Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

So, t-minus 7 days and counting until the continuing resolution expires. If Congress can't agree to another continuing resolution or a full budget by midnight 4 March, many federal employees (myself included) go on unpaid furlough until they can reach an agreement.

I've been following the latest debate on the budget intently, as I would sort of like to get my next paycheck after March 4th. Basically, Republicans in the House are proposing a two-week resolution with $4B in cuts. The Dems are adamant that any resolution be passed at current levels, so they're rejecting it right out. Both sides are being grandstanding bitches, as usual.

The last furlough was in 1995/6 for 21 days and the furloughed employees had their pay retroactively restored. There is less certainty that that would be the case this time around with a freshman class of Tea Partiers and a general sentiment of "screw the feds" seeming to permeate the country. I'm all for smaller government, but I really hope the Tea Partiers don't use my family as a pawn in their game.

THE RENT IS TOO DAMNED HIGH!

I don't think the returning Congresspeople get it. The Tea Party and a number of other newly elected congresspeople were elected to stop the wasteful spending of Washington. The #'s most of them threw out there were slashing $100B off the budget. Now the current # is around $61B and the existing stone & mortar guys are saying the new breed won't compromise?!?

If the Republicans were to get their way, that's a whole lot of demand removed from the economy. Might not be the best time to make cuts. Then again, when is?

Goldman Sees Danger in US Budget Cuts
The Republican plan to slash government spending by $61bn in 2011 could reduce US economic growth by 1.5 to 2 percentage points in the second and third quarters of the year, a Goldman Sachs economist has warned.

The note from Alec Phillips, a forecaster based in Washington, was seized in the ongoing US budget fight by Democrats as validating their argument that the legislation approved by the Republican-led House of Representatives last Saturday would do significant damage to the US recovery.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/41753958/Goldman ... udget_Cuts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

kalm wrote:If the Republicans were to get their way, that's a whole lot of demand removed from the economy. Might not be the best time to make cuts. Then again, when is?

Goldman Sees Danger in US Budget Cuts
The Republican plan to slash government spending by $61bn in 2011 could reduce US economic growth by 1.5 to 2 percentage points in the second and third quarters of the year, a Goldman Sachs economist has warned.

The note from Alec Phillips, a forecaster based in Washington, was seized in the ongoing US budget fight by Democrats as validating their argument that the legislation approved by the Republican-led House of Representatives last Saturday would do significant damage to the US recovery.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/41753958/Goldman ... udget_Cuts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'll take it that you would have a National Sarcasm logo right next to a post giving any kind of credence to a Goldman Sachs analysis. Watch the movie Inside Job and tell me that they're a credible source....

bluehenbillk wrote:

kalm wrote:If the Republicans were to get their way, that's a whole lot of demand removed from the economy. Might not be the best time to make cuts. Then again, when is?

I'll take it that you would have a National Sarcasm logo right next to a post giving any kind of credence to a Goldman Sachs analysis. Watch the movie Inside Job and tell me that they're a credible source....

In case you haven't read any of my posts, I'm not a huge fan of G.S. I would watch Inside Job but I'm not into crime dramas or stuff that makes me sad.

bluehenbillk wrote:I don't think the returning Congresspeople get it. The Tea Party and a number of other newly elected congresspeople were elected to stop the wasteful spending of Washington. The #'s most of them threw out there were slashing $100B off the budget. Now the current # is around $61B and the existing stone & mortar guys are saying the new breed won't compromise?!?

Exactly. Republicans had pledged to cut 100 billion from discretionary non security spending to simply return to 08' levels, and then they passed a bill that only cuts 61 billion that's gets us only down to what? 09' levels? I've already e-mailed and written my newly elected R congressman expressing my displeasure at the smaller cuts. The R's have already comprimised. If the donks won't then its apparent they want a shutdown to try to score political points against the Rs like in 95'. Not gonna work this time. The House has passed a budget. If the donk controlled Senate and Whitehouse fail to this shutdown is on them.

bluehenbillk wrote:I don't think the returning Congresspeople get it. The Tea Party and a number of other newly elected congresspeople were elected to stop the wasteful spending of Washington. The #'s most of them threw out there were slashing $100B off the budget. Now the current # is around $61B and the existing stone & mortar guys are saying the new breed won't compromise?!?

imagine that - nobody is listening to a bunch of newly-elected and likely "one and done" teabaggers... hardly surprising...

