Sequestration: The Tea Party is working

[Zorkorist]

The poor Tea Party has been taking hell after hell, for being conservative.

But, today, we finally see some cuts in Government (spending).

You go, Tea Party!

-John

 

[Balt]

Yup, problem solved.

 

[Zorkorist]

It's a tiny percent of Government spending.

But it is better than Government spending more.

-John

 

[Balt]

It's a tiny percent of Government spending.

But it is better than Government spending more.

-John

As long as everyone (repubs and dems) continue to ignore the elephant(s) in the room, it's pretty meaningless tbh.

Not entirely meaningless, though. Sequester was probably the only way that such a cut in defense spending was possible. Lots of defense contractors with lots of money to contribute towards campaigns, and they spread their jobs/influence among many different congressional districts.

 

[Zorkorist]

You and I know, that the debt is insurmountable.

As long as Government continues as it is.

I, strive to change Government.

-John

 

[umbrella39]

The poor Tea Party has been taking hell after hell, for being conservative.

But, today, we finally see some cuts in Government (spending).

You go, Tea Party!

-John

It's was meaningless posturing.

 

[goobee]

It's was meaningless posturing.

It has to start somewhere. Obviously this is not going to solve anything but it's movement.

 

[Jaskalas]

Bush placed a few thousand border patrol agents on the border, was that "working"?

• Meaningless gestures are just that.

Only it's going to hurt when people delude themselves into thinking the war is over, that the mission is accomplished. It's not. Oh, but you think we can or should work for it step by step? Cute sentiment but men like Karl Rove are positioning the Tea Party to be removed from the equation as the price they pay for standing their ground and forcing such "radical" and "dangerous" cuts. You know, the cuts that leave our spending increased year after year.

• Tea Party is attacked by both sides, its time is short.

Republican leadership wants electability. They want big gov men like Bush, McCain, and Romney. The ones who will increase the size of government and call it a cut. Who will send a paltry force to the border and call it secure. Men who diffuse the conflict without resolving it. Men who betray us. The Tea Party cannot "work" until the Republicans are defeated.

• No room for three parties, one of them has to go.

You want to give us a pat on the back, call me when a real change occurs.

 

[K1052]

Republican leadership wants electability. They want big gov men like Bush, McCain, and Romney. The ones who will increase the size of government and call it a cut. Who will send a paltry force to the border and call it secure. Men who diffuse the conflict without resolving it. Men who betray us. The Tea Party cannot "work" until the Republicans are defeated.

Ironically only one of those three were actually electable (only because Gore was a timid boob) and it looks like more of the same for the next election unless the party swallows it's pride and gets behind Christie.

The Tea Party is essentially a front organization for business interests and now apparently the last refuge of the hardcore social conservatives (outside of the fringe who actually believe it's still a grassroots movement). It's dragged the whole party so far right that eventually the GOP will become an irrelevant force in national politics. The demographic changes in the US basically assure this.

 

[michal1980]

As long as everyone (repubs and dems) continue to ignore the elephant(s) in the room, it's pretty meaningless tbh.
.

the biggest tickets items SS, medicare, medicaid, that are really going to explode the debt, are programs that only one party wont touch. And if the other party even talks about making changes, they have ads showing them push grandma off a cliff run against them

 

[K1052]

the biggest tickets items SS, medicare, medicaid, that are really going to explode the debt, are programs that only one party wont touch. And if the other party even talks about making changes, they have ads showing them push grandma off a cliff run against them

The Republican options for reduced spending on entitlements have generally been non-starters, since it's pretty clear that they will (at a minimum) in end reduce benefits to at least future users of the system. They are unpopular and they are generally a bad deal for the people going to the polls. From a fiscal perspective the route is clear... dump the ACA, go single payer, and tell people it's an improved version of Medicare/Medicaid. That however would gut the medical insurance companies and be contrary to the "smaller government" platform even though the overall economic benefit and effect on the deficit would be enormous.

 

[nehalem256]

I think the really scary thing is that I thought spending was ~3.8T

If you add up all the spending you only get ~3.4T

Where did the other 400B go? Oh right interest. Which means we spend 2/3 of what we spend on disretionary on interest

 

[nehalem256]

The Republican options for reduced spending on entitlements have generally been non-starters, since it's pretty clear that they will (at a minimum) in end reduce benefits to at least future users of the system. They are unpopular and they are generally a bad deal for the people going to the polls. From a fiscal perspective the route is clear... dump the ACA, go single payer, and tell people it's an improved version of Medicare/Medicaid. That however would gut the medical insurance companies and be contrary to the "smaller government" platform even though the overall economic benefit and effect on the deficit would be enormous.

