published Wednesday, May 1st, 2013

The Flyover

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

103
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
AndrewLohr said...

How much have you personally given to victims of the sequester?

Was your gift accepted? President Obama wouldn't let Sean Hannity pay for White House tours.

Private-sector GDP and government spending move in the opposite direction about 70% of the time, so to grow the economy, shrink the government, says politicsdebunked.com:

http://www.politicsdebunked.com/article-list/spendingpattern

Similar point made here (I found politicsdebunked.com in the comments to this article):

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/04/the-austerity-chart-paul-krugman-doesnt-want-you-to-see/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=042913

May 1, 2013 at 2:53 a.m.
Cactus said...

Clay Bennett's bio reads: "The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life..." Clay is the guy with the red cap.

May 1, 2013 at 4:53 a.m.
Maximus said...

Clay, Clay, Clay. Fast and Furious, Benghazi, The Sequester, The Obamacare train wreck and now the Boston Bombing , one thing for sure the Obama administration dodges or shall I say hates one very important aspect of leadership............ACCONTABILITY. I find that character flaw is typical of most liberals especially some deadbeat Dads I am aware of. They would prefer to live off the grid, smoke pot, and collect a government check than take care of their kids. Personification of A Holes!

Toon could also be Obama's incompetent border patrol watching illegals roll across the border. The guy in the wheelchair will be on Medicaid soon just like the Boston Bomber Family. Sweet!

May 1, 2013 at 5:47 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Your psychosis has been duly noted, Maximoron.

May 1, 2013 at 5:50 a.m.
Maximus said...

Oh gosh....ACCOUNTABILITY. It's early y'all forgot the U. I know it's that Vandy degree again. Funny. Obama really could be called the artful dodger when it comes to accountability. Cheers gotta hustle today.

May 1, 2013 at 5:52 a.m.
Maximus said...

Easy u r funny. Maybe Alprova will track you down too and get six inches in your face. I think he might have a hard time. I live on the high ground and have a carry permit. Love the Springfield Armory .40 cal EMP. Locked and loaded.

May 1, 2013 at 5:56 a.m.
Easy123 said...

I'll go ahead and call bullsh!t on everything you just said.

May 1, 2013 at 6:06 a.m.
Maximus said...

Easy funny again. I may not be a good speller but I'm a good shot. Like many great Americans that have fought for our freedoms, keep you powder dry and your aim true. AR 15 ammo kind of hard to come by these days. Lucky I stocked up last year. Might go to the range this afternoon if I don't head out to the Honors in the 57. Later.

May 1, 2013 at 6:25 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Again, I'm calling bullsh!t on everything you just said.

May 1, 2013 at 6:30 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

You’re too kind, Clay Bennett. Yes, I see the hit and run victims and the plane in the sky, but I don’t see the dust cloud and the culprits driving that GOP getaway limo - you know the one with the bumper sticker that says Eat my Dust America.

May 1, 2013 at 6:31 a.m.
hambone said...

All computers and cell phones should come equipped with a breathalizer!

May 1, 2013 at 6:41 a.m.
EaTn said...

The number one goal of Congress is to protect the hand that feeds their greed for money, power and fame. Their number two goal is to hide their number one goal from the average voter. The party lines are just a way of keeping score.

May 1, 2013 at 6:50 a.m.
degage said...

hambone, right!

EaTn, right!

Both of you hit the nail on the head.

May 1, 2013 at 6:56 a.m.
joepulitzer said...

Hey, Maximus, have you noticed that every time you blow cold, hard facts up Easy's windpipe, he has smoke coming out of his ears?

May 1, 2013 at 7:08 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

EaTn says: “The number one goal of Congress is to protect the hand that feeds their greed for money, power and fame. Their number two goal is to hide their number one goal from the average voter.”

It seems to me that some don’t even try to hide their motives anymore. Instead of spending money on obvious needs like structurally deficient bridges, deficient dams, railroad choke points, and much needed drinking water infrastructure, Ohio’s politicians continue to shovel money toward a pet project the U.S. Army has publically declined over and over again:

“WASHINGTON -- Built to dominate the enemy in combat, the Army's hulking Abrams tank is proving equally hard to beat in a budget battle.

Lawmakers from both parties have devoted nearly half a billion dollars in taxpayer money over the past two years to build improved versions of the 70-ton Abrams.

But senior Army officials have said repeatedly, "No thanks."

It's the inverse of the federal budget world these days, in which automatic spending cuts are leaving sought-after pet programs struggling or unpaid altogether. Republicans and Democrats for years have fought so bitterly that lawmaking in Washington ground to a near-halt.

Yet in the case of the Abrams tank, there's a bipartisan push to spend an extra $436 million on a weapon the experts explicitly say is not needed.

"If we had our choice, we would use that money in a different way," Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army's chief of staff, told The Associated Press this past week.

Why are the tank dollars still flowing? Politics.”

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2013/04/ohio_budget_hawks_in_congress.html

May 1, 2013 at 7:47 a.m.
joneses said...

The sequester was o'bastards idea and his name is on it so how can it be the Republicans fault? This is another example of liberalism being a mental illness. why would o"bastard include in the sequester things that would hurt the average American citizen and the little children that were expecting White House tours? O'Bastard is lying to you gullible liberals and you are to blind to see it. Amazing.

May 1, 2013 at 8:12 a.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

In 2010, Carmen Reinhart, a professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, and Kenneth Rogoff, an economist at Harvard, released a paper"Growth in Time of Debt". It purported to show that the greater the debt of a country the lower the GDP growth. It received wide coverage and was used to justify austerity programs in many countries.

Recently Thomas Herndon a graduate student at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst selected that study as a project for one of his economics classes. He concluded that the authors of the study made several errors that significantly alters their conclusions. As a result he and many opponents of austerity are attempting to use this review to show those programs are based on faulty economics.

However there are several faults in Mr. Herndon’s review and conclusions as to what it proves.

He chose to review only the 2010 version of the study that the authors have admitted contained some errors but was updated and republished in 2012 and reached basically the same conclusions as the 2010 study.

Although Mr. Herndon did find errors in the older study his results basically reflected the same outcome as both versions of the study with only minor differences. That increased debt resulted in lower GDP growth.

Mr. Herndon’s review included an error that the 2010 study contained but was corrected for the 2012 version. This uncorrected error makes his review as faulty as he claimed for the original study.

I find it odd that if Mr. Herndon’s review is taken seriously by the economics community then why did the big media rollout of his results occurred on a lightly viewed comedy show?

May 1, 2013 at 8:16 a.m.
MickeyRat said...

Say joepulitzer,

What facts pertaining to today's subject has Maximus provided?

May 1, 2013 at 8:21 a.m.
Maximus said...

Word for the day......ACCOUNTABILITY. Scary word and behavior for all liberals especially Barry The Welfare Pimp. Looks like the Boston Bombing and Obama's impotence will be two great issues for the Republicans to win the mid term elections in both the House and the Senate.

May 1, 2013 at 8:41 a.m.
MickeyRat said...

