Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

DesideriScuri -> Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/20/2013 7:34:44 AM)

http://www.cato.org/blog/house-republicans-sequestration-shenanigans

Emphasis mine...
    quote:

    The continuing resolution (CR) drafted by the House Appropriations Committee and supported by the GOP leadership would provide discretionary funding of $988 billion (on an annualized basis) for fiscal 2014. That figure essentially matches funding for fiscal 2013, which included sequestration cuts. Under sequestration, however, funding for fiscal 2014 can’t exceed $967 billion.

    So why wouldn’t House Republicans simply draft a continuing resolution at the lower $967 billion figure? The answer appears to be that the GOP wants to manufacture angst over sequestration’s hit to defense spending, which is a Republican sacred cow.

    The Congressional Budget Office’s score of the House Republican CR shows that defense is funded at $20 billion above the sequestration-included cap for fiscal 2014. However, non-defense funding is actually $1 billion below it. Thus, it seems clear that the CR was intentionally written to force the sequestration-defense issue, which would kick-in in January.

    I’m obviously not privy to the wheeling and dealing going on among the House Republicans responsible for constructing the CR. However, below the jump is a CR one-pager produced by the House Appropriations Committee–presumably for distribution to the flock– that supports the appearance of an attempt to manufacture angst over defense cuts.

    Note that the one-pager rather shamelessly claims that “If the next round of FY14 sequester cuts kicks in under current law, ALL of the reductions will come out of national defense.” Yes, but that’s because the authors of the one-pager kept non-defense funding at the sequestration-cap and put defense spending $20 billion over it! There’s also a disingenuous chart with a propagandistic warning:

      Defense to bear the full weight of FY14 sequester cuts–approximately $20B. Pentagon officials have called them “dangerous” to our national security.

    Unless I’m missing something (and I’ll be happy to issue a public mea culpa if I am), this is about as pathetic as it gets when it comes to congressional budget politics.


This is the stupid shit I can't stand about politics.



mnottertail -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/20/2013 7:47:53 AM)

Yeah, corporate welfare, and starve and inflict the disease upon the people.



fanny200 -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/20/2013 7:52:57 AM)

I



DaNewAgeViking -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/20/2013 11:41:19 AM)

Well? What the hell do you expect from the Radicals?
[sm=banghead.gif]



JeffBC -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/20/2013 11:46:03 AM)

I'm afraid that any article which originates with the Cato institute has way too much spin on the ball for me to even bother trying to untangle it. In my mind this is like trying to make sense of blatant propaganda.



Phydeaux -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/20/2013 12:30:28 PM)

The first round of the sequester cut defense spending 10%; it cut discretionary spending by 7.8%.

Except it didn't. The "cuts" to discretionary spending were caused by moving the pell grants from discretionary to mandatory spending. Likewise 56.4 billion in surface transportation projects were moved from discretionary to mandatory.

The final, and most insulting bit of legerdemain, is that the cuts in the "overseas contingency spending" ie., spending in afghanistan and iraq, which was around 35 billion was counted as a discretionary spending cut, rather than a cut in defense spending. Factor these back in and discretionary spending actually increases.

This is on top of an increase in discretionary spending from 2009 to 2011 from 1.2 trillion to 1.4 trillion.

So, no, I don't find anything particularly nefarious in attempting to rebalance the sequester cuts so that the cuts are applied a bit more ....honestly? transparently?
Finally, I would add that the cuts to defense were on tops of cuts around what.. 400billion instituted by gates that involved significant cuts to programs.
While I'm not up on the latest results of that cuts to defense proposed have included terminating M1A1 production, decreasing 1 carrier group, eliminating the advanced fighter, eliminating the offsprey progam...



thompsonx -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/20/2013 12:42:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


While I'm not up on the latest results of that cuts to defense proposed have included terminating M1A1 production, decreasing 1 carrier group, eliminating the advanced fighter, eliminating the offsprey progam...



Why do we need more m1a1 tanks?
What is wrong with downsizing by one carrier group?
Who would we use the advanced fighter against? My understanding is that we culrrently own numbers 1 and 2 in the fighter business.



Moonhead -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/20/2013 12:45:42 PM)

A right leaning political group refuses to cut spending?
How is that interesting? It ain't even unusual...



DesideriScuri -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/20/2013 1:07:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC
I'm afraid that any article which originates with the Cato institute has way too much spin on the ball for me to even bother trying to untangle it. In my mind this is like trying to make sense of blatant propaganda.


Actually, Jeff, the Cato Institute is calling out Republican legislators for their blatant tricks in this regard. The article is claiming that the Republicans purposely wrote legislation that was about $20B higher than is currently allowed by law and that defense spending is $20B over the sequestration cap while the rest of the bill $1B below the caps for those portions. Thus, a $20B overage would need to all come out of Defense, because Defense is $20B over their limit!