freshmen in congress matter less than freshmen on a football team... you sit on the bench and learn how the game is played. some of these tea baggers are like that loud freshman who runs his mouth about how good he is... then they scrimmage him with the varsity and he gets it handed to him.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

bluehenbillk wrote:I don't think the returning Congresspeople get it. The Tea Party and a number of other newly elected congresspeople were elected to stop the wasteful spending of Washington. The #'s most of them threw out there were slashing $100B off the budget. Now the current # is around $61B and the existing stone & mortar guys are saying the new breed won't compromise?!?

imagine that - nobody is listening to a bunch of newly-elected and likely "one and done" teabaggers... hardly surprising...

freshmen in congress matter less than freshmen on a football team... you sit on the bench and learn how the game is played. some of these tea baggers are like that loud freshman who runs his mouth about how good he is... then they scrimmage him with the varsity and he gets it handed to him.

Seriously, is that how you want your government run? So basically no responsiveness to recent elections, just follow the path of the entrenched Congressmen and Senators who, due to either gerrymandering or massive porkbarrelling or family name, don't ever have to worry about a contested election so they do whatever they want? Did you forget to put a sarcasm emoticon in there or, more concerningly, do you really believe what you wrote?

GannonFan wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
imagine that - nobody is listening to a bunch of newly-elected and likely "one and done" teabaggers... hardly surprising...

freshmen in congress matter less than freshmen on a football team... you sit on the bench and learn how the game is played. some of these tea baggers are like that loud freshman who runs his mouth about how good he is... then they scrimmage him with the varsity and he gets it handed to him.

Seriously, is that how you want your government run? So basically no responsiveness to recent elections, just follow the path of the entrenched Congressmen and Senators who, due to either gerrymandering or massive porkbarrelling or family name, don't ever have to worry about a contested election so they do whatever they want? Did you forget to put a sarcasm emoticon in there or, more concerningly, do you really believe what you wrote?

i believe the true genius of our system is that it's designed to specifically prevent lurching from one direction to another...

some responsiveness is all well and good... but lurching too far in either direction as a result of one election is a recipe for disaster.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Seriously, is that how you want your government run? So basically no responsiveness to recent elections, just follow the path of the entrenched Congressmen and Senators who, due to either gerrymandering or massive porkbarrelling or family name, don't ever have to worry about a contested election so they do whatever they want? Did you forget to put a sarcasm emoticon in there or, more concerningly, do you really believe what you wrote?

i believe the true genius of our system is that it's designed to specifically prevent lurching from one direction to another...

some responsiveness is all well and good... but lurching too far in either direction as a result of one election is a recipe for disaster.

So the already in place 6 year terms for Senators, the even representation by state in the Senate, the veto power of the President, and countless other Constitutional devices that actually are there to prevent the country from lurching too much from one direction to another are not enough in your opinion? We need to muzzle freshmen in the legislature for a couple of years before we let them be part of the legislative process so they can learn, as you said, "how the game is played"? Not a very pretty picture of government you paint there.

GannonFan wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
i believe the true genius of our system is that it's designed to specifically prevent lurching from one direction to another...

some responsiveness is all well and good... but lurching too far in either direction as a result of one election is a recipe for disaster.

So the already in place 6 year terms for Senators, the even representation by state in the Senate, the veto power of the President, and countless other Constitutional devices that actually are there to prevent the country from lurching too much from one direction to another are not enough in your opinion? We need to muzzle freshmen in the legislature for a couple of years before we let them be part of the legislative process so they can learn, as you said, "how the game is played"? Not a very pretty picture of government you paint there.

you don't let the rookies run the team... simple as that.

BDKJMU wrote:

bluehenbillk wrote:I don't think the returning Congresspeople get it. The Tea Party and a number of other newly elected congresspeople were elected to stop the wasteful spending of Washington. The #'s most of them threw out there were slashing $100B off the budget. Now the current # is around $61B and the existing stone & mortar guys are saying the new breed won't compromise?!?

Exactly. Republicans had pledged to cut 100 billion from discretionary non security spending to simply return to 08' levels, and then they passed a bill that only cuts 61 billion that's gets us only down to what? 09' levels? I've already e-mailed and written my newly elected R congressman expressing my displeasure at the smaller cuts. The R's have already comprimised. If the donks won't then its apparent they want a shutdown to try to score political points against the Rs like in 95'. Not gonna work this time. The House has passed a budget. If the donk controlled Senate and Whitehouse fail to this shutdown is on them.

