+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: The Spin Room (/forum-540.html)
+---- Thread: Elections have consequences (/thread-619649.html)
Elections have consequences - MonarchManiac - 02-20-2013 11:16 AM
http://hamptonroads.com/2013/02/bae-may-have-lay-1625-shipyard-workers-norfolk
BAE Systems Ship Repair sent letters Wednesday to employees in Norfolk and three other states saying that they may have to lay off more than 3,500 people if the Navy cuts $4.6 billion in ship repairs and other expenses this year.
RE: Elections have consequences - MonarchManiac - 02-20-2013 11:19 AM
Also this:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BUDGET_BATTLE_PENTAGON?SITE=VANOV&SECTION=BUSINESS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told Congress on Wednesday that if automatic government spending cuts kick in on March 1 he may be compelled to furlough the "vast majority" of the Defense Department's 800,000 civilian workers.
In a written message to employees, Panetta said that he notified members of Congress Wednesday that if the White House and Congress cannot strike a deficit reduction deal before March 1 to avoid the furloughs, all affected workers will get at least 30 days' advance notice.
Pentagon officials have said the furloughs would be structured so that nearly all 800,000 workers lose one day of work per week for 22 weeks, probably starting in late April. That means they would lose 20 percent of their pay over that period.
RE: Elections have consequences - RobertN - 02-20-2013 11:26 AM
Just think, all this could have been avoided if the Republicons would have just worked with the Democrats to come up with a compromise. Of course, that wasn't going to happen because they want to see Obama fail-which is their only chance to win back the White House from the black man.
RE: Elections have consequences - MonarchManiac - 02-20-2013 11:31 AM
bull**** Rob
The immediate issue is with the White House generated (Jack Lew drafted) sequestration bill in 2011. The chickens are now coming home to roost on this one, and the president is desperate to now shift blame to the GOP rather than where it rightfully belongs--in his Oval Office. He could have easily vetoed this bill. What about Congress not coming together on a budget? The Harry Reid led senate hasn't produced one since the Bush 43 years, and the last one the president recommended didn't even get his own party's votes.
RE: Elections have consequences - JerryJeff - 02-20-2013 11:35 AM
(02-20-2013 11:26 AM)RobertN Wrote: Just think, all this could have been avoided if the Republicons would have just worked with the Democrats to come up with a compromise. Of course, that wasn't going to happen because they want to see Obama fail-which is their only chance to win back the White House from the black man.
This is Obama's baby.
RE: Elections have consequences - RobertN - 02-20-2013 11:35 AM
(02-20-2013 11:31 AM)MonarchManiac Wrote: bull**** RobIg the right would have been able to compromise, there would have been a compromised bill today and not austerity...I mean sequestration.
The immediate issue is with the White House generated (Jack Lew drafted) sequestration bill in 2011. The chickens are now coming home to roost on this one, and the president is desperate to now shift blame to the GOP rather than where it rightfully belongs--in his Oval Office. He could have easily vetoed this bill. What about Congress not coming together on a budget? The Harry Reid led senate hasn't produced one since the Bush 43 years, and the last one the president recommended didn't even get his own party's votes.
RE: Elections have consequences - Redwingtom - 02-20-2013 11:38 AM
Well...spank my ass and call me Charlie...you mean government spending has a significant impact on the economy and just stopping it...to fix the deficit...will hurt people?
What a shock!
RE: Elections have consequences - maximus - 02-20-2013 11:38 AM
(02-20-2013 11:35 AM)RobertN Wrote:(02-20-2013 11:31 AM)MonarchManiac Wrote: bull**** RobIg the right would have been able to compromise, there would have been a compromised bill today and not austerity...I mean sequestration.
The immediate issue is with the White House generated (Jack Lew drafted) sequestration bill in 2011. The chickens are now coming home to roost on this one, and the president is desperate to now shift blame to the GOP rather than where it rightfully belongs--in his Oval Office. He could have easily vetoed this bill. What about Congress not coming together on a budget? The Harry Reid led senate hasn't produced one since the Bush 43 years, and the last one the president recommended didn't even get his own party's votes.
Do you even know what is in the sequestration ?
Lets hear it
RE: Elections have consequences - maximus - 02-20-2013 11:39 AM
(02-20-2013 11:38 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: Well...spank my ass and call me Charlie...you mean government spending has a significant impact on the economy and just stopping it...to fix the deficit...will hurt people?
What a shock!
You too
Lets hear it
RE: Elections have consequences - Redwingtom - 02-20-2013 11:41 AM
It.
RE: Elections have consequences - MonarchManiac - 02-20-2013 11:43 AM
(02-20-2013 11:38 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: Well...spank my ass and call me Charlie...you mean government spending has a significant impact on the economy and just stopping it...to fix the deficit...will hurt people?
What a shock!
so then....why would YOUR president's administration....draft legislation....to allow this to happen.....instead of buckling down.....and actually submitting.....a BUDGET?!?!?!
Fing 5 years and he can't pass a single damn budget? Seriously? I mean SERIOUSLY??
RE: Elections have consequences - Smaug - 02-20-2013 11:43 AM
(02-20-2013 11:26 AM)RobertN Wrote: Just think, all this could have been avoided if the Republicons would have just worked with the Democrats to come up with a compromise. Of course, that wasn't going to happen because they want to see Obama fail-which is their only chance to win back the White House from the black man.
Heh, it was the president's bright idea.
