Although sequestration has been hyped as the Armageddon, Judge Andrew Napolitano explains that the cuts are "political theater," and nobody will be fired or furloughed.
President Obama can do "much more to diffuse" the impact of the government spending cuts set to go into effect this week, the Judge explained on the Fox Business Network. The president has many options, including "transfer authority," which would allow the cuts to be shifted between departments. He clarified that the sequester is not actually "spending cuts," rather they are a "reduction in the amount of increase." The fear-mongering is clearly a political tool and a bonus opportunity to point fingers at Congress. Nobody seems to remember that the sequester proposal originated from the Obama Administration and the president signed it into law in 2011.
If President Obama really believes that the sequester will trigger a recession; why did he sign it into law?
Napolitano continued to say that the federal government:
"will spend more money even with the sequester in 2013 than it spent without them in 2012. We are not talking about the president firing or furloughing soldiers or TSA workers or FAA Air Traffic controllers, we are talking about him hiring fewer of them."
Speaking of hiring fewer government workers, Senator Tom Coburn points out that while President Obama is lamenting over criminals roaming the streets due to spending cuts; the federal government is also "soliciting applicants for numerous lower priority jobs," as reported by Washington Business Journal. In other words, there has been no freeze in hiring. In fact, the federal government is hiring like crazy! On Wednesday, there are over 1,500 job postings for the Department of Defense alone. Sen. Coburn points out that there are job postings "ranging from State Department drivers making as much as $26 per hour; to a staff assistant to answer phones at the Labor Department who could earn up to $81,204 a year; to an Air Force historian who would work for up to $165,300 a year." If the sequestration was really a recession-triggering proposition, why not hold off on posting the 81,000 phone-answering job?
Watch the interview here:
Image Source: Washington Post
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 196
The administration will cut jobs just to say "I told you so. You need to listen to me. Trust in me and all will be good again. I am the light on the hill."
A shame Obama signed that pesky sequester into law!
Harry Ried has a 5th cousin 4 times removed that just graduated high school and has to have a job paying 150K. Pelosi has a neighbor of a friend, of an aunt by marriage before the last 6 divorces, that has gotten an associate degree - surely she has a HUGE need for a 165K job.
In order to not fulfill these job saved/created positions, they are forced to release mass-murderers.
I mean, how inhumane can ANYone be to suggest to do otherwise?
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama is warning that "people will lose their jobs" if across-the-board budget cuts take effect as scheduled next week.
Obama says the $85 billion in cuts - known as the sequester - are "severe" and says they won't help the economy and won't create jobs.
Obama is calling the across-the-board cuts a "meat cleaver" approach to reducing the deficit. He says the cuts would impact the nation's military readiness and investment in areas like education.
He's calling on Republicans to back a plan proposed by Senate Democrats that would offset the sequester through a combination of increased tax revenue and targeted budget cuts. GOP lawmakers are opposed to more tax revenue, saying Obama got the tax increases he wanted during the "fiscal cliff" negotiations.
http://www.wwmt.com/shared/newsroom/features/national/stories/wwmt_obama-warns-sequester-cause-job-losses-2905.shtml
Napolitano sat on the New Jersey bench from 1987 to 1995. Napolitano resigned his judgeship in 1995 to pursue his writing and television career.
Before joining Fox as a news analyst, Napolitano was the presiding judge on the television show, Power of Attorney, in which people brought small-claims disputes to a televised courtroom. Napolitano has called himself the "<<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand" target="_blank">strong>Ayn Rand of Fox News"
Napolitano regularly substituted for television host Glenn Beck when Beck was absent from his program. After Beck announced he would be leaving Fox News, he asked Napolitano to replace him.
~@~
I am sorry to say but, nowhere in his BIO is there any reference that Andrew P. Napolitano has any education or experience in Finance, Budget matters or running a Government. Why would anyone take his opinion to heart on this topic?
He is simply a money-grubbing blowhard who's EGO is larger than the nation Debt.
~@~
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Douglas Elmendorf warned the House Budget Committee that the looming March 1 sequester would have a devastating impact on U.S. employment. "We think that would reduce the level of employment at the end of the year," Elmendorf cautioned, "by about 750,000 jobs."
Apparently, Republican House Speaker John Boehner didn't get the memo. Asked by a reporter at his Monday press conference, "Do you have a sense of how many jobs will be lost as a result of the sequester?" Boehner responded, "I do not."
http://news.yahoo.com/nteu-survey-highlights-sequestrations-toll-223100742.html
"Eighty-two percent of respondents said the loss of pay due to a sequestration-caused furlough would result in trouble paying their rent or mortgage, utility bills and food expenses; more than six in 10 said they would have to take money from savings or retirement for current bills; and 19 percent noted that a furlough would be particularly damaging since their spouse already has lost a job or suffered a pay cut."
~@~
Sequestration: A Review of Estimates of Potential Job Losses
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42763.pdf
Linda Levine
Specialist in Labor Economics
llevine@crs.loc.gov
An Understanding of the Constitution might help you understand.
House of Representatives have authority over Budget
Senate reviews, discusses and if passed by both House & Senate, the President shall sign Legislation.
