Here’s my prediction

kowalski

But you’ve been forcing them to take the blame. You’re sitting there as though you’re not responsible for people having to shoulder this burden. I’m getting a little sick of you pontificating up there telling people what other burdens they’re going to have to share because of your ideological intransigence.

kowalski

I have a couple of thousand dollars worth of stuff that I’ll donate to the federal government if all these jerkoffs in Washington will do the responsible thing and just cut the baloney and share the burden.

What’s really most interesting about you is that you and Regenery here aren’t willing to share any of the burden for people increasing woes – you just want them to take them. We’re running out of patience.

I’m willing to DONATE to Boehner and Reid to solve this goddamn problem tomorrow. I don’t want our national credit rating to be downgraded. You seem to think that it’s some kind of meaningless game.

It strikes me as callow and stupid. You know it’s going to hurt people. You refuse to make a deal on anything that doesn’t include anything you don’t want.

Really, respectfully – that’s enough. I don’t want the bond markets to downgrade America’s debt. I don’t want more jitters in the stock market. Make a deal and get it done or don’t come back and talk any more.

JSobieski

Independents know that the Ryan budget went further than CCB, must less everything the D’s ever thought to lie . . .er . . utter out loud.

Of course D’s will try to blame the GOP. However, in the scenario you describe, I don’t think Independents will fall for it. They don’t seem to be falling for this stuff so far.

sarg01

The people who understand ratings driving interest rates and what interest rates mean already know who they’re voting for in 2012.

They certainly will blame the administration for any economic weakness which results from the lowered ratings. If, as you say, a downgrade is coming no matter what, there’s nothing unfair about this.

kowalski

I don’t think you really give a damn what it means to other people, either. We have the intransigent leftists who want do nothing but raise taxes and people like you who simply refuse to compromise on anything because you’re employed by — oh! What an amazing group of people – Human Events. You’re just as willing to let the rest of the country suffer as everyone else. What the heck is wrong with you?

kowalski

You can come to my house tomorrow and I’ll give you a few thousand dollars worth of equipment and you can sell it and keep it for yourself. Give a thousand or so to charity so you can feel good about yourself. Come on by.

In the meantime, make the deal happen and stop giving us the BS. I mean that sincerely.

http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

I kind of wear that as a badge of honor.

Compromise is what has happened to us all down the line ? and that?s the very cause of our woes. If freedom is right and tyranny is wrong, why should those who believe in freedom treat it as if it were a roll of bologna to be bartered a slice at a time?

inovrmihd

As long as Obama assures them that we will not miss an interest payment, they will not downgrade us. As far as Moodys goes, they suggested that we eliminate the debt ceiling entirely. They clearly don’t care about a credible plan to deal with the debt. The only reason they will downgrade is if Standard and Poors does so that they won’t be seen as going easy, and the only way S&P does is if we threaten to miss an interest payment, and Obama won’t do that. In fact, the private assurances Obama has given the banks will be made public if necessary to avoid an S&P downgrade.

You may be right on Boehner making further concessions, but it won’t result in a ratings downgrade.

One other thing, the best way to stop Boehner from compromising is to threaten him with loss of speakership. Those who fought so hard for cut cap and balance, and those that are trying without success to get Boehner to bring a payment prioritzation to the floor need to let him know that they feel personally betrayed.

http://www.neoavatara.com/blog neoavatara

And Erick is 100% right.

The rating agencies across the board have said that they are not scared of bond default. They are scared of LONG TERM DEBT.

If you read the reports, they universally argue that if we don’t confront long term debt, they will downgrade us, even if we NEVER miss a debt payment.

We are going to get downgraded with this deal…NO QUESTION.

kowalski

If Erick Erickson can broker a deal that will reduce the country’s national debt without substantially raising taxes, I’ll give Human Events a couple of cars and a big bunch of laser printers and other broken equipment. You can have them, donate them to the Federal government and pay down the debt. Want a pint of blood, too? I can do that.

I just want you and the Donks to stop screwing with everyone’s life.

Spiral

The GOP should not have used the debt ceiling as leverage for the reason you implicitly touched on.

As of October 2010, the American people knew that the Democrats were running the federal government and they believed that the Democrats were running the country in the wrong direction.

When the GOP won the US House in November 2010 while falling short of a majority in the US Senate, they should have adopted tactics that would allow the public to continue to see the Democrats as being in charge.

Instead, much of the GOP seems to want the GOP to act as though Boehner was elected Prime Minister of the US Government in November 2010.

So, yes. Perhaps in the event of a down grade of US credit worthiness, the GOP gets the blame. We don’t know for sure. However, it’s possible.

If the GOP had simply passed a debt ceiling increase, without strings. Then the GOP could have told Senator Reid and President Obama that if (a big if) the Democrats were serious about deficit reduction (actually spending cuts because the GOP should not accept tax increases) the Democrats could pass a budget, the GOP House would put forth its plan and perhaps a composite plan could be agreed to.

Given that the Democrats had no interest in cutting spending, if a credit downgrade happened, the public would not have blamed the GOP. The mainstream media would have had a very difficult time selling that line.

But because the GOP is always trying to be the responsible political party when they don’t have sufficient power, they get into situations where they can be blamed for damaging the country’s credit rating, even as they are actually trying to salvage it.

Which is why it makes sense to let the Democrats face the voters in 2012 so that the voters can give the Democrats another electoral kick in the groin. At that time the GOP will be in a position to cut spending, without having to play brinksmanship with America’s legal-financial obligations.

Obviously, others disagree. Fine. But let’s not tear the GOP apart. Not now.

quill67

Paul Ryan states the problem the right way: What if you knew that the 2008 financial crisis was coming and you could have done something to stop it?

We knew the mortgage problem was out there. We did not know it with certainty or the magnitude but we knew it was out there–But we did nothing.

We know our budget is in serious condition and it will lead to either financial collapse or at least decades of slow growth and diminished US power.

I’m sorry if this means Republicans might not holding the Congress.
I’m sorry if this means Republicans might not gain the Presidency.
I’m sorry if this means Republicans might lose the Supreme Court.
I’m sorry if this means ObamaCare is not repealed and we become a socialist nation.

But this agreement will put us on a path from which we might not return. Two more Trillion dollars may not sound like a lot of money (Can you believe we can say that?) But let’s put that into perspective. This would be enough for 2,000 new 1 Billion dollar factories. If each of these factories employed 5,000 people (directly and indirectly), that would be 10 million new jobs.

2 Trillion is a lot of money. Phantom Cuts are worth nothing.

JSobieski

Everything else is smoke and mirrors. 10 year plans that will be revisited next year and the year thereafter.

If the Rs don’t win in 2012, the Ryan plan adopted today wouldn’t save us.

Is this truly the hill to die on? We definitely need to fight here, primarily from a standpoint of political credibility and branding. However, the CCB plan is about $111B in cuts.

The line betweem CCB worthy dying for and the new Boehner Plan worth killing for seems to make no sense, or at least is not grounded in reality.

I am all for using the CCB to make certain D Senators either grow a pair or get proven to be the liars that they are, but at the end of the day there is no purpose to convincing those on our side that the Boehner plan is somehow a huge step down from CCB when CCB is ultimately a cut of $111B in FY2012.

