Before complaining you might want to take a look at what the automatic spending cuts actually are.

[DCBob]

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2011/11/21/glance-automatic-spending-cuts-from/YxTFlSNTpmy6dOA04GgFKI/story.html

It doesnt look like the disaster that many think. Our most important social programs are mostly spared. Defense will be hit hard... which is good.

This is a win for Democrats... given the current circumstances.

[newfie11]

1. My concern is medicare

There are cuts there and doctor reimbursement is low now. There maybe more doctors refusing Medicare patients.

[DCBob]

5. Yes, that is a real possibility.

Maybe some tweaking is in order on that issue.

[bananas]

2. Social programs should be expanded, not cut.

This isn't a "win".

[SammyWinstonJack]

92. Exactly! Expanded and not cut! This isn't a 'win' for millions, but I guess if one isn't among

that group....:shrug:


Also if this were to happen under a repug administration, I wonder if this would still be a 'win'? :silly:

[SidDithers]

3. Outrage is more fun...nt

Sid

[leeroysphitz]

76. It is more fun. It is also APPROPRIATE. So that's convenient. n/t

[mmonk]

4. It's my economics training kicking in.

[nineteen50]

6. Do really think congress will let this stand

"defense programs will be reduced from 10 percent in 2013
to 8.5 percent in 2021, with savings of $454 billion." I
have a bridge to sale.

[DCBob]

14. I think congress can't pass laws without President's signature.

veto.

[alcibiades_mystery]

32. +1

The GOP in Congress will try to recant on the Defense Cuts they voted for when they formed the committee and approved the sequestrations. They will fail utterly. It will not even come up in the Senate, and the President will veto it anyway.

[former9thward]

Congress can override a veto.

Especially since Panetta says cuts are intolerable. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/22/us-usa-debt-defense-panetta-idUSTRE7AL05220111122

[DCBob]

102. They would need 2/3 in both Senate and House.

impossible.

[MilesColtrane]

119. That depends on what the makeup of Congress is after November 2012.

We need to show up at the ballot box and flush the Tea Baggers and Republican scum out of there.

[Fumesucker]

7. The Superdupercommittee was designed to fail..

Everyone has gamed at least a couple of moves past this point.

The single biggest reason I supported Obama over Hillary in the primaries was that I despise the individual private mandate for insurance.

Here's my prediction from Nov 2008.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4494168&mesg_id=4494251

[DCBob]

15. I suspect you were one of those who insisted the supercommitte would cut social programs to shreads

That didnt happen. I believe this result is the best we can expect from the ugly situation we are in.

[Fumesucker]

16. My posts are free to search..

Knock yourself out..

[jtown1123]

44. They could have shredded social programs. The Democrats offered them SS and Medicare

we're fortunate the GOP was so batshit insane as to oppose ANY revenue.

[DCBob]

64. Democrats loaded the offer with enough taxes that they knew the GOPers would have to reject it.

I think they decided early on that nothing good was going to come out that committee and it would best to let the automatic cuts kick in.

[fasttense]

8. Yes, in comparison to privatization of Social Security, de-funding of

Medicare and Medicaid, elimination of all food and housing support for the ever growing population of poor people, the automatic cuts are not so bad.

But we are in the middle of one of the worst economic downturns since the 1st RepubliCON Great Depression.

Cutting any support and pretending the manufactured crisis of the debt is our worst economic problem is just plain stupid.

Obama, with his speech about not backing off the cuts, reinforced the false narrative of Milton Friedman, neoliberals and "free" marketeers, that spending cuts to the social safety net are a must to-do when economies collapse. When there is overwhelming evidence that doing this will cause another downturn in the economy.

[DCBob]

13. cuts to the social safety net are minimal..

"Mandatory programs that are exempt from sequestration, or cuts, include Social Security, Medicaid, food stamps, the CHIP children’s’ health program, child nutrition, Supplemental Security Income, the Earned Income Tax Credit, veterans’ benefits and federal retirement."

[HereSince1628]

9. Because of the presentation it's rather difficult to follow

The discussion appears to be about the ten year period from 2012 to 2021, inclusive.

For example, this doesn't look so good to me, although I'm not sure what you mean by 'mostly spared.'

"—Most Medicare spending would be reduced by 2 percent a year, with savings of $123 billion. Savings from other mandatory spending programs would produce another $47 billion."

2 percent of what? The medicare spending for 2011, or each previous year's medicare spending? This looks like it could be a presenting a 20% cut in medicare.

[DCBob]

18. "looks like it could be a presenting a 20% cut in medicare" -- NO.

Its 2 percent per year... after ten years its still 2 percent of the total. Its a math thing.