If you are looking for who is responsible for the financial mess our country is in, look at the house of Representatives NOT fulfilling the Constitutional Authority.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
•Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
?Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
See, it's ignorance of people such as yourself & Judge Andrew Napolitano who do not understand the Constitution or how our Federal Republic works that allows LIES & SLANDER to be misplaced as a means of discrediting another, such as the President.
The President can offer his opinion or guidance but, he can not make nor pass legislation.
No budget has been passed or even put up for a vote in the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate since 2009.
“They say failing to plan is planning to fail, but unfortunately, that’s been the Democrats’ approach to our budgetary challenges for nearly four years,†said Sen. Roy Blunt, Missouri Republican. “Meanwhile, we’ve lurched from crisis to crisis as the national debt surpassed $16.6 trillion and federal spending skyrocketed by 19 percent since 2008. It’s time for the Democrat-led Senate to get serious about spending, and to get serious about passing a budget.â€
Well. There you go again.
You start with a sacred self-serving assumption and you proceed from there.
Why not start with an open mind and see where the facts lead?
From my perspective as an engineer that sort of behavior amounts to just begging for a butt whooping.
And when - not if but when - you as a human being do get a butt whooping for your stupidity, for the love of God, learn from it.
That's another thing about the right these days. They seem to have lost any capacity to learn anything from the instructive butt whoopings they richly deserve.
Always Always Always continuously question your assumptions. Take nothing for granted.
Some of the reasons that it is difficult to take the sequester seriously:
1.) Obama and Jack Lew specifically said that the idea came from Congress. They lied. Period. That diminishes their credibility.
2.) The fear-mongering is clearly exaggerated.
3.) The amount of "cuts" is minuscule when compared to overall government spending.
4.) The politics surrounding the whole thing - the finger pointing, etc.
5.) The government waste (not to mention fraud) that is rampant. There are plenty of places to cut.
6.) The fact that there are thousands and thousands of job openings at the federal government level posted online.
So, yes, I do have my already-in-place thoughts on this - but they are based on facts. I am not cherry picking - I have looked at the data, I have read many articles on the topic. However, I am open to criticism.
Some of the points you make, "If you encounter anything that doesn't fit the assumptions, easy peasy; that merely indicates that it's a liberal lie." Is that directed at me, or is that a general statement? If it is directed at me, I would very much appreciate an example.
Thanks for your comment, Charles ;-)
I was watching CSPAN last night a House committe on job creation. There was Michael Boskin, former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors for the Bush Snr admninistration, and also Auston Goolsbee, former chairman for the Obama Administration.
Their testimony supported the GOP stance that deficit reduction should focus on spending cuts over taxes. Boskin said around 5:1 spending cuts over taxes. Goolsbee, around 3:1.
But. Timing is everything. The reductions need to be gradual.
Seems to me the GOP has half the picture. They have got religion on spending cuts. Boy have they ever got the religion on spending cuts.
But, as per usual, when the GOP chooses to be blind about something - such as for the need for consideration of timing of the cuts for example - the GOP retreats into their mighty fortress and draws up the draw bridge.
And so there's nothing for it but timing be damned and lets have a big ole shock to the economy right as we're just beginning to dig ourselves out of the Great Recession.
Both Boskin and Goolsbee estimate about 0.5% reduction of GDP growth resulting from the sequester.
But here's the deal. Productivity growth is around 2%. Hence, you need to GDP growth to a bit above that 2.5% to 3% in order for the economy to start hiring again.
Well, 2.5% - 3% is about the GDP growth we have.
You knock 0.5% off that, guess what?
No more hiring.
Unemployment sails up into the wild blue yonder again.
And wait. There's more.
GDP contraction = lower revenues = what? You got it. Higher deficits.
Thanks a bunch for nothing, GOP, for handing us higher deficits.
You know what, GOP. Do me a favor and don't do me any favors.
Caution: the following contains stereotypes that only at best have a smidgeon of validity. So anyway, onto the red meat.
Again, there's one half of the picture. Have you forgotten the other half of the picture?
The Great Recession.
For the GOP only one thing can be true at a time. They can't handle two things being true.
Well it aint gonna work. I so see right through the tactics of you people.
It's people like you who make people like me be more the way we are.
"Washington as a whole created this enormous debt, not just the right and not just the left." Yes it did, Vic, thank you.
Finger-pointing and blaming only one political party (while ignoring the sins of the other) is going only result in more of the same. Frankly, I am not sure how America got to this point - how sad that the federal government ever had to borrow such a ridiculous amount of money - what a waste. As Obama once said, it is a sign of "leadership failure".
Question for the GOP:
What's wrong with what works?
What, is failure the new success now?
What's wrong with what works?
Not to answer a question with a question, but how did America become a superpower?
What, is failure the new success now?
If it is failure of bad policies, than the answer is yes.
We enabled successful people to succeed while preventing them from getting to own the whole show lock stock and barrel.
Summary of US history: One big ongoing never finished struggle to enable successful people while preventing them from making us their slaves.
1.) Checks and balances on your successful people.
2) Checks and balances on your government.
What we have today is this pitched battle between 1 and 2.
What we need today is a balance of 1 and 2.
How Charles, how did we prevent "them from getting to own the whole show lock stock and barrel." Specifically?
