The Drone Thing

[AUChizad]

Do we really need 976 bases around the globe at taxpayer expense? Nobody bothers to look at the federal outlays we shell out. If you look at DoD and HHS spending as compared to what we bring in revenue wise, you'd be appalled.

Which leads us to why Republicans suck too.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/25/small-government-gop-governors-getting-a

Small-Government GOP Governors Getting All Pissy About Sequester Cuts

Nick Gillespie|Feb. 25, 2013 8:20 pm

If GOP members of Congress have finally (and mostly reluctantly) signed on to the reality of sequester cuts, the country's Republican governors seem a lot more bent out of shape at the idea of losing various crumbs from federal coffers. Here's the Christian Science Monitor on the case:

    When asked specifically if he would accept new tax increases as part of a compromise to avoid the cuts – in other words, the White House's preferred solution – [GOP] Governor [Robert] McDonnell [of Virginia] didn't say no. "The solution is up to Congress," he said. "I'm just saying don't put all the burden on the states and the military. You guys figure out how to get it done."...

And remember give-em-hell Jan Brewer, the Republican governor who is arguably most famous for wagging her finger at Obama on a Grand Canyon State tarmac?

    Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) – who has publicly clashed with the president in the past – also wouldn't rule out tax increases as part of an eventual solution to avoid the sequester. Speaking on "Face the Nation," Governor Brewer noted that her state would be hit particularly hard by the cuts to border patrol agents. "We don't like increases in taxes," she said. "But … we know we have to be pragmatic. We know that there has to be some type of compromise."

Meanwhile, Gov. Rick Perry (R-Texas) says

    "Everyone is concerned about this, and well we should be," said Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, who blamed the upcoming cuts on "a total lack of leadership" by the White House. He warned that "lives will be put in jeopardy" from cuts to military and air-transit funding.

Yeah, no. Planes will not fall from the sky and al Qaeda will not infiltrate the U.S. because of sequester cuts.

Then there are Republican governors who are not getting squishy on the sequester (most of whom run states with relatively few military bases) but just suck on their own budgets. Consider, for instance, Ohio's John Kasich, who told Larry Kudlow recently that the sequester should kick in if the feds can't get their act together (he uttered something about hoping a compromise could be reached). But Kasich has signed off on Obamacare's Medicaid expansion (he told Kudlow unconvincingly that such a move would help him control spending better) and his own budget jacks spending up in the Buckeye State by a nice chunk of change:

    GRF [General Revenue Fund] spending under Governor Strickland [Kasich's Democratic predecessor] was $50.7 Billion.

    John Kasich’s first budget increased GRF spending to $55.8 Billion.

    Kasich’s new budget increases spending even more: to $63.2 Billion.

    That’s an increase of $12.5 Billion dollars over the course of Kasich’s term as governor.

    Matt Mayer, of the conservative think tank Opportunity Ohio, told Plunderbund : “I guess we now know why Governor Kasich refuses to fund a tax cut by reducing spending. Congressman Kasich would have had a field day with this budget.”

Whole thing here.

Gallup.Gallup.The Republican Party is in a tizzy these days, talking about the need for rebranding, fresh ideas, you name it. Don't you understand? Obama's Democrats are playing dirty, using social media and other cheap tricks to beat us!

In Washington, the GOP is led by ideological non-entities such as Speaker John Boehner (who voted for TARP, No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, all the war spending you can imagine, etc.) and House Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. These guys are quintessential big government conservatives who want to cut the other party's spending priorities while kicking out the jams for their own constituents. At the state level, the GOP has got a handful of true budget-cutting types who often muck up their "leave us alone" message with a bunch of extraneous social issues that scare the bejeezus out of independent voters.

On the state and federal levels, the GOP might do well to consider the notion that they should take their own rhetoric seriously and actually push for, you know, smaller government across the board. Not smaller government except for defense, or when it comes to policing gay sex, or targeting firms that might hire illegal immigrants, or opposing drug legalization. There's a goddamn large number of people out there (read: majority of voters) who have disaffiliated from either the Democrats or the Republicans who say they want a government that does less and costs less. Folks such as Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Justin Amash seem to be doing pretty well by laying down a logically consistent line.