The next Congress will be around to cut the FY2013 budget. We just need to get to the next battle with some momentum.

http://charlemagne-the-hammer.blogspot.com/ DerKrieger

…if that is your name (as The Great One would say), you seem not to comprehend, or at least not communicating that you do, the fact that it is the spending that has gotten us into this mess and that more taxes will only result in…more spending. Now is the time to be firm, to be resolute, to be fearless and stand athwart history and yell STOP! (WFB)
We will all be hurt far more from our failure to stop the madness than we will by a downgrade in our bond rating.

JSobieski

CCB includes only $111B in FY 2012 cuts. Everything else is something that the next Congress/adminstration will be able to do what they want to change.

The idea that the CCB can save us with $111B in cuts but the Boehner plan will sink us with something around $100B in FY 2012 cuts it silly.

Using 10 year projections is what DC critters do to trick us. If you stick with FY 2012 numbers, you will realize that the survival of the republic is not dependent on passing CCB.

Even under the Ryan/Republican budget proposal, the debt is going to get to pass $20T before you catch your breath. This is a pressing problem that will take years to fix. However, the idea that there is some magic number we need to cut now is simply untrue.

If you really think that substantial cuts are needed now for economic reasons rather than political reasons, the Coburn $9T plan is the only way to go. Every other plan is primarily focused on politics rather than economics.

So people can pound their chests all they want, but the difference between BBC and Boehner is $11B.

kowalski

I’d be happy to give you or the Federal Governement another 10% of what I have left in the world if you group of jerks could make a deal.

So make it.

bk

If it comes about by cutting spending and borrowing enough to start growing the freaking economy and therefore people’s incomes. If some of that is in these wonderful 10-year predictions then fine. Add in cleaning up deductions while dropping rates on a revenue-neutral manner and I bet he’s okay with that too.

Instead we’re getting a big jump in Uncle Sam’s credit card limit without doing much of anything to fix what got us there to begin with. That’s not exactly a victory. All Obama’s spending binge is taken as the norm instead of returning to something sustainable.

cordpt

Excellent analysis.

dock3511

Like your two thousand bucks in donated equipment means anything. . .to anyone. Weird.

The federal government was captured by two parties, each with it’s own set of selfish, greedy constituencies. The Rs may be slightly less guilty than the Ds, with fiscal policy, but in reality, the system as it stands is incapable of intelligently addressing the problem. Even a Tea Party led 2010 revolution will not ultimately be successful in dramatic change with anything less than the pressure of the impending economic collapse. The failure of America’s economy will be caused by a generation of politicians of both parties that taxed too much, spent even more, and borrowed more than can ever be repaid. They perpetuate themselves with corporate and union bribes. They must be stopped.

If not now, when? If we are worried of these pangs, then how much worse will the agony be when all economic he’ll breaks loose in our near future?

But if the Rs want to reinvigorate their relationship with the People, they had better stand for what is right and needed: a sea change in how the federal government operates.

The Rs in the House, the so called freshmen Tea, have every right to be committed to their position. What we do not need is a bs agreement that solves nothing AGAIN.

Mark Woodworth, Ph.D Geneseo, Illinois

kowalski

I’ve had enough of the past three years of absolute economic unpredictability, except that everything gets worse. You guys sitting there running websites and bargaining over whose money you’re going to spend are really starting to disgust me. And I mean that for Boehner and Reid and Obama and everyone else, too.

America has become a sick place when it can’t come to an agreement on something rational like limiting the debt ceiling to something less than exponential growth and can’t figure out how to, if not balance its own budget, at least make it something that future generations can handle.

I’m angry at you because well, you’re the only person I can get angry at. But you should convey that to some of the people you meet.

People here in the real America are suffering. It’s not a joke. Nobody in Washington is willing to do anything intelligent to alleviate it except to play political games – that’s all that’s going on. Polling. Daily tracking polls. Who is on top. Whose friends are going to benefit. Out of the millions of Americans, whose lucky buddies are going to be the winners.

STOP IT.

http://jeffemanuel.net Jeff Emanuel

…that Democrat ideological intransigence be rewarded, and their policies implemented, due to Republican caving? Why does the “sacrifice” and “compromise” go one way – particularly the way we know is worst by far for all of us and for the country as a whole?

The Democrats and media already define “compromise” and “maturity” as the GOP caving to the left. I’m disappointed to see you call for unilateral capitulation, as well.

lizfstone

unless Dear Leader is announcing his resignation tonight, I’m not watching. When his lips start moving, the lies start. I’m in no mood to hurl.

quill67

I agree with your analysis, however, my point is that we need to change everyone’s mindset.

The types of changes that need to be made will not be made unless the American people are awakened and one election campaign is not enough.

It has to start now.

Everyone must understand the mess we are in and the choices that must be made.

Everyone must understand that no amount of tax increases can pull us out of the budget problem (without killing the American dream)

Everyone must understand that a few changes now will be far less painful that what the future holds if we do nothing.

carolina

I can’t believe he will do anything ‘intelligent’. Maybe he will surprise me?

I think our credit rating goes down, because none of the likely plans cuts enough. The can is still getting kicked down the road = entitlements.

rightwardmarch

Erick’s radio time has never been greater, and he has never received more emails/phone calls from members of Congress than right now. For Erick, this fight is a huge opportunity to move up in the political game. He’s not interested in policy at this point.

Just like all those politicians in DC right now each trying to outdo the other. What’s a little “full faith and credit” between politicians?

rowdydfw

These people are the same people that got us into this mess with their COMPROMISES! Expecting these people to fix it is INSANE!

Our job is ahead of us in 2012 to remove any incumbent coming up for re-election in 2012, I don’t care who they are!

And if that doesn’t happen, then it’s time to ‘reload’, because it’s not going to happen any other way! If we can’t find somebody with the guts to stop the mandness, then we’re going to have to do it ourselves. And that isn’t going to be pretty.

It’s that simple.

carolina

He must think 99.9% of us are on welfare. Good grief. – spit -

silentcal2012

Do you even know any liberals? This is unilateral capitulation to liberals? They want tax rates raised and no spending cuts. Rhetoric is out of control.

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

Or are you just trying to make insinuations because you lack the integrity?

Tbone

you got here. If isn’t about the government, it because some girl dumped you. Of course, that’s no wonder the way you carry on about your poor pitiful a**. You have become famous for arguing with yourself.

Grow up, grow a pair and overcome your challenges instead blubbering about them.

Have you ever met a piece of bad news you didn’t like?

Tbone

Erick has been fighting the good fight for years, most of which cost him money. The fact that he is a fighter is why he is where he is.

OTH, people like you just get run over then complain about the tire marks on their tutus.

Tavern Keeper

I’m a little shocked that we’re not lending a little more support to the House Republican leadership than we are.

All of our modern hero – Ronald Reagan – said that someone you agree with 80% of the time is a friend.

The fact is the current plan, as we understand it, intends on cutting spending, raises the debt limit to an area that allows us to pay our bills a little longer, does the best we can AT THIS POINT to avoid a downgrade to our credit (thus at least attempting to save us monies on future interest while preserving the integrity of the dollar . . . what it has left, anyway), and appears to set the stage for a reform of the tax code in the direction that WE want.

Sure, there’s no guarantee that any of this will happen, and with the ways of Washington it is more likely that it won’t come to fruition than it will. But we’ve at least given it a chance. A better chance than our goals have had in a long time.