You're spinning an error to fit a false narrative Jt6gR3hM. Reinhart and Rogoff's equations have been debunked by many and throwing doubt on the messenger doesn't make the error valid.

Reinhart and Rogoff's a statement:

"We are grateful to Herndon et al. For the careful attention to our original Growth in a Time of Debt AER paper and for pointing out an important correction to Figure 2 of that paper. It is sobering that such an error slipped into one of our papers despite our best efforts to be consistently careful. We will redouble our efforts to avoid such errors in the future. We do not, however, believe this regrettable slip affects in any significant way the central message of the paper or that in our subsequent work."

I other words:

Yes we were wrong to conclude that 2+2=chair, but we feel it doesn't affect in any way the message of the paper. And we're sticking by it.

May 1, 2013 at 8:54 a.m.
caddy said...

Thanks AndrewLohr & Maximus. Two that continually make sense in a senseless progressive world that doesn't really grasp what we are supposed to be progressing to.

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/BudziszewskiLiberalism.php

May 1, 2013 at 9:14 a.m.
Leaf said...

Congress never thought the sequestration would affect them PERSONALLY! What's that all about? Inconvenience my flight home? Well, let's just pass a law, about a thousand times quicker than we usually do.

What prompted minimus' incoherent ramble about his little pistol? Eh, who cares.

May 1, 2013 at 9:16 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Free condoms for your 12-year-old? California health council can help. Free lubricant provided too. Slick idea, huh libs?

May 1, 2013 at 10:01 a.m.
librul said...

Maximinimus:

Don't mention 'accountability' around GWB or any of his gang. It's worse than yelling fire! in a crowded theater.

Just go play golf, dude, and hope nobody puts sand in the gas tank of your '57.

May 1, 2013 at 10:02 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Reminder: today is to last day to try and get your $50,000 tax free check simply by lying : see http://FarmerClaims.gov for details! Huge story that you won't see covered. Obama admn. run amok.

May 1, 2013 at 10:10 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Jt6gR3hM said...

"He chose to review only the 2010 version of the study that the authors have admitted contained some errors but was updated and republished in 2012 and reached basically the same conclusions as the 2010 study."

Prove it. I cannot find that information anywhere on the Internet. It also appears as if this "update" and "republish" never occurred either.

"Although Mr. Herndon did find errors in the older study his results basically reflected the same outcome as both versions of the study with only minor differences. That increased debt resulted in lower GDP growth."

Wrong. The original study estimated a 0.1% decrease in GDP. When corrected by Mr. Herndon, the study estimated a 2.2% INCREASE in GDP.

"Mr. Herndon’s review included an error that the 2010 study contained but was corrected for the 2012 version. This uncorrected error makes his review as faulty as he claimed for the original study."

Prove it. I cannot find anything on the Internet that supports that claim.

"I find it odd that if Mr. Herndon’s review is taken seriously by the economics community then why did the big media rollout of his results occurred on a lightly viewed comedy show?"

It didn't occur on a "lightly viewed comedy show". Economics doesn't get "the big media rollout". The results of Mr. Herndon's paper were highlighted by the Washington Post, The New York magazine, Business Insider, the BBC, Popular Economics, along with man other websites and magazines. The results were also used in the 2012 Presidential debates. Mr. Herndon's paper has been out for a while now. The Colbert Show appearance is probably the pinnacle for someone as unknown and unheralded as that grad student.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2013/04/17/business-austerity-rogoff-reinhart.html

However, this isn't the first time that people have debunked the "austerity" economics.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/24/even-stephen-colbert-is-piling-on-reinhart-rogoff/

May 1, 2013 at 10:22 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

"Employer spending on benefits rose at the slowest pace on record in the first quarter, as companies began bracing for higher health costs with next year's launch of ObamaCare." -Investors Business Daily sounds about right

May 1, 2013 at 10:46 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Who said U.S. politicians do not look after their constituents?

“The ratio of CEO-to-worker pay has increased 1,000 percent since 1950, according to data from Bloomberg. Today Fortune 500 CEOs make 204 times regular workers on average, Bloomberg found. The ratio is up from 120-to-1 in 2000, 42-to-1 in 1980 and 20-to-1 in 1950.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/30/ceo-to-worker-pay-ratio_n_3184623.html

May 1, 2013 at 10:58 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

MSM who trashed Tim Tebow now lionizes Jason Collins. so predictable

May 1, 2013 at 11:11 a.m.
Easy123 said...

PlainTruth,

"MSM who trashed Tim Tebow"

Trashed his anti-abortion, anti-gay stance.

Lies and misinformation from a WingNut. SO PREDICTABLE.

May 1, 2013 at 11:28 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

"Chain of custody? What is this, "CSI Damascus?” In the middle of a war you expect a chain of custody in deciding if a weapon was used?” -charles krauthammer

May 1, 2013 at 11:39 a.m.
Leaf said...

SimplisticTruthiness, er, I mean PlainTruth, just seems to post random stuff unrelated to any other posts or the cartoon at hand. I think it's a robot.

May 1, 2013 at 11:41 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Leaf said: “Congress never thought the sequestration would affect them PERSONALLY! What's that all about? . . . Well, let's just pass a law, about a thousand times quicker than we usually do.”

Yes, it was amazingly swift, wasn’t it? . . . It’s unfortunate for our nation’s seniors and disabled that Meals on Wheels doesn’t deliver to the Halls of Congress:

"ROANOKE, Va. -- William McCormick remembers from his working-class upbringing in Covington, Va., that neighbors took care of neighbors.

"Both my parents worked in the mill," he said. "For people in the neighborhood who were hungry we'd make up two or three bags of groceries, put $5 or $10 in it, set it on the porch, knock on the door and leave. We wouldn't tell 'em who did it."

Now McCormick is 70 years old and living alone in a one-bedroom apartment in a six-story building. Only about 40 of the building's 144 units are occupied. The parking lots are barren and the hallways are dingy with torn carpets. McCormick considers the building "spooky."

He's lived here since 2005, and for most of that time he has benefited from food charity every week day -- not left at his door anonymously, but brought to him by Meals On Wheels volunteers. Since 1972 the Administration on Aging has provided federal funding for senior nutrition, and today volunteers from some 5,000 Meals On Wheels affiliates across the country distribute a million meals a day.

But federal funding for senior nutrition has been reduced by budget cuts known as sequestration, meaning less food for old people here and elsewhere. The White House has said the cuts would mean 4 million fewer meals for seniors this year, while the Meals On Wheels Association of America put the loss at 19 million meals. . ."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/29/meals-on-wheels-sequestration_n_3165256.html

May 1, 2013 at 11:41 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

When Obama.was in senate he voted present . Now he's just absent.

May 1, 2013 at 12:56 p.m.
alprova said...

Welcome back Mr. Dennis

May 1, 2013 at 1:09 p.m.
NirvanaFallacy said...