Voters aren't going to swarm to the GOP to bask in the glow of Boehner and McConnell and Kasich and Brewer's flagrant B.S.ery when it comes to being small-government zealots. They just might respond to principled pols who actually mean it when they say government should be smaller, do fewer things, and cost us all less money.

[AUTiger1]

Which leads us to why Republicans suck too.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/25/small-government-gop-governors-getting-a

Fuck'em.  Fuck'em all in dey mouf X 10 and feed'em fish heads!

God forbid they have a cold hard look at their budget and make cuts before raising taxes.  That would make too much sense.  Why on God's green earth would I cut out unnecessary spending when I can raise my revenue with the people's tax dollars?   Is Rand Paul the only politician out there that is seeing through both sides bullshit and fear mongering?   I am sure it would hurt Arizona some, but I am also sure they could cut out a lot of unnecessary spending in their state house and it would hurt as bad.

It's out of control.  We can't keep raising revenue without any spending cuts.  Until everyone (all Americans) realize that we have become one big shit sandwich that everyone has to take a bite of, then it's not a matter of if we will collapse, it's a matter of when. 

[GH2001]

Which leads us to why Republicans suck too.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/25/small-government-gop-governors-getting-a

Republicans pretty much built the Military industrial complex as we know it. So yeah, I wont defend most of them. Pretty much was AUT1 said.

Rand Paul 2016. That is all.

[Vandy Vol]

Make no mistake about it, BHO has increased the debt more than any other president. Period. It has went from 10 to 16 Trillion in just 4 years and 1 month.

While the total debt has increased, the annual deficit has decreased.  When Obama took office in 2009, it was $1.4 trillion.  At the ending of the fiscal year on September 30, 2012, it was $1.1 trillion.

Nonetheless, that's a shitty decrease and more needs to be done.  We can't continue to overspend by a trillion each year.  Unfortunately, no one in Congress wants to do anything.  They're too busy bickering at each other.

[GH2001]

While the total debt has increased, the annual deficit has decreased.  When Obama took office in 2009, it was $1.4 trillion.  At the ending of the fiscal year on September 30, 2012, it was $1.1 trillion.

Nonetheless, that's a shitty decrease and more needs to be done.  We can't continue to overspend by a trillion each year.  Unfortunately, no one in Congress wants to do anything.  They're too busy bickering at each other.

Lot of that in fiscal year 08/09 came from Bush's Tarp 1 and overall bad spending policy. Yeah, you're right though. You can't go in the whole 1-1.5 trillion per year for very long. Bush went on avg in the hole .5 trillion per year. Obama has went 1.2 trillion in the hole on avg per year. We just can't keep this up and everyone aside from Paul, Rubio, Lee and Cruz fails to see it. I think Paul Ryan was trying but got chastised in the media for it. The reality is, steep cuts will need to be made. And it's going to hurt. We're going to have to take it up the butt when it happens but it has to happen. There will be pain points no doubt. But it will be far less painful than if we default on a debt we can't pay.

[WiregrassTiger]

fudge'em.  fudge'em all in dey mouf X 10 and feed'em fish heads!

God forbid they have a cold hard look at their budget and make cuts before raising taxes.  That would make too much sense.  Why on God's green earth would I cut out unnecessary spending when I can raise my revenue with the people's tax dollars?   Is Rand Paul the only politician out there that is seeing through both sides bullshoot and fear mongering?   I am sure it would hurt Arizona some, but I am also sure they could cut out a lot of unnecessary spending in their state house and it would hurt as bad.

It's out of control.  We can't keep raising revenue without any spending cuts.  Until everyone (all Americans) realize that we have become one big shoot sandwich that everyone has to take a bite of, then it's not a matter of if we will collapse, it's a matter of when.

