th, 2013
11:09 am
Or are you still blaming 1/2 of 1/3 of the branches of the federal government for your woes?
SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts says, “What?”
stands for decibels
March 4th, 2013
11:09 am
Let me know if I’ve mis-read your position.
nope, you’ve read me right.
Fred ™
March 4th, 2013
11:10 am
LOL Jamvet, that will work.
Here’s your reward. I don’t care for him all that much but you like him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE9W6XxXkiQ
They call me MISTER JamVet.
March 4th, 2013
11:10 am
Union, the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loving McConnell both looks like her and is equally incompetent and spineless, wouldn’t you say?
Brosephus™
March 4th, 2013
11:11 am
Moderate
That last response was for your 9:54 post. Got my times screwed up.
@ 10:03
I don’t think Social Security is in the position it is in because people are only concerned with making money.
I was on my phone so typing was a beeyatch. I was referring to the 401k as opposed to a defined pension. Years ago, people retired and had an idea of what they would have as far as retirement income. Now, the only thing that’s somewhat known is Social Security. Having to base your retirement on your 401k is a gamble that we’re losing, regardless to how much you have in your account.
Over the course of your lifetime, you only get 20% of what YOUR money earns while the financial industry pockets 80% without risking a single penny of their money. That’s what I was referring to about turning your retirement over to people who’s only concern is making money for themselves.
This country has gone from being one that took care of their own to being one that’s “every man, woman, and child for themselves”. How can a country who’s GDP exceeds $15 Trillion claim they can’t afford to take care of their own elderly? What kind of sense does that make, especially considering how many love to trot out the misguided information that this is a Christian society. Christ didn’t dump the poor out in the backyard to fend for themselves.
White House and Press Relations Getting Worse – U.S. News & World Report (blog) | P00Y.COM
March 4th, 2013
11:12 am
[...] Delays – The …Huffington PostThe New Normal (The Note)ABC News (blog)Blue MauMau -Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog) -CNN Internationalall 258 news [...]
wahoo
March 4th, 2013
11:12 am
Brosephus: And, if we had the continuous job growth at HOME, there wouldn’t be any issues. The private sector shares responsibility in the growth and sustainability of this country just as much as the government does.
Even if the great recession had never happened, we would still have trillions in unfunded liabilities associated with the transfer programs. It is not simply job growth, although it would undboutedly help. I would not advocate government control of the private sector, and I would not be in favor of the private sector shirking what I see as its shared responsibility for national prosperity. However, in my view, it is the responsibility of the Federal to maintain sustainable programs. Just because it takes two to tango, in my view it does not follow that the private sector must cash whatever check the Federal may write. IMHO, some of the transfer programs are now known to be unsustainable as forecast by the CBO. The Federal created them and the Federal needs to take the lead to revise them.
Citizen of the World
March 4th, 2013
11:14 am
We’ve been talking peace but waging war or preparing to wage war for 150 years in this country — I hope this is a sign that we’re finally going to put our money where our mouth is. Peace and love.
They call me MISTER JamVet.
March 4th, 2013
11:15 am
Fred, linking Fogelberg! You are the best…
Union
March 4th, 2013
11:16 am
mr jamvet.. http://media.salon.com/2012/11/obama-fiscal-cliff.jpeg1-1280×960.jpg
look at your own risk.. not responsible for eye, brain or otherwise any other self induced trauma that may occur from viewing that picture..
(btw.. who would have thought george hamilton could have gotten so far in politics)
Latrina
March 4th, 2013
11:16 am
“…have graduated from blame it on Bush to blame it all on republicans…”
The reality is that The Decider and his rubberstamp Congress ARE largely to blame for the mess the government is in. Until the Republicans acknowledge the mistakes and stop trying to shift the blame to the current President they’ll remain the minority party.
Scooter
March 4th, 2013
11:17 am
Now if we can just stop believing that government has the exclusive ability to give people something at no cost.
Brosephus™
March 4th, 2013
11:18 am
dB @ 10:11
I know that you will fight to see that such a thing doesn’t happen, and I’m not criticizing your *attitude*, but expressing it quite like that in public? not helpful, I don’t think.