One big ongoing never finished struggle to enable successful people while preventing them from making us their slaves.
Is this how you view history? I would argue that the founders knew the nature of governments (and the nature of individuals) and strongly and repeatedly cautioned against allowing the government to become so powerful that it stops representing the people. Why are there so many checks and balances set up in America? Why is it that many on the left (such as Woodrow Wilson) considered the founding documents to be "flawed"?
Most bad government has grown out of too much government.
John Sharp Williams, Thomas Jefferson: His Permanent Influence on American Institutions (New York: Columbia University Press, 1913), 49.
It has been said that all Government is an evil. It would be more proper to say that the necessity of any Government is a misfortune. This necessity however exists; and the problem to be solved is, not what form of Government is perfect, but which of the forms is least imperfect.
James Madison, to an unidentified correspondent, 1833
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.
James Madison, Federalist No. 45, January 26, 1788
"I think we have more machinery of government than is
necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the
industrious." --Thomas Jefferson
Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.
Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress. ... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America." --James Madison
The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security.
James Madison, Federalist No. 45, January 26, 1788
That is a new American concept. Do you have any founders quotes on that one?
JP Morgan married the electric light bulb to AC power distribution and pretty much gave us modernity.
So, it would seem obvious perhaps. Get out of these peoples' way. Let them do their stuff. It's how America became great. Hobble these people? Don't be absurd.
True. But there's another side to it. Consider how the other half lived during that period in our history, the virtual slaves who worked at starvation wages at a Carnagie steel mill for example.
You can't just allow successful people to own the whole show. You especially can't just allow successful people to own your government.
We have learned that at the school of hard knocks. How many more times must we learn that before we get it?
So if a JP Morgan pretty much owns the economy, you don't see any problem with that
yeah, I have a problem with that - that is why I disagreed with the bailout, and have you noticed, despite all the anti-Wall street rhetoric, who was arrested? There seems to be quite a marriage of big government and big business. Consider that Obama just golfed with one of the chairs at Halliburton and two "big oil" executives (the media was silent - I think I am the ONLY one who reported the Halliburton connection).
Speaking of JP Morgan, the guy who just went after Bob Woodward for being a journalist, White House Economic Adviser Gene Sperling, "took in $887,727 from Goldman Sachs and $158,000 for speeches mostly to financial companies, including the firm run by accused Ponzi scheme mastermind R. Allen Stanford." Now I knew that because I checked out Sperling on Wikipedia when I was writing my article. But weirdly, it is not there anymore.
Duh.
You know.
Let's reform this corrupt system.
Theodore Roosevelt was a freak accident of history.
You mean to tell me any sort of progressive era has to be a freak accident of history?
Someone please give me a freak accident.
necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the
industrious." --Thomas Jefferson
From my perespective, Obama has been a model of civility and willingness to work with Congress, while Tea Party Republicans have treated him with contempt and a willingness to run the whole country right into the ground to make the President look bad.
Tea Party Republicans have discarded the old notion of success - being what works. The new success for Tea Party Republicans: Obama - and the nation if that's what it takes - must fail.
But. Sadly. I think what's in order now is for Obama to cave to the Tea Partiers. Even though every sensible bipartisan set of pragmatists who've studied the deficiet situation have all pointed to between 3:1 to 5:1 cuts over tax increases phased in gradually - while allowing for some wiggle room to get us through the Great Recession, let's give the Tea Partiers their The Absolute Revealed True for All Eternity Way It Is Period and Anything Else is of the Devil way.
Let's face it. They got elected.
Oh my goodness. You cannot possibly believe that. He has been the most polarizing president I can remember - he mocks the GOP, God, so-called "rich" people, he has been fearmongering and outright lying about the Sequester - All he DOES is point fingers .... that is all he knows how to do - he is the divider in chief.
"It is precisely this kind of partisan divide that Obama promised to end. He was going to make history not only as the United States' first black president but as its healer, vowing to lead the nation into a new era of cooperation. But that promise to blend blue America and red America into purple America is an example of Obama's failure of leadership."
Scale of sequestration cuts becomes clear as Obama attacks Republicans
Centrist Republicans warn Obama has 'poisoned' relations with campaign-style attacks
Obama Attacks Fox
Obama Attacks Success Again
Obama attacks 'dumb' imminent cuts as talks fail
President Obama Attacks GOP Over Gun Control Debate
Obama Attacks Navy Seals
President Obama attacks the GOP on the debt ceiling
Obama tosses civility off the fiscal cliff
President Obama Mocks Congress, Speaks for God -- VIDEO
President Obama Preaches Civility but Acts Otherwise
Obama forgets his call for civility at Labor Day rally
Reporter Confronts Obama Over His Lack Of Civility
Barack Obama has accused Republicans of being the Ebenezer Scrooges of Washington who would ruin Christmas for US families by allowing their income taxes to rise by $2,000 in the new year.
Obama mocks Romney's 'binders' comment at post-debate rally ...
Obama Mocks Romney's 'Big Bird' Comments
Obama Mocks & Attacks Jesus Christ And The Bible
'Horses and Bayonets': Obama Mocks Romney on Military Budget ...