Wow, I never knew Economics was so black and white. Find some flaws in one study and so now it's all aboard the Krugman Express. WOOOO WOOOOO!!!! Who cares about inflation or increasing taxes or the ratio of GDP to debt. None of this matters anymore - Yippee!!! Crank up the printing press boys and let's double down on the ideas of our Big Government messiah John Maynard Keynes.

I mean what's the worst that can happen?

May 1, 2013 at 1:13 p.m.
Leaf said...

JonRoss, exactly what is your diagnosis, anyway?

May 1, 2013 at 1:17 p.m.
Leaf said...

You have an extreme case of something, that's for sure.

May 1, 2013 at 1:27 p.m.
Easy123 said...

JonRoss,

Your psychosis has been duly noted.

Nothing, I repeat, NOTHING you just stated is factual or remotely sane.

May 1, 2013 at 1:28 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Leaf notes: “PlainTruth, just seems to post random stuff unrelated to any other posts or the cartoon at hand. I think it's a robot.”

You’re robot theory makes a lot of sense. We know these sequester cuts impact some people more than others, which explains why some people are ignoring the cartoon, but every living person eats and should be concerned about these cuts to food safety inspections:

"The Food and Drug Administration will conduct fewer food safety inspections this year because of the government sequester, commissioner Margaret Hamburg said Wednesday in an exclusive interview with USA TODAY.

While consumers may not feel the impact immediately, the loss of $209 million from its budget will force the agency to conduct about 2,100 fewer inspections, an 18% decline compared to last year. . .

One in six Americans, or 48 million people, develop a food-borne illness each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About 3,000 die, and 128,000 are hospitalized."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/24/sequester-fda-food-safety-inspections-commissioner/2110503/

May 1, 2013 at 1:36 p.m.
Easy123 said...

JonRoss,

"So you agree that a WNBA player coming out as a heterosexual would be bigger news than Collins?"

I can probably name 5-7 heterosexual WNBA players off the top of my head and I've never seen a single WNBA game.

"And how would she be treated in the locker room ?"

Truly mind-numbing.

"And would our lord and savior, Barack Obama, call her to give her a verbal high five ?"

See what I mean?

May 1, 2013 at 1:41 p.m.
degage said...

insomnia Easy? still posting at 6:30 this morning and back at it at 10:23. It's not like you. And it's actually funny.

May 1, 2013 at 1:41 p.m.
Easy123 said...

degage,

"insomnia Easy? still posting at 6:30 this morning and back at it at 10:23. It's not like you. And it's actually funny."

The life of a grad school student. I'm sure you wouldn't know anything about it. LMFAO!

May 1, 2013 at 1:43 p.m.
Leaf said...

Easy, why you gotta be so rude? If you were really as smart as you constantly tell us, you wouldn't be so offended by the opinions of your intellectual inferiors.

(Not calling degage intellectually inferior, just happened to be responding to a post he or she is a part of.)

May 1, 2013 at 1:59 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Leaf,

"Easy, why you gotta be so rude?"

Comes with the territory. And by territory, I mean the TFP comments section.

"If you were really as smart as you constantly tell us, you wouldn't be so offended by the opinions of your intellectual inferiors."

I've never said I was smart at all. I'm, by far, intellectually inferior to the likes of Ikeithlu, alprova, yourself and others such as limric, dude_abides, mountainlaurel, mickeyrat, librul, to name a few. It's truly refreshing and encouraging to read intelligent, thoughtful, well-reasoned posts from some of you.

Also, I'm not offended by any means. However, if someone offers a jab, I will offer a few jabs in return. It's only fair. I don't pull any punches.

May 1, 2013 at 2:12 p.m.
MickeyRat said...

NirvanaFallacy wondered:

"I mean what's the worst that can happen?"

Well, considering that 90% of what the 'austerity'll fix what ails us' folks have been peddling (which has failed miserably) is based on those errors, I'd say...possibly a path to recovery.

May 1, 2013 at 2:15 p.m.
alprova said...

Maximus wrote: "Maybe Alprova will track you down too and get six inches in your face. I think he might have a hard time. I live on the high ground and have a carry permit. Love the Springfield Armory .40 cal EMP. Locked and loaded."

Sir, the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination will be marked this coming November 22nd. At the time, there probably was no man on the face of this Earth who had more security looking out for him.

If they can get an American President, no one in this nation is safe from their own moment of destiny.

You're the kinda guy who needs to lock and load and have ten bodyguards around them at all times. I'm rather confident that the most dangerous thing you have on your person, any given day of the week, is you brain.

I am the last person on this Earth who would ever harm another soul, but you and I are going to meet one day, when you least expect it. It will be in a very public place. There will be plenty of witnesses. I will absolutely not be armed.

What you do is totally up to you, but I assure you Mr. Fun and Games, whatever that may be will not stand up to a self-defense claim.

A little money here and a little money there. That's all it's gonna take to obtain the information that can be easily used to track you down.

May 1, 2013 at 2:22 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Easy123 said...

Jt6gR3hM said...

"He chose to review only the 2010 version of the study that the authors have admitted contained some errors but was updated and republished in 2012 and reached basically the same conclusions as the 2010 study."

Prove it. I cannot find that information anywhere on the Internet. It also appears as if this "update" and "republish" never occurred either.


http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.26.3.69

“Public Debt Overhangs: Advanced-Economy Episodes since 1800”

Carmen M. Reinhart, Vincent R. Reinhart and Kenneth S. Rogoff

Abstract: We identify the major public debt overhang episodes in the advanced economies since the early 1800s, characterized by public debt to GDP levels exceeding 90 percent for at least five years. Consistent with Reinhart and Rogoff (2010) and most of the more recent research, we find that public debt overhang episodes are associated with lower growth than during other periods.

May 1, 2013 at 2:28 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Why not just distribute the abortion pill with school lunches? No age limitations. Might even reduce the waiting line at Planned Parenthood. It is about women's health, right?

May 1, 2013 at 2:29 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Jay Carney says "Benghazi was a long time ago". What happened to "it's too soon to know?

May 1, 2013 at 2:33 p.m.
Leaf said...

Just saw this headline - "Ex-East Ridge City Manager Tim Gobble named interim corrections chief at Hamilton County Jail"

Wasn't this the same guy who was having some ethical problems a little while back? And now a political appointment to run a jail?

tsk tsk.

May 1, 2013 at 3:02 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Easy123 said...

"Mr. Herndon’s review included an error that the 2010 study contained but was corrected for the 2012 version. This uncorrected error makes his review as faulty as he claimed for the original study."

Prove it. I cannot find anything on the Internet that supports that claim.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-30/reinhart-and-rogoff-were-right-about-new-zealand.html

Herndon, Ash, and Pollin believe that the biggest problem is the absence of data from New Zealand during the postwar period.

...but it turns out that on the New Zealand question, at least, it's Reinhart and Rogoff who are right, and Herndon, Ash and Pollin are wrong.

Unfortunately, when it comes to New Zealand, we are now finding out that the numbers many economists have used are just wrong. In this case, the culprit is none other than the celebrated Maddison Project, which Nobel laureate and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman endorsed as an essential data source just this past weekend. He is no fan of Reinhart's and Rogoff's work.