I just see it as being honest. Pardon the expression, but these greedy old f**kers don’t give a sh*t about their kids, grands, or great-grands. It’s everybody for themselves, and I’m sick and tired of that attitude.
williebkind
March 4th, 2013
11:20 am
” Until the Republicans acknowledge the mistakes and stop trying to shift the blame to the current President they’ll remain the minority party.”
Now that is an uninformed person.
williebkind
March 4th, 2013
11:23 am
How do we deal with congress who helps their districts but creates huge debts for the American people?
GT
March 4th, 2013
11:24 am
I love how the stock markets are fine during this sequester but the employment is predicted to lose 700,000 jobs. We need a grass root economy, not one too big to fail, but one that is competitive. If business is not that labor intensive it should be smaller and more citizens should be able to participate, one or the other. The bar should be lower like junk bonds if the cost is cheaper to get in.
Brosephus™
March 4th, 2013
11:24 am
wahoo: Even if the great recession had never happened, we would still have trillions in unfunded liabilities associated with the transfer programs. It is not simply job growth, although it would undboutedly help.
Do you think these trillions just popped up since 2007? We have been screwing ourselves since the 1970s. These problems didn’t just pop up overnight, and they are not going to disappear in 5-10 years. You’re talking about the deluxe sh*t sandwich combo that has been in the making for 40 years. It’s going to take us that long, if not longer to unscrew everything.
The Boy Scouts taught me that, when you’re lost, the easiest way to find your way out of that mess is to backtrack. The way I see it, we have about 30-40 years worth of economic and employment policy screw ups that we need to backtrack. Unfortunately, some of the stuff won’t be able to get corrected in that manner, but the continued effin up that DC’s doing isn’t helping our problems at all.
However, in my view, it is the responsibility of the Federal to maintain sustainable programs.
Why do you think we’ve had trillion dollar deficits for the past few years? The private sector is sitting on trillions of dollars with no incentive to spend a friggin’ dime. Uncle Sam is the consumption driver of last resort, and we don’t have any other option to keep the economy from nosediving other than to have Uncle Sam spend like there’s no tomorrow.
They call me MISTER JamVet.
March 4th, 2013
11:25 am
Union, here is my recommendation for those three and their 532 other comrades.
Effective immediately, pay them the minimum wage. (Not sure if they are even worth that, but I’m a compassionate conservative, LOL!)
Rescind their gold plated health insurance plan and make them spend hundreds or thousands of dollars a month for “coverage” that still includes gargantuan co-pays, deductibles and other out of pocket costs.
Put them on 90 day probation at which time their performance is reviewed (by plumbers, LOL!) to see if they have done anything to warrant them retaining their jobs.
It would be a good start…
Until the Republicans acknowledge the mistakes and stop trying to shift the blame to the current President they’ll remain the minority party.
Or face losing three out of every four national elections going forward as they have since 2006…
Union
March 4th, 2013
11:26 am
gt.. even president obama buddy mr buffett stated the economic impact was greatly overstated by the wh
Bosch
March 4th, 2013
11:26 am
Stands@ 10:24, totally agree. We’ve known for years that the Baby Boomers were going to retire and have been making adjustments for decades, and SS is stil the most efficiently retirement program around. I remember my dad saying he’d never see a dime of his SS and people ranting about the economic apocalypse of their children and grandchildren when Reagan expanded the government.
Guess what? We still remain the biggest economic generator on Earth, and will continue to do so. I don’t know if you notice, but everyone talks about cuts and spending over TIME. It’s because we just don’t know what our exponentially exploding world will be like 10 years from now. Hell, if you’d have told me 20 years ago, this Internet thing would catch on, I’d have said, meh, we will see.
MiltonMan
March 4th, 2013
11:27 am
“The teabags have got ‘em by the balls. Actually, they have the whole country by the balls. As long as they keep getting elected in severely stupid districts, this is our life.”
North Fulton = anything but stupid. You want stupid districts look no further than Atlanta, DeKalb, Clayton – not a coincidence that these truly dsyfunctional districts have dems elected at every level.
Brosephus™
March 4th, 2013
11:28 am
I love how the stock markets are fine during this sequester but the employment is predicted to lose 700,000 jobs.
The stock market has no bearing on our economy. Stocks do fine because companies are global and don’t depend on us as their main customer base anymore.