Obama Mocks Romney In Thanksgiving Turkey Pardon
Obama on civility and calling Romney a 'bulls*****r'
Civility watch: The Romney-killed-my-wife edition
Romney contrasts, Obama attacks
Obama's attacks on Romney belittle presidency
Well...there you have it..
Does it get any more frightening than that...
Charles, this comment must be supported. I had a hard time reading past you civility comment. As you can imagine, I heartily disagree. There is no "new success". The Tea Party seems to be the only ones who give a hoot about success, imo. They do not really get involved in social issues, but they have been vilified as being racist (with NO evidence to support that fake claim) and as "radical". When pressed, I have not been able to find one person who claims to be against the Tea Party who can give me an example of one of their so-called "radical" views. They are for limited government (and all of these government manufactured crisis of late only support why limited government is better) and want to have the opportunity to live their lives without stifling government interventions, such as ridiculous and contradictory legislation and regulations. What is so radical about that?
What about the other half of the picture is that the economy is still fragile and dramatic contraction of government spending could undo the fragile enough as it is recovery?
That being the case, I think the course for the President right now is to get something less bad for the country than this and work with what the House has put forth.
How so?
the economy is still fragile and dramatic contraction of government spending could undo the fragile enough as it is recovery?
Charles, respectfully, there is no "dramatic contraction of government spending". Consider this chart, which gives a visual picture of the sequester's impact on overall government spending.
Consider this statement from a Wall Street Journal article, aptly titled, "President Armageddon," the author notes that President Obama "just whacked the economy with a roughly $160 billion tax increase in 2013 that he says will do no harm, but he wants us to believe that $85 billion in spending cuts will trigger a recession."
Now consider the rhetoric, Obama says sequester could force prosecutors to 'let criminals go' - Is that okay? Really?
Consider a (finger pointing, class-warfare inciting) statement by Harry Reid, "The Republicans want the sequester to go forward. We cannot solve the problems of this country with cuts, cuts, cuts. We've cut $2.6 trillion. We need to do more but we're going to do it in a balanced approach. We cannot continue to hurt the middle class and the poor." This figure was called "wrong" by FactCheck.org in early February - yet he repeated it 2 weeks later. It is hard to take these people seriously when they blatantly lie.
" there is no "dramatic contraction of government spending"
And you are absolutely positive there's no risk of killing the recovery through this?
And that is not being in any way shape or form a tad absolutist?
No risk at all?
Oh no. We're not being absolutist, are we? Why? Because we KNOW beyond capacity of doubt that the risk is absolute zero.
I wouldn't last a day as an electrical engineer if I took this approach to life.
What an engineer does is make choices in trading off between risk and cost. Lower risk = higher cost. Lower cost = higher risk. An engineer can not be an extremest. The budget is not infinite but neither can one responsibly ignore risk. An engineer has to find a successful balance between these competing values.
Our Tea Party has this brilliant new way to save us money throgh
Assume zero risk.
Another way to achieve the same result is to tape a sign to your posterior that reads "please kick this."
Obama’s remarks continue the administration’s pattern of overstating the potential impact of the sequester, which we have explored this week.
Ok, point taken. It's not Armageedon. The sky is not falling.
One, what I've heard from a number of economists is that this will contract GDP by around 0.5%. Which, ok, isn't the sky falling. But there's the point I made before. Productivity growth is around 2% and you need GDP growth to be a tad above that for hiring to get going. 0.5% decline could take us from just over the wire to just under the wire.
And that's been my point here.
Timing. It's all about timing. This is not the best time for these cuts.
Two, this is not the way to cut.
You're cutting excellent value and urgently needed along with wasteful.
But you can't reason with these people. These people are incapable of civility, let alone rational thinking. And I am so out of here. Goodbye!!! Have a nice day!!!!!!
Just kidding. Thank you for your civility, Renee, and for not storming out on me.
I really am on your side, you know.
I actually agree with you a lot more than you do.
"This is not the best time for these cuts."
When people know that we are in debt to the tune of $16.5 trillion and those same people will side with Washington in believing that it is not the time to actually focus on spending, we see the true problem with this nation. We have elected officials that do whatever they want, regardless as to whether it is good for the nation or the people, and we have those who will support these idiots, as they continue with the same actions and behaviors that put us in this mess. Party loyalty is completely unjustified for either side, and until we see that and hold those idiots in Washington accountable for their actions and replace them with those who remember that they are to represent the people, we will continue to fall until our nation is dissolved into a mass of land that has no substance or direction. We cannot blame Washington (either side) for the failures of this nation. We can blame ourselves for putting a corrupt, dishonest, deceptive, evil entity into Washington based upon the illusion that one side is better than the other. We did this to ourselves, and now that many of us speak against the very components that are killing our nation, our voices are viewed as being the ones who do not care. If the common people of this nation (collectively) would simply read the recent and past legislation, they would see that Washington does not give a damn about any of us, and that the rights and freedoms that are vanishing apply to all of us, which also applies to those who choose to continue to have unconditional loyalty those who are killing the nation.
I know that. You're right.
Again I say:
This is not the time.
This is not the way.
I know that. You're right. I have a better plan for how to do it right.
Oh stop beating about the bush and say what you mean:
devil
what I've heard from a number of economists is that this will contract GDP by around 0.5% Which economists?