The Maddison database, however, implies that the economy contracted sharply in 1951 after a boom in 1950 -- that's backwards. The supposedly crucial "missing years" also look a lot less impressive when properly counted. According to Statistics New Zealand, the economy grew by 3.0 percent in 1946, 0.4 percent in 1947, and 3.2 percent in 1948. New Zealand's GDP shrunk by 5 percent in 1949 and then grew by 5 percent in 1950.

Carmen Reinhart posted a brief note on her website explaining as much, adding that she has notified the curators of the Maddison data of the error. However, when I checked the database earlier today, the mistake hadn't been fixed.

When Reinhart and Rogoff wrote their original paper in 2010 they used the glitchy data from Maddison. Herndon, Ash, and Pollin used those incorrect numbers in their replication of Reinhart's and Rogoff's work. Their critique, which was so reliant on the data from New Zealand, therefore misses the mark.

(cont)

May 1, 2013 at 3:02 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

(cont)

Last summer, Reinhart and Rogoff, along with Vincent Reinhart, published a formal presentation of their updated research in the Journal of Economic Perspectives. That paper used corrected data, which is one reason why they felt comfortable including New Zealand's economic performance from the second half of the 1940s in their calculations. The formal paper also used a methodology similar to the one that Herndon, Ash and Pollin said they would have preferred.

According to the 2012 paper by Reinhart, Reinhart and Rogoff, government "debt/GDP levels above 90 percent are associated with an average annual growth rate 1.2 percent lower than in periods with debt below 90 percent debt." More substantively, they write that "the relationship cannot be entirely from low growth to high debt" and that "very high debt likely does weigh on growth."

The recent critique of "Growth in a Time of Debt" held that the 2010 paper was riddled with data errors. That critique, however, is also based on errors that are just as devastating to its case.

May 1, 2013 at 3:04 p.m.
NirvanaFallacy said...

Federal Spending 2012 = $3.53 trillion Obama 2013 budget request = $3.59 trillion After Sequester = 3.55 trillion

OMG!!! With the sequester there is Gasp only an INCREASE of about $25 billion over the previous year. Doesn't the public know that the government is the epitome of efficiency. You would have to be crazy to think that the government has any sort of waste.

We all know that any half competent manager would demand agencies cut the lowest priority spending in their budget. You know maybe cut back on travel, go after excessive pay, or perhaps reduce staffing.

Surely President Obama wouldn't try to inflict maximum pain on the public by cutting vital services first. I mean there is just no way - because if that were true it would mean he is completely incompetent as a manager.

May 1, 2013 at 3:26 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

PlainTruth said...

"Chain of custody? What is this, "CSI Damascus?” In the middle of a war you expect a chain of custody in deciding if a weapon was used?” -charles krauthammer

Leaf said...

SimplisticTruthiness, er, I mean PlainTruth, just seems to post random stuff unrelated to any other posts or the cartoon at hand. I think it's a robot.

Leaf said...

Just saw this headline - "Ex-East Ridge City Manager Tim Gobble named interim corrections chief at Hamilton County Jail" Wasn't this the same guy who was having some ethical problems a little while back? And now a political appointment to run a jail? tsk tsk.


Really?

May 1, 2013 at 3:30 p.m.
Leaf said...

Yes, really. See how I just responded to your post? I'm not a robot. How about you, PlainTruth?

May 1, 2013 at 3:43 p.m.
Leaf said...

There really are programs called robots that post on the internet, play poker, etc. Has it ever responded to a post specifically?

I could be wrong, but I think PlainTruth is a program written by a computer programmer and paid for by some conservative astroturfing superpac.

May 1, 2013 at 3:48 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

mountainlaurel said...

You’re too kind, Clay Bennett. Yes, I see the hit and run victims and the plane in the sky, but I don’t see the dust cloud and the culprits driving that GOP getaway limo - you know the one with the bumper sticker that says Eat my Dust America.


The sequester concept came from the Obama administration.

The Congress offered President Obama the option to direct the sequester to areas of the budget that would produce the least pain to people that are vulnerable. He refused the offer undoubtable due to the fact he wanted maximum pain to force the Republican to agree to his terms.

The Republicans are agreeable to short time pain to gain long term solutions. However when the pain was applied to air travel which impacts politicians, media, and business travelers to a greater degree the Democrats caved and joined them in exempting that sector.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/04/29/democrats-lose-sequester-column/2119369/

“The whole sequestration gambit has failed, to the point where even the Washington Post's Ezra Klein admits that "the Democrats have lost on sequestration." The idea was that even the comparatively minor cuts in spending caused by the sequester would be so painful that voters would demand higher taxes rather than endure cuts in spending.

Problem was, when the spending cuts came, nobody noticed. This led the Obama administration to try to up the pain by focusing cuts in places where people might feel the pain: canceling White House tours for school children, or furloughing air traffic controllers.

That didn't work either. The tour-canceling just looked mean, and the problem with targeting air travel is that members of Congress, and their top donors, fly a lot. Huge bipartisan majorities in Congress thus quickly passed legislation forcing the FAA to make cuts elsewhere instead.

But there's another lesson in the FAA furlough fiasco: Whatever politicians control, they will use against you to get what they want. The furloughs weren't a reasoned effort to save money: They were an attempt to punish voters for not approving tax increases. If the politicians could have shut down ESPN and blamed insufficient revenue, they would have done that, too.

To the political class, whatever the rhetoric, government programs aren't tools for improving the country. They're tools for acquiring the main goal of the political class: more power, which leads to more patronage, more graft (legal and otherwise) and a boost to their all-encompassing sense of self-importance.”

May 1, 2013 at 4:06 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Leaf said...

Yes, really. See how I just responded to your post? I'm not a robot. How about you, PlainTruth?

There really are programs called robots that post on the internet, play poker, etc. Has it ever responded to a post specifically?

I could be wrong, but I think PlainTruth is a program written by a computer programmer and paid for by some conservative astroturfing superpac.


Paranoia or conspiracy theorist?

What was the deal with the Ex-East Ridge City Manager Tim Gobble post? Does he fly a lot and the sequester was causing him problems? Was that the connection you wanted to reference?

May 1, 2013 at 4:19 p.m.
Leaf said...

I'm constantly amazed by people who don't even know the basic functions of the three branches of government. If you flunked 8th grade civics class please stop posting your uninformed opinions.

The main function of Congress (the House and Senate) is to pass budgets. THAT IS THEIR #1 JOB. It's ridiculous that they can't do it. It's not up to the President to make a budget or even propose one. They propose one sometimes if the House fails to, but it's just a suggestion; it has no force of law behind it.

The sequester, (which is not a new concept by the way) was passed by both parties in Congress. Both parties THOUGHT (or else they were lying when they said it) that they would be able to come to an agreement in order to avoid the blunt-force trauma of the sequester.

So this tactic of trying to place blame for the sequester only on the President only works on an uninformed populace. Which means that it works splendidly, I guess.