As to losing jobs, those predictions are based upon the downward economic cycle. As people have less money to spend, demand decreases. As demand decreases, people lose jobs meaning even less money is being spent. That further dampens demand and you keep feeding that downward spiral.
GT
March 4th, 2013
11:28 am
The wind is changing in Georgia. I think there is opportunity for a Democrat to be elected. People are seeing the clog in Congress and the other southern states reacting to it in a more moderate way, while our feet are held to the fire by this one party system.
RB from Gwinnett
March 4th, 2013
11:29 am
Bro, “Just what do you think Ryan’s plan does to SS? If you’re 55 then you’re ok. People in my age bracket are getting f**ked over and nobody gives a sh*t. Well, I say screw that because I’ve been paying into the system for more than twenty years, and if I get hosed, then there had better be enough hose to get everybody.”
So, when it’s convenient for Bro, “we’re all in this together”, but when it actually affects Bro it’s “I want mine and screw everybody else”. Typical liberal.
Bosch
March 4th, 2013
11:30 am
And stands, I also agree that all instability is related to jobs. It doesn’t matter if it’s private or public, a job is a job, it’s what keeps us afloat, and less jobs, and less income is the core issue regarding all economic instability – its the income disparity stupid!
jms
March 4th, 2013
11:30 am
“My belief is that as this pain starts to gradually spread to communities affected by military spending, to children who need mental-health services, to people who care about our border security,” Republicans will agree to a bipartisan compromise that includes more tax increases, White House economic adviser Gene Sperling said in an interview on ABC.”
Republicans allowing defense spending cuts and Democrats pushing to maintain defense spending levels. The world has turned upsidedown.
Brosephus™
March 4th, 2013
11:31 am
North Fulton = anything but stupid. You want stupid districts look no further than Atlanta, DeKalb, Clayton – not a coincidence that these truly dsyfunctional districts have dems elected at every level.
Rep. Paul Broun says What!!??
They call me MISTER JamVet.
March 4th, 2013
11:32 am
The teabags have got ‘em by the balls.
I think not.
The astro-turfed movement was certainly responsible for several recent Democratic victories, and the Rove wing will not play nice with the TPers anymore. He and the GOP power brokers are going to try and effectively emasculate them. There will be some fatalities along the way, on both sides, but the TP’s salad days are likely behind them…
Jm
March 4th, 2013
11:32 am
“Total cost of wars since 2001:
$1,429,000,000,000+
think about that for a minute.”
Total cost of Social Security since 2001: $6,600,327,000,000
Total cost of Medicare since 2001: $3,996,187,000,000
Total cost of other income subsidies and security including Medicaid since 2001: $4,808,387,000,000
Think about that for a minute. Or two.
And then quit whining about the cost of the wars.
They call me MISTER JamVet.
March 4th, 2013
11:34 am
jms,
The Dems are the new militarists and the GOP have become the cut and runners…
Crazy huh?
DannyX
March 4th, 2013
11:35 am
“And then quit whining about the cost of the wars.”
What is the funding source of those 2 wars?
Keep Up the Good Fight!
March 4th, 2013
11:37 am
The cost of the 2 wars since 2001 is more like $4 trillion and rising. http://costsofwar.org/
Jm
March 4th, 2013
11:37 am
“What is the funding source of those 2 wars?”
The same as the funding source for Medicaid and all the other welfare benefits.
Fred ™
March 4th, 2013
11:38 am
Now if we can just stop believing that government has the exclusive ability to give people something at no cost.
Only you talk radio FOXBOTS think that. The rest of us sane folks know there is no frree lunch.
They call me MISTER JamVet.
March 4th, 2013
11:38 am
Total cost of wars since 2001:
$1,429,000,000,000+
Where did you get that figure, jm?