What I don't get is why everyone is scared to touch defense spending. I get entitlements, God forbid they may not get re-elected by doing the right thing. But, defense spending needs to be cut desperately.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
So the already in place 6 year terms for Senators, the even representation by state in the Senate, the veto power of the President, and countless other Constitutional devices that actually are there to prevent the country from lurching too much from one direction to another are not enough in your opinion? We need to muzzle freshmen in the legislature for a couple of years before we let them be part of the legislative process so they can learn, as you said, "how the game is played"? Not a very pretty picture of government you paint there.

you don't let the rookies run the team... simple as that.

Gosh - then we need to rethink who we elect to be President then, don't we? I mean, he is the leader when it comes down to it. Gotta start thinking up stipulations of who can be President, you know, well beyond just the whole Constitutional ones. How long should they have been in Washington? How many committees should they have headed? Thankfully we'll be able to do away with these guys who have just been governors or who held other posts - generals, ambassadors, members of the Cabinet, etc. I mean, they haven't been truly indoctrinated in "how the game is played".

kalm wrote:If the Republicans were to get their way, that's a whole lot of demand removed from the economy. Might not be the best time to make cuts. Then again, when is?

Goldman Sees Danger in US Budget Cuts
The Republican plan to slash government spending by $61bn in 2011 could reduce US economic growth by 1.5 to 2 percentage points in the second and third quarters of the year, a Goldman Sachs economist has warned.

The note from Alec Phillips, a forecaster based in Washington, was seized in the ongoing US budget fight by Democrats as validating their argument that the legislation approved by the Republican-led House of Representatives last Saturday would do significant damage to the US recovery.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/41753958/Goldman ... udget_Cuts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You mean Goldman, the scourge of the earth There must be a dollar in it for them somewhere

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
So the already in place 6 year terms for Senators, the even representation by state in the Senate, the veto power of the President, and countless other Constitutional devices that actually are there to prevent the country from lurching too much from one direction to another are not enough in your opinion? We need to muzzle freshmen in the legislature for a couple of years before we let them be part of the legislative process so they can learn, as you said, "how the game is played"? Not a very pretty picture of government you paint there.

you don't let the rookies run the team... simple as that.

Well the donks sure did with Obama.

ASUMountaineer wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:
Exactly. Republicans had pledged to cut 100 billion from discretionary non security spending to simply return to 08' levels, and then they passed a bill that only cuts 61 billion that's gets us only down to what? 09' levels? I've already e-mailed and written my newly elected R congressman expressing my displeasure at the smaller cuts. The R's have already comprimised. If the donks won't then its apparent they want a shutdown to try to score political points against the Rs like in 95'. Not gonna work this time. The House has passed a budget. If the donk controlled Senate and Whitehouse fail to this shutdown is on them.

What I don't get is why everyone is scared to touch defense spending. I get entitlements, God forbid they may not get re-elected by doing the right thing. But, defense spending needs to be cut desperately.

NEEDS to be cut?

That doesn't rise to the level of a need, ASU. You might think it OUGHT to be cut, but that's decidedly not the same thing as a need.

In fact, given the current state of readiness (a two-front war and multiple little fires to put out on several continents), cutting defense IMO is the LAST thing we should be doing. We already have burned out people getting sent back for more before they're ready. It's little wonder that people are coming back and screwing up as soon as they get home. The military should have MORE people and tools, not less.

SuperHornet wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:
What I don't get is why everyone is scared to touch defense spending. I get entitlements, God forbid they may not get re-elected by doing the right thing. But, defense spending needs to be cut desperately.

NEEDS to be cut?

That doesn't rise to the level of a need, ASU. You might think it OUGHT to be cut, but that's decidedly not the same thing as a need.

In fact, given the current state of readiness (a two-front war and multiple little fires to put out on several continents), cutting defense IMO is the LAST thing we should be doing. We already have burned out people getting sent back for more before they're ready. It's little wonder that people are coming back and screwing up as soon as they get home. The military should have MORE people and tools, not less.

bull. shit.

every facet of government, every expense ought to come under the same damn microscope. "is it working?" if no, can it be fixed? if no, give it the axe... in tough times the belt tightening should not have sacred cows...

the millions we waste on sponsoring NASCAR teams and $500,000 flyovers of sporting events would be a nice start to the cuts.