[EOTE]

39. 2% decreases over 10 years comes out to around 18%.

That's an 18% decrease over 10 years. I understand "it's a math thing", I don't understand why you don't believe the cuts are cumulative.

[DCBob]

50. I see math is not your strong suit..

for example (not real budget numbers):

a budget of 100B per year = total of 1T over ten years.

2% of 100B = 2B (cut per year)
2B times 10 years = 20B total over 10 years

20B is 2% of 1T.

Its 2% of the total regardless of how many years it is implemented.

[jeff47]

73. You seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of compound interest.

100B budget, cut 2% the first year = 98B
98.00B cut 2% the next year = 96.04B
96.04B cut 2% the next year = 94.12B
94.12B cut 2% the next year = 92.24B
92.24B cut 2% the next year = 90.39B
90.39B cut 2% the next year = 88.58B
88.58B cut 2% the next year = 86.81B
86.81B cut 2% the next year = 85.08B
85.08B cut 2% the next year = 83.37B
83.37B cut 2% the next year = 81.71B

Total spent over 10 years: 897.3B

In your scenario, we spend 98B per year for 10 years. Total spent over 10 years in your scenario: 980B. Which is about 80B more than in the "compounding" scenario.

So yes, how exactly the cuts are calculated makes a large difference.

[muriel_volestrangler]

93. However, despite the 'reduced by 2 percent a year' wording, it isn't compounded

The CBO paper on which the article is based

It says the changes in nondefense budget authority are, in billions:

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 total
 -16  -17  -18  -19  -19  -19  -20  -21  -22  -170

and that 170 is the 123 from Medicare, and 47 other mandatory spending, in the article. 2010 Medicare expenditure was $523 billion; 2% of, say, $600 billion expected to be spent in 2013 is $12 billion - ie about 3/4 of the cuts for that year, just as 123 is about 3/4 of 170.

So what is planned is "cut 2% from planned Medicare spending in 2013, and then let it grow as it would have, but not make up the cut". "Reduced by 2 percent a year" seems a bad way of saying that, to me.

[EOTE]

99. It is a bad way of saying that.

Because that's not what they're saying. Whoever is in charge of these releases needs to know that. What should have been said is "a 2% cut which will last for 10 years." You'd think they'd be able to communicate more effectively.

[EOTE]

75. It is my strong suit, actually.

It's the way the data is presented which doesn't make any sense. If you're referring to the total budget, then it should be presented as a .2% cut annually over ten years. The reason the way it was presented makes no sense is that you're assuming that if a budget has been cut, you're now starting with a cut budget. Because this budget is restored every year, even after the "cut", it doesn't make sense to say that it's cut every year for ten years.

[EOTE]

103. Math isn't your strong suit, is it? NT

[DCBob]

105. You still think its 18%??

its not.

[EOTE]

108. It would be if the cuts were implemented as they said it would be.

Do you still think that if you cut two percent from $100, the next year you're still left with $100? I'll give you a hint, you're not. I can pretty much guarantee I know a good deal more about math than you ever will.

Let me drop a little math on you: .98^10 = .817 = 81.7%
100% - 81.7% = 18.3%

Got it? Didn't think so.

[DCBob]

109. Its not 18%.

[EOTE]

111. Then they stated the cuts 100% incorrectly. And you didn't get that at all.

Rather, you try to denigrate someone who actually knows math. You really should brush up on your own skills before making yourself look like an ass.

[EOTE]

112. Do you still think 2% cuts per year over 10 years is 2%?

If you do, not only is math not one of your strong points, but reality in general.

[DCBob]

114. Approximately.. it sure isnt anywhere near 18%.

[EOTE]

115. Wrong, it's 18.3%. You obviously don't know math at all.

I already did the math for you, it's not my fault you don't understand it. What they meant to say (and what apparently, you are misconstruing their words as) is: "A 2% cut which will last for 10 years." They didn't say that, so they flat out misrepresented what they want to happen. For people who actually know a thing about math, that's a very important distinction.

[DCBob]

117. Its not going to be 18% regardless of how you interpret the wording.

get over it.

[EOTE]

118. Might I ask what your credentials are?

Because I am absolutely shocked that someone could get through even middle school without knowing such basic math. Not a putdown, I'm genuinely interested. Basic math is an extremely important skill to have in life. You are doing yourself a great disservice by thinking you're familiar with these basic concepts.

[DCBob]

122. common sense.

[EOTE]

125. Ahhh, so nothing, then.

Really, if you're not familiar with basic math, it's best not to make yourself look so foolish by pretending you're a mathematician.

[DCBob]

128. you dont need to be mathematician to understand basic priniciple of percentages.

A grade school does more complex math than that.