I believe it is a creative accounting figure used by the Pentagon and others that is way off…
I suspect that the real final cost will be triple that…
GT
March 4th, 2013
11:39 am
Brosephus™ the huge job loss is predicted by the government as a result of this sequester. My thoughts continue to be on the theme of the right. Cut back expenditures and the economy will cure itself. They call it austerity in some corners. My point is the only ones benefiting from the austerity is the stock exchange. The playing field is unlevel for entry players as it is, now we have strengthened a system that at best is dysfunctional. Very similar to our oil efforts, we sacrifice our usage of fuel and what we don’t used is ship out to foreign countries like China that quickly lap it up, so that we are suckers. The local Texas oilman takes home the money mailed to his mailbox, no real added employment in the states and China adds all the new jobs. Tell me where I am wrong.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
March 4th, 2013
11:39 am
And then quit whining about the cost of the wars.
Yeah, ’cause spending money to care for the citizens of this country IS EXACTLY LIKE spending money to kill people overseas.
barking frog†
March 4th, 2013
11:39 am
Republicans allowing defense spending cuts and Democrats pushing to maintain defense spending levels. The world has turned upsidedown.
………………………………………………………………………………..
My work is nearly done…
godless heathen - owner of many things he does not need
March 4th, 2013
11:45 am
Meanwhile, the White House has cut overtime pay for the janitors. Aside from wondering why janitors are working overtime hours, I’m glad the pain of the sequester is being felt in the right place. (That was sarcasm.)
Jm
March 4th, 2013
11:47 am
Jamvet 11:38
some liberal posted it on page 1. take it up with him.
RB from Gwinnett
March 4th, 2013
11:48 am
“Only you talk radio FOXBOTS think that. The rest of us sane folks know there is no frree lunch.”
I’m calling BS on that one. The primary talking point for Democrats for a few election cycles has been “vote for us and we’ll make all the evil rich people pay for everything”. You can kid yourself that the 47% don’t know they’re not paying and would gladly pay their “fair share”, but you’re not kidding anybody else.
Fred ™
March 4th, 2013
11:48 am
And then quit whining about the cost of the wars.
Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, and Medicaid help Americans you silly little boy. Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq don’t.
Why do you hate America and Americans so much?
Keep Up the Good Fight!
March 4th, 2013
11:50 am
Well I am sure that now that Jm has been given a more accurate number of the costs of the wars in the $4T range, he will be honest and admit that the unsourced number he used was wrong and therefore his claim was wrong and needs reassessment. Wait for it…..wait…..wait….
Jm
March 4th, 2013
11:51 am
“Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, and Medicaid help Americans you silly little boy. Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq don’t.”
Is that right? Where did those pesky terrorists come from that killed 3000 americans and destroyed the two largest buildings in lower manhattan, plus a wing of the pentagon?
Apparently you place a low value on economic and physical safety.
M
March 4th, 2013
11:52 am
The wars are elective. Medicare and SS are required by law. Are we not a nation of laws?
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
March 4th, 2013
11:53 am
Where did those pesky terrorists come from that killed 3000 americans and destroyed the two largest buildings in lower manhattan, plus a wing of the pentagon?
Not Iraq.
midtownguy
March 4th, 2013
11:53 am
Brosephus: I am thinking about marketing a t-shirt here is Midtown that says “If Paul Broun can get married four times, why can’t I get married once.”
Fred ™
March 4th, 2013
11:53 am
I’m calling BS on that one. The primary talking point for Democrats for a few election cycles has been “vote for us and we’ll make all the evil rich people pay for everything”. You can kid yourself that the 47% don’t know they’re not paying and would gladly pay their “fair share”, but you’re not kidding anybody else.
You call BS and then follow it up with a pack of lies? This from the man who admitted a few days ago he was incapable of running his business? How funny.
Why do you hate Soldiers, wounded vets, and retirees so much? You need to stop with that stupid assed 47% BS because the truth of the matter is the clueless 47% were you sad sacks that voted for the loser Romney lol.
The ONLY idiots talking about free stuff IS like I said, your talk radio hosts, your FOX puppet masters, and FOXBOTS like you.
What is really stupid is those lies cost you the last Presidential elections so now you seem to think if you scream them louder it’s going to help you. How dumb is that?
Keep Up the Good Fight!
March 4th, 2013
11:54 am
Oy vey, not the claim that terrorists by Saddam had anything to do with 9/11
When will this stupidity end?
DannyX
March 4th, 2013
11:55 am
“The same as the funding source for Medicaid and all the other welfare benefits.”
Jm, Why did you leave out Social Security and Medicare?