Senate aside – neither side has the votes to really do anything revolutionary and truth be told with several squishes the Dems are closer to a super majority than are we. We didn’t want the House to cave on CCB. They DIDN’T. They passed it, basically along party lines. We didn’t want the House to agree to the McConnell options, or anything the White House wanted to take leadership on. They didn’t. We wanted Boehner to pull out of negotiations. He DID. The House Republicans have taken and continue to take leadership on this issue, and at the very least, we owe them something for getting this far. We’re 80%, and we won’t get the other 20% by browbeating our FRIENDS.

Tbone

going to do. Nothing?

silentcal2012

I don’t think he would carve up liberty like Bologna. He provided an awesome quote too. Equating the boehner plan with tyranny is ridiculous.

Repair_Man_Jack

Anything? Ever?

runner12

The Charlie Browns of politics gets the football pulled away once again, except this time they helped Lucy do it.

Please stand on principle House GOP. Do what we sent you there for.

Michael Dugas

there’s a 50% chance we’ll still be downgraded to AA rating if there is not serious deficit reduction.

reddog53

It sounds like him and it made all the salient points quite nicely.

It also sounds like he has not lost sight of the goal, but understands the path toward it might not be the same as we started with.

A little support?

Repair_Man_Jack

About $2Tr in tax hikes? A complete failure to cut spending? Let’s hear some specifics out of you before you chuck the snotty ad hominems again. Let’s hear what you stand for other than cheap and debasing Internet snark.

runner12

In the past when social conservative issues have arisen, both of you (as I recall) advocated that fiscal conservatism trumps social concerns.

Yet when the first true test of of whether or not fiscal conservatism (aka sanity) wins out over big government spending, you advocate capitulation. You sound much like the pro-life statists you claim to detest. I say this not because you disagree with me, but because you take every opportunity to push your capitulation. It just strikes me as odd.

The ultimate irony is that all of the social conservatives on this site (or most of them) are being more fiscally hawkish than you are. Guess the meme that social conservatives only care about social issues is not so true after all.

steve53

(2) They?ll go with John Boehner?s plan and agree to raise the debt ceiling in one $2 trillion increment.

That’s a betrayal; a sell out, isn’t it? Giving Obama cover until after he re-elected? That is what Erickson predicts Boehner will do?

Michael Dugas

were to come to fruition then the battle over the debt ceiling would be moot as with the Dems in total control the ceiling would have no limit and Obama would get his chance to make Caligula look like a boy scout.

Repair_Man_Jack

We must propitiate our government masters. Upsetting them over petty things like debt ceilings will only anger our Progressive Overlords. Never fight for decency or principal when it could make a scene. How embarrassing. THe bitter clingers just make too much of a ruckus I guess.

steve53

Erickson is predicting Boehner is going to sell out and extend the debt ceiling until after Obama is re-elected. Isn’t that treason? I heard Erickson (sitting in for Neal Boortz) say he does not support removing Boehner as Speaker even if he betrays us. What’s wrong with that picture?

carolina

Proposed cuts will come for an up or down vote. No amendments allowed. That sounds good to me.

carolina

Proposed cuts will come for an up or down vote. No amendments allowed. That sounds good to me.

JSobieski

This confrontation is just the beginning of what will be a long war. Wars involve lots of battles.

If George Washington didn’t engage in strategic retreats, the Revolutionary Army wouldn’t have lasted for more than a couple of months.

There is a time to go for the other side’s capital, and there is a time to take the beach and hold.

To assert that those who disagree with your tactical assessment will “never fight for decency or principal” is simply untrue.

I believe in fighting for decency and principal. I also believe in winning. There are good reasons to build up our side for additional political capital in 2012. There is nothing cowardly about using one’s brain to device strategy. There is nothing conservative about acting as if the choice is victory now or victory never.

Kyle-MI

If this goes sour the GOP will get blamed, but if any plan works out Obama and Dems will get all the credit. We will always be in the situation of heads they win, tails we loose. Blame or credit should be absolutely meaningless arguments to conservatives.

It doesn’t matter what side of the debt ceiling fight you are on. Those who worry about the GOP getting blamed for a “default” are worrying for nothing. And those who worry about the GOP getting blamed for a bad economy are just as blind. It has come to the point where when I hear the word “blame” I completely tune out and discredit any further argument coming out of that persons mouth.

Do not argue blame. Argue what will get us out of this mess both short and long term (but especially long term). After that the GOP should just do the right thing no matter if they get credit or blame.

carmen

If not us, who? If not now, when?

I love my kids too d@mn much to support these buffoons kicking the can down the road one more time.

I think you’d have to be certifiably INSANE to give the Marxist in Chief another 2 trillion to spend.

I think that if you don’t have the b@lls to stand firm, just get the hell out of the way. Lead, LEAD dammit!

I think the time for compromise is over. STOP the spending, NO new taxes, AMEND the Constitution OR GO POUND SAND.

cwilson

The markets ARE going to downgrade our debt. The Administration is already leaking that this will happen — although they misunderstand the reason.

The markets aren’t worried about smoke and mirrors with “borrowing authority”. They’re worried because the unfunded liabilities of the federal government are $135T, a number that dwarfs the GDP of the entire planet. They’re worried because our EXISTING debt is already approaching 90% of GDB,

Fiddling with statutory borrowing authority — “Oh, good, Uncle Sam has allowed himself to borrow even MORE money!” — is p*ssing in the wind.

If we don’t show we’re serious about addressing the long-term drivers of public debt — spending and entitlements — the markets would be foolish NOT to trash our rating to junk bond status. As it stands, we should be grateful they’re only talking about downgrading from AAA to AA.

But capitulation to the Dems, with Yet Another “Deficit Commission” that will “make it all better in the out years”….that’s insane. And the markets will call us on it, even IF we increase the debt limit.

carmen

… it occurred to me:

This argument for capitulation sounds like Bush’s argument for TARP. “I’m abandoning Free Market principles to save the Free Market”

Did that make you squirm then? It sure as heck made me squirm.

So, “I’m abandoning conservative principles to save conservatives from blame” is equally as squirm-worthy, IMHO.

If doing what’s right and necessary makes me extreme, intransigent, or whatever other label they wanna slap on me, fine with me.

Repair_Man_Jack

We compromised and let Ted Kennedy write the NCLB Act. We Medipandered and passed the Prescription Drug Panderation Act. We were afraid that we would be “The Party of Evil Businessmen” and let ourselves get bullied into passing SARBOX.

As long as we continue to let the Dems decide what is prudent and what is acceptable, there could be 56 R’s and 44 Dems in the next Senate. We would still be fellating the donkey.

GregInFla

totally agree. We have to end this Madoff Ponzi scheme of borrowing money (adding debt) to pay off debt interest. Madoff gets prison for doing it, and Congress gets re-elected. WTF???

GregInFla

You say to get rid of ALL incumbents. If you mean ALL, then Allen West and Michelle Bachmann should get primaried? Really?

GregInFla

In many cases, the money is never saved when it’s done for non-DOD bases.

GregInFla

“The Democrats in the US Senate have not proposed a budget since Obama came into office. The lack of leadership is not starting now. But the GOP plans on it ending now. The People, and the People’s House, demand it.”