[EOTE]

132. I wouldn't have thought so, yet here we are.

I wouldn't have thought people would have to be English majors to understand something as simple as "Most Medicare spending would be reduced by 2 percent a year", but you don't seem to get that either. Once again, I'll ask you a simple math question.

Bill has $100 at the start of 2010. By the very end of 2010, he's lost 2% of his money. How much money does bill have at the start of 2011? Take as much time as you'd like, you're welcome to use a calculator. I'll give you a little hint and say that this problem becomes more complicated as you add more years.

[Goblinmonger]

133. I'm an English teacher and I get why the current wording = 18%

Let's assume the budget is $100. Cut 2% leaves you with $98.
Next year you cut 2% of $98 which is $1.96 which leaves you with $96.04.
3rd year you cut 2% of $96.04 which is $1.92 which leaves you with $94.12.
4th year you cut 2% of 94.12 which is $1.88 which leaves you with $92.24.

Carry that out 10 years and let me know what you get. (Hint: it ain't 20% of $100)

[jmrobins]

121. Wow, I didn't realize McDonalds was giving out GEDs now! NT

[DCBob]

124. Yes you would know about that Im sure.

enjoy your happy meal!

[EOTE]

123. And why would it be "approximately"? If it's 2%, it's 2%.

But it wouldn't be 2% because they say the cuts are per year. You probably think that if you get a 5% loan on a home or a car that you're only paying 5% of the value of the home or car in interest, too. Man, you've got a rude awakening coming to you if you ever decide to get a mortgage. I'd suggest letting your wife handle those situations. Whatever you do, just don't do it yourself.

[DCBob]

126. its actually slightly less as the total would be reduced each year.

I simplified (ie. dumbed down) the calc for those who wouldnt get it.

[EOTE]

129. But in your "version" of the math, the total ISN'T reduced every year.

It stays the same from year to year, which is insane as each previous year there should be a 2% cut. Really, this is very simple. It's either "A 2% cut which lasts for 10 years" or "2% cut a year for 10 years." See the difference? Didn't think so. Really, this is extremely basic.

[DCBob]

131. ok do that.. its still approx 2%.. in fact I think its even less.. and its nowhere near 18%.

Sorry my math tutoring is over. ciao.

[EOTE]

136. Once again, you know nothing of math. My job has me using math every single day.

I already did the math for you. I'll explain it in more detail now. If, over the course of one year, a budget is slashed by 2%, the remaining budget for that year is 98% of the original budget. Got it? The problem is that if you are going to do that for multiple years, you can't start with your original 100% budget because that budget has already been slashed. So for the next year, the budget will be .98^2 or 96.04%, got it? You do that for an entire 10 years and the budget comes out to be 81.7% of the original budget. That means that the budget has been slashed by 18.3%. This is what's called "compounding", if you were to figure out a loan or a mortgage this way, it would be called "amortization", but I don't want to confuse you.

[DCBob]

134. I think you are forgetting there is a new budget each year.

anyway, I gotta go.

[EOTE]

137. Cuts don't stop at the end of a budget year, they're carried over.

And there's no doubt about that when they say "2% a year for 10 years" which is wildly inaccurate rather than the much simpler and accurate "2% cut which lasts 10 years." Two completely different things.

[DCBob]

138. Actually, I think I understand what you are saying now.

I was looking at it from the total 10 years accumulated and your 18% number is where the annual budget will be once the 10 years of cutting is done. I think yor are right. My appologies. Anyway. I still gotta go. Ciao.

[HereSince1628]

141. I think it works out to be a bit more than 18% if

you reduce the starting budget by 2% every year.

Sorry to have created this mess...but I actually think this unfortunate dust up actually
goes to my original point...the data as presented in the article are difficult for
most people to interpret.

I did the arithmetic on a spreadsheet but tables are impossible to present on DU

[EOTE]

142. That's correct, and what I've said from the beginning. 18.3%.

And I understand that's not the case, just what their words would suggest. I think the key here is to remember that public figures do not always mean what they say and vice versa.

[jeff47]

10. It's not a win.

It was a preemptive surrender to bad policy.

[DCBob]

20. The big defense cuts along with minimal impact on social programs make it win.

Do you think congress would ever come to agreement to enact such large cuts to the military without this forced automatic trigger?

[jeff47]

35. Defense cuts aren't a good idea at this time

Defense spending is the only stimulus that can get through Congress. Defense spending cuts should happen, but only after unemployment goes down. Yes, a WPA-style program would be better since we'd get an asset at the end of the project, but paying people to make bombs is still paying people.

So in return for contracting the economy via defense cuts, and increasing unemployment, we also get cuts to the safety net.

It's not a win.