There was a guy in the 90's that ran for prez twice. I voted for him both times. He made a lot of sense to me. Unfortunately, I only helped get Clinton elected. In retrospect, it certainly could have been a lot worse (like now).

Point is, 3rd party guys ain't got a shot--yet. I'll stick with the Republicans until they do.

[AUChizad]

I'm not being obtuse, but I can't reconcile how both of these statements can be true.

While the total debt has increased, the annual deficit has decreased.  When Obama took office in 2009, it was $1.4 trillion.  At the ending of the fiscal year on September 30, 2012, it was $1.1 trillion.

Lot of that in fiscal year 08/09 came from Bush's Tarp 1 and overall bad spending policy. Yeah, you're right though. You can't go in the whole 1-1.5 trillion per year for very long. Bush went on avg in the hole .5 trillion per year. Obama has went 1.2 trillion in the hole on avg per year.

How did the deficit decrease by $0.3 trillion if Obama was "going in the hole" 1.2 trillion a year? I'm seriously asking.

[GH2001]

I'm not being obtuse, but I can't reconcile how both of these statements can be true.

How did the deficit decrease by $0.3 trillion if Obama was "going in the hole" 1.2 trillion a year? I'm seriously asking.

1.4 in FY2009
1.3 in FY2010
1.2 in FY2011
1.2 in FY2012
1.0 projected for FY2013

6.1 trillion added to to the debt divided by 5 years is approx 1.2 trillion per year on avg. and the deficits are shrinking but it's still at a crazy level.

Bush deficits from 2000-2008 were:

133 mill
420 mill
554 mill
595 mill
553 mill
574 mill
500 mill
1.02 trillion

All of these for bush are inflation adjusted. You can see here his avg about 500 billion a year or .5 trillion.

[AUChizad]

1.4 in FY2009
1.3 in FY2010
1.2 in FY2011
1.2 in FY2012
1.0 projected for FY2013

6.1 trillion added to to the debt divided by 5 years is approx 1.2 trillion per year on avg. and the deficits are shrinking but it's still at a crazy level.

Bush deficits from 2000-2008 were:

133 mill
420 mill
554 mill
595 mill
553 mill
574 mill
500 mill
1.02 trillion

All of these for bush are inflation adjusted. You can see here his avg about 500 billion a year or .5 trillion.

The way you're trying to present these numbers is misleading, at least as far as I am understanding it.

So Bush took the deficit from 133 mil when he took office, and increased it every single year until it reached 1.02 trillion for Obama to inherit.

Obama takes it down every single year, and this somehow reflects poorly on Obama and well on Bush?

I'm not saying he's doing a phenomenal job controlling the debt, but based on those numbers, he's clearly doing an infinitely better job than his predecessor.

[AUTiger1]

There was a guy in the 90's that ran for prez twice. I voted for him both times. He made a lot of sense to me. Unfortunately, I only helped get Clinton elected. In retrospect, it certainly could have been a lot worse (like now).

Point is, 3rd party guys ain't got a shot--yet. I'll stick with the Republicans until they do.

Correct, 3rd party don't have a snowballs chance.  I tend to stick with the Republicans.  I lean more Libertarian and until they can put a viable candidate that stands a chance of winning then I won't waste a vote. 

[GH2001]

The way you're trying to present these numbers is misleading, at least as far as I am understanding it.

So Bush took the deficit from 133 mil when he took office, and increased it every single year until it reached 1.02 trillion for Obama to inherit.

Obama takes it down every single year, and this somehow reflects poorly on Obama and well on Bush?

I'm not saying he's doing a phenomenal job controlling the debt, but based on those numbers, he's clearly doing an infinitely better job than his predecessor.

There's no misleading anything. You asked and I answered. These are just cold hard numbers. It shows how the deficit has decreased .3 trillion from 2009 and yet avged 1.2 trillion over budget his entire time in office. A lot of how the budgets work is very misunderstood and that could be some of the issue here.

Obama hasn't taken anything down but his own record deficit of 1.42 trillion his first year. Bush's worst deficit is equal to obamas best. You don't "inherit" a deficit as they are year over year. And independent.