Now, I assume Boehner did not want to upset Dingy Harry and company when Reid may let a no-extra-taxes bill pass the Senate. I cannot believe that Obama would veto anything that passes both houses. Doing so means it is HIS problem.

carolina

as far as I know. A similar kind of deficit rediction commission can provide ‘political cover’ to the politicians – so the hard decisions can get made without specific politicians having to take all of the heat.
Obviously they aren’t getting anywhere following the usual budget process. Reid and the senate dems just refuse to do anything!

Boehner said the point of his approach was ENFORCEMENT. I think he and Cantor have figured out a way to FORCE the dems to cut.

traversecityconservative

IS raising the debt ceiling. Period. Nothing more. Nada. Zero. So don’t act like we have to take any more crap from Boehner, the Dems or Obama. We know what we will accept. We know what will and won’t hurt the country. And if you’re worrying about “the people” – it’s already too late. We already have high unemployment, inflation, loss of retirement income, loss of raises, foreclosures and coming soon, high interest rates due to bad credit ratings. But it won’t have anything to do with Republicans. It comes straight from the people who spent stimulus money to study monkeys on cocaine and Project Gunrunner. It comes straight from the people who bailed out GM, bailed out Freddie & Fannie, ran a cash for clunkers game, spent billions on green energy programs, are financing offshore drilling in Brazil, lost billions of money in Iraq & Afghanistan (LITERALLY lost the money) and all of their other BS. If fixing the country is going to hurt a little, it’s too damn bad. Doing the right thing is warranted and we will settle for no less.

http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

It’s complete utter spineless stupidity. We don’t have anybody to primary him so I really hope we can toss enough of the Republican caucus in 12 so he is no longer Speaker. Personally, I’d like to see him stripped of his seniority. Let him sit on the back bench where the spineless deserve to sit.

http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

to what must be done on spending. The entire federal government will have to be restructured and Cabinet level departments – DoE, DoE, EPA, etc must be shut down. No “commission” will ever recommend that.

rightwingmom52

let me go on record that I am among the fiscal hawks on this issue, i.e., “hold the line.” And I’m sick of cordpt’s call for us all to identify what type of conservative we are according to his stupid definitions wherein he predicts that socons will team up with moderate Dems. Ha! I’ve never teamed with a Dem on anything in my life, and I’m not about to start now.

GopTiger

I have to agree with you about tearing the GOP apart. This is madness.

Last fall, anybody who dared questioned the electability of some of our candidates was immediately told to get in line, close ranks, move forward.

Now it seems perfectly acceptable to rip the Republican leadership to shreds because of the magical belief that somehow Boehner-if he was simply man enough, courageous enough- could make Obama cry “uncle” on deep spending cuts.

I’ve yet to meet the Republican who was virile enough to get liberals to stop being liberals. I don’t recall Reagan ever accomplishing this with Tip. In fact, Ronaldus Maximus actually sat down and cut deals with Tip on a few occassions. Reagan understood he didn’t control every facet of the government. I wonder what some on this site would have been screaming about the Gipper for having to bow to political necessity and “deal” with Tip.

If Boehner was acting this way with a GOP Senate and White House, I would certainly understand. Considering he is dealing with the most left-wing president (and perhaps the most sycophantic media) of all time, I don’t get the hate.

And, when you consider that any 10 year deal struck with Obama isn’t worth the paper its written on if he is re-elected, I’m even more perplexed by this need to rip the GOP leadership apart.

But what most amazes me now is the argument that somehow Boehner-who is painted by the Demomediacrats as wanting to “gut” Medicare and Social Security- is somehow going to be blamed by the public for a credit downgrade for not wanting to cut enough.

The guy who wants to cut everything didn’t want to cut enough? Come on, does that even make sense?

http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

The rest is a matter of debate, but the only thing that matters is that we must stop the trajectory of increasing federal spending – or else the financial markets will do it for us, in a far more painful manner that could rip the country apart. That means no increase in the debt limit

It’s no longer a matter of choice about increasing spending, just whether our leaders will act like adults or need the adults on the international stage to force it to happen. The latter will not end well for us.

The rest is decoration.

rightwingmom52

It’s concap who has his list of conservative categories.

runner12

There were around ten different definitions, each one so confusing that if taken seriously could cause an identity crisis.

You are correct that his notion that we socons would team up with statist Dems is laughable. Good grief, if anything he is siding with the moderate Dems now.

Oh the irony…….

quill67

We are playing a very dangerous game here. I can see a Republican president winning but then not doing what has to be done to save the country from financial disaster. Can’t you?

Why? Because it is going to be politically difficult. And yes it will be “unfair”. People who planned their lives and retirements, who wanted to leave something behind will find it harder to do so.

To make these hard choices people will have to be prepared. A quick, neat resolution to this debate will make Americans think : “Oh this debt debate is just like in the 70s, 80s, or 90s. It really doesn’t affect me.” Well this time it will affect everyone and it is not just an arguement that will have some impact on interest rates. It will change all of our lives in ways we cannot imagine.

Job creation, our standard of living, the ability to live our lives as we have become accustomed. A decade ago Mexico was still poor but people could travel there. Today, most people will not set foot in Mexico. In the last four years 40,000 Mexicans have died in gang wars. What has been granted us can be lost in just one generation (or less)

JSobieski

I did not support either of them at the time, although many Republicans did.

The proposals being discussed today are directionally correct.

I am not saying compromise for the sake of compromising. I am saying move the ball in the right direction.

GregInFla

It only works if a govt agency condenses into existing surplus existing facilities. But it is also used as an excuse to build brand new facilities to condense into to. And that never saves money. And no one Claps in that case.

qsclues

If this plays out the way it looks like it might, I’ll see this as a hand in the overall poker game where we might have been able to get a bit more in the pot if we had played it a bit better, but we still won the hand and picked up some chips. Given the current balance of power, that’s what matters.

I have the same reservations about this deal that many others do, but this isn’t a defeat by any means. Liberals are pissed off about this deal, because there are no tax increases. They think their side caved. Obama comes out of this looking like a petulant child, and things only got done when the House and Senate leaders basically started ignoring him. The Senate Democrats got put on record showing that they don’t care about fiscal responsibility by tabling CCB. And the Rs still remain the only party that ever proposed or passed anything that would have saved our credit rating. People who matter are smart enough to understand they’re the only ones trying.

As I say, I do not share the pessimism I see here. I’m not doing a touchdown dance by any means, but this is a small battle in the big war where I think our side comes out slightly ahead. We have to keep fighting, and taking victories (of whatever size) where we can. November 2012 is the where we have the get the football back, then drive down the field.

inovrmihd

I can’t open your link but here is mine

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-13/u-s-debt-rating-placed-on-review-for-downgrade-by-moody-s-as-talks-stall.html

In particular please note the following quote

?What we?re looking for is a raising of the limit. It doesn?t matter the process that they get there,? Steven Hess, the senior credit officer at Moody?s in New York, said in a telephone interview yesterday.

inovrmihd

In their intial decision to place our credit rating under review they said the following:

?What we?re looking for is a raising of the limit. It doesn?t matter the process that they get there,? Steven Hess, the senior credit officer at Moody?s in New York, said in a telephone interview yesterday.