[jtown1123]

45. It's much better than the alternative. Of course, this supercommittee was a terrible idea in the

first place. Thanks Obama!

[jeff47]

48. You're thinking of the wrong alternative.

The alternative wasn't some grand bargain from the supercommittee. The alternative was to not stupidly wander into deficit reduction when the economy is in terrible shape. The alternative was for Team Obama to not stupidly claim the way-too-small stimulus was "just right" and spin up a big "recovery summer" push right before the 2010 midterms when it was obvious to everyone, including small woodland mammals, that the economy was not doing well.

This is like saying "well, at least the surgeon could amputate below the knee" after repeatedly blasting your foot with a shotgun. The proper alternative is to not shoot yourself in the foot.

[jtown1123]

58. I agree with you. Deficit reduction is idiotic. But that's in the past. The supercommittee

was formed without our consent so we had to deal with the shit sandwich we were dealt. I wish this was never created in the first place but it's too late for that.

[JuniperLea]

54. Defense no longer stimulates as it once did...

The armed services don't take care of themselves any longer... all that money is going right into the pockets of the no-bid vendors set up during the Bush II regime. It's all done on the cheap, and there is very little trickle down... as per usual.

It is a win.

[jeff47]

60. The fact that you don't like the recipients doesn't mean it's not stimulative.

And I assure you, employees in the defense industry are paid well.

[DCBob]

61. and it certainly makes the 1% even richer.

[JuniperLea]

71. The money never trickles down...

It's stockpiled. That is the issue... you missed the main point and tried to make it something personal... shame shame.

[jeff47]

74. You are insisting that the money paid to defense contractors doesn't employ anyone.

You seem to be saying that the government just gives these guys money and they do nothing. That isn't what happens. They give defense contractors money, and they pay workers to do stuff. And I'm not just talking about the Marriot people running the chow line in Iraq. I'm also talking about the people in Seattle working for Boeing, for example.

The workers are paid much better than many other industries. And being federal contractors means they have to comply with concepts like "overtime" that are not present in the rest of the economy.

Yes, there is absurd profit for the 1%, but there's also a lot of paychecks produced. And those paychecks are what you want out of a stimulus program. There are better options, but defense spending works better than nothing and much, much better than austerity.

[JuniperLea]

80. Jesus God... please read my first post...

They do everything on the fucking cheap and they fucking stash the cash... WTF?

They may pay some upper crusty folk good money, but there are VERY FEW OF THEM. Where the fuck have you been?

[jeff47]

83. According to you, I haven't been getting paid

They pay a lot of people in R&D and manufacturing very good money. The janitorial staff don't get paid much, but they get paid more than in the private market.

Yes, people at the top make absurd money, but that's true whether you're talking about contractors or in the private world. Any stimulus that is not directly from the federal government to workers is going to get skimmed. But that doesn't mean it can't be effective stimulus. Heck, it ended the great depression with massive defense spending at WWII, and a lot of the 1% got filthy rich doing it.

[JuniperLea]

88. Not the same...

What I'm talking about is precisely the reason we haven't profited from the wars of the past decade. You need to do some research and see the actual numbers we all pored over for the past 10 years... your arguments died a long time ago.

[jeff47]

94. We're supposed to profit from wars?

Or were you trying to imply that war spending has not boosted GDP like it did in, say, WWII?

Well, we were spending almost nothing on defense before WWII, and then we spent a lot. In addition, we haven't fought a "total war" since WWII. Every conflict since then has been limited. Buying bombs for Vietnam did help GDP. But when the first Gulf War came around, we were dropping mostly those Vietnam-era bombs, so that wasn't very stimulative.

(I'm leaving out the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, because they're still going on so we can't completely assess the economics yet. Contracting firms have indeed made a lot of money, but so have most of the US Citizens employed by those contractors. Blackwater's mercs, besides being evil, are paid very well. Payments to people outside the US isn't going to boost US GDP, and most of the astoundingly low pay is to non-US people and not in GDP).

[snooper2]

91. AHhhhhhhhhhhhHhhhhhhhhhh

So it's your job you are worried about lol

Time to start taking your skills to the private sector...

[jeff47]

96. No, I get about one interview request a week from private sector jobs.

What I object to is people insisting what I see every day never, ever, ever happens. From both the pro-MIC people and anti-MIC people. Can't fix a problem unless we're dealing with reality.

[DCBob]

55. The cuts dont start until 2013 and are spread out over 10 years.

The economy should be able to handle it by then.

[jeff47]

62. Is it already recovery summer again?

Lots of people have been predicting that everything will be fine any time now. They keep basing these assessments on their gut feelings instead of actual numbers.

