WaPo on the REAL power shuffle in the WH - New England Patriots Forums

PatsFanInVa · 06-08-2011, 08:54 PM

Treasury’s Timothy Geithner finds his footing - The Washington Post

Geithner and the deficit hawks oust Summers and the stimulus crowd. Essentially they describe stimulus as an antibiotic, and he describes it as a lollypop.

Hence the about-face, matching the "we heard the voters loud and clear" Obama stance since last year. The only diff between being in the WH and being in the Tea Party is that if you want to cut deficits and you're in the WH, you have to do the math -- how many of the newly destitute do you have to pick up in another program; how do you increase revenues; how do you continue the recovery; etc.

Dissapointing from a Keynesian perspective. But you guys oughtta take heart that a wall street republican is running the show.

PFnV

***patsfan13*** · 06-08-2011, 10:04 PM

You wouldn't know it from Obama's fanatical refusal to cut spending or even discuss entitlement reform as he moves into campaign demagogue mode.

PatsFanInVa · 06-08-2011, 11:39 PM

Got a link to Obama taking spending cuts off the table, like the GOP leadership has tried repeatedly to take tax increases off the table?

Boehner: Tax Hikes Are Off The Table

Big spending cuts in Obama debt plan - Apr. 13, 2011

Quote:

The whole plan, which includes reforms to the tax code, as well as entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid, would cut $4 trillion in deficits. (Read the speech here.)

Quote:

"We will make the tough cuts necessary to achieve these savings, including in programs I care about, but I will not sacrifice the core investments we need to grow and create jobs," Obama said Wednesday.

So more accurately, Obama will cut spending, and Boehner will not accept his cuts.

What I see is Obama accepting the need to cut, and the GOP complaining. They don't have a policy, they have tantrums.

PFnV

chicowalker · 06-09-2011, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

You wouldn't know it from Obama's fanatical refusal to cut spending or even discuss entitlement reform as he moves into campaign demagogue mode.

If it's a pubbie he's a "strong leader," following his "mandate"

If it's a dem, he's "fanatical" and a "demagogue"

What's it like having absolutely zero objectivity? or can you not answer that because you're so blinded?

***DarrylS*** · 06-09-2011, 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

You wouldn't know it from Obama's fanatical refusal to cut spending or even discuss entitlement reform as he moves into campaign demagogue mode.

Even better if they closely examined the bloated budgets of the military and homeland security.. then looked at how and to whom we distribute foreign aid.

More money does not equal better anything.. except more contractors on the dole. More contractors taking taxpayer dollars and using that money to lobby.. the circle becomes complete.

PatriotsReign · 06-09-2011, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa

Treasury’s Timothy Geithner finds his footing - The Washington Post

Geithner and the deficit hawks oust Summers and the stimulus crowd. Essentially they describe stimulus as an antibiotic, and he describes it as a lollypop.

Hence the about-face, matching the "we heard the voters loud and clear" Obama stance since last year. The only diff between being in the WH and being in the Tea Party is that if you want to cut deficits and you're in the WH, you have to do the math -- how many of the newly destitute do you have to pick up in another program; how do you increase revenues; how do you continue the recovery; etc.

Dissapointing from a Keynesian perspective. But you guys oughtta take heart that a wall street republican is running the show.

PFnV

You're right....I LIKE it!! Good for America!

PatsFanInVa · 06-09-2011, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarrylS

Even better if they closely examined the bloated budgets of the military and homeland security.. then looked at how and to whom we distribute foreign aid.

More money does not equal better anything.. except more contractors on the dole. More contractors taking taxpayer dollars and using that money to lobby.. the circle becomes complete.

Read the New Yorker article on third country nationals we're using in service positions in Iraq...

TCN

This is just a summary... I dunno if the article's available on-line. It was in last week's I believe.

Basically, we don't regulate the KBRs of the world when they go out and do deals with little mini-agencies in the third world. They then charge hundreds or thousands of dollars to the worker-bee, promising they'll make it up fast because jobs are so well-paid. Then the worker-bee ends up getting 300 bucks a month, not the 3000 they tell them they'll get... and live in shipping containers, get physically/sexually abused... etc.

Now, this isn't so we get the labor cheap. It's so KBR et al. get the labor cheap. The diff between what it takes to get the worker and what they charge the DOD, of course, is pure profit for the prime contractor.

And they get to operate outside of our labor law jurisdiction, with no requirement from us that they get in line.

So, off they go, charging the worker 1000 bucks, spending nothing on the upkeep of the worker, and only paying them 300 bucks a month once they're in place... hell, the first three months is freaking free.

And ya wonder why people around the world don't think we're protecting their freedom.

Of course, this is the face of freedom, if you ask the righties. After all, telling someone the truth about promised pay, protecting workers from harsh conditions, and all the rest, fall under labor rules --- which of course are the product of those nefarious unions.

Look at our TCNs in Iraq. That's what the right wants in America.

That's "Freedom."

PFnV

PatriotsReign · 06-09-2011, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa

Read the New Yorker article on third country nationals we're using in service positions in Iraq...

TCN

This is just a summary... I dunno if the article's available on-line. It was in last week's I believe.

Basically, we don't regulate the KBRs of the world when they go out and do deals with little mini-agencies in the third world. They then charge hundreds or thousands of dollars to the worker-bee, promising they'll make it up fast because jobs are so well-paid. Then the worker-bee ends up getting 300 bucks a month, not the 3000 they tell them they'll get... and live in shipping containers, get physically/sexually abused... etc.

Now, this isn't so we get the labor cheap. It's so KBR et al. get the labor cheap. The diff between what it takes to get the worker and what they charge the DOD, of course, is pure profit for the prime contractor.

And they get to operate outside of our labor law jurisdiction, with no requirement from us that they get in line.

So, off they go, charging the worker 1000 bucks, spending nothing on the upkeep of the worker, and only paying them 300 bucks a month once they're in place... hell, the first three months is freaking free.

And ya wonder why people around the world don't think we're protecting their freedom.

Of course, this is the face of freedom, if you ask the righties. After all, telling someone the truth about promised pay, protecting workers from harsh conditions, and all the rest, fall under labor rules --- which of course are the product of those nefarious unions.

Look at our TCNs in Iraq. That's what the right wants in America.

That's "Freedom."

PFnV

I believe cutting military spending is something Americans can agree upon across party-lines. I'm referring to REAL Americans, not our politicians.

Let's cut the crap now...WTF are we fighting for? Oh, I forgot, it's to keep the workers at the ammunitions factories working, isn't it?

I can imagine some of Obama's advisors warning him that if he cuts military spending, it will put Americans out of work. What I can NOT imagine is that Obama would actually care about that.

PatsFanInVa · 06-09-2011, 02:04 PM

Hey, military contracting is just like any other public-sector-supported program in that regard:

IF you're talking about making munitions, you will lost that chunk of employment associated with making munitions.

But when you look at the subs to KBR et al. they're from third world countries, so you're only looking at Asian unemployment impacts from that particular bit.

Now, what people are missing right now is that it is true that we're still looking at years of recovery from the 2008 collapse.

Evidently Obama has bought the idea that the debt question has to be front and center NOW. Okay, then let's deal with debt NOW.

And let's do it as smartly as possible, within the paradigm of cutting off further supports to the economy.

And no, that doesn't mean turning medicare into a coupon book, at least not by my lights.

But reducing military adventurism? Yeah I can get behind that. How about shaping our armed forces to fight in quick deployments, in support of intel work, like you need against non-state actors? How about we scale back our international carrier group presence by 2?

I mean, being part of this particular empire, it scares me to talk about the latter. But I'm pretty sure we're going to be more engaged in fighting against asymetric threats for the foreseeable future than any head-on rival.

But now you're getting it: all those military expenditures that happen here in the U.S. are dug in. What happens to Newport News/Norfolk down here, or New Britain (right?) up there, if we don't need the Navy's biz? What happens to every district in the nation, and what happens to their congressmen, if we de-fund most of what we make for the military now?

Well, we better figure it out, if we're concerned with debt NOW. Question: since we're hard-pressed to get back a million jobs when eight million have been lost, is it smart to think all these things can or should happen overnight, whether you're talking about cutting loose the unemployed, cutting the military in half, or whatever?

But we're in a good mood, right NOW, to make sure we do that. Because, well, you know, the debt ceiling can't be raised this time, even though it has been dozens of times as an almost routine exercise.

::shrug::

Nice we've noticed, NOW, that we've been deficit spending for 230 years.

Let's fix it all RIGHT NOW.

oh by the way, you can't.

But I'm all for going back to dominici-rivlin or bowles-simpson (rather than this a la carte bullcrap.)

Do it right - raise revenues, impose austerity, and do it fairly (or at least w/some semblance of fairness.) THat's all I personally ever asked of this idiotic exercise. Not that it make sense, because we seem bound and determined to make zero sense in terms of the timing. But that it be a fairly distributed insanity, not an assault on the poor, the old, and in general those who are most in need of their countrymen's goodwill.

PFnV

PatriotsReign · 06-09-2011, 03:21 PM

As long as we don't raise taxes on the middle class, I'm all for it!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa

Hey, military contracting is just like any other public-sector-supported program in that regard:

IF you're talking about making munitions, you will lost that chunk of employment associated with making munitions.

But when you look at the subs to KBR et al. they're from third world countries, so you're only looking at Asian unemployment impacts from that particular bit.

Now, what people are missing right now is that it is true that we're still looking at years of recovery from the 2008 collapse.

Evidently Obama has bought the idea that the debt question has to be front and center NOW. Okay, then let's deal with debt NOW.

And let's do it as smartly as possible, within the paradigm of cutting off further supports to the economy.

And no, that doesn't mean turning medicare into a coupon book, at least not by my lights.

But reducing military adventurism? Yeah I can get behind that. How about shaping our armed forces to fight in quick deployments, in support of intel work, like you need against non-state actors? How about we scale back our international carrier group presence by 2?

I mean, being part of this particular empire, it scares me to talk about the latter. But I'm pretty sure we're going to be more engaged in fighting against asymetric threats for the foreseeable future than any head-on rival.

But now you're getting it: all those military expenditures that happen here in the U.S. are dug in. What happens to Newport News/Norfolk down here, or New Britain (right?) up there, if we don't need the Navy's biz? What happens to every district in the nation, and what happens to their congressmen, if we de-fund most of what we make for the military now?

Well, we better figure it out, if we're concerned with debt NOW. Question: since we're hard-pressed to get back a million jobs when eight million have been lost, is it smart to think all these things can or should happen overnight, whether you're talking about cutting loose the unemployed, cutting the military in half, or whatever?

But we're in a good mood, right NOW, to make sure we do that. Because, well, you know, the debt ceiling can't be raised this time, even though it has been dozens of times as an almost routine exercise.

::shrug::

Nice we've noticed, NOW, that we've been deficit spending for 230 years.

Let's fix it all RIGHT NOW.

oh by the way, you can't.

But I'm all for going back to dominici-rivlin or bowles-simpson (rather than this a la carte bullcrap.)

Do it right - raise revenues, impose austerity, and do it fairly (or at least w/some semblance of fairness.) THat's all I personally ever asked of this idiotic exercise. Not that it make sense, because we seem bound and determined to make zero sense in terms of the timing. But that it be a fairly distributed insanity, not an assault on the poor, the old, and in general those who are most in need of their countrymen's goodwill.

PFnV