Now if S&P downgrades, Moodys may have to to maintain credibility, but I really doubt they will as long as we come up with some plan.

Green_Lantern

We’ve been had by a concern troll Neil. Well played, Kowalski. But overplayed.

Whack him.

http://christopherrenner.blogspot.com Christopher Renner

And I’m not asking in a smart-assed fashion. I really have been struggling to come to a good answer to that question.

The federal Department of Education is something like 5000 employees. You can fire that many without much trouble, other than a few whiny college administrators who have to handle student lending themselves, and of course from the academic grievance industry who will be deprived of young fodder for indoctrination.

But what do you do when you’re dealing with layoffs of tens of thousands, many of whose skills will not transfer to ANY job in the private sector? As much as I think eliminating federal departments is a very moral thing to do, I don’t have a simple answer to that question. What about severance pay? Do you give them little or none, force them to get busy job hunting right away, and get portrayed as brutal and uncaring? Or do you give them 6 months or a year of unemployment and risk them stirring up discontent?

And how do you justify it to a skeptical public? I think generally that a) “states already perform the functions”, b) “the federal courts can resolve genuinely interstate issues” and c) “the agency in question does basically nothing for the money” are good enough responses to placate the average voter. But there will still be sob stories galore, and the voter’s going to have a gut sympathy for them that needs to be acknowledged, or worked around rather quickly.

More generally, how do you decide which departments, or divisions within departments to abolish?

Again, not being smart. I just want to know how to do this right. Feel free to respond to me outside of RedState if you’d like.

Green_Lantern

to this Concern Troll, Erick? As they say on ESPN, “Come ON, MAN.”

Whack him.

I won’t reply to you, Kowalski. But you’ll never figure out who I am on Kos. Trick.

Locked and Loaded

nt

GregInFla

They will find more productive positions in the free-market economy. Sorry, but the fed govt is not a welfare position. And as you remove the fed govt from the economic equation, everything improves. Abolish the Dept of Education (which does not employ a single teacher), the NEA, which contributes nothing to economic growth, most of the Dept of Energy, and half of the EPA, to start.

JSobieski

I am starting to think it is best to just humor them and wait for sanity to return.

GregInFla

NGA. New facilities.. no bases reused. And Clapper became DNI.

JSobieski

The right wing equivalent of Obama not being black enough?

It is always easier for a unitary executive to negotiate since the executive is the only vote in that branch of government. The Speaker of the House has to keep their coalition together, while a President or Governor is a coalition of one.

Boehner is actually doing better than I thought he would. Good negotiation has more to do with skill than machismo. Frankly, some of the best negotiators I know purposely make the other side underestimate them.

gekster

and is by no means a “concern troll”. Erick has thick skin, and will easily weather this rant.
He is just venting the frustration all of have felt in the last few weeks over this crap we are putting up with our “conservative” representatives in Washington.
In fact, the two are good friends, and I don’t think he has earned a whack for one rant.
If that was the case, more than half of us would be gone, myself included.
And just where do you think the RedState term “kowalski” comes from.

(and he stopped posting hours ago)

GregInFla

I really hate the use of generalizations when they do not apply. And we complain about the independents..

powertothepeople

Pretty high opinion of your worth on the site that you go around demanding long term members be banned.

http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

And I am tired of being robbed at the point of tax code designed to punish hard work and achievement. I have family in California who already pay 75% of their income to taxes – federal, state, and property. We moved to Texas so we could keep more of what we earn but we still pay close to 40% in taxes. How much more do we have to give? How much of the burden is our share when almost half of the American people pay no taxes? How am I callous when I am being robbed? How about a dadburned thank you from all the deadbeats my tax dollars support?

Doc Holliday

and I will not support ANY Republican who votes for a new deficit commission unless they send everyone a refund for the money spent on previous, unheeded, deficit reduction commissions.

Doc Holliday

Boenher may have said the t word once, possibly twice, but no more. I don’t get this, he should have pounded home the fact that raising taxes on those who hire others is a bad idea in this economy, or any economy. Obama said “compromise” and “balanced approach” over and over, but Boenher was as afraid of the “t word” as the Messiah.

Green_Lantern

And I’m not “demanding” anything. I didn’t realize I needed to be in a clicque here to make a suggestion. Didn’t they just get rid of one of those?

I don’t need anybody’s permission to speak my mind. I’m not running for office here.

gekster

To Neil:
Stop Replying
We?ve been had by a concern troll Neil. Well played, Kowalski. But overplayed.
Whack him.

and then to Erick:
Did you really reply
to this Concern Troll, Erick? As they say on ESPN, ?Come ON, MAN.?
Whack him.
I won?t reply to you, Kowalski. But you?ll never figure out who I am on Kos. Trick.

made it appear that you “were” demanding for his banning.

Just an observation, not a complaint.

http://jeffemanuel.net Jeff Emanuel

This “compromise” is chock-full of fake cuts like preplanned “war savings,” supposedly lower projected future interest rates, and the elimination of fraud, waste and abuse in Medicaid which is unaccompanied by any real plan to root out and eliminate that FWA. The whole thing is smoke and mirrors in exchange for the higher “tax revenues” and multi-trillion-dollar increase in our credit card limit the Dems so desperately want.

mriggio

n/t

http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

1. You identify Cabinet Level departments that have no Constitutional authority.

2. You evaluate each department, top down, looking for individual functions that are Constitutionally authorized. See the US Census part of “Commerce”.

3. You develop a plan to pull the trigger on the departments while moving the authorized functions.

4. You pass legislation and make the cuts. People hit the street. They get the standard unemployment package available in their state and under NO circumstances does Congress include golden parachutes in the bills. Some reasonable level of early retirement – in a redefined retirement package – or severance is not unreasonable.

5. Legislation includes language eliminating the regulation done by the department.

6. Workers look for jobs. If their skill set is such that they can’t find one, tough. They’ve been sucking the life out of the nation for two generations, they can deal with it. Or not. On this point, it might be a good idea to eliminate the minimum wage so GS15s will be employable.

7. For every sob story of a leech who can’t find work, there will ten stories of businesses who are hiring in the private sector and communities that are getting increased revenue from income and sales tax from business revitalization.

8. You justify it to the public by noting that their taxes would have to double to continue to support these people and that the economy as a whole is much better off. Much better off.

http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

nt

Tbone

“many of whose skills will not transfer to ANY job in the private sector?”

I am surrounded by strawberry fields. We will be glad to teach them new skills. It’s a short lesson: “Pick the red ones”.

http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

Allan West is a good man and I like him but he is dead wrong in supporting the Boehner plan. He is going wobbly, which is very disappointing.

On a side note, conservatives do not take marching orders. We do not have little messiahs whose support for a particular measure makes everything better. West is wrong here and, while I value his opinion, his support does not mean my compliance.

http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

in actual fact, I am brutal and uncaring.

And as far stirring up discontent, the first paragraph of the legislation cutting these parasites loose would include language to the effect that any existing unions would no longer have their dues collected by the employer, union members – like NRA members – would have to be invoiced, said invoice would break out the cost of non-bargaining activities which would be optional, and the member would write out a check every month.

And, finally, I happen to like Tbone’s suggestion below. You can also toss in picking lettuce in Yuma.

http://christopherrenner.blogspot.com Christopher Renner

That said, shrinking the federal government is not inherently going to lead to private sector job creation. And just to be clear, I don’t mean that eliminating the tax (and even more the regulatory) burden on businesses won’t result in economic growth. It will clearly do that.