Speaking of contractions...the CBO found that raising the tax rates for the wealthy would hurt growth, but as "quickly" pointed out by Harry Reid, "growth is only reduced by .1 percent..." Why impose more taxes on the wealthy if it reduces growth in any way? Interestingly, the headlines for this aspect of the findings are along the lines of "CBO Says Taxing the Wealthy won't 'Kill' Growth". Note the media spin....
Vic, that you for your comment, very well stated - I agree 100%
Most of this project centers on one thing: growth.
Republicans have this right.
As the economy recovers, the yearly budget deficits will be shrinking dramatically, one, because we can ease up on government spending to keep the economy on life support and, two, tax revenues start to increase.
We don't want taxation to kill the recovery, so we have to be careful at this time not to increase taxes. At the same time, we don't want to kill spending right now because government spending is still to a degree propping up the recovery. A little patience is in order here. Soon, the economy, if it keeps recovering, will not need this support.
Then, we move onto deficit reduction, learning what we can from how a bipartisan effort achieved that in the 1990s.
At that time, it'll be a whole lot of cuts and a bit of increased taxes, about 4:1 spending cuts verus new taxation.
And, just as in the 1990s, it will be discipline applied in Congress, the guidlines of which were discarded in the 2000s.
Proposed new taxation:
carbon tax.
I think of it as fertilizer to a lawn of renewable energy technologies, the economy of tommorrow.
You know. Anything we come up with by default is going to be renewable. Right? If it's not renewable, there can only be one reason for that: We blew it.
We did?
Consider the laser beam, which accounts for about a third of today's economy.
Unless they've gotten it right this time. I'll check.
Don't tell me you put any stock into the IPCC?
IE: If the best analysis that humans are capable does not reinforce our sacred self-serving assumptions, easy peasy, you simply discard them as incompetent.
So I was pretending, see, like a right winger.
CBO doesn validate me, easy peasy.
Why no one in their rational right mind would ever put any stock into any CBO findings.
Whereas, I, not a right winger, and so virtuous that I can't stand myself sometimes,I am willing to put stock into an analysis, providing it is a sound analysis, So, I'm just on my way to go look at that CBO findings you point out.
There's one way to establish that:
Do a better analysis that better projects the consequences of one's life and death choices.
Oh, just one other point before I head off to look at that CBO report:
You know. I look at these internet cat fights and I find them very instructive.
Look at how peoples' minds come up with such cockeyed notions about things.
Look at all the examples of all manner of falacious thinking.
The possibility has to occur to one that hey, I'm one of this kind of animal as these beings here.
I might be just as insane as they are.
As in I, a typical human being, it has to be faced, could be just as nut house as these other nuts.
But not Renee. No, Renee is sound rational right thinking being at all times.
next invention of a transistor or laser beam or way to make renewable energy competive with oil
The transistor and the laser beam have already been invented so the next invention of them will be a case of reinventig the wheel.
As for renewable energy, a source of clean, sustainable energy (also here and here)has been available for over 100 years. And we are not using it because the academic community which is not known for it's right wing, creationist or tea party sympathies have been active in suppressing it. Why?
Have you bought the franchise for spamming Renee's threads with pointless comments?
is just spin, generated by a self-serving whitehouse inhabited by the devil. What really is true, is this:
Bell Labs is about to invent the transistor. Oh we're sorry but arbitrary federal budget cuts have necessitated that we cut some staff and close some projects.
I hear Asia is big into applied research. You might try applying there.
Thing is. In pure research, you don't have that assurance.
Who wants to do the big budget pure research?
Me, I've been trying to sell the idea of a private effort to launch an Earth observatory into space for the purpose of measuring Earth's energy budget.
Presumably, this would be a good deal for humanity, as it'd debunk the $10 trillion climate fraud scam.
But what business wants to concern itself with humanity?
Julius Edgar Lilienfeld invented the first true transistor in 1925 and Oscar Heil patented an improved version a few years later. Gerard Philips (Philips Industries) filed patents on solid state technologies in the 1930s. Bell's point contact transistor technology patented in 1947 moved the game forward but Bell's invention relied on Philips' ferroxcube ferrites. The two companies negotiated a royalty free cross licensing deal.
So what is your point? Or have you bought the franchise for spamming Renee's threads with pointless comments from somebody else.
Infrastructure in the US is nearing a state of crisis from bipartisan neglect.
Charles,
Infrastructure in the US is nearing a state of crisis from bipartisan neglect. Please give me a specific example.
In the meantime, I would say "Economy in the US is nearing a state of crisis from bipartisan neglect."
It is when they spend $4.6 billion in 2003 which turns in to to $8.8 billion in 2010 in all over that period of time $106.7 billion was spent on technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, science to understand climate changes, international assistance for developing countries, and wildlife adaptation to respond to actual or expected changes.
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/massive-climate-funding-exposed/ How much was the investment for the transistor and the laser beam? Putting it into perspective I bet if you had a large safe with $106.7 billion in it you would not even need to open it you would just dip into your back pocket and give away the change that you have in it for the investment for those items.