Unemployment is still 1.5% above the "disaster scenario" that was used to sell the stimulus bill. It hasn't budged in about 2 years. To believe it will drop from 9% to 5% in the next year is dumb.

[JuniperLea]

81. Nonsense...

Where are these "lots of people" of which you speak? Everyone I've ever heard comment on the subject have said it would take a decade, maybe more.


WTF? Why are you furthering RW memes here?

[jeff47]

86. So you're not familiar with "Recovery Summer" then?

It was Team Obama's theme for summer, 2010. When the "just right" stimulus would bring down unemployment. Not so much a "RW meme", unless you consider Obama right-wing.

[DCBob]

104. Huh?? No one is predicting 5% unemployment by next year. Where did you get that goofy idea??

There is optimism that we are in a recovery path now but that recovery will take a long time. I think best case scenario is around 7.5-8% unemployment by election time.

[jeff47]

113. Just a couple posts up, you were predicting a healthy economy in 2013.

7.5-8% unemployment is not a healthy economy.

[DCBob]

116. I didnt say healthy.. we are long way from that.

I think I said we could be in better shape to be able handle the cuts especially since the cuts will be spread over 10 years.

[lumberjack_jeff]

84. Defense spending is shitty stimulus.

too much of it simply becomes corporate profit.

[jeff47]

89. Then pass something better through Congress

Oh wait...

[Jim__]

11. Repukes are already talking about legislatively eliminating the cuts to defense.

I wonder how many dems will go along with that.

[Chan790]

17. Does it matter.

The President says he's vetoing any changes...they're not getting 15-20 Dems to cross the aisle for Defense spending unless they put something on the table...like a bloody dagger that slew the pledge to Norquist on taxes.

Hey GOP, you want your Defense $ back? Pay for it then.

[lonestarnot]

21. "NO."

[alcibiades_mystery]

34. Not enough for a veto-proof majority, even if they manage to pass it

Dems have zero incentive to pass changes to the sequestration.

[edhopper]

12. You cannot

shrink your way into a recovery. Austerity during recession only sets the economy back.

[Javaman]

19. 1+ nt

[DCBob]

22. Who says there will be recession in 2013? (other than the doom and gloom naysayers)

Most legitimate economists are predicting slow but steady improvement through the new few years.

[edhopper]

28. A jobless recovery

is not a recovery.

[DCBob]

31. I agree. I am hopeful jobs (decent jobs) are coming back.

But its just going to take some time. Fixing the monumental mess left behind by previous administations is not an easy task.

[edhopper]

70. That is true

And so far they have not used any tactics that would help in that. Instead most everything done has been to protect the Banks and Wall Street.
Instead of FDR they go by the Hoover playbook. (And I mean Obama and the Dems, not just the GOP.)

[lumberjack_jeff]

85. that horse already left the barn.

we're going to shrink, and it will set the economy back, regardless.

[ChazII]

23. Which part of the defense budget

will be cut? What would I google to find out?

The DoD helps with medical research.

http://www.ctf.org/For-Scientists/cd-medicalresearch-program.html

[DCBob]

24. I think its across the board cuts to all departments and divisions.

but I suspect there will be some leaway given on that as long as the bottom line is the same.

[alcibiades_mystery]

36. No cuts to veteran benefits

That's exempted from the sequestration.

[DCBob]

53. yes. I see that now

[ChazII]

146. Thank you.

I appreciate your help.

[Odin2005]

25. The M-I complex will NEVER allow the Military cuts to happen.

[DCBob]

29. Well its going to happen unless the President is lying about the veto threat.

I dont think he's lying.

[jeff47]

43. Well, he was lying about vetoing extensions of the Bush era tax cuts.

He signed those after Republican hostage-taking. And he's done a lot of things he said he wouldn't do after Republican hostage-taking. So I fully expect him to sign the bill undoing those cuts after more Republican hostage-taking.

[DCBob]

57. This is different. The Repukes were overly confident and had the momentum back then.

That is not longer the case. The President holds the better hand this time.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

72. What "hostages" do they have left?

President Obama's agenda and more social spending is basically dead in the water until at least the end of next year. There's no debt ceiling to fight over until 2013 (part of the much maligned debt deal) and another attempt at a government shut down is probably not going to help the Republicans much politically. Without affirmative action, the Bush Tax Cuts will simply expire on their own. Most of next year will be about the Presidential campaign too. :shrug:

[jeff47]

82. Congress still has to pass a budget.

No budget = no safety net.
No budget = several states go bankrupt.
No budget = millions more unemployed.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

107. Yeah

but how good would the "optics" be for the GOP if they decide they want to attempt another shutdown? I'm not saying it's not plausible because the teabaggers in the House are certifiably crazy but are Boehner, McConnell, et. al interested in tempting fate again with the 2012 elections around the corner not to mention the opportunity for their already low numbers to sink even further? I guess we'll see but I have my doubts about them trying again. :shrug:

[Mojorabbit]

26. It is going to be hard on us

My husband is a family practice doc with a solo practice which is rare anymore. He sees a lot of people for free as it is and we have a tight budget.