What it won’t do is magically result in all or most of the former federal workers (and let’s not forget about federal-dependent contractors, who outnumber the employees) finding jobs in the short run at anywhere near what they’re making now.

That still doesn’t make it immoral to eliminate their jobs – far from it. But let’s not ignore the fact they’re human, they’d be fully aware of how much less they’d be making, and they’re likely not to just take it sitting down.

Look at what 20,000 Leftist clowns have done in Madison this year, over changes to their work situation that are several orders of magnitude less than we’re contemplating here. Now think about the difficulty in restoring order there, and imagine instead you’ve got 100,000 federal workers on the Capitol Lawn with nothing to lose. Who’s going to restore order then? Not asking rhetorically.

Massively shrinking our overbearing federal government is a noble goal. We had best have some idea HOW to get it done before we start.

http://christopherrenner.blogspot.com Christopher Renner

I’d agree with most of what you’ve said here. That said:

1. Unconstitutionality, as far as I’m concerned, should not be the only deciding factor. The Department of Agriculture, for one example, is hard to call unconstitutional, but easy to call useless, either for preventing starvation or protecting the family farm.

2. Realistically, I don’t think you have the time to enumerate everything a Cabinet department does, let alone decide which activities are constitutional, in the time you’re going to have to actually eliminate the departments. That would take at least several months to do, and we don’t have the option of giving our opponents that much time to regroup.

3. What do you do to stop a future Congress from reinstating all of the previously fired employees?

4. What if the economy isn’t better off immediately? As much as regulations are a drag on businesses, I’m not at all certain that businesses are going to immediately celebrate our achievement by hiring and investing.

Michael Dugas

seem to be hedging their bets either way.

If an agreement is reached to raise the debt ceiling but nothing meaningful is done in terms of deficit reduction, the U.S. would likely have its rating cut to the AA category, S&P said.

It’s a Reuters story and both Moody’s and the S&P don’t seem too up on just a debt ceiling raise without significant deficit reform also.

Michael Dugas

n/t

http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

Most of the evaluations have already been made as to the functions of the departments by various think tanks.

Lack of caffeine led me to leave out useless. That’s 1a, right behind unconstitutional.

You can’t stop future congresses from doing anything. But you can eviscerate the current structure of the organization in a way that makes it extremely difficult to replicate the current structure. For instance, a super-majority of both houses to create a regulatory agency or to provide funds to enact new regulations.

The economy won’t be better off immediately. But in short order it will be – think a year. The issue with business is consistency, and that’s one reason why big business doesn’t mind big government. They’ve got the resources to deal with it. Investment will come as soon as it’s apparent that you’ve put in place mechanism to stop the government from growing again.

powertothepeople

how long you have been here, you made a moronic demand, man up and accept that fact.

And I know you think yourself to be clever, but demanding twice that a long term member in good standing be banned and ignored is not a suggestion nor does pointing out the stupidity of the demand mean a clique mentality.

And you have no right to speak your mind here, it is not your site. And considering that asking, suggesting, demanding someone be banned is against the rules of the site, you may want to consider your own account and attitude or it may be you that can no longer access the site, not Kowalski.

Locked and Loaded

He really exposes that soft white underbelly when in the presence of BO.

Your first comment is utterly asinine. And you must have had very low expectations for Boehner. Then again, he has kept his crying in check lately.

Long story short: Boehner is not a strong leader.

lineholder

And I know you, becker…you’re fairly solid for the most part but you have a tongue that’s sharper than a two-edged sword. (No offense, really, just asking that you go easy on me if you think these questions are ridiculous, okay?)

1. Any chance this could be challenged in court?

2. How many people are we talking about losing their jobs? (Income ratios between public vs. private sector run about 2:1 on an average. What I’m wondering is if we’re talking about a huge number of people losing their jobs at one time, how will this impact our economy as a whole?)

3. I hope you’re right about the private sector, but I could see small business owners in particular being tentative for a good while yet. And historically speaking, it is has been growth and expansion of small businesses that has gotten us out of the recessions we’ve faced in the past. If small businesses are hesitant, what then? Will this be taken into context on the rate of elimination?

4. Do you have any ideas about which agencies would be given higher priority on being eliminated? If Medicare and/or Medicaid will still be around, we do have some gaps in these systems that are driving up costs. Maybe we could try to find some legitimate ways to resolve those issues and then train some of these employees for any new jobs.

5. My understanding is that government operates with the mindset that they spend the full amount of any budget they get, even it is squandered rather than spent on projects or items that are genuinely needed, because this affects the amount of budget they get the next year. Any way to change this mindset and infuse some true business-type break-even-and-justification analysis into the system to keep costs lower in the years to come?

rowdydfw

All incumbents who helped creat this mess! Did Allen West or Michelle Bachmann create it? Did Rubio, DeMint, Rand Paul. Or any of the republicans elected in November 2010 create it? NO, they didn’t.

I guess for SOME, everything has to be spelled out for them. I guess next time I must humor them with a four page explanation about who created this mess by COMPROMISING! So they don’t need to pound on their chests.

kowalski

Exasperation and a little booze too. I’m not mad at Erick so much as I am at this entire idiotic game of Harry High School that’s taking place in Washington.

As a microbusiness owner with a mortgage and real debts I have to pay, looking for nonexistant business and who now has suffered through more than 4 consecutive years of what I call Earnings Armageddon I’m getting tired of people with guaranteed salaries and talking heads splitting hairs over — over — whose buddies win.

I know, it’s not a very levelheaded analysis and I apologize to Erick and Redstate for the curse words. You can beat me up over them if you’d like. Go ahead.

I’m just getting sick of people in Washington living surrounded by beautiful marble architecture play everyone else in the world, whose real lives and real futures depend on their being responsible people.

I can’t and will not and never will comment at Kos or anywhere else. So I picked on Erick here. I hope he sucks it up. And I hope people start getting serious.

GregInFla

1. Anything is possible with the USSC. But the constitutionality of removing a government agency should be okay, since the Constititution specifies a limited number of fed functions.

2. That money paying them is now in the pockets of the US people. That will help everyone. The problem right now is not default, but the sheer size of the debt. Even the $3T deal will increase debt over $15T if we keep spending $1.5T more than we take in. And who has $15T to lend us without collateral. I predict the Chinese get mineral rights to the western federal lands.

GregInFla

2. That money paying them now would be back in the pockets of the American people (or debt is retired).

gekster

Those who don’t, screw em.

No problem with me buddy.

kowalski

But I reiterate the fact that if I have to do so to make a deal that will really get this country back on a sound fiscal course, I’ll do so. I still have a few things I could liquidate and donate to the cause. Maybe a grand worth of stuff. Y’all in the political establishment can take it and have a tag sale.

On the other hand the Donks have got to stop playing this game that entitlements are off the table and can’t be adjusted or cut, like, for real. Because they can be and they should be. They’ve got all their scare tactics out there for the stupid but I guess the Donks figure they like to have the stupid on their side.