Stop giving as much taxpayers money away on useless climate science and you will find that your well on the road to recovery. Times that with doing away with all the other useless items like cell phoning workers in Government departments to remind them to take an office break, "we used to look at that little thing on our wrists that reminded us to take a break" sack the little idiots who think up these ideas and Bobs your Uncle Fanny's your aunt its a done deal.
One of the most speculated assumptions by the government is to invest (as they have already done) with wind and solar energy. Many examples of both wind and solar energy related businesses have gone under as a result of a simple conclusion that our wonderful government cannot comprehend when making such an investment. That simple conclusion, as stated by those who closed these businesses is that they literally could not break even, much less produce profit. The government is a master of coming up with ideas, and they find a way to finance those ideas. The problem is that they do not understand the components of that idea or if that idea can or will produce positive and profitable results. That is how our national debt climbed to $16.5 trillion. They do not understand anything about money with the exception of taking it from the citizens who earn it and giving it to those of their choosing. When you wish to manage or repair the economy, going to a group of lawyers in Washington make no sense at all.
A winger is a person whose primate instincts are the driver's seat and the job of intellect is to put a rational facade to primate instincts.
Exhibit A: Me. I know I do this. There's an instinctual part of me that fires off impulses. A sexually attractive being walks by. An instinct fires involuntarily. Course, I can't just act on it. This being a civilized society of sorts, I'm often obliged to reign in my instincts.
Another powerful involuntary primate instinct is tribal affiliation. I see it in myself. I see something in the paper that questions the validity of human caused climate change, for example. An instantaneous reflexive primate instinctual response fires. A big red light in my brain box lights up and says: Rival tribe alert!!!!!!! I give myselfl a shot of adrenalin. I'm ready for battle.
Another article in the paper seems to validate human caused climate change. My brain box lights up with "Here is amember of my tribe. My friend." I give myself a shot of feel good chemicals.
It just is the case that I have this instinctual reaction to information that biases me toward human caused climate change.
I'm aware of that bias. A winger wouldn't be. A winger would say: here is the given thing: my tribal affiliation is sacrosanct. Everything else gets organized around that necessity. Rationality.. Yes sir, Your job is to make me believe my behavior isn't instinctual at all but the very soul of calm right thinking of the way it is period done case closed.
"Your blathering hypothesis is RUBBISH. The nonsense you blindly follow is rubbish. And MOST of the knuckleheads that believe what you do are Milky in the Filbert."
You mean to stand there and tell me this has nothing to do with tribal affiliation insitncts? This is entirely rational thinking in charge here?
The biggest delusion that humans entertain, I think, is that human beings are rational animals. We can be rational. But it's not the main thing we're hard wired for. We are primarily wired for tribal loyalty.
This isn't out of place either within humans. Think of how it important is to you that you affiliate with your trible. It makes sense that your instincts would be highly sensitive and well tuned to tribal loyalty.
But. Thing is. These instincts are optimized for speed over accuracy. Through most of our evolution, time was of the essence. You had to size up the situation in milliseconds. Accuracy wasn't so important. Your instincts could be wrong 99 times and right once and still more than pay for themselves in your survival.
The requirements of civilization put a big strain on our instincts, especially in times of difficult complex problems.
That, I think, is why we political polarization. We have these complex problems. People feel insecure. People hew to their tribes for protection. It's understandable.
And it's also counter-productive.
Our instinct says: You go spread your genes far and wide.
We come up with a God that sanctifies our instincts.
We breed like rabbits.
Our aquifers start to dry up. The air gets polluted. Greenhouse gases pile up in the atmosphere.
We get stressed out.
We say - oh those non-beleivers who cause us all our problems. Oh boo hoo hoo, what a wicked wicked world of sin and corruption.
stone the queers.
Yes sirree Bob. Any time your own behaviors get you into trouble, stone a few queers to get back in good with the Allmighty.
Thanks for your comments, Charles.
Where are they?
Now is the time for all amazing Christians to come to the aid of your planet.
Twitter generation Kids??? You are further off base than I thought. My attention span is fine; it is your delusional compilation of attempted logic that is throwing me off. Your condescending reply to me is an indication that confirms my earlier claim about your chosen direction. Your words are more of a presentation of how you wish to be perceived as to others who may read your dribble, than a true representative of your actual concern for the topic of this post. Please do not patronize me in order to continue your irrational, narcissistic behavior. This kid could not think as slowly as you if that was my actual goal.
Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776
Just a quick quote to calm down my dear friend Vic, who may himself want to hit the bottle after this thread ;-)
Here's how to achieve it: Look at how the vast majority of today's libertarians are behaving in burning the planet's candles in 18 differenet directions at once and pretty much do the exact opposite of that.
John Sharp Williams, Thomas Jefferson: His Permanent Influence on American Institutions (New York: Columbia University Press, 1913), 49.
Couple of different approaches to a remedy:
1.) Reform your government.
2.) Any problem that might need a government to address it just convince yourself there's no problem to be addressed.
necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the
industrious."
--Thomas Jefferson
Infrastructure in the US is nearing a state of crisis from bipartisan neglect.
Please give me a specific example.
Let me tell you something about your obsession: it's PURE nonsense. It's a Money-grab. Scheming Demons got together and the question was put:
How can we utilise this putrifying "environmental" rubbish to our advantage?
Now, read on: I'll give you an example...