[woo me with science]

49. +100000 It is going to be hard on MILLIONS.

This is outrageous and unconscionable, and I cannot believe he is getting praise for this on a Democratic board.

The Super Committee was a scam from the start, a royal plan to impose austerity on the American people during the worst economy since the Great Depression. Over 300 economists warned this President not to slash spending in an economy like this. We need STIMULUS in the hands of the people, not starvation of the economy.

Yet what did they do? They used Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid as hostages in order to slide through these draconian cuts to the people, while saving the tax breaks for the filthy rich.

It is an outrage.

The economy is going to suffer from this, and the people are going to suffer from this. And make no mistake about it, the military industrial complex WILL be preserved. Obama's own Secretary of Defense is already working on that. He came out with a statement less than four hours after Obama's speech last night.

All the President's vow does is ensure that these austerity cuts will happen. It is a crying shame and a disgrace. This entire deal...this entire Super Theft Committee...was a scam from the outset, and the whole deal should just go away.

[Mojorabbit]

147. Things are awful all over

Hubby came home today and said he ended up giving two patients money for gas and food. It really is bad out there and I am a bit worried about my husband as it is more and more wearing on him psychologically because he listens but he can't make it better. Really these people in DC are in a huge bubble. They have no idea how bad things are.

[woo me with science]

27. What they are doing is an outrage.

This President was warned by hundreds of economists not to slash the budget during the worst economy since the Great Depression.

The Super Committee was a scam from the outset. These cuts will not only hurt millions of individuals in cruel, unnecessary ways, but they will starve the economy during a time when the economy desperately needs stimulus.

Austerity is a good plan only in the eyes of a corrupt and thieving oligarchy. Just ask the Greeks and Italians who will now be ruled by un-elected corporate bosses.

SHAME on our government.

[DCBob]

38. What the Republicans are doing is an outrage.

The President and the Democrats have turned a potential social and economic disaster into something we can mostly live with.

[woo me with science]

41. Bullshit that the Democrats are noble in this. They were complicit.

We were all there watching, DCBob.

Do not attempt to rewrite history with nonsense like that. It was this President who used Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as hostages in order to get these cuts through.

Hundreds of economists warned this President to focus on stimulus and jobs, rather than slashing the budget during the worst economy since the Great Depression. This is an outrageous course of action that will not only needlessly and cruelly harm millions of Americans - it will starve this economy and drive us deeper into this mess.

Austerity is a good plan only in the minds of a corrupt and thieving oligarchy. Just ask the Greeks and Italians who will now be ruled by un-elected corporate bosses.

SHAME on our government.

[DCBob]

51. Then why did the supercommittee fail?

[woo me with science]

63. It didn't fail.

(I expanded my previous post to you, btw)

Think about it, DCBob. What do you think Democrats across the country would have said if Obama had stood up during the campaign and announced, "Under my Presidency, we will herald a new age of austerity. We will slash over a TRILLION dollars from the budget, while simultaneously keeping in place massive tax breaks for the filthy rich"?

Seriously, DCBob. What do you think the answer to that would have been?

This was a brilliant scam. They were able to pull off a Republican-style theft that no Democrat would have voted for in a million years.

This plan is an outrage and goes against all economic sense. Austerity is a good plan only in the minds of a thieving oligarchy. Just ask the Greeks and the Italians.

[DCBob]

66. Get real.. our situation is nothing like Greece and Italy.

These cuts are minimal and will hurt the MIC more than social programs. Its a win for Democrats given what could have happened.

[woo me with science]

87. Excuse me.

If you seriously see no connection between what is going on here and there, then you desperately need to educate yourself. You will be shocked at the degree to which our economic system is penetrated into the European system, and how what happens there affects us. You also need to study the parallels between the policies that have been forced upon them and what our government is currently trying to do to us. And when you finish studying Europe, go on to the rest of the world, and learn about the connections there. We have a global economy.

No, the cuts are not "minimal" - not to this economy, which desperately needs stimulus now...and not to the millions of human beings they will harm.

Get out of the beltway mindset. This is not about "winning" for Democrats. This is about an unconscionable, economically destructive policy driven by corporate interests at the expense of the country and the human beings it will affect. This is about a plan that, five years ago, would have been excoriated by everyone here as a Republican wet dream.

SHAME on our government.