Popularity contests aren’t going to matter 20 years from now if America can’t get its fiscal affairs in order now. The rest of the world will just eat us alive. GE is moving its x-ray headquarters to China. Everyone else I know is thinking hard about getting the heck out. Fix it now or there really is no tomorrow, and it’s not going to matter how great your pale blue power tie looks on TV.

lineholder

I don’t know about Erick, but there are plenty of us out here in similar circumstances feeling the same kind of frustration. I’m way, way under the poverty limit right now. There’s plenty I would love to do, but can’t, so I know where you’re coming from on that front.

It’s just an old saying, but I keep telling myself this when things get really bad….”That which does not kill us makes us stronger”.

Stay in the fight, okay? We’re going to need every voice we can get.

lineholder

I guess I’m no different than other people in the fact that I have questions, questions and more questions. We do have to cut the size of our government, and we do have to cut entitlement spending. There is no other way.

How we go about it could make a huge amount of difference. On one hand, it could be a true opportunity to turn a lot of things around in our economy in particular, depending on how it is approached. OTOH, if it is implemented too quickly without a lot of careful consideration…

But I do thank you for taking the time to answer the questions.

GregInFla

Where the same functions are performed by state government, the federal version should be axed. That is one rule that can be used. Education is a great example. Energy may also be a target here as well.

kowalski

I’m trying to span a lot of “constituencies” here. Jesus, I probably shouldn’t say that. But the fact is that almost everyone I know wants to see a solution to this problem that really makes a dent in America’s debt and does some serious work on its debt in the future so that their children have a chance.

You know, today I was reading the Ph.D. dissertation of the guy who is mentioned on Drudge for proclaiming that we “Mght be alone in the Universe” and who proved that point mathematically. He’s an astrophysicist at Princeton and although I’m a little rusty on the equation parts of the dissertation I pretty much comfortably understand the rest of it.

A large part of his dissertation is devoted to establishing some nontrivial criteria for measuring planets that might be habitable worlds, even though they’re very tough to see with our current equipment.

That’s David Spiegel at Princeton. http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~dsp/PrincetonSite/Home.html

He talks about things that most people have absolutely no knowledge of, like: “?On Constraining nontrivial properties of Exoplanets, and Other Topics in Astrophysics?

http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~dsp/PrincetonSite/More_Astro_files/dsspiegel_phd_thesis_final.pdf

There’s a lot of fun reading in that dissertation, and I mean that sincerely. He makes a set of pretty good arguments (for Princeton, heh) and I guess he defended them pretty well. So there he is talking about nontrivial properties of Exoplanets and habitability and how we might measure it and here, on our own most-assuredly-not Exoplanet we can’t quite get the idea that exponential growth in our national debt is affecting the habitability of our COUNTRY negatively, possibly making it uninhabitable before the telescopes he talks about being built in the next 50 years even get off the drawing board.

Madre de dios!

I’m a little ashamed, I have to admit, for the profanity. I’m sorry about that. It’s a profane time, and it’s affected me more than usual.

kowalski

Reading the Ph.D. dissertations of Princeton astrophysicists while they discourse on the habitability of Exoplanets, funded by NASA grants, while at the same time we’ve got our thumbs up our butts collectively on whether or not we’re going to go broke, even though we have the ACTUAL DATA, right now.

I tell you, if that’s not the biggest joke in the human condition, I don’t know what is.

lineholder

especially where education is concerned. I was reading not long ago where WI is in the process of setting up some “virtual classrooms” via charter schools. There could be a lot of options out there that we haven’t even started considering yet, primarily because we’ve become so accustomed to the same old, same old on a federal level.

On that point, I’m really looking forward to what lies ahead.

kowalski

!

http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

And with respect to my tongue, you’re wrong. It’s a sharp keyboard. Darn thing has a mind of it’s own. And on a serious note, I can’t remember the last time I took offense at something said to me.

Now then, as to your points.

1. Sure it could be challenged in court. Might even win the first two rounds if the challenge is in the 9th Circus. I don’t see any reasonable grounds to uphold a court challenge, but I’m not an attorney. You’ll get a more comprehensive answer from one of those. I will note that there is substantial precedent in the private sector. If it does go to court I’m confident we’re on the winning side.

I will note that I wouldn’t even attempt to make the argument that the Department of Education, etal is unconstitutional, rather that we can’t afford it and the legislation would simply eliminate the function and the attendant regulations.

2. No idea how many people. At a minimum, tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands. There will certainly be a short term impact, no matter what the short term impact of the unemployment will be far better than the long term impact of leaving these parasites in place.

3. As a guy who has owned his own businesses for a long time, I have very high confidence level that small business will begin to expand as soon as it become OBVIOUS (I’m not yelling at you, just driving a point) that the federal government is being downsized and won’t be upsized again any time soon and that we have an administration that takes their fiscal responsibility seriously.

4. With respect to Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security, those agencies will be around for some foreseeable future. I firmly believe they should be privatized and the federal government should have absolutely no involvement in either healthcare or retirement however, the most reasonable solution to the problem is to pick an age and make the cutoff at that point.

With respect to the priority list, I don’t really care as long as we maximize the elimination of agencies – note: I’m not suggesting “cuts”, I’m talking “elimination”. It can’t stretch out, the actions need to be taken in a very short window, weeks not months and certainly not years.

5. Good question, no good answer, although if you eliminate enough and make the point that “old behaviors” will no longer be tolerated, that’s a good start. You can also make government adhere to GAAP, that fixes a world of bad practice.

lineholder

Like I said to Greg, I have questions and more question.

As to priorities, I was wondering if we can get O-care repealed first, let it be known that SS and Medicare/Medicaid would be privatized, throw these ideas into the private sector and let them run with it, get the juices flowing back in small businesses again…if agency elimination occurred at that point, there would be a better chance of having jobs to go to in the private sector, wouldn’t there?

I appreciate the answers, becker, so thanks.

http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

to go away. That will not, however, impact the size of the federal government directly. There aren’t currently that many people involved in overseeing it.

With respect to government employees being absorbed into the private sector, I don’t know a business owner anywhere who would hire one. From what I can see, they are generally unemployable when it comes to real jobs. Would you hire someone with a federal government job on their resume?

Frankly the only “government employees” I’d even talk to are former military and I give them preference over Ivy League grads (seriously).

lineholder

the size of the federal government, but it will take a load off the backs of business owners. If DHHS rulings continue as they have recently, this next year could do a lot of damage to our economy. Get O-care regs out of the way, and the attitude of business owners could become more optimistic relatively quickly, I think.

There are some federal employees who have marketable skills for private sector employment, just not that many of them do. I’ve worked in private sector my entire life, but I’ve worked with a few former government employees (yes, they do exist!). The biggest challenge they had was one of mindset, because there’s a huge amount of difference between the private sector view of jobs responsibilities and government view of the same.

As to your hiring former military….couldn’t help but chuckle, because my brother just retired after 21 years navy (Lt.Com.) and he got chosen for a job over Ive League grads. Seriously.

Thanks again, becker.

http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

I won’t hire government employees unless they’ve quit because they’re frustrated working for a non-productive enterprise. I’m not interested in training anybody out of a mindset when I can find anybody else.

I’m absolutely serious about hiring military. I’ll take an enlisted vet for a job that doesn’t require a technical degree – engineering, science – over any Magna Cum Laude grad of ANY college in the US. They understand how a chain of command works. They know that they’ll never have enough time or money to “do the job right”. They understand that doing something now is better than waiting for the perfect solution. And they don’t have a sense of entitlement. And that’s just for starters.