Large Appliances. Yep. Those. This "Environmentally-Friendly" BULLSHIT... that, because you front-load a Clothing Launderer, it's "better." BULLSHIT. Scheming Demons wanted to capitalise on FOOLS, wanted to make some CASH...so, they forced Large Appliance Manufacturers to COMPLETELY RE-TOOL entire PLANTS...just to line their own Pockets. Then...VOILA'!!! Pass a Law banning Top-Loaders. Like F*CKING MAGIC. Now, every Household in the entire Country with Machines is now "obsolete," "wasteful," and behind the times. Idiots, Americans, Housewives, swallow this bullshit. It's disgusting. And perpetrated by Losers supported by genius's the likes of you. Of course, we now have landfills FULL OF DISCARDED MACHINES...morons.
And, to add insult to injury...these Machines are pathetic...useless. They do NOTHING with a view toward actually CLEANING the Clothing...and THEY DESTROY IT IN HALF THE TIME.
You wonder why you are laughingstock. Wake up.
There is a FOOL borne every minute...and that FOOL is American.
True, if you consider any one environmentally-friendly technology in isolation.
A solar panel in and of itself in today's world doesn't make a whole of sense in terms of being environmentally friendly in the short term. The energy it took to smelt the silicon wafers, mine and smelt the copper wire, manufacture the electronics for the inverters comes mostly from coal fired electricity.
Same deal with my fancy smancy wonderful ride plug-in hybrid vehicle.
Any one of these technologies in and of themselves all by themelves don't make much sense in terms of being environmentally friendly.
But. Start surrounding one environmentally friendly technology with other environmentally friendly technologies, now they begin to make sense both environmentally and economically.
It's all a load of rubbish...and you bite like a Brook Trout at Fly time.
Oh great, you say. What you've done there is you have replaced a gasoline powered ride with a coal powered ride.
Which would be true except for one thing:
I put up solar panels.
These days, I get my go juice from Mr. Sun.
ground source heat pump heating plant.
And walla. Here is a household that has kicked the combustion habit.
Not that we're done yet, of course. Our food and clothing are still is by and large petroleum intensive products.
Hence the need to transform the society we live in. We start with ourselves.
So here is my take - for some reason the man-made climate change alarmists (and I am only talking about the radicals here) have lessened their credibility by
a.) not practicing what they preach (eg Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio in their private jets and mansions)
b.) shutting out dissenting points of view by scientists by attempting to marginalize them and
c.) staying quiet when someone on their team engages in bad behavior (see Chris Busby and Peter Gleick).
Anyway, when they portray the "right" as anti-environment - those on the right are automatically rolling their eyes, because it is simply not true. Just like other fake accusations (GOP war on women, for example) - not true - so it does not matter that the Tea Party for example, would leave a park pristine after they left a rally and the Occupy Movement would destroy parks (without even bothering with something like a permit) - OWS is above reproach.
Consider what happened to the co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, a legitimate environmentalist...
He said:
At first, many of the causes we championed, such as opposition to nuclear testing and protection of whales, stemmed from our scientific knowledge of nuclear physics and marine biology. But after six years as one of five directors of Greenpeace International, I observed that none of my fellow directors had any formal science education. They were either political activists or environmental entrepreneurs.
Ultimately, a trend toward abandoning scientific objectivity in favor of political agendas forced me to leave Greenpeace in 1986.
1.) Mark-John is a rational person.
2.) Mark-John is mostly about tribal loyalty and rationality is put to the service of giving it a rational facade. And Mark-John sees the renewable energy tribe as a rival tribe that is out to take something away from him.
Actually, he is pro-environment and anti-radical, if I could speak for him. Mark-John, please correct me if I am wrong here. And the rabid activists lose their credibility for the reasons I mention above.
You wouldn't know how to think on your own if it charged your little go-cart for you.
I do my own thinking, Ashurst. I not only March to my own beat; I'm the drummer.
And for the love of pete, this is supposed to be a post about the sequester!
Thank goodness. ;-)
In other words Patrick Moore perceived that Greenpeace organization was mostly about tribal loyalty and rationality was put to the service of giving it a rational facade.
Maybe that isn't so much a right/left trait as a human trait.
I'm not disagreeing with you, Renee. I'm urging you to see your fellow tribes-pesons in that light.
The sequester fight is basically tribal warfare.
Let me ask you this... do you believe there are radicals, hypocrites, those seeking to profit in the green movement? And if so, I genuinely want to know why they are not denounced.
And a whole lot of it is subconscious.
Do you mean a battle for ideology? Because if that is what you mean, I disagree. I believe it is a power struggle. Obama wants to crush his "enemies" - he would prefer to allow individuals to suffer (for political reasons) instead of working to ensure the sequester only impacts the rampant waste and abuse that exists in the federal government.
tribal affiliation.
Be as all about the individual and individual thinking as you. You are still a social animal with powerful instincts centered around tribal loyalty.
All I ask is that you see that and become a tad more open to the possibility that your thinking and my thinking can at times be more instinctual than rational.
And by the way. Could we talk about the amazing Charlie's brilliant deficit rreduction plan? It's a ways up there in the comments.
Tell me what's wrong with the amazing Charlie's brilliant deficit reduction plan.