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
March 4th, 2013
11:56 am
When will this stupidity end?
Hopefully soon, and in Singapore.
Provided that he can find his own bootstraps.
wahoo
March 4th, 2013
11:56 am
Brosephus:
My first quote that you’re pulling was in response to your statement: “And, if we had the continuous job growth at HOME, there wouldn’t be any issues”. That is clearly false, as you even admit in your response. I agree that these problems didn’t pop up overnight and agree that they are a sh sandwich. I don’t think they NEED to take 40 years to resolve, although it could take that long. But every day we delay reforming the transfer programs is another day of wasted opportunity.
My second quote you are taking somewhat out of context, unfortunately. It is meant to address the need of the Federal to maintain sustainable transfer programs, which I think is rather obvious (although others may disagree). However, since you’re somewhat shifting the discussion to the Federal as the consumption driver of last resort, I will tell you that I’m not a big believer in the efficacy of that approach. The US economy went through a period of deleveraging after the credit bubble. A re-alignment of consumption relative to income was necessary (alarm bells should go off when the savings rate is negative). That re-alignment is still occurring today, and needs to finish running its course. Sovereign spending was never going to change the need for the American consumer to delever. The Federal has levered itself substantially the last five years with little to show for it: we are in the fourth year of what can only be described as a tepid recovery and appear to be settling into a long-term trend of underwhelming growth. Knowing what I know about the solvency of the transfer programs and the need for future debt financing to support them, I would not have been in favor of the ramp up in leverage of the Federal to get the recovery we have today. The Federal could have and should have been much more intelligent with our collective capital.
Fred ™
March 4th, 2013
11:58 am
Is that right? Where did those pesky terrorists come from that killed 3000 americans and destroyed the two largest buildings in lower manhattan, plus a wing of the pentagon?
Saudi Arabia you silly little boy. 15 of 19 were from Saudi Arabia. The others were from Egypt, UAE, and Lebenon. But we didn’t attack THEM. Not a single one of them came from Iraq.
Wow, you just keep doubling down on the lies and the stupid don’t you? Perhaps as you have already dug a hole of stupid over your head you should toss out the shovel and stop digging……….
But you won’t. You haven’t even begun to reach your full potential of stupid…………. and if the past is any indicator you won’t stop until you’ve surpassed it or run out of time trying.
They call me MISTER JamVet.
March 4th, 2013
12:00 pm
Just curious where it came from and why you would repeat and use it to make your point is all, jm.
Sounds like you don’t even believe it is accurate now…
Erwin's cat
March 4th, 2013
12:01 pm
But you won’t. You haven’t even begun to reach your full potential of stupid………
there is no limit what can be accomplished when one applies oneself
stands for decibels
March 4th, 2013
12:02 pm
North Fulton = anything but stupid.
I’m fairly certain that this North Fultonian couldn’t find his own ass with a guide dog, GPS and Dora the Explorer lending assistance.
They call me MISTER JamVet.
March 4th, 2013
12:02 pm
“If Paul Broun can get married four times, why can’t I get married once.”
Funny that, huh?
Newt and the serial philanderers/wife-swappers sure don’t do a good job of representing the Moral Majority, huh?
RB from Gwinnett
March 4th, 2013
12:04 pm
Fred, “This from the man who admitted a few days ago he was incapable of running his business? ”
Question for you Fred. With all the hatred you and your fellow liberals spew on those of us trying to make a business run, the incessant whining about the money we make if it works, and all the useless regulation you pile on and think it’s funny, why in the hell would anybody in their right mind hire your sorry asse?
getalife
March 4th, 2013
12:04 pm
Taxes are cuts are done.
Move on .
Brosephus™
March 4th, 2013
12:05 pm
So, when it’s convenient for Bro, “we’re all in this together”, but when it actually affects Bro it’s “I want mine and screw everybody else”. Typical liberal.
Bullsh*t!! If anything, that’s a typical Republican/Conservative or whatever the hell y’all call yourselves today. If you paid any attention, I’ve said numerous times that I don’t expect SS to be there for me. Last time I checked, it wasn’t the Liberals who were trying to get rid of it.
getalife
March 4th, 2013
12:05 pm
and.
They call me MISTER JamVet.