May 1, 2013 at 4:27 p.m.
Stewwie said...

[If you were really as smart as you constantly tell us, you wouldn't be so offended by the opinions of your intellectual inferiors.]

Agreed, Leaf. Easy resorts to the rudeness and name-calling due to his own insecurity of his beliefs. It's surprising because, though I disagree with him 100% of the time, I admit that he's clearly knowledgable. However, other hard-core libs on this site like you and Ike can get the same message across without the unnecessary insults.

Easy has said before he's studying up to be a lawyer. I don't think anyone on here doubts for a second that he has the look and feel of a lawyer. But hurling insults won't fly very far in the courtroom. Maybe Easy should practice a little more self-control now in preparation for the future.

May 1, 2013 at 4:29 p.m.
Stewwie said...

[They propose one sometimes if the House fails to, but it's just a suggestion; it has no force of law behind it.]

Then why would King Obama make his promise to cut the budget deficit in half in his first term? Sure we know he can't do it himself, but the expectation is that he will show some leadership and do what he can to help facilitate the process to meet that goal. Unfortunately over the last 4+ years, he has failed at leading and instead has chosen to play the blame game (either blame Bush or blame the current Congressional Republicans).

May 1, 2013 at 4:36 p.m.
Leaf said...

jtwhatever, not paranoia or conspiracy theorist. Have you never heard of web bots or astroturf? Do you live in a log cabin in the woods in 1996?

Anyway, I wasn't aware that you were the context police. Please excuse me for referencing something that wasn't directly related to either the cartoon or bible quotes.

I still think it's interesting, however, that Tim Gobble got another political appointment so soon after his other problems. Maybe he was born again. There - religious reference. Happy now?

May 1, 2013 at 4:39 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

mountainlaurel said...

“WASHINGTON -- Built to dominate the enemy in combat, the Army's hulking Abrams tank is proving equally hard to beat in a budget battle.

Lawmakers from both parties have devoted nearly half a billion dollars in taxpayer money over the past two years to build improved versions of the 70-ton Abrams.

But senior Army officials have said repeatedly, "No thanks."

Yet in the case of the Abrams tank, there's a bipartisan push to spend an extra $436 million on a weapon the experts explicitly say is not needed.

"If we had our choice, we would use that money in a different way," Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army's chief of staff, told The Associated Press this past week.

Why are the tank dollars still flowing? Politics.”


Why do you think the Army officials said “no thanks”.

If they had their choice to spend the money in other ways how do you think they would spend it?

They are wanting a whole new tank system to replace the Abrams tank and they want to start construction in 2017. The tanks that are being turned out now are not new tanks as they are being updated to fit present needs. The retrofits cost much less than a new tank and if enough of them are retrofitted then the Army will have a much harder time justifying the new tanks.

I believe that is the answer.

May 1, 2013 at 4:39 p.m.
Leaf said...

Stewwie said... "Then why would King Obama make his promise to cut the budget deficit in half in his first term?"

Good point. Politicians shouldn't promise what they do not have within their power to deliver. That never seems to stop them though, does it?

May 1, 2013 at 4:44 p.m.
Leaf said...

jtwhatever, your tank analysis sounds realistic. It isn't like the military to turn down money. Heck I don't blame them. I'd stick the taxpayers with a staggering price tag too if it meant that I could play with jets and tanks.

May 1, 2013 at 5:06 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Stewwie,

"Agreed, Leaf. Easy resorts to the rudeness and name-calling due to his own insecurity of his beliefs."

That is a common psychological projection from religious people. I haven't presented any beliefs. I've presented facts. I have no insecurity in those facts. However, considering nothing you have presented coincides with those scientific facts and entirely on your own beliefs, it is you that is insecure about your "beliefs".

Regarding the rudeness and name-calling: if you don't want to be called ignorant, then don't say things like "homosexuality is entirely a choice" or "nature doesn't play a role". Calling you ignorant is not meant to be an insult. It is a fact. You are ignorant of the truth in regard to how homosexuality arises in humans. I do not care if you find me rude or take offense to being called what you are. If you'd like to forego me calling you ignorant, then avoid saying things that portray you as such.

"However, other hard-core libs on this site like you and Ike can get the same message across without the unnecessary insults."

I'm not trying to get a message across. I'm relaying facts to you and you are trying to dispute them based on your own, personal beliefs. That is blatant ignorance.

"But hurling insults won't fly very far in the courtroom."

This isn't a courtroom. However, I would be delighted to litigate a case with you as my opposition.

"Maybe Easy should practice a little more self-control now in preparation for the future."

My self-control is absolute. I am arguing and presenting facts. You aren't. It doesn't matter how offended your get, you've still lost the argument.

If you want to avoid being offended in the future, I encourage you to do research before you attempt to post because once you present an argument based on zero facts and attempt to rebut my facts with your opinion, I will not relent in showing you how wrong you are.

May 1, 2013 at 5:14 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

"Jason Collins...happy for you man but you best stay in the closet on the Christian thing." -Dennis Miller so true

May 1, 2013 at 5:32 p.m.
Easy123 said...

jt6,

“Public Debt Overhangs: Advanced-Economy Episodes since 1800”

That is not an updated or republished version of the original study.

"Unfortunately, when it comes to New Zealand, we are now finding out that the numbers many economists have used are just wrong."

So how did Reinhart et al, get it right if we are just finding out the true numbers?

"Carmen Reinhart posted a brief note on her website explaining as much, adding that she has notified the curators of the Maddison data of the error. However, when I checked the database earlier today, the mistake hadn't been fixed."

Was the note posted before or after the original paper was published?

"When Reinhart and Rogoff wrote their original paper in 2010 they used the glitchy data from Maddison. Herndon, Ash, and Pollin used those incorrect numbers in their replication of Reinhart's and Rogoff's work. Their critique, which was so reliant on the data from New Zealand, therefore misses the mark."

Was it glitchy or wrong? Herndon et al. ran the numbers and discovered that Reinhart et al were using incorrect data, methodology. Herndon et al. fixed it and came up with entirely different numbers than Reinhart et al. That's the whole point of the paper by Herndon et al. Reinhart et al. was wrong.

"Last summer, Reinhart and Rogoff, along with Vincent Reinhart, published a formal presentation of their updated research in the Journal of Economic Perspectives. That paper used corrected data, which is one reason why they felt comfortable including New Zealand's economic performance from the second half of the 1940s in their calculations. The formal paper also used a methodology similar to the one that Herndon, Ash and Pollin said they would have preferred."

Again, you're saying that both parties used the same wrong numbers to get different answer. That isn't what happened. Herndon et al. corrected the data of Reinhart et al. and ran the calculations again to get new, correct numbers.

"According to the 2012 paper by Reinhart, Reinhart and Rogoff, government "debt/GDP levels above 90 percent are associated with an average annual growth rate 1.2 percent lower than in periods with debt below 90 percent debt." More substantively, they write that "the relationship cannot be entirely from low growth to high debt" and that "very high debt likely does weigh on growth."