Obama wants to crush his "enemies"
You believe there should be cuts, but they should be more targeted, more balanced? Yes, everyone agrees with that, except for the Prezzy, sadly.
This rival tribes wants to take something away from me. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR Kill. Kill the enemy.
Most of this project centers on one thing: growth.
Republicans have this right.
As the economy recovers, the yearly budget deficits will be shrinking dramatically, one, because we can ease up on government spending to keep the economy on life support and, two, tax revenues start to increase.
We don't want taxation to kill the recovery, so we have to be careful at this time not to increase taxes. At the same time, we don't want to kill spending right now because government spending is still to a degree propping up the recovery. A little patience is in order here. Soon, the economy, if it keeps recovering, will not need this support.
Then, we move onto deficit reduction, learning what we can from how a bipartisan effort achieved that in the 1990s.
At that time, it'll be a whole lot of cuts and a bit of increased taxes, about 4:1 spending cuts verus new taxation.
And, just as in the 1990s, it will be discipline applied in Congress, the guidlines of which were discarded in the 2000s.
Proposed new taxation:
carbon tax.
How?
How?
Pay attention, Ashurst...you're being bestowed with Wisdom.
Yes. Let us cease the overbearing taxes and stifling regulation.
Two ways to go about that:
1.) Reform your government.
2.) Drive your government over the nearest cliff. After which, guess what? You have a huge expensive mess to clean up after. Kind of like how we got ourselves into this situation in the first place.
"I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious."
--Thomas Jefferson
This is strange:
The people pay the taxes based on their own earnings - they provide goods and services that people want. The small business owner employs the most workers.
These workers pay taxes to the federal government and what do they get in return? They should be getting protection from outside threats (including illegal criminals!)
The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security.
James Madison, Federalist No. 45, January 26, 1788
The rest of the time, they should BUTT OUT.
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress. ... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America." --James Madison
--Thomas Jefferson
And, additionally...when the PARASITE destroys the HOST...the parasite is also doomed.
And education for their kids. And basic research that industry otherwise would have no interest in funding but that will be the basis of tomorrow's economy. And infrastructure. And a bit of refereeing to keep the game clean. And some environmental standards.
The system was not designed for the federal government to do anything you just mentioned Charles - in fact, America was warned against that specifically.
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress. ... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America." --James Madison
It was the Plan all the long.
And education for their kids. And basic research that industry otherwise would have no interest in funding but that will be the basis of tomorrow's economy. And infrastructure. And a bit of refereeing to keep the game clean. And some environmental standards.
Government has no role play in any of this? None.l
What, was Dwight Eishenhour, who gave us the US freeway system, some kind of a communist?
Private Equity uses Investor Money
This gives the vital ingredient needed for success - accountability.
They will, therefore, only work with companies that they believe will succeed.
The companies that reach out to private equity are typically in a bad spot - they may even go bankrupt without assistance.
When the companies profit, they hire people. LOTS of people.
Public Equity uses Taxpayer Money
If Taxpayer money is used, there is no direct accountability.
Taxpayers do not have an option to review the gamble taken with their money to determine whether the investment is feasible.
There is less of a need to determine if the money being invested is actually going to produce a profit. For the Green Stimulus, Obama said "all projects receive funding based solely on their merits," which is not true.
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union...it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America." James Madison
What made America a super-power?
published by the United States Constitution Sesquicentennial Commission,
under the direction of the president, the vice president, and the Speaker
of the House in 1943, contained this exchange in a section titled' 'Questions and Answers Pertaining to the Constitution":
Q. Where, in the Constitution, is there mention of education?
A. There is none; education is a matter reserved for the states.
Nope. You wouldn't even know what the earliest Institutions of Education were established for. Tell me if you know.
"public education" in this Country was installed by Commies...strictly to indoctrinate an entire Nation.
Drones...psshhh..
Path 1: A $2 Trillion Increase in Primary Deficits. With economic effects and debt service included, the cumulative increase in the deficit would total $2.5 trillion and debt would reach 87 percent of GDP in 2023, compared with, respectively, 73 percent at the end of 2012 and 77 percent projected for fiscal year 2023 under current law.
Path 2: A $2 Trillion Reduction in Primary Deficits. The total cumulative decrease in the deficit would amount to $2.4 trillion and debt would drop to 67 percent of GDP in fiscal year 2023.
Path 3: A $4 Trillion Reduction in Primary Deficits. The total cumulative decrease in the deficit would amount to $4.8 trillion and debt would drop to 58 percent of GDP in fiscal year 2023.
Wow. Even with the utmost fiscal tightening, we'd only get to 58% of GDP by 2023.
nice
The GOP has a point. Let's favor the long term and lower GDP now for lower debt later.
But. Please. Let's not kid ourselves that the sequester will do anything but give us short term pain.
And. My other point still stands.
This is not HOW to cut.
Not so nice.
Agree. Instead of cutting time for workers, the abundant waste should be addressed.
Additionally, how about the Judge's suggestion?
But if any of these cataclysms do come to pass, then they will be mostly Mr. Obama's own creation. The truth is that the sequester already gives the White House the legal flexibility to avoid doom, if a 5% cut to programs that have increased more than 17% on average over the Obama Presidency counts as doom.