March 4th, 2013
12:07 pm
Ah yes, the evil rich.
As defended by someone in the evil middle class.
The numbers don’t lie – in the past thirty years we have seen the greatest income distribution UP the economic ladder in American history.
And why income inequality in the United States has surpassed even that of the Great Depression…
barking frog †
March 4th, 2013
12:07 pm
Is it possible that the GOP willingness to swallow defense cuts
will end in the next financial wranglings ?
Brosephus™
March 4th, 2013
12:08 pm
midtownguy
I’d buy a few of those shirts!!!!!!
curious
March 4th, 2013
12:11 pm
“Newt and the serial philanderers/wife-swappers sure don’t do a good job of representing the Moral Majority, huh?”
Newt for Pope. At least he isn’t a pedophile; I think.
Soothsayer
March 4th, 2013
12:11 pm
Right now our $16,000,000,000,000.00 debt is manageable because interest rates on U.S. Treasuries is ridiculously low.
What many people don’t realize is that if interest rates went to 6, 7, or 8% virtually every penny of non-Social Security and Medicare taxes that are collected would have to be used to pay the interest on our National Debt leaving essentially nothing for anything else.
To those who think that (interest rates rising) will never happen, you don’t have to go back very far in our recent history to find interest rates at those levels.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
March 4th, 2013
12:12 pm
…why in the hell would anybody in their right mind hire your sorry asse[sic]?
“Why in the hell would anybody in their right mind work for your sorry ass?” is a better question.
Fred ™
March 4th, 2013
12:12 pm
Question for you Fred. With all the hatred you and your fellow liberals spew on those of us trying to make a business run, the incessant whining about the money we make if it works, and all the useless regulation you pile on and think it’s funny, why in the hell would anybody in their right mind hire your sorry asse?
Answer: Since I have owned MY own business for over 20 years and am not looking for a job, that is a REALLY STUPID question. Well it would be a stupid question from anyone else but you. For you it’s about par for the course. THIS is why you can’t run your business. You can’t think OR retain information. Everyone here knows I own my own business lol. Most remember that I retained Keep to help me collect from a dead beat client. (He’s self employed to you silly little man, a lawyer).
You see, unlike you, I CAN handle all the laws that apply to my business. I AM smart enough to retain info. You and your ignorant wide brushing of anyone who isn’t a brainless FOXBOT by calling them ‘a liberal” is just funny to watch. You show with almost every post a complete inability to think and form your own thoughts, you just spew forth some FOXBOT phrase and pretend it’s meaningful.
As the kids these days say……… You just got pwned.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXuFuN5KPbw&list=PL4C9D838D5EDC347A
getalife
March 4th, 2013
12:13 pm
My personal opinion is he should use these cuts as an excuse to leave Afghanistan now and no more wars because “we are broke” according to our cons.
Brosephus™
March 4th, 2013
12:14 pm
wahoo: That is clearly false, as you even admit in your response.
Care to point that out for me? You’re misreading my response. Those trillions would likely NOT exist if we didn’t screw ourselves over the past 30-40 years. One of Reagan’s tax hikes was to allow Social Security to get ahead of schedule in order to absorb the baby boomers without collapsing the system. Sustained employment with population growth that has came since then would have taken care of the boomers. I fail to see where I acknowledge anything as you said I have.
I will tell you that I’m not a big believer in the efficacy of that approach.
Well, we’re entitled to believe what we choose, whether it’s factual, truthful, or not. Only time will show who’s right and who’s wrong.
Joe Hussein Mama
March 4th, 2013
12:15 pm
RB — “Question for you Fred. With all the hatred you and your fellow liberals spew on those of us trying to make a business run, the incessant whining about the money we make if it works, and all the useless regulation you pile on and think it’s funny, why in the hell would anybody in their right mind hire your sorry asse?”
Question for you, RB. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Cheesy Grits
March 4th, 2013
12:16 pm
Where did those pesky terrorists come from that killed 3000 americans and destroyed the two largest buildings in lower manhattan, plus a wing of the pentagon?