Then why did they offer this statement in April of 2013:

"We are grateful to Herndon et al. For the careful attention to our original Growth in a Time of Debt AER paper and for pointing out an important correction to Figure 2 of that paper. It is sobering that such an error slipped into one of our papers despite our best efforts to be consistently careful. We will redouble our efforts to avoid such errors in the future. We do not, however, believe this regrettable slip affects in any significant way the central message of the paper or that in our subsequent work."

May 1, 2013 at 5:33 p.m.
Easy123 said...

continued to jt6:

"The recent critique of "Growth in a Time of Debt" held that the 2010 paper was riddled with data errors. That critique, however, is also based on errors that are just as devastating to its case."

The article hasn't proved that one iota.

May 1, 2013 at 5:34 p.m.
kellie2479 said...

Corker is the best, we are lucky to have him.

May 1, 2013 at 5:42 p.m.
MickeyRat said...

Why thank you Easy123.

I was going to call Nick Danger to research such preposterous spin but you've saved me a lot of investigative work.

How much is your retainer?
Nice work.

May 1, 2013 at 6:01 p.m.
Stewwie said...

[That is a common psychological projection from religious people.]

Lol. It has nothing to do with me being religious. Non-religious folks can easily agree with that statement as well. And..."psychological projection"? Wow.

[I haven't presented any beliefs. I've presented facts.]

Why would you present and defend facts if you didn't believe them?

[I do not care if you find me rude or take offense to being called what you are.]

I'm not offended at all by your comments. I'm secure enough with my beliefs to not take your comments personally. I just think that you could debate in a more civil way (not just with me but with everyone else) and it would result in a better overall discussion.

[This isn't a courtroom. However, I would be delighted to litigate a case with you as my opposition.]

I think you'll be a great lawyer.

May 1, 2013 at 6:09 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Stewwie,

"Lol. It has nothing to do with me being religious. Non-religious folks can easily agree with that statement as well. And..."psychological projection"? Wow."

It has everything to do with you being religious. I know this because you attribute the word "beliefs" to factual evidence/proof. There is no "belief" involved in accepting facts as truth. And yes, you are projecting.

"Why would you present and defend facts if you didn't believe them?"

I guess it's more of a semantics issue. The word "belief" implies personal opinion and has religious undertones. I don't like the word.

"I'm not offended at all by your comments. I'm secure enough with my beliefs to not take your comments personally."

It doesn't seem like it by your response to Leaf.

"I just think that you could debate in a more civil way (not just with me but with everyone else) and it would result in a better overall discussion."

I was very civil with, but I do not wish to have a "better overall discussion"with someone that ignores facts. It's a fruitless endeavor. I'm not one of those people that respects opinions simply because they are opinions. Opinions and commonly held beliefs can be and, a lot of the time, are wrong, e.g. your views on homosexuality, evolution, science. With that said, I will not be civil with folks like JonRoss, Maximus, etc. Those folks have it coming and I will pull no punches with them.

"I think you'll be a great lawyer."

What's the difference between a lawyer and a hooker? A hooker'll stop screwing you when you're dead.

May 1, 2013 at 6:23 p.m.
Easy123 said...

MickeyRat,

"Why thank you Easy123."

You are welcome.

"I was going to call Nick Danger to research such preposterous spin but you've saved me a lot of investigative work."

I do my best. I hear Mike Hammer does good work this time of year.

"How much is your retainer?"

I'm working pro bono.

"Nice work."

I appreciate it.

May 1, 2013 at 6:29 p.m.
alprova said...

MickeyRat wrote to Easy123: "Nice work."

Indeed it was. Austerity Schmosterity (sic)....

May 1, 2013 at 6:57 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Leaf said...

jtwhatever, not paranoia or conspiracy theorist. Have you never heard of web bots or astroturf? Do you live in a log cabin in the woods in 1996?

Anyway, I wasn't aware that you were the context police. Please excuse me for referencing something that wasn't directly related to either the cartoon or bible quotes.

I still think it's interesting, however, that Tim Gobble got another political appointment so soon after his other problems. Maybe he was born again. There - religious reference. Happy now?


You are having multiple problems properly addressing my posts.

Aren't you?

Of course I have heard of web bots or astroturf but I don’t automatically jump to that conclusion when someone posts something off subject as you did in this post:

Leaf said...

“SimplisticTruthiness, er, I mean PlainTruth, just seems to post random stuff unrelated to any other posts or the cartoon at hand. I think it's a robot.”

If so I would have responded to you in kind when you posted the off subject note about some local yokel.

Why the snarky log cabin reference?

I also do not consider myself the context police as I was only pointing out the appearance of hypocrisy on your part for jumping on another poster for the same exact thing you did.

Then once again the snarky religious reference as if that would get a rise out of me. Sorry to disappoint you but I don’t believe in fairy tales so I guess you drilled a dry hole there. Better luck next time.

May 1, 2013 at 7:02 p.m.
alprova said...

It is painful to note that what is missing in all of this debate, is the offering of any Republicans who lifted a finger to stop the Sequester.

Everyone knows they wanted it, so they stood by and let it happen.

Now that parts of it are kicking in and mucking things up for people, some of you want to point those pesky little fingers at the President.

Congress could have prevented all that has happened and that which will happen in the future.

Republicans wanted cuts in spending. Now they've got it. And while some of you may hold the President responsible, come election day next year, it will be the Republicans who will be blamed for it.

If you ask me, I find that the President did an excellent job in seeing to it that four years of crap coming from the Republicans was paid back rather effectively.

Yesirree, President Obama is made of Teflon, just like Bill Clinton was.

It is absolutely hilarious to watch some of you folks twirl like ballerina dolls at the mere mention of his name.

May 1, 2013 at 7:06 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Stewie, the factors that determine sexual orientation are complicated but physical. The studies done indicate that for males, the exposure to a fetus later in gestation to various concentration of hormones will influence sexual orientation at puberty, in that it affects the activation of certain genes that govern sexual behavior and orientation. Factors such as birth order figure into the phenomenon as well, but I am having to simplify here. For females it is far more complex, and the impact of early childhood may play a more significant role. However, the conclusion is that human sexuality is complex, and there are multiple factors at fertilization, gestation, birth and beyond that influence. If your God was so against the diversity of sexual behaviors, why did "he" "create" so much diversity? To punish those that don't fit a narrow norm?

It is clear from many mammal species, including great apes, that males are driven to mate with multiple females. Throughout human history, including those incidences documented and approved by your bible, cultures have answered this with polygamy as one form of human family structure. It is an effective strategy for increasing your bloodline. But believe it or not, being gay also has advantages; allowing organisms to participate in social bonding that does not lead to reproduction strengthens group cohesion. (In polygamous species most males can't breed anyway) Homosexuality occurs in so many mammal and bird species, and it appears to be advantageous.