The Cato Institute showed the R's to have done this and then used it to score, or attempt to score, political support from their base.

This is all about the Republicans and their disingenuous attempt to garner support.



RottenJohnny -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/21/2013 1:58:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Why do we need more m1a1 tanks?

My only concern for stopping tank production would be making sure we have an adequate number for our existing forces and that we can replace those that get damaged or destroyed.


quote:


What is wrong with downsizing by one carrier group?

Our carrier groups are the longest arm of our military reach and one of our most obvious indicators of American foreign policy. I agree that downsizing by one or even two groups probably wouldn't have much of an effect on our defense capability but it would impact our ability to project our power around the globe.


quote:


Who would we use the advanced fighter against? My understanding is that we culrrently own numbers 1 and 2 in the fighter business.

Personally, I never underestimate the ability of the Russians to put a fighter in the air that can rival anything we design. The Su-30 is impressive and they sell them all around the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeLy5e3nx4E

Maybe we don't need to immediately build squadrons of every new fighter we create but we shouldn't stop funding development of newer and better designs. You never know what may roll out of some other country's hangar tomorrow.



MrRodgers -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/21/2013 2:24:53 AM)

It's all political gamesmanship.

Congress could mandate 1000 command officers instead of 2000. They could eliminate cost overruns, a regular practice of the defense industry and I understand...rivals each year about the $20B mark.

They could eliminate mil-stats for 1/2 of what the pentagon buys and go open market. These people in Wash. are politicians...not real thinkers.






thompsonx -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/22/2013 9:10:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Why do we need more m1a1 tanks?

My only concern for stopping tank production would be making sure we have an adequate number for our existing forces and that we can replace those that get damaged or destroyed.


So why are you worried about somehing you admit you know nothing about?


quote:


What is wrong with downsizing by one carrier group?

quote:


Our carrier groups are the longest arm of our military reach and one of our most obvious indicators of American foreign policy.


Pointing a gun at someones head is the most obvious indicator of u.s. foriegn policy?

quote:

I agree that downsizing by one or even two groups probably wouldn't have much of an effect on our defense capability but it would impact our ability to project our power around the globe.


The last time I checked, the reasons the founders gave for commiting treason and starting a new country contained a desire to provide for the common defense but I see no where in any of the founding documents a desire "to project our power around the globe". Where would one find reference for this enunciation of guiding principles for the republic?


quote:


Who would we use the advanced fighter against? My understanding is that we culrrently own numbers 1 and 2 in the fighter business.


quote:


Personally, I never underestimate the ability of the Russians to put a fighter in the air that can rival anything we design. The Su-30 is impressive and they sell them all around the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeLy5e3nx4E

Maybe we don't need to immediately build squadrons of every new fighter we create but we shouldn't stop funding development of newer and better designs. You never know what may roll out of some other country's hangar tomorrow.


It would seem quite obvious to the most casual observer of military a/c:
That the u.s. gen 1 a/c is superior to the su-30.
If you do not believe this give google a shot.
That the gen 2 a/c is superior to the gen 1 a/c.
Since we own gen 1,2,a/c
Tell us again what the justification is for not eliminating a gen 3 a/c program?



RottenJohnny -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/22/2013 2:01:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Why do we need more m1a1 tanks?

My only concern for stopping tank production would be making sure we have an adequate number for our existing forces and that we can replace those that get damaged or destroyed.

So why are you worried about somehing you admit you know nothing about?

I don't see where I've claimed anything other than wanting our military to have the equipment it needs to do it's job. So what's your point?


quote:

quote:

quote:


What is wrong with downsizing by one carrier group?

Our carrier groups are the longest arm of our military reach and one of our most obvious indicators of American foreign policy.

Pointing a gun at someones head is the most obvious indicator of u.s. foriegn policy?

I said "one of" not "the" most obvious. But yes, sometimes moving a carrier group into an area broadcasts our governments attitude regarding certain global events. I find it inconceivable that you don't already understand that since you're such an obvious expert about everything.


quote:


quote:

I agree that downsizing by one or even two groups probably wouldn't have much of an effect on our defense capability but it would impact our ability to project our power around the globe.


The last time I checked, the reasons the founders gave for commiting treason and starting a new country contained a desire to provide for the common defense but I see no where in any of the founding documents a desire "to project our power around the globe". Where would one find reference for this enunciation of guiding principles for the republic?

I suspect that when the fathers founded our country they weren't anticipating things like the Nazis, Pearl Harbor, the Cuban missile crisis, or 9/11. Are you suggesting that we pretend those things never happened and that we needn't worry about them ever occurring again?


quote:

quote:

quote:


Who would we use the advanced fighter against? My understanding is that we culrrently own numbers 1 and 2 in the fighter business.