Saudi Arabia
Bosch
March 4th, 2013
12:16 pm
RB,
Just a thought, but if your business isn’t doing well, could it be that you are just an obnoxious jerk that no one wants to do business with? Cause if you conduct yourself in the real world the way you do here, I wouldn’t give you the time of day. Your constant complaints about the government and regulations are simply stupid. If you didn’t know about the regulations required to do business, maybe you are just not a very good business person.
stands for decibels
March 4th, 2013
12:18 pm
To those who think that (interest rates rising) will never happen
Of course such a thing is possible, and if it were to head in that direction, we’d have to act accordingly.
in the meantime, well–
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2013/01/28/10-year-treasury-2-percent/1870261/
td
March 4th, 2013
12:19 pm
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
March 4th, 2013
11:39 am
And then quit whining about the cost of the wars.
Yeah, ’cause spending money to care for the citizens of this country IS EXACTLY LIKE spending money to kill people overseas.
Why is it the Governments responsibility to care (code word take care of) its citizens?
Andy
March 4th, 2013
12:19 pm
Funny how these tax and spend liberals go batty over a measly 2% cut in spending.
stands for decibels
March 4th, 2013
12:20 pm
…and I realize my link @ 12.18 is over a month old, but here are current rates (along with handy 1, 3, 5, and 10-years-ago graph lines to view as well.)
http://news.morningstar.com/TreasuryYield/bonds.aspx
getalife
March 4th, 2013
12:20 pm
Government will be funded for a year so our President can work on his agenda.
The house will try to undo the military cuts but not sure if the turtle agrees.
Taxes and cuts are done .
You win some you lose some but we are all still Americans.
Fred ™
March 4th, 2013
12:20 pm
Bosch: I pointed that out to him on either Thursday or Friday, the same time I reminded him him that I have been incorporated for over 20 years. He ran away. He was whining about having to do human resource paper work. I even offered to point him in the right direction so he could outsource that stuff, which is usually cheaper. He ignored my posts then ran away. He’ll do the same today I predict, just as JM ran away after I pwned him on the terrorist stuff lol.
When they come back it will be with a different talking point from Rush or FOX or whoever they are listening to and they will completely ignore their past stupidity like it never happened.
Paul
March 4th, 2013
12:21 pm
National policy and strategy are supposed to drive force structure, which is supposed to drive budgets.
We pretty much have it backwards, now.
So conservatives are on Step 1 of a 121-step program and have admitted we have a problem with defense spending.
What I’m interested in is if there’s the brainpower that is able to construct a national security proposal that will simultaneously not force them to turn in their man cards.
They call me MISTER JamVet.
March 4th, 2013
12:21 pm
Why is it the Governments responsibility to care (code word take care of) its citizens?
Because it is in the United States Constitution, td.
Obviously per my admonition to you at 10:44, you did not read Article I, Section 8, Clause 1…
godless heathen - owner of many things he does not need
March 4th, 2013
12:22 pm
Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, and Medicaid help Americans you silly little boy. Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq don’t.
While I see your point, a lot of those $$ spent on the wars went home in Americans’ paychecks. Not the soldiers’ paychecks, so much, but the people that work in the factories that make the supplies.
Soothsayer
March 4th, 2013
12:22 pm
“Where did those pesky terrorists come from that killed 3000 americans and destroyed the
twothree largest buildings in lower manhattan, plus a wing of the pentagon?”Neo-cons and the Partnership for a New American Century’s “new Pearl Harbor.”
larry
March 4th, 2013
12:22 pm
When will this stupidity end?
Hopefully soon, and in Singapore
Saw on 60 minutes last night , there’s plenty of housing.
getalife
March 4th, 2013
12:22 pm
Iran is ready for talks.
North Korea is ready for talks.
aq is pretty much destroyed so why do we need to spend so much on defense?
We don’t.
Brosephus™
March 4th, 2013
12:23 pm
Your constant complaints about the government and regulations are simply stupid. If you didn’t know about the regulations required to do business, maybe you are just not a very good business person.
That’s gonna leave a mark….
————–
Why is it the Governments responsibility to care (code word take care of) its citizens?
Seems that you need to go back and read the Constitution.
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
–Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America
stands for decibels
March 4th, 2013
12:23 pm
One of Reagan’s tax hikes was to allow Social Security to get ahead of schedule in order to absorb the baby boomers without collapsing the system.
well yeah, but you see, when the government took those actual real-life wages from people back then, it was Real Money. Now that we need to actually spend that money, it’s just an “IOU.”