In the end, if one's narrow religious views condemn same-sex relationships it doesn't matter: they do not impede the rights of others and cause no harm to society. An advanced culture such as ours will look beyond knee jerk homophobia and misconceptions about gay relationships the way they have the mixing of races. Native Americans used to value the gays among them as being special and gifted. We will too.

May 1, 2013 at 7:10 p.m.
limric said...

Nice work today Clay.

Is RT.66 is just over the next hill? 500 miles is an awful long way for us Joads nowadays.

“And the great owners, who must lose their land in an upheaval, the great owners with access to history, with eyes to read history and to know the great fact: when property accumulates in too few hands it is taken away. And that companion fact: when a majority of the people are hungry and cold they will take by force what they need. And the little screaming fact that sounds through all history: repression works only to strengthen and knit the repressed. The great owners ignored the three cries of history. The land fell into fewer hands, the number of the dispossessed increased, and every effort of the great owners was directed at repression. The money was spent for arms, for gas to protect the great holdings, and spies were sent to catch the murmuring of revolt so that it might be stamped out. The changing economy was ignored, plans for the change ignored; and only means to destroy revolt were considered, while the causes of revolt went on.”

~ John Steinbeck

Yes Clay, I see it; and hopefully others will too.

May 1, 2013 at 7:22 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Leaf said...

I'm constantly amazed by people who don't even know the basic functions of the three branches of government.

(I am as well)

If you flunked 8th grade civics class please stop posting your uninformed opinions.

(No I think I’ll continue to post what I want no matter my grade point average or your opinion of my opinions)

The main function of Congress (the House and Senate) is to pass budgets. THAT IS THEIR #1 JOB. It's ridiculous that they can't do it.

(exactly)

It's not up to the President to make a budget or even propose one.

(No, it is a requirement for the president to prepare one and submit it to Congress))

They propose one sometimes if the House fails to, but it's just a suggestion; it has no force of law behind it.

(Of course it doesn’t have the force of law until the Congress passes the budget and the president signs it)

The sequester, (which is not a new concept by the way) was passed by both parties in Congress.

(Of course it was)

Both parties THOUGHT (or else they were lying when they said it) that they would be able to come to an agreement in order to avoid the blunt-force trauma of the sequester.

(No they didn’t as both sides thought they could pressure the other side to bend to their will and the president and the Democrats just blinked.)

So this tactic of trying to place blame for the sequester only on the President only works on an uninformed populace. Which means that it works splendidly, I guess.

(I in no way placed the blame for the sequester only on the president or the Democrats as I just pointed out that the idea to propose it came from the White House. Their problem was they were just a little to clever by half in implementing it to their advantage.)

May 1, 2013 at 7:49 p.m.
alprova said...

Ikethlu, your 7:10 pm post was excellent!!!

May 1, 2013 at 7:55 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Jt6gR3hM says: “The sequester concept came from the Obama administration.”

I note you’ve conveniently ignored some details along with the dirty deeds of some mighty big culprits in your assessment. As I recall, a bunch of vindictive Republicans were holding the country hostage in the summer of 2011, insisting they'd refuse to raise the debt ceiling unless President Obama agreed to substantial deficit reduction – deficits that they helped to create. Granted, President Obama must own up to his part because he just accepted how the Republicans framed the saga about budget deficits being out of control when he should have told them where to go - even the infamous Dick Cheney had said, “Deficits don’t matter.”

And I also note you fail to mention that our do-nothing-but-sit-on-your-vindictive- rump Congress, have done absolutely nothing about jobs and unemployment. Why is this, JT? Surely, you understand that Congress should be on our side and the importance of jobs and employment in a healthy economy. Indeed, who needs terrorists when you have a petty vindictive Congress? And now, of course, there will be another hit to the economy because of this so called sequester which economists say will pull roughly $80 billion in federal spending out of the economy. Again, who needs terrorists when you have a petty vindictive U.S. Congress whose primary goal in life is to make President Obama’s life and our lives miserable?

May 1, 2013 at 8:11 p.m.
NirvanaFallacy said...

We didn't any get real cuts to spending with the sequester. Compare the 2012 budget to the 2013 budget - did it the stay the same, get reduced, or did it increase?

Answer - It INCREASED. Yet, the progressives declare that the sequester was some huge cut to the budget. This is called a Fail.

So, Obama can keep trying to inflict maximum pain by going after the most visible and popular governmental services, but so far the public ain't falling for it, despite what some of the delusional people commenting on this board like to think.

Also, thinking Easy would be a good lawyer based off his illogical rants on this board is funny. Lawyers have to be able to argue both sides of an issue, something that Easy clearly cannot do.

May 1, 2013 at 8:13 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

How kind, alprova. One of the benefits to being married to a scientist in whose area this is covered! Great source of info.

May 1, 2013 at 8:17 p.m.
Easy123 said...

NirvanaFallacy,

"We didn't any get real cuts to spending with the sequester. Compare the 2012 budget to the 2013 budget - did it the stay the same, get reduced, or did it increase?"

The Sequester was not part of any "budget". There were over $85 billion in cuts in 2013 alone. I would insert something witty here, but I think your lack of knowledge on the subject speaks for itself.

"Answer - It INCREASED. Yet, the progressives declare that the sequester was some huge cut to the budget. This is called a Fail."

So the estimated $1.1 trillion dollars in cuts over 2013-2021 ($85.4 billion in 2013 alone) weren't cuts after all? Very strange.

Let me be more concise: cuts are still cuts whether the federal budget outlays keep increasing or not.

"So, Obama can keep trying to inflict maximum pain by going after the most visible and popular governmental services, but so far the public ain't falling for it, despite what some of the delusional people commenting on this board like to think."

The only delusional person here is you. Obama hasn't gone after anything. The Sequester was intentionally created as bad policy to convince Congress to take action. Both sides signed off on the idea. This isn't an Obama issue. It's a United States Federal Government issue. Congress is just as much to blame as anyone.

The public isn't just falling for it, they are living it. Notice how quickly Congress moved to exempt the proposed cuts to the airline industry. That is because it was an issue that affected them. Those folks fly a lot and they don't like waiting on the tarmac.

"Also, thinking Easy would be a good lawyer based off his illogical rants on this board is funny."

I encourage you to flesh out that claim. Show me one thing I've posted that was illogical, Mr. Illogical.

"Lawyers have to be able to argue both sides of an issue, something that Easy clearly cannot do."

That is falsehood. Lawyers have to be able to explicate the truth. There are no two sides of the truth.

May 1, 2013 at 8:26 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

All of these unjust sequester cuts are just unbelievably cruel and they’re hurting mostly the vulnerable among us not to mention endangering our health and destroying the economy. If only there was a way for the cuts to be directed in a manner that wouldn’t be so harmful. However how do you cut a massive $85 billion from an already tight $3.5 trillion budget and not do great harm. Oh woe is us ….. wait a minute. I seem to remember a certain deal that was proposed. Now I where was that located?

“President Obama rejected Republican suggestions Tuesday that he should have more power to carry out $85 billion in pending budget cuts.

