Putting American lives in danger is rather irresponsible and wreckless, don't you think?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/03/11/gop-s-continuing-resolution-cuts-funding-for-national-weather-service-fema.aspx

Quote :

"According to the House Appropriation Committee's summary of the bill, the CR funds Operations, Research and Facilities for the National Oceanic Atmospheric Association with $454.3 million less than it got in FY2010; this represents a $450.3 million cut from what the president's never-passed FY2011 budget was requesting. The National Weather Service, of course, is part of NOAA -- its funding drops by $126 million. The CR also reduces funding for FEMA management by $24.3 million off of the FY2010 budget, and reduces that appropriation by $783.3 million for FEMA state and local programs."

3/12/2011 12:11:34 PM

I like the response I heard to this on I think it was Bill Cunningham's show last Sunday. They were all for doing away with the National Weather Service saying "I have the Weather Channel"... I don't have enough faces nor palms to handle that one...

3/12/2011 1:35:22 PM

so, apparently, absolutely nothing can be cut, according to liberals. Got it.

3/12/2011 1:57:13 PM

From the article you posted....

Quote :

"Are there cuts here that would have impacted the speed at which, say, California reacted to the impending tsunami? Doubtful"

3/12/2011 4:03:28 PM

Conservatives don't see the consequences to cutting these type of programs because conservatives don't believe in science to begin with.

3/12/2011 4:10:17 PM

I think they should cut volcano monitoring, I mean, those only affect a couple states.

3/12/2011 4:22:52 PM

Raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires. Why is the only discussion cutting spending rather than increasing revenues?

3/12/2011 5:22:56 PM

maybe because "soak the rich" has been proven not to work. duuuuuh

oh, and the consequences of trying it in the middle of a recession would be disastrous.

[Edited on March 12, 2011 at 5:28 PM. Reason : ]

3/12/2011 5:25:51 PM

Raising taxes on the rich and government spending brought us out of the Great Depression, Aaron.

You're wrong again.

3/12/2011 5:29:35 PM

Talage, same was said about New Orleans levees for years.

3/12/2011 5:30:26 PM

Quote :

"so, apparently, absolutely nothing can be cut, according to liberals. Got it."

3/12/2011 5:33:13 PM

^^^actually, no, it didn't. I'm glad that you've bought the line that public education sold you, but what brought us out of the Great Depression was WWII. We had the only economy that hadn't been ravaged by war, so of course we were able to sell all of our shit to other people. The fact is, raising taxes massively (which is what Hoover did) helped cause the Great Depression. Google the Revenue Act of 1932. The rich had their taxes raised from 25% to 63%, and corporate taxes were raised by almost 15%. And then you are shocked that the country then descended into a depression? Give me a break!

the nasty fact is that these tax increases caused the Depression. And then, FDR's policies of raised taxes and increased spending prolonged it. Only until all other major world economies had been thoroughly destroyed by WWII did we emerge from the Great Depression

^ well, all I hear about is "OMFG WE CAN'T CUT THIS, OMFG WE CAN'T CUT THAT, OMFG YOU CAN'T CUT THAT EITHER!!!

[Edited on March 12, 2011 at 5:37 PM. Reason : ]

3/12/2011 5:36:08 PM

Strange I hear that whenever we talk about military spending.

3/12/2011 5:49:05 PM

But but but military spending is the one sole job of the government. It says so in the CONSTITUTION!! So write them a blank check or you hate Amurica...


And who is saying that we can't cut anything. The OP laid out one example where it would be reckless to cut and I illustrated another. If you actually want to advocate the abolition of the National Weather Service then I'd love to hear it.

[Edited on March 12, 2011 at 5:54 PM. Reason : .]

3/12/2011 5:52:23 PM

The only reason raising taxes on the rich might not "work" is because many of the rich will do a lot more of what they've been doing since obama became president and thats "hold their money" and reduce their participation in the economy as a protest to having to pay taxes. This hurts their pockets but they are already set for life but it really hurts the lower class who loses jobs. Things grind to a hault and the rich then keep the economy hostage until the people elect politicians who will make sure they can make as much money as possible.

3/12/2011 6:23:31 PM

WWII caused massive governmental spending. Thanks for helping me prove my point, Aaron!