SuperHornet wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:
What I don't get is why everyone is scared to touch defense spending. I get entitlements, God forbid they may not get re-elected by doing the right thing. But, defense spending needs to be cut desperately.

NEEDS to be cut?

That doesn't rise to the level of a need, ASU. You might think it OUGHT to be cut, but that's decidedly not the same thing as a need.

In fact, given the current state of readiness (a two-front war and multiple little fires to put out on several continents), cutting defense IMO is the LAST thing we should be doing. We already have burned out people getting sent back for more before they're ready. It's little wonder that people are coming back and screwing up as soon as they get home. The military should have MORE people and tools, not less.

I disagree wholeheartedly. We have to make cuts somewhere, correct? There's not enough "non-defense discretionary spending" available to make the necessary cuts. I think there OUGHT to be cuts across the board. However, there is a lot of wasteful spending that NEEDS to be cut in the defense budget. You may think we OUGHT to continue spending vastly more amounts on defense than every country in the world, but I would argue we don't NEED to. (See, I can do that too)

SH, if the Secretary of fokking Defense thinks cuts need to be made, then you're fighting an uphill battle here.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:
NEEDS to be cut?

That doesn't rise to the level of a need, ASU. You might think it OUGHT to be cut, but that's decidedly not the same thing as a need.

In fact, given the current state of readiness (a two-front war and multiple little fires to put out on several continents), cutting defense IMO is the LAST thing we should be doing. We already have burned out people getting sent back for more before they're ready. It's little wonder that people are coming back and screwing up as soon as they get home. The military should have MORE people and tools, not less.

bull. ****.

every facet of government, every expense ought to come under the same damn microscope. "is it working?" if no, can it be fixed? if no, give it the axe... in tough times the belt tightening should not have sacred cows...

the millions we waste on sponsoring NASCAR teams and $500,000 flyovers of sporting events would be a nice start to the cuts.

I take it you're objecting to my second paragraph, TTBF.

My point applies IFF we continue using our military at the rate at which we have been. If we cut back the missions, though, a fiduciary cutback would then be plausible. The problem is that continued cutbacks without similar cutbacks in missions will eventually result in a dead military, at which point the Commies or the Bin Ladens or whoever will take us at will. Do you really want that?

SuperHornet wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
bull. ****.

every facet of government, every expense ought to come under the same damn microscope. "is it working?" if no, can it be fixed? if no, give it the axe... in tough times the belt tightening should not have sacred cows...

the millions we waste on sponsoring NASCAR teams and $500,000 flyovers of sporting events would be a nice start to the cuts.

I take it you're objecting to my second paragraph, TTBF.

My point applies IFF we continue using our military at the rate at which we have been. If we cut back the missions, though, a fiduciary cutback would then be plausible. The problem is that continued cutbacks without similar cutbacks in missions will eventually result in a dead military, at which point the Commies or the Bin Ladens or whoever will take us at will. Do you really want that?

wow...

we haven't cut defense spending in this country since 1994... hell, we barely hold the Pentagon accountable at ALL.

we could cut defense spending very responsibly without jeopardizing force readiness, mission success or future r&d for weapons, tactics, technology or training.

BDKJMU wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
you don't let the rookies run the team... simple as that.

Well the donks sure did with Obama.

Ding ding ding...and the rookies had their way in 2008, too. It's just like "compromise". When Donks are in control, legislation gets crammed down our throats with very little or no say so from the republicans. When the Republicans are in control, we all need to "compromise" and work in a "bipartisan" manner.

93henfan wrote:The last furlough was in 1995/6 for 21 days and the furloughed employees had their pay retroactively restored.

Mrs89 was fondly remembering that last night. Nothing like a few extra weeks of vacation!

TTBF: You care to explain how that's even possible given current OPTEMPO? The military is even cutting PRD windows to two freaking months to save PCS travel costs AS WE SPEAK. They're trying. But unless and untill missions get cut, spending HAS to increase. You gotta remember medical costs for people who get hurt, ammo and equipment replacement, maintenance, and a zillion other things. Do you really want a late-Soviet-era type military where people cannibalize equipment for spare parts, with vehicles literally rusting out from under people and ships sitting at the pier not training to do the jobs they're there for? That's the end result of what you're asking.

The problem with our government as it stands is that they live in la-la land. They SAY they're going to cut defense spending, then the poop hits the fan, causing secondary spending bills to cover it, and wonder why the defense budget ballooned.