(Obama wouldn’t touch that will a ten foot pole)

Obama told shipyard workers that he doesn’t want responsibility for apportioning the looming "sequester" cuts because there is no wise way to do it.

(It is a lot of money don’t you know. I think the number $85 billion was mentioned)

"The problem is, when you're cutting $85 billion in seven months," Obama said, "there's no smart way to do that. You don't want to have to choose between, 'Let's see, do I close funding for the disabled kid, or the poor kid? Do I close this Navy shipyard or some other?'"

(And you guys are shipyard workers. Right?)

If it passed, it could give the president more ownership of cuts he has worked for weeks to distance himself from.

(Obama needs a place to hide)

Even if he had more power to carry out the cuts, Obama said, "you can't gloss over the pain" they would cause.

(How great the burden of the office must be. It is $85 billion If I remember properly)

At the shipyard, community members and workers were roundly worried about the sequester cuts -- and not in agreement with Obama that the onus is on Republicans to stave them off.

(Oh No! This looks like trouble)

"It seems like more of the same -- just gridlock," said David Tew, a financial analyst in the submarine program who came to the factory floor to hear Obama speak. "It's not just one side that's responsible. It’s everybody."

(Yep! The jig is up and someone needs to get back on the plane)

I think this came from the L.A. Times

May 1, 2013 at 9:32 p.m.
NirvanaFallacy said...

So Obama can't be held accountable for anything - not even the plan that he put forward? We should just ignore the fact he has taken government spending from 21% to 24% of GDP and owns the weakest economic recovery since the great depression. You believe the government is running at peak efficiency and contains absolutely zero waste. Clearly, it makes sense to have food assistance in this country be carried out through 18 duplicate government programs. Just business as usual that we have 8 different agencies supervising programs for the homeless. Do you honestly believe this would pass in the private sector.

May 1, 2013 at 9:39 p.m.
Easy123 said...

NirvanaFallacy,

"So Obama can't be held accountable for anything - not even the plan that he put forward?"

Not solely. Congress signed off on the deal and did nothing to see that it didn't come to pass.

"We should just ignore the fact he has taken government spending from 21% to 24% of GDP and owns the weakest economic recovery since the great depression."

Yet, the economy is still recovering. Comparing the latest depression to any other in the history of the United States is comparing apples to watermelons. They are not the same. The Bush administration dug a deep hole and you're trying to blame the Obama administration for not climbing out of it quick enough. Talk about illogical!

"You believe the government is running at peak efficiency and contains absolutely zero waste."

I can think of several billion that are funneled to the military-industrial complex that could be slashed.

"Clearly, it makes sense to have food assistance in this country be carried out through 18 duplicate government programs."

Name them. Then explain why those programs have never been an issue under any other President.

"Just business as usual that we have 8 different agencies supervising programs for the homeless."

Name them. Then explain why providing a safety net to those truly in need is a bad thing.

"Do you honestly believe this would pass in the private sector."

It passes everyday. How many thousands of charities are there in the United States that all do very similar things?

May 1, 2013 at 9:57 p.m.
mosquito said...

Yep same old same old. , NirvanaFallacy, no one on here can admit that the establishment left and right are corporate whores. For if they did then that would admit error in judgement on their part and we can't be wrong now can we?

foolish pride---everything that happened under Bush was Bushes fault , everything that has happened under Obama is ------Bushes fault. Yada Yada Yada, NO SOUP FOR YOU!!!

I readily and humbly admit wrong in voting for Bush the first time around because I was asleep. Then 911 happened..what do you do when boths sides are neither right nor wrong just misinformed and refuse to embrace ALL knowledge....

All because they can't admit their wrong, that the guy they voted for and continue to defend is an empty shell beholden to corporate interests

May 1, 2013 at 10:18 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Jt6gR3hM says: Why do you think the Army officials said “no thanks”. . . The tanks that are being turned out now are not new tanks as they are being updated to fit present needs. . . if enough of them are retrofitted then the Army will have a much harder time justifying the new tanks. I believe that is the answer.”

If the U.S. Army says it doesn’t need the tanks, I think we should believe the U.S. Army doesn’t need the tanks, especially since the group insisting that the U.S. Army needs the tanks is comprised of politicians and a major defense contractor that spent close to $11 million last year on lobbying - probably on the same politicians claiming we need the tanks.

May 1, 2013 at 10:37 p.m.
mosquito said...

Obama's a spy Bush is an idiot

May 1, 2013 at 11:01 p.m.
mosquito said...

Easy said, "I can think of several billion that are funneled to the military-industrial complex that could be slashed."

EXACTLY!! How many could be helped in so many different ways but we must continue the charade..

May 1, 2013 at 11:23 p.m.
NirvanaFallacy said...

"The complex network of 18 food assistance programs emerged piecemeal over the past several decades to meet various needs. Agency officials and local providers told us that the multiple food assistance programs help to increase access to food for vulnerable or target populations. However, the 18 food assistance programs show signs of program overlap, which can create unnecessary work and lead to inefficient use of resources. For example, some of the programs provide comparable benefits to similar target populations. Further, overlapping eligibility requirements create duplicative work for both service providers and applicants." - http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-346

Easy I am only talking about eliminating waste - NOT eliminating the entire program. Is it really cost effective to have 18 food assistance programs? I mean we can't consolidate them down to say 4 or 5 programs.

Homelessness Programs Overlap - http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/590782.pdf

Why are there 8 different agencies in charge of helping the homeless? Why can't there just be 1 agency.

Easy you obviously aren't majoring in business, but come on, is it really that hard to understand that our Government is filled with waste that could be cut without doing any damage to anyone except the politicians.

May 2, 2013 at 12:26 a.m.
Easy123 said...

NirvanaFallacy,

"Easy I am only talking about eliminating waste - NOT eliminating the entire program. Is it really cost effective to have 18 food assistance programs? I mean we can't consolidate them down to say 4 or 5 programs."

What difference does it make as long as there isn't excessive overlap? The study you provided even downplays the potential overlap: "Potential Inefficiency and Overlap among Smaller Programs" and even relegates the "potential" problem to "smaller programs".

"Why are there 8 different agencies in charge of helping the homeless? Why can't there just be 1 agency."

I guess you failed to read this part: "Three agencies— the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Veterans Affairs (VA)—are responsible for the majority of programs and dollars, 22 of 26 programs, and 89 percent of total funds."

Three agencies are doing the vast majority of the work. Each of those agencies addresses separate demographics, beneficiaries. I guess you're suggesting that we combine HHS, HUD and the VA? Or maybe just have one of them deal with the homeless?

You're just nitpicking and using highly illogical arguments.

"Easy you obviously aren't majoring in business, but come on, is it really that hard to understand that our Government is filled with waste that could be cut without doing any damage to anyone except the politicians."

Why haven't you mentioned the military then? Billions more go into Defense than any of those agencies or programs.

You obviously aren't majoring in common sense so I'll put it to you this way: You want to go on a diet by cutting your portions, but you only want to cut portions that are already small!

May 2, 2013 at 2:25 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.