(Apparently. Because freedom.)
(And people wonder why I want to have Simpson and Bowles taken out back and ball-stomped.)
Doggone/GA
March 4th, 2013
12:24 pm
“Funny how these tax and spend liberals go batty over a measly 2% cut in spending.”
It’s not the percentage, it’s the “across the board” requirement.
Bosch
March 4th, 2013
12:25 pm
Fred,
Not human resource paperwork! Noooooooo!
Geez, does he think running a business is just showing up and making money hand over fist?
appleseed
March 4th, 2013
12:25 pm
Fred why don’t you pat yourself on back,boast a little.Tell all how smart your are.He!! man you in love with yourself.
Bosch
March 4th, 2013
12:27 pm
Jay,
So when is the ajc gonna get with the times and put us a “like” button on these here blog posts? Huh? Huh?
Fred ™
March 4th, 2013
12:28 pm
Fred why don’t you pat yourself on back,boast a little.Tell all how smart your are.He!! man you in love with yourself.
Hmmmmmmm do I have a NEW stalker or is this just one of my regulars using a semi new alt? I’m thinking alt, what do you folks think?
td
March 4th, 2013
12:28 pm
They call me MISTER JamVet.
March 4th, 2013
12:07 pm
Ah yes, the evil rich.
As defended by someone in the evil middle class.
The numbers don’t lie – in the past thirty years we have seen the greatest income distribution UP the economic ladder in American history.
And why income inequality in the United States has surpassed even that of the Great Depression.
You really should do a little reading about the late 1800’s before you make such a statement. The wealth of Rockefeller in today’s dollars surpasses the top 100 combined today and he was just one of the wealthiest.
John D. Rockefeller was the founder of the Standard Oil Company and a Philanthropist who had a net worth of $340 Billion. John D. Rockefeller earned his net worth as an icon in the oil business. He founded and operated Standard Oil Company for 27 years, retiring in 1897.
http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/richest-billionaires/john-rockefeller-net-worth/
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
March 4th, 2013
12:28 pm
Why is it the Governments responsibility to care (code word take care of) its citizens?
Why can’t you see that it is in the government’s best interest to have a healthy population?
Moderate Line
March 4th, 2013
12:28 pm
Brosephus™
March 4th, 2013
11:03 am
Moderate Line @ 10:03
I mean that the common everyday person who has to depend on Social Security and such have no say in forming, writing, passing, or signing legislation into law that affects SS. I think that currently half of the jackass brigade in DC are millionaires or at least worth a million if I remember correctly. Do you think they “need” SS to the same magnitude that Uncle Tony living on $1000 a month does?
That’s what I meant. Most of the decisions being made in DC are made by people who don’t have to rely on the implications of their decisions. We basically have allowed ourselves to be placed in a defacto caste system where the ruling class doesn’t have to suffer based on what they do.
++++
Good point.
Joe Hussein Mama
March 4th, 2013
12:28 pm
Bosch — “Geez, does he think running a business is just showing up and making money hand over fist?”
It’s the same kind of mindset that says ‘well, Mr. Brown was SO successful at running that Arabian show horse organization, SURELY he will be a success if he’s placed in charge of FEMA.’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Brown
Paul
March 4th, 2013
12:28 pm
” Cuts to spending for the acquisition of military equipment alone would lead the loss of over 1,000,000 private sector jobs. ”
“Why is it the Governments responsibility to care (code word take care of) its citizens?”
Anyone see a contradiction here? When the justification for not propping up military spending is because we won’t be taking care of people with make-work?
Halftrack
March 4th, 2013
12:28 pm
Although the President does not like it, he is the Commander and Chief of our Armed Forces. It is also his responsibility to defend our Nation (that is see that manpower and materials are available to defend the Nation. Further, he has the power to make the priorities of cuts not to be drastic to leave us vulnerable in many areas. I think the President should do his Constitutional job and with some efficiency. The buck does stop at his desk on this issue.
Brosephus™
March 4th, 2013
12:29 pm
dB
I feel you, and I understand that sentiment. Seems that our short term memory brigade has forgotten all about that.