[DCBob]

100. I wasnt talking about our connections to the global economy.. any idiot knows that exists.

You were comparing Greece and Italy to our situation here in US. That is rediculouos.

[woo me with science]

106. What is "rediculous" (sic)

is the response you just gave.

[The Straight Story]

30. John McCain ia already workin in legislation to limit the defense cuts (nt)

[DCBob]

33. How does John McCain get that legislation passed into law without the Presidents signature?

[alcibiades_mystery]

37. He doesn't. It doesn't even get past the Senate

[DCBob]

42. Yep. I think you are correct about that.

[The Straight Story]

40. He's only vetoed 2 things, election year coming up,

I can see him signing it.

[jeff47]

47. What makes you think he wouldn't sign it?

Republicans will take hostages and Obama will sign it to get the hostages released.

[DCBob]

52. It could get ugly but I think the President has the upper hand in this case.

[jeff47]

78. A veto threat only works against sane people.

"Sign this bill restoring the defense cuts, or we will refuse to pass a budget."

Bye-bye safety net, millions more people thrown onto unemployment, several states go bankrupt due to loss of federal grants. Or undo the defense cuts.

[DCBob]

101. I think the Prez will play chicken with them this time.

The consequences are not as dire.

[jeff47]

110. Uh...the consequences are exactly the same

The consequences of not passing a budget are exactly the same as the consequences of hitting the debt limit. Or of passing the previous year's budget.

[DCBob]

120. Nope... hitting the debt limit raised the scenario of not meeting our debt obligations.

That has never happened in the history of this nation. We have had a number of government shutdowns due to budget standoffs. That will not stop our debt payments.

[jeff47]

144. Debt payments are part of the budget.

[woo me with science]

46. And Obama's Secretary of Defense is leading the call, too.

Get real, people. The MIC will be funded.

[DCBob]

59. not really.

Panetta said he backed Obama's "call for Congress to avoid an easy way out of this crisis. Congress cannot simply turn off the sequester mechanism, but instead must pass deficit reduction at least equal to the $1.2 trillion it was charged to pass."

[woo me with science]

67. Why post a quote that completely demolishes your argument?

Yes, Panetta wants slashing cuts to our budget. But NOT from the military industrial complex.

In other words, let's have more austerity but save the drones.

That is exactly what they set out to do.

[DCBob]

69. Deficit reduction doesnt have to come from cuts from anywhere.

ever heard of tax revenue?

[woo me with science]

90. "Deficit reduction doesnt have to come from cuts from anywhere."

Your statement is incoherent.

Much like the argument. Anyone who has been watching this entire process knows exactly what to expect.

You have a good day, DCBob.

[former9thward]

68. Really

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/22/us-usa-debt-defense-panetta-idUSTRE7AL05220111122

[Safetykitten]

56. Quick, look over there! It's a defense emergency! Cuts? Who said cuts?

[woo me with science]

65. Oh my god.

I almost fell down from that unexpected onslaught of common sense.

[great white snark]

97. Holy shit "common sense?" More like rampant paranoia.

ooga booga MIC.

[Scurrilous]

77. Thanks.

K & R :thumbsup:

[TheKentuckian]

79. Be nice if your like discussed what the cuts are rather than keeping the focus on what wasn't cut.

It does say that discretionary spending takes a hell of an asswhipping, we should drill down on what this close to a third cut does to real people but that seems to be avoided in even efforts to chastise people for taking issue with this mess for complaining about the cuts because they don't know what they are.

The real message is to focus on what's not being cut and that some slices come off the military sacred cow so it can be spun as a "win" despite the entire conversation being a loss and the failure to get more money into stimulus is an even bigger one.

I have never seen such lengths gone to in order to pretend getting completely blown the fuck up as victory. When ones goal is to stimulate, there is no way on Earth this deal can be spun as a win.

Being happy matters aren't worse is one thing but pretending we won something is fucking absurd. When you start with a dollar and end up with 85 cents while getting nothing, you by definition could not have won shit. 85 cents being more than 50, 35, 10, or zero doesn't mean you don't have less than you started with and with no value exchanged for the loss.

[DCBob]

98. Bernie Sanders: "The American people are the winners and the Republicans are the big losers."

see vid in the post below.

[TheKentuckian]

127. We like Bernie, yay!

His discussion of the politics doesn't address the points in my post.

Yes, the TeaPubliKlans have to defend shitty positions. They only have shitty positions but that does not change or mitigate what the discretionary cuts impacts are nor does it address how any of these cuts as a whole are a net positive for an economy with high unemployment and anemic demand.