Green_Lantern

or lack thereof, is matched only by my own. Jesus, can a guy have a bad night around here?

And you bet I imagine I’m clever. It’s because I am. The reason I called for his ban is because I *legitimately* think that he is a Concern Troll. That’s an enemy.

I’m not going to give you a Democrat apology, eg “I’m sorry if you were too stupid to know what I meang.” I will give one, but I WILL qualify it.

Kowalski, if you are NOT a CT, I humbly apologize. If you were just having a bad night, as I was, I hope that you will forgive my ignorance in calling for your ban. We can have discussions around here.

As for you, powertothepeople, “I really do not care” for you and your castigation. And your use of “moronic”. There are more diplomatic ways to “come down” on somebody. Anybody can make a mistake.

I will speak my mind, on any site on the internet. And I’ll apologize when I’m wrong. Because I’m a human, and I’m a real man.

GregInFla

“Our job is ahead of us in 2012 to remove any incumbent coming up for re-election in 2012, I don?t care who they are!”

You don’t care who they are. Your words, not mine.

cordpt

You have to learn to disagree with people without questioning their motives and insulting them. Just saying. Discuss the freaking issues, not me, him or her.

I’m not pushing for capitulation – the fact that you believe anyone. I’ve explained the reasons for my position. Feel free to disagree with them. Explain why you disagree with them.

I know how meaningful budgetary reform can happen – it won’t be with Reid as the Senate Majority leader and Obama as the POTUS; it’ll arise from bipartisan commissions because that’s the only thing that can prevent the minority party (Dems) to demagogue the guys approving the cuts till electoral irrelevance and reverting the cuts once in power. So my priorities are winning in 2012 and then start a serious and credible reform (based on Coburn’s plan). Till then, the only realistic goal is to lower the CBO baseline a little bit. I have very little patience for political pantomimes. I wish some of you could hear what some of your political heros say in in private about these issues. Do you really believe that any of the “hold the line” politicians in DC is under the illusion that they can get the 2/3s of the senate votes to pass the BBA?

Those who scream “CCB or bust” are the ones pushing for capitulation and playing the game of the DC insiders they hate so much. I guess some folks will only understand this when no cuts happen in the next few games because the usual suspects found the perfect excuse: they’ll just start screaming “CCB or nothing”. And the other side will answer “anything but CCB”. They know perfectly well that the result will be “nothing” which is exactly what some may want.

As for the debt limit, I was in favour of getting rid of it when the Democrats were using it against Bush in 2007 and I have the same position now. I’ve explained why. Not raising the debt limit is never a realistic possibility (and even if it was, it’d only lead to more government spending) and I don’t know why should politicians have the right of deciding to not pay their debts. Maybe you could explain why.

cordpt

I have no idea what are those “definitions” you are talking about, but I don’t really care. Again: discuss issues, not me or someone else.

cordpt

Maybe you did. I know many folks who are now screaming “HOLD THE LINE” left and right and suggesting that some of the best conservatives in DC are RINOs who supported George W. Bush till the very end.

But me? Don’t make me laugh. I spent money and time fighting every single one of those pieces of legislation and I started calling out Bush when he was a idol over here.

Aaron Gardner

I mean, you were the only person in the world to be against Bush. All of us RiNO’s were totally snookered, but not you by God. No you were like Moses trying to lead us out of the wilderness. We are so sorry for building that golden calf, will you please forgive us and lead us to the Promise Land?

Please?

cordpt

Heh, not really, it’s comical.

Anyway, as a friendly reminder, I don’t reply to that type of comments. G’bye.

acat

Get your own catchphrase.

And stay the {pock} away from mine.

Mew

p.s. Replying to your point – red state and elsewhere, conservatives were rather .. opposed to some of W’s policies. Elsewise we’d have Supreme Court Justice Harriet Miers and a new amnesty. Really, cordpt .. Aaron is right here.

cordpt

I’ve used “g’bye” for the longest times, but I’ll try to remember not using it here.

As for the issue, here’s a quick way of finding out who’s right: show me a single diary or comment opposing one of the increases in the debt limit that happened under Bush. A single one. Heck, give me a paragraph. A sentence.

Aaron Gardner

Why don’t you man up and answer the question?

jerry39

Against well placed sarcasm..

You’ve got to take a look at your threads in context cordpt.

Quick summary:

Cordpt: blah blah capitulate.

Anyman: I disagree

Cordpt: Don’t get personal focus on the issues.

Cordpt: By the way I was way smarter than you guys back in the bush days, hence I must be correct on the issues.

Cordpt: Double by the way – Tom Coburn agrees with me too so I must be right on the issues.

Anyman: [sarcastically] Wow, didn’t realize how smart you were back in 06, I guess you must be right on the issues.

Cordpt: You are disturbingly obsessed, and I am above personal attacks so I will not respond.

So I guess my points are 1) Sarcasm is not hate speech. 2) When you tell people how brilliant you are, you kind of bring personality into the equation, and 3) it does reflect on the sincerity of your argument when you claim to adhere to standards that you jettison from one post to the next, as it does when you demonstrate a pattern of dodging the tough questions in favor of moving the goal posts around the field.

cordpt

Discuss me all you want, but nobody cares… I certainly don’t.

acat

http://archive.redstate.com/story/2006/5/7/05051/02039#comment-287508

That took about two minutes using google.

I leave the tell in your reply to Aaron’s tender mercies.

Mew

jerry39

Its about discussing with you and if there is any point to it. If you cannot acknowledge the incongruity of your arguments – discussion becomes a circle of various defense mechanisms from which neither side benefits.

I have been wrong before and I have learned a lot on RS. I could be wrong on this issue. I have been booted from RS twice since 06 when I started coming around. Once I probably deserved and once I don’t think I did. Both times, I think the perception was that I was entrenched on the wrong side of an issue beyond reason or argument. That I spoke from emotion and//or entrenched ideology and was not open to legitimate debate.

If you are really interested in discussing issues then you must acknowledge your bad arguments when they are pointed out, maybe apologize when you call someone disturbed and obsessed while holding yourself out to be the model of cordiality. If you just move on to post the same argument that you refuse to defend somewhere else – you cannot learn anything, and you waste people’s time.

cordpt

There was indeed a single comment about it. Kudos to Siberian. Obviously, the diary is certainly worth a reading:

Get over it, because there is a much bigger fish to fry than the smaller issue of fiscal discipline. Get over it!

Ahahaha.

So yeah, let’s just not pretend that 4 years ago everybody was siding with the Dems against Bush’s request to raise the debt limit.

snowshooze

We might as well get something..
All welfare and UI receipients.. 20 hours of each week to the state in exchange…
But that is communism. Eventual assimilation…Union conflict at the outset…prison labor…
And the flip side is..
You best be careful and wed a hard worker…and just snuff him out if his eyes wander, and if you lose your job you best get rolling.
I like the second one. That is the way I do it. And yes, my Darling Wife does bite.
I collected unemployment a couple times. Paid in more than I ever got by now for sure.
Now, as an Employer, I am without a net. ( Not that I care )
Employers do not qualify for UI ( Unless they employ themselves )

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Here’s my prediction

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL