Fed Budget Cuts

poopshovel wrote: Oh, so political threads are cool again? My bad OP.

So far this is an economic thread. Small distinction to be sure, but so long as everyone continues to play nice and discuss the issue without being skull-hammering douches it'll stay up.

Please, no baiting, even if you're a master of it.

jg

JG Pasterjak wrote:

poopshovel wrote: Oh, so political threads are cool again? My bad OP.

So far this is an economic thread. Small distinction to be sure, but so long as everyone continues to play nice and discuss the issue without being skull-hammering douches it'll stay up. Please, no baiting, even if you're a master of it. jg

GO AWAY 'BAITIN.....

The most frustrating part to me is that the budget is going up, there are no real cuts, only reductions in certain areas. And it's such a tiny number compared to the overall budget.

The shame here is that it would be relatively simple to reallocate funds from other projects. But of course that would mean someone having to actually do their job. And don't even get me started about not having an actual budget again....

Around here our town practically runs on the government, and these guys have already been told they are all going to get hurt. This is absolutely absurd as the entire amount is less than many projects they've threated to cancel because of it.

To top it off, this is nothing, the real issue is coming at the end of this month...

This is like an F1 team saying we have to cut our budget by leaving off a dozen wheel nuts, but instead we're going to load up on the catering and shut the team down. It's all crazy.

JG Pasterjak wrote:

poopshovel wrote: Oh, so political threads are cool again? My bad OP.

So far this is an economic thread. Small distinction to be sure, but so long as everyone continues to play nice and discuss the issue without being skull-hammering douches it'll stay up. Please, no baiting, even if you're a master of it. jg

Really dude? The "baiting" was in the first post. If you listen to/watch the news, it's obviously an extremely heated political issue.

I posted a link to a Supreme Court case that had NOTHING to do with politics a few months ago and was berkeleying lambasted, at which point I "reported" myself, asked that the thread be locked, because it pissed other people off, and still got the old "sitting in your basement...mommy didn't hug me" E36 M3 from the queen.

I'm trying to follow the rules, dude, and I think this has been a WAAAAAAY better place without the political threads (cars, bacon, and babies make me happy. Politics makes me and everybody else angry,) but saying "Hey you berkeleying basement-dwelling, masturbating, Oedipus Complex having losers: Be respectful and don't egg each other on or talk condescendingly to one another." Sends a bit of a mixed message, don't you think?

I dunno. Maybe mommy really didn't hug me enough. Will you be my new mommy, jay jizzle?

Baiters gonna Bait

Drip drip drip.

It is a heated political issue. I was hoping we could discuss it without those overtones, since that seems like it would be a worthwhile discussion. And that's largely what this thread has been . There were a few clear flounder attempts, but no one took the bait, and for that I was rather proud.

At any given time there's up to four people moderating this board. Decisions are pretty much based on how that individual feels at the time he or she sees the potentially offending thread. I wish it was more consistent than that, but we get into moods, too.

Personally, I'm always inclined to let "controversial" topics live, even when they contain heated discussion. If someone doesn't like it, they can read another thread. But when things devole off-subject and get snipey, I'll lock it up.

All I'm asking is that everyone play nice. If you want to provoke someone, provoke them with an idea, not an insult.

jg

poopshovel wrote:

JG Pasterjak wrote:

poopshovel wrote: Oh, so political threads are cool again? My bad OP.

So far this is an economic thread. Small distinction to be sure, but so long as everyone continues to play nice and discuss the issue without being skull-hammering douches it'll stay up. Please, no baiting, even if you're a master of it. jg

Really dude? The "baiting" was in the first post. If you listen to/watch the news, it's obviously an extremely heated political issue. I posted a link to a Supreme Court case that had NOTHING to do with politics a few months ago and was berkeleying lambasted, at which point I "reported" myself, asked that the thread be locked, because it pissed other people off, and still got the old "sitting in your basement...mommy didn't hug me" E36 M3 from the queen. I'm trying to follow the rules, dude, and I think this has been a WAAAAAAY better place without the political threads (cars, bacon, and babies make me happy. Politics makes me and everybody else angry,) but saying "Hey you berkeleying basement-dwelling, masturbating, Oedipus Complex having losers: Be respectful and don't egg each other on or talk condescendingly to one another." Sends a bit of a mixed message, don't you think? I dunno. Maybe mommy really didn't hug me enough. Will you be my new mommy, jay jizzle?

ever think maybe just not participating in a thread that you don't like might be a good solution to your problems?

back on topic: this is all a bunch of targeted and fabricated outrage. the talking heads on tv and the politicians responsible for it seem to be the only people that are getting all worked up over it... and that makes it all worthwhile..

The Blue Angels...