That military spending isn't being redirected into programs that desperately need them or our crumbling infrastructure, they are being extracted from the ever shrinking pie while the programs take cuts or are best left to scramble on with the same resources to address more need.
Also, increased taxes on the wealthy keeps getting tossed in when the deal calls for no such thing directly, I guess there is the assumption that the Bush/Obama tax breaks won't be re-upped in response but that is not explicitly laid out in the agreement and continues to be a separate point of debate, particularly if "leadership" is unwilling to let them all expire or needs the TeaPubliKlans to pass something like unemployment extensions that are just as needed today as they were a year ago when we got into the hostage debacle and ended up trading three quarters of a trillion dollars for a comparatively minuscule 65 billion or so in very sensible and fairly minimal benefits for folks caught in this shitstorm.

Winning is getting more money into the most necessary and stimulative programs, and considering what is needed and what makes sense this can only be a defeat. Cheering less than utter destruction is like bringing down the goal post because you had a close loss.

It is pitiful that the new "winning" is the old "Whew...well, it could have been a lot worse".

We got swallowable terms of surrender, that is all. We are contracting the budget in ways least abhorrent to us but shrinking the budget when we really need more spending and more of the right kind of spending especially.

No matter what Bernie says, the American People and our economy cannot be winners in the austerity game.

In the end the economy is shrunk, jobs lost, and revenue is diminished and we play the batshit crazy game again using the same fucked up logic, and the hole grows deeper.

I do not understand "winning" that is not defined by coming out ahead of where you started.
Of course the TeaPubliKlans won, deficit reduction and shrinkage beat stimulus and expansion.
At best, we won their fucking game and abandoned ours to get there.

[politicasista]

139. That may be true, but some Dems

have lost support over their stances on these issues. They are getting blame more than Obama and the GOP. Go look at their Facebook pages and see the vile comments.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2360602

[woo me with science]

140. What spin.

Remember that Bernie Sanders also recommended that President Obama be primaried for his part in starting this whole budget slashing debacle. http://www.thenation.com/blog/162771/bernie-sanders-talks-primary-challenge-obama-good-idea-our-democracy-and-democratic-part

Bernie Sanders is not a fan of austerity measures, and to take that message from this clip, if you have any idea of what Bernie stands for, is wholly disingenuous. Of COURSE the failure is better than what we were hearing about in the final weeks of the negotiations. At that time, they were talking about "big deals" that would slash up to FOUR TRILLION from the budget, PERMANENT tax cuts for the wealthy, and slashing of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. OF COURSE this is better than that. But that is like saying that dirt tastes better than shit.

This clip is Bernie's reaction to that comparison, not a statement of preferred policy. And that is the whole point here...to get liberals to forget what we used to stand for. If you asked Bernie whether it would be better if the Super Committee had never been forced down our throats, and if you asked him whether demand side stimulus would be better than slashing a trillion from an economy that is already starving, I think you know very well the answer you would get.

[great white snark]

95. Bernie Sanders: American people are the winners.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x820347

[Better Believe It]

130. Whoppy! "Only" 294 billion non-military cuts and only 123 billion in Medicare cuts! A huge win!

For whom?

[mmonk]

135. But spending cuts may keep economic growth down thus reducing

revenues in a cash starved economy which could continue deficits which is the whole premise for the cuts. It only works if you believe spending is of a negative or zero economic benefit.

[B Calm]

143. K&R

[DuaneBidoux]

145. This is definitely a win for Dems at a relatively small price. Pukes will have to defend bad things-

we will not.

Furthermore it will make it quite plain why things aren't working and the finger points clearly at them.

Since the only reason we didn't get an agreement is because Republicans wouldn't agree to fair taxes for the rich they will have to defend this if they want to preserve their defense spending (and they do). Defending this again makes it plain who is at fault.

Additionally later on the tax cuts for the rich (and everybody else) will expire. Obama should let that happen, but then he should turn around and reintroduce a bill to lower them back for all but the top two brackets. Again, Obama will be in a strategically strong position.

If Obama plays his cards right politically (and judging from the last three years that is still a big if) he can put himself in a politically strong fortress and the Republican party will end up drowning in a mot around his castle.

Also, if he is astute, the payroll tax issue coming up can be used to his advantages.

[DCBob]

148. Ezra Klein also thinks its a great deal.

From WaPo:

"Imagine if the Democrats offered Republicans a deficit deal that had more than $3 in tax increases for every $1 in spending cuts, assigned most of those spending cuts to the Pentagon, and didn't take a dime from Social Security, Medicaid or Medicare beneficiaries. Republicans would laugh at them. But without quite realizing it, that's the deal Republicans have now offered to the Democrats."

more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/wonkbook-the-gops-dual-trigger-nightmare/2011/11/23/gIQA1BmxnN_blog.html