He can whine all he wants about what a terrible idea it is, and if he needs a scapegoat, he need look no further than his own signature on it.
Using your logic, does that make him a self-loathing black man bent on his own failure?
RE: Elections have consequences - maximus - 02-20-2013 11:56 AM
(02-20-2013 11:41 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: It.
I guess you don't know what % is being cut?
Can you even define a "cut" in DC terms?
RE: Elections have consequences - RobertN - 02-20-2013 11:56 AM
(02-20-2013 11:38 AM)maximus Wrote:Sequestration= austerity.(02-20-2013 11:35 AM)RobertN Wrote:(02-20-2013 11:31 AM)MonarchManiac Wrote: bull**** RobIg the right would have been able to compromise, there would have been a compromised bill today and not austerity...I mean sequestration.
The immediate issue is with the White House generated (Jack Lew drafted) sequestration bill in 2011. The chickens are now coming home to roost on this one, and the president is desperate to now shift blame to the GOP rather than where it rightfully belongs--in his Oval Office. He could have easily vetoed this bill. What about Congress not coming together on a budget? The Harry Reid led senate hasn't produced one since the Bush 43 years, and the last one the president recommended didn't even get his own party's votes.
Do you even know what is in the sequestration ?
Lets hear it
RE: Elections have consequences - RobertN - 02-20-2013 11:59 AM
(02-20-2013 11:43 AM)MonarchManiac Wrote:Are you saying he isn't your president?(02-20-2013 11:38 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: Well...spank my ass and call me Charlie...you mean government spending has a significant impact on the economy and just stopping it...to fix the deficit...will hurt people?
What a shock!
so then....why would YOUR president's administration....draft legislation....to allow this to happen.....instead of buckling down.....and actually submitting.....a BUDGET?!?!?!
Fing 5 years and he can't pass a single damn budget? Seriously? I mean SERIOUSLY??
He did it so you ******* morons on the right would compromise to come up with a less devastating bill. Unfortunately, the plan backfired and you ******* morons LOVE the idea of destroying the economy for political purposed.
RE: Elections have consequences - TheDancinMonarch - 02-20-2013 11:59 AM
This whole thing is a joke on us. They can somehow come up with $50+ billion for Sandy relief, manufactured out of the air, but cutting $85+ billion out of a $3.7+ trillion (2.3%) budget, and I use the term loosely, is going to be the end of the world. My, my my, how stupid do they think we are?
RE: Elections have consequences - Smaug - 02-20-2013 12:04 PM
(02-20-2013 11:59 AM)RobertN Wrote:(02-20-2013 11:43 AM)MonarchManiac Wrote:Are you saying he isn't your president?(02-20-2013 11:38 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: Well...spank my ass and call me Charlie...you mean government spending has a significant impact on the economy and just stopping it...to fix the deficit...will hurt people?
What a shock!
so then....why would YOUR president's administration....draft legislation....to allow this to happen.....instead of buckling down.....and actually submitting.....a BUDGET?!?!?!
Fing 5 years and he can't pass a single damn budget? Seriously? I mean SERIOUSLY??
He did it so you ******* morons on the right would compromise to come up with a less devastating bill. Unfortunately, the plan backfired and you ******* morons LOVE the idea of destroying the economy for political purposed.
Isn't not signing legislation you think is a really, really bad idea pretty much Presidency 101?
Who's the moron?
RE: Elections have consequences - DrTorch - 02-20-2013 12:23 PM
(02-20-2013 11:38 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: Well...spank my ass and call me Charlie...you mean government spending has a significant impact on the economy and just stopping it...to fix the deficit...will hurt people?
What a shock!
Hurt isn't the same as harm. And people get hurt regardless, but they'll be harmed w/o budget cuts.
Anyway, I'm still for sequestration. And it will likely affect me more than most of you.
It's the right thing to do.
But, it must be accompanied by a reduction in regulation. Something statists really don't like.
RE: Elections have consequences - 200yrs2late - 02-20-2013 12:32 PM
(02-20-2013 11:26 AM)RobertN Wrote: Just think, all this could have been avoided if the Republicons would have just worked with the Democrats to come up with a compromise. Of course, that wasn't going to happen because they want to see Obama fail-which is their only chance to win back the White House from the black man.
Republicans have compromised the entire way. Obama is the one repeated laying down ultimatums and stating absolutes. This is his idea and his problem.
Reasons the super committee failed:
1. Democrats were unwilling accept anything less that $1T in tax hikes.
2. They were also unwilling to seriously look at medicare and medicaid. Instead of looking to reform them, the democrats added trillions of dollars in new spending on the health care system furthering the problem.
3. Democrats outright rejected Republican suggested reforms, promising to offer their own structured reform plans but never did.
4. Republicans offered $250B in taxes from the wealthiest Americans. They agreed in principle to suggestions in line with Bowles-Simpson and Rivilin-Domencini plans. Democrats said no.
5. Obama demanded more stimulus and threatened to veto any bill that didn't include massive tax heights during the committee meetings.
I see lots of refusal to compromise, but not from the Republicans.
RE: Elections have consequences - RobertN - 02-20-2013 12:41 PM
(02-20-2013 11:59 AM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote: This whole thing is a joke on us. They can somehow come up with $50+ billion for Sandy relief, manufactured out of the air, but cutting $85+ billion out of a $3.7+ trillion (2.3%) budget, and I use the term loosely, is going to be the end of the world. My, my my, how stupid do they think we are?Well, you are pretty stupid Dancin' Moron.