If you'll notice the uptick in Bush after his first year, it coincided with 9-11 and war funding for just about the rest of his term. The last uptick to 1.02 trillion was much to do with tarp 1 which was a big mistake. 

What you should have gotten out of this is that bush was very bad at balancing a budget. And Obama is worse. They are the two worst presidents in history at operating over budget.

[Vandy Vol]

You don't "inherit" a deficit as they are year over year. And independent.

To some degree you can.  If Congress enacts a program that is going to be funded every year, or if expenditures are made at the end of the previous President's term, then the next President is going to incur those expenditures during his tenure.  And absent Congressional legislation which repeals those expenditures, there's nothing the President can constitutionally do, as Congress controls the purse strings.

The President can veto every bill that Congress proposes which would increase spending, but it doesn't do anything to affect the budget that they've already passed.  Not to mention that I'm not a fan of the whole "vote no to everything" plan of action.  Congress simply needs to step up and take some responsibility.

[GH2001]

To some degree you can.  If Congress enacts a program that is going to be funded every year, or if expenditures are made at the end of the previous President's term, then the next President is going to incur those expenditures during his tenure.  And absent Congressional legislation which repeals those expenditures, there's nothing the President can constitutionally do, as Congress controls the purse strings.

The President can veto every bill that Congress proposes which would increase spending, but it doesn't do anything to affect the budget that they've already passed.  Not to mention that I'm not a fan of the whole "vote no to everything" plan of action.  Congress simply needs to step up and take some responsibility.

They typically don't though. Each years budget, is for the most part, set anew. Some parts may have to be funded from year to year but as a whole its an independent budget. And it's technically congress not the president although he is expected to submit a budget and sign one once congress approves. Take tarp 1 for instance under Bush. That's a one off situation that inflated his last years deficit. He typically ran deficits between 133-575 million so 1 Trillion was definitely an outlier. I think a surplus can actually be carried over to the next year or be taken from the debt....same difference really. The cbo has Obama running a deficit like this the rest of his term. And for that matter even after he is out. Things don't look good unless some drastic fiscal responsibility is taken soon.

I think it's also worth mentioning the tactic used by Reid and Pelosi of passing continuing resolutions.

[Vandy Vol]

They typically don't though. Each years budget, is for the most part, set anew. Some parts may have to be funded from year to year but as a whole its an independent budget.

In regard to the actual "budget" that the President drafts and Congress approves, yes, many of those expenses are from year to year and don't carry over in many instances.

But I'm referring to the "budget" in terms of what we actually spend each year and what we make each year.  There are expenditures that do not appear in the official budget that the President drafts, such as expenses for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The defense spending figure we see in the annual budget doesn't include money spent on ongoing wars, at least to my understanding.

Additionally, if Congress were to create a new mandatory program, or alter a current mandatory program, those don't require the passage of annual appropriations bills to alter spending.  Mandatory programs continue to spend according to the terms of the authorization bill that was signed into law, and they'll only stop spending or alter their spending of money when Congressional action is taken to alter or remove those programs.  Only discretionary programs require an annual appropriation bill in order for spending to be allowed in those programs.

Either way, it's Congress that needs to act on this.  Sure, the Presidents are at fault for drafting the budgets and continuing unnecessary spending, but Congress is also failing to act.  If a President were to veto legislation that legitimately could help us get out of this hole, then I'd be fine with placing all of the blame on him.  But when he's doing what he can to make Congress act on an issue in which they're the only entity that can act, and yet they're not acting, something has to give.

I think it's also worth mentioning the tactic used by Reid and Pelosi of passing continuing resolutions.

To some degree, those continuing resolutions could be needed.  When Congress fails to create appropriation bills for existing programs, we have to have some form of legislation which would allow us to spend money on those discretionary programs.  Otherwise, existing programs that need funding will fail, as happened in 1995.

I honestly haven't read much on what Reid and Pelosi are doing with continuing resolutions, so I don't know whether they're abusing them or not, although I wouldn't put it past either of them to do so.  I just know that continuing resolutions have frequently been used when Congress fails to timely create a budget.