Personally, I never underestimate the ability of the Russians to put a fighter in the air that can rival anything we design. The Su-30 is impressive and they sell them all around the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeLy5e3nx4E

Maybe we don't need to immediately build squadrons of every new fighter we create but we shouldn't stop funding development of newer and better designs. You never know what may roll out of some other country's hangar tomorrow.


It would seem quite obvious to the most casual observer of military a/c:
That the u.s. gen 1 a/c is superior to the su-30.
If you do not believe this give google a shot.
That the gen 2 a/c is superior to the gen 1 a/c.
Since we own gen 1,2,a/c
Tell us again what the justification is for not eliminating a gen 3 a/c program?

What part of "You never know what may roll out of some other country's hangar tomorrow." did you not understand?

It would seem quite obvious to the most casual observer of military history that if you sit on your ass and avoid improving your hardware that eventually you might have to fight a Tiger with a Sherman...which could easily end with less than favorable results.




Phydeaux -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/22/2013 2:09:43 PM)

I didn't say I opposed the cuts to the M1A1 - or fighters, or ofsprey.. Although, in fact I do oppose the decrease in carrier fleets.

However, neither to I opposed to eliminating the NEA, PBS, Americorps etc.

Those on the left generally hate the cato institute. I find the report interesting, and I would disagree with these tactics being used. But I disagree with them being used by dims or pubs.



thompsonx -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/22/2013 2:57:49 PM)

Pointing a gun at someones head is the most obvious indicator of u.s. foriegn policy?

quote:

I said "one of" not "the" most obvious. But yes, sometimes moving a carrier group into an area broadcasts our governments attitude regarding certain global events. I find it inconceivable that you don't already understand that since you're such an obvious expert about everything.


Is it your position that the u.s. may shit where it pleases because it is powerful enough to do so?



thompsonx -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/22/2013 3:04:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

I didn't say I opposed the cuts to the M1A1 - or fighters, or ofsprey..


]Then why did you bring them up?

quote:

Although, in fact I do oppose the decrease in carrier fleets.


What is your opposition to reduction in the carrier battle group?


quote:

Those on the left generally hate the cato institute.


This would be unsubstantiated opinion. To recognize who funds the cato institute is somewhat different than hate.




RottenJohnny -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/22/2013 3:09:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Pointing a gun at someones head is the most obvious indicator of u.s. foriegn policy?

quote:

I said "one of" not "the" most obvious. But yes, sometimes moving a carrier group into an area broadcasts our governments attitude regarding certain global events. I find it inconceivable that you don't already understand that since you're such an obvious expert about everything.


Is it your position that the u.s. may shit where it pleases because it is powerful enough to do so?

Of course not. It's my position that the U.S. should always be prepared to defend itself to the best of its abilities wherever and whenever it's required.



thompsonx -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/22/2013 3:09:31 PM)

quote:

What part of "You never know what may roll out of some other country's hangar tomorrow." did you not understand?


One never knows for sure if there is a boogy man under the bed either[8|]I am less than impressed with the "what if" bullshit

quote:

It would seem quite obvious to the most casual observer of military history that if you sit on your ass and avoid improving your hardware that eventually you might have to fight a Tiger with a Sherman...which could easily end with less than favorable results.


Had korporate amerika had an interest in something besides profit ,we would have been facing tigers with t34



thompsonx -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/22/2013 3:17:28 PM)

The last time I checked, the reasons the founders gave for commiting treason and starting a new country contained a desire to provide for the common defense but I see no where in any of the founding documents a desire "to project our power around the globe". Where would one find reference for this enunciation of guiding principles for the republic?

quote:

I suspect that when the fathers founded our country they weren't anticipating things like the Nazis, Pearl Harbor, the Cuban missile crisis, or 9/11. Are you suggesting that we pretend those things never happened and that we needn't worry about them ever occurring again?


I am sugesting that your understanding of those things is limited.
Nazi:The u.s. made a ton of money and only cost about a quarter of a million body bags...How does that number compare to the dead americans in the civil war?
Pearl harbor:The u.s. knew in advance of the attak and allowed it to happen to provide us with probable cause to enter the war.
Cuban missile crissis:In return for the russians removing their icbm but not their tactical nukes from cuba the u.s. removed our icbm from turkey, and promised not to attack cuba.



thompsonx -> RE: Interesting article from the Cato Institute... (9/22/2013 3:20:02 PM)

quote:

My only concern for stopping tank production would be making sure we have an adequate number for our existing forces and that we can replace those that get damaged or destroyed.
So why are you worried about somehing you admit you know nothing about?


quote:

I don't see where I've claimed anything other than wanting our military to have the equipment it needs to do it's job. So what's your point?


My point is that you are sniviling about a reduction that you admit you know nothing about.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875