So your solution to needing to spend less money is to spend more :hmm:

 

[K1052]

So your solution to needing to spend less money is to spend more :hmm:

More compared to what?

 

[nehalem256]

More compared to what?

Are you arguing that the government can extend medicare/medicaid to 10s of millions of people without spending more money?

 

[michal1980]

The Republican options for reduced spending on entitlements have generally been non-starters, since it's pretty clear that they will (at a minimum) in end reduce benefits to at least future users of the system. They are unpopular and they are generally a bad deal for the people going to the polls. From a fiscal perspective the route is clear... dump the ACA, go single payer, and tell people it's an improved version of Medicare/Medicaid. That however would gut the medical insurance companies and be contrary to the "smaller government" platform even though the overall economic benefit and effect on the deficit would be enormous.

just think about what you said. Think about it.

The only way to reduce the deficit & debt is to cut spending in the future.

no shit its not popular. Its still needs to be done.

Single payer is not some magic bullet. Medicare is single payer. And its going to blow up the debt.

 

[Stone Rain]

.02% spending cuts aren't a success for the Tea Party, it's a grandstand to shut them up.

 

[K1052]

Are you arguing that the government can extend medicare/medicaid to 10s of millions of people without spending more money?

In $ figures more would be spent, however the government would also be taking in more money and be able to hold down costs. From a deficit perspective single payer is definitely beneficial compared to the probable future outlays in medicare/medicaid.

 

[trenchfoot]

So Obama got his "tax hike" - lol, and the Repubs got their spending cuts, just not in the way each wanted them.

The rich and big businesses get to keep their loopholes and giveaways and the middle class and the poor get to keep their Bush "tax cut".

Looks like a wash to me, except when it's time for cuts, the bottom of the tree always gets cut off first, while miraculously, the top of the tree just floats in the air, totally immune from the catastrophic gutting below.

 

[K1052]

just think about what you said. Think about it.

The only way to reduce the deficit & debt is to cut spending in the future.

no shit its not popular. Its still needs to be done.

Single payer is not some magic bullet. Medicare is single payer. And its going to blow up the debt.

That assumes we are spending efficiently already in the first place, which we aren't in either the public or private sector for healthcare considering what is spent on a per capita basis compared to every other country on the planet.

Blind cuts are not the answer. Spending more intelligently is. Medicare is a single payer system that is vulnerable to the ever rising costs of the entire medical system and is hobbled to protect business interests. It's not the model of efficency or what we need in a single payer system.

 

[Zstream]

That assumes we are spending efficiently already in the first place, which we aren't in either the public or private sector for healthcare considering what is spent on a per capita basis compared to every other country on the planet.

Blind cuts are not the answer. Spending more intelligently is. Medicare is a single payer system that is vulnerable to the ever rising costs of the entire medical system and is hobbled to protect business interests. It's not the model of efficency or what we need in a single payer system.

Blind cuts aren't the answer but giving all the power to the Government is just as bad if not worse.

 

[mizzou]

The longer people in this country don't want to improve themselves, we can't expect government to bail us out.

Start losing weight, start getting smart, and stop relying on other people to fix your problems.

I'm talking to you, people with self induced medical problems!

The whole reducing the budget but cutting spending will never work, its just not possible. Why? Because the government isn't fat on feeding itself, it's feeding it's fat children.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Too much focus on spending and not enough on having the middle class jobs needed to provide the needed tax revenue. Could it be time to rethink the wisdom of global labor arbitrage?

 

[cybrsage]

Too much focus on spending and not enough on having the middle class jobs needed to provide the needed tax revenue. Could it be time to rethink the wisdom of global labor arbitrage?

This is the problem, the lack of jobs to tax people on their production. We should instead shift to a consumption based system, such as the Fair Tax.

If people REALLY want the rich to pay their fair share, a consumption based tax is the only way to do it. A rich man buys a $100,000 car and pays 10 times as much in taxes as the poor man who buys a $10,000 car. That is fair.

 

[zsdersw]

the biggest tickets items SS, medicare, medicaid, that are really going to explode the debt, are programs that only one party wont touch. And if the other party even talks about making changes, they have ads showing them push grandma off a cliff run against them

Wrong, but as a partisan shill I can see why you'd say that. Neither party will touch them in any serious way, no matter how necessary it may be.

The extreme popularity of these programs doesn't just keep Democrats from touching them, it keeps Republicans from touching them too.