[CCTAU]

None of this matters. WE are the drones.....

[Saniflush]

None of this matters. WE are the drones.....

[bottomfeeder]

We'll decide what they are when we bring the down. The hummingbird drones may not have enough left to find out.

[Vandy Vol]

[GH2001]

In regard to the actual "budget" that the President drafts and Congress approves, yes, many of those expenses are from year to year and don't carry over in many instances.

But I'm referring to the "budget" in terms of what we actually spend each year and what we make each year.  There are expenditures that do not appear in the official budget that the President drafts, such as expenses for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The defense spending figure we see in the annual budget doesn't include money spent on ongoing wars, at least to my understanding.

Additionally, if Congress were to create a new mandatory program, or alter a current mandatory program, those don't require the passage of annual appropriations bills to alter spending.  Mandatory programs continue to spend according to the terms of the authorization bill that was signed into law, and they'll only stop spending or alter their spending of money when Congressional action is taken to alter or remove those programs.  Only discretionary programs require an annual appropriation bill in order for spending to be allowed in those programs.

Either way, it's Congress that needs to act on this.  Sure, the Presidents are at fault for drafting the budgets and continuing unnecessary spending, but Congress is also failing to act.  If a President were to veto legislation that legitimately could help us get out of this hole, then I'd be fine with placing all of the blame on him.  But when he's doing what he can to make Congress act on an issue in which they're the only entity that can act, and yet they're not acting, something has to give.


To some degree, those continuing resolutions could be needed.  When Congress fails to create appropriation bills for existing programs, we have to have some form of legislation which would allow us to spend money on those discretionary programs.  Otherwise, existing programs that need funding will fail, as happened in 1995.

I honestly haven't read much on what Reid and Pelosi are doing with continuing resolutions, so I don't know whether they're abusing them or not, although I wouldn't put it past either of them to do so.  I just know that continuing resolutions have frequently been used when Congress fails to timely create a budget.

Agree for most part.

Reid and Pelosi actually passed one for him before he was actually inaugurated. Kind of weird really.

I guess main point to Chad was that Obamas budgets are a lot out of whack because of the spending that has taken place. 2009 -2011 had a lot of spending that has arguably done nothing. Tarp 2, auto bailouts, several stimulus bills. Dont forget also that most of Tarp has been and is still being paid back by banks. Thats actually revenue. Most of these overages were on him. Not Bush. But Bush did his fair share of spending as well. Thing is, Bush isn't president now.

[Vandy Vol]

I guess main point to Chad was that Obamas budgets are a lot out of whack because of the spending that has taken place. 2009 -2011 had a lot of spending that has arguably done nothing. Tarp 2, auto bailouts, several stimulus bills. Dont forget also that most of Tarp has been and is still being paid back by banks. Thats actually revenue. Most of these overages were on him. Not Bush. But Bush did his fair share of spending as well. Thing is, Bush isn't president now.

At this point, there's not much at all that Obama can legitimately blame on Bush.  Sure, he can still attribute certain debts to Bush which occurred early in Obama's presidency, but the vast majority of what has been spent since 2009 must be laid on the shoulders of Obama.

With that being said, we've got to realize that this isn't a football team; Obama is not a head coach to which all players, coaches, and other staff report to him.  Obama is just the head of the executive branch, and there are checks and balances that prevent him from being able to single-handedly spend money or single-handedly reduce spending.  Congress has the final say in approving the budget, other than the President's veto ability, which I'm somewhat sure Obama hasn't used on an appropriations bill.

Essentially, while I have no problem blaming Obama, I do have a problem with acting like he's a socialist dictator who is 100% to blame.  People have got to realize that we've got shitty politicians all around who have collectively dumped us into this situation over the course of many years.  Same with Bush.  It may have been the President's initial budget that set the tone for what we were going to spend, but Congress had the ability to reject it and overhaul it, yet they have consistently failed to do so.