This is what they cut.. The Blue Angels..

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/01/17149624-military-spending-cuts-ground-blue-angels-thunderbirds?lite

Nope... Lets not just trim some of the extras..

They are going to cut stuff just to piss people off hoping you will give in....

all this over a reduction in the increase...

yup.. they will go after the visible stuff that is intended to build outrage in the general public instead of the stuff that actually needs to be cut back.. that article says the Blue Angels costs $40 million a year- that's nothing compared to the PR and goodwill that they get out of it.

i think they could save that by telling the president that he has to take one less vacation this year.

JG Pasterjak wrote: If someone doesn't like it, they can read another thread. jg

Pardon?

This is what a whole bunch of us were saying the first time the "no political threads" thing came up and we were shot down mightily.

That being said, I do find this discussion enlightening. The Canadian media is good at simply parroting the US media.

Shawn

EastCoastMojo wrote: Baiters gonna Bait

Well you summed up my teenage years nicely.

ronholm wrote: The Blue Angels... This is what they cut.. The Blue Angels.. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/01/17149624-military-spending-cuts-ground-blue-angels-thunderbirds?lite Nope... Lets not just trim some of the extras.. They are going to cut stuff just to piss people off hoping you will give in.... all this over a reduction in the increase...

The nightly news talking heads said the Thunderbirds are grounded too.....

Ranger50 wrote:

ronholm wrote: The Blue Angels... This is what they cut.. The Blue Angels.. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/01/17149624-military-spending-cuts-ground-blue-angels-thunderbirds?lite Nope... Lets not just trim some of the extras.. They are going to cut stuff just to piss people off hoping you will give in.... all this over a reduction in the increase...

The nightly news talking heads said the Thunderbirds are grounded too.....

You know, I really don't have a problem with this. We, as a country, have been spending money at an alarming rate. Anything to curtail it is a good thing in my book. I just wish the cuts had been even larger. Say, 25%+ rather than the pittance we got.

It needs to be painful for everyone. I won't mind sending in that tax check next month if they will stop pissing it away faster than we can earn it.

Of course, they won't. They will try to inflate themselves out of this mess and blame the rich. That will be painful for everyone as well. Irresponsible bastards.

In reply to Toyman01:

I agree, but why two different groups doing the same thing? Oh, that is right, we, as military "factions" under the USofA banner, are always in a giant pissing match with each other to see who is really better.

Reminds me of a statement a friend made in IRC-Undernet chat one day... He is a diehard Marine and this was back when Iraq was just getting ramped up or just started. He made the comment to the effect of "We need the Army, they make get bullet sponges. Marines don't rush in and get killed."

What I don't see is anyone saying "gee, maybe it really isn't a good idea to place a huge amount of our economy and our well-being in the hands of politicians, then we wouldn't give them the opportunity to badly mismanage it."

We should be treating government like our crazy aunt. Give her enough money to live on, but don't allow her to manage everyone's future, even tough she really, really wants to and is convinced she can.

Apologies if that is political, but seriously, all economics IS political. Just ask any economist.

We send 60 million to jihadists in Syria and ground the blue angels

I must admit when I heard the 40 million number to keep the Angels and t birds in the sky it gave me pause. But dang.

I love the crazy aunt analogy.

Ranger50 wrote: In reply to Toyman01: I agree, but why two different groups doing the same thing? Oh, that is right, we, as military "factions" under the USofA banner, are always in a giant pissing match with each other to see who is really better. Reminds me of a statement a friend made in IRC-Undernet chat one day... He is a diehard Marine and this was back when Iraq was just getting ramped up or just started. He made the comment to the effect of "We need the Army, they make get bullet sponges. Marines don't rush in and get killed."

As a Marine myself. All I have to say is the Marine Corps has already proven time and time again that more can be done with far less than any of the other branches.

this portion of money to be cut must be the MOST IMPORTANT part of the entire federal budget when you hear what the planners are trying to cut, and in the most painful way to the people. howabout we instead just cut the rest?

FYI

F35 Lightning costs F-35A: US$107 million (sans engine, 5th LRIP)[4][5] F-35B: US$237.7M (weap. sys. cost, 2012)[6] F-35C: US$236.8M (weap. sys. cost, 2012)[6]

That's per unit.

United States Army 561,979 United States Marine 202,612 United States Navy 323,139 United States Air Force 329,640 United States Coast 41,327

You could say that the Coast Guard does the most with the least.

ever think maybe just not participating in a thread that you don't like might be a good solution to your problems?

I was gonna! Till you baited me! Baitor!!!

I work on the f35 program and c17 maint. Funding goes down, I may lose my job.

In reply to PHeller:

You could... I hold most Coasties in higher esteem than... hhhuuhhh Never mind..