3/12/2011 9:29:11 PM

yes, but that's not what you were initially suggesting. You were trying to suggest that the New Deal brought us out of the depression. Keep moving those goalposts, dude.


and, Hockey, I'd say there's plenty of room in the military's budget for cuts. We could start by closing a bunch of our overseas bases and move away from our interventionist policies

3/12/2011 10:09:56 PM

Why is it that they focus on cutting specific programs... why not a 1% cut across the board? If you can't choose which ones are optional, have them all cut a little.

3/13/2011 12:53:47 AM

Slashing taxes and government spending brought us out of the Great Depression, pryderi.

You're wrong again.

Private investment did not recover to pre-depression levels until after the war when the government slashed taxes, slashed spending even more, and began paying down the national debt.

3/13/2011 1:09:29 AM

^^^Thats the only thing keeping gas prices from being 9 dollars a gallon. Gas prices must be kept artificially high to maintain the non-negotiable oil-thirsty american way of life.

[Edited on March 13, 2011 at 1:48 AM. Reason : economic crash]

3/13/2011 1:48:06 AM

Hoover cut top marginal tax rate from 73% to 24%, the rich got reckless with their wealth and caused the Great Depression. Bush did the same thing with the same results.

If tax cuts create jobs, why did Bush only create a net 3 million jobs? Those cuts cost us $1.7 trillion in deficits.

Republicans are irresponsible and should stop trying to run our government.

[Edited on March 13, 2011 at 7:04 AM. Reason : .]

3/13/2011 7:03:38 AM

Quote :

"non-negotiable oil-thirsty american way of life"

lolz

3/13/2011 9:44:24 AM

^^ Recessions happen. They always have and always will. Yet, they only ever became a decade long depression under your man FDR.

3/13/2011 10:32:15 AM

Recessions aren’t natural, they’re a product of man.

Resigning to believing they “always will” happen means you have accepted a flawed device. It’s like if you bought a car with a flat tire and said “oh well, cars have always had flat tires, and always will” instead of fixing your flat tire.

3/13/2011 12:27:49 PM

Booms aren't natural, they are a product of man. An economy isn't natural, it is a product of man.

What are you even saying?

3/13/2011 1:11:26 PM

GOP wants to cut USAID....which is heading up our relief effort in Japan....GOP says it is wasteful and does nothing good....

[Edited on March 13, 2011 at 10:34 PM. Reason : w]

3/13/2011 10:33:19 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-zfCBCq-8I

3/13/2011 11:15:02 PM

Quote :

"Why is the only discussion cutting spending rather than increasing revenues?"

Probably b/c government spending has increased just about every year since the dawn of time, and can't be sustained forever.

Quote :

"Why is it that they focus on cutting specific programs... why not a 1% cut across the board? If you can't choose which ones are optional, have them all cut a little."

I've wondered about this as well. Like, what if you cut 10% of everything? Perhaps it's a naive way of thinking but the gov't loves making things more complicated than they need to be.

3/14/2011 2:07:11 PM

Quote :

"Why is it that they focus on cutting specific programs... why not a 1% cut across the board? If you can't choose which ones are optional, have them all cut a little."

because that's incredibly simple

everything has to be super fucking complicated when it comes to the government.

3/14/2011 3:28:48 PM

^^ Because that would mean cutting entitlements by 10%. How?

To me it would be easy. I could cut entitlements by 40%. Make medicare means tested, make both medicare and medicaid fixed-payment-per-procedure based, make Social Security means tested and pay a fixed check to everyone. This alone would eliminate the deficit and then some.

3/14/2011 3:46:23 PM

the problem with cutting medicare/medicaid by that much means that states have to take on the costs.

unfortunately they're not in the place to take on the costs. so if that decision is made, then people stop recieving the benefits... are we prepared, as a society, to deal with those consequences?

[Edited on March 14, 2011 at 3:52 PM. Reason : okay that sounds a little drastic, but seriously]

3/14/2011 3:51:59 PM

Not under my plan. The crux of my plan was denying benefits, not shifting their cost to the states. As such, as the federal burden fell by 40%, so would the state burden. Instantly, both levels of government would be solvent.

Warren Buffett is currently receiving a monthly Social Security check and free healthcare from Medicare. All the while calling for higher taxes on the rich. How in the hell does that make sense?

Eliminate government services for the rich. They can afford it.

[Edited on March 14, 2011 at 4:31 PM. Reason : .,.]

3/14/2011 4:24:37 PM

while i am completely in favor of eliminating things like SS, Medicare and Medicaid for those making over $1M a year, i really do wonder how many people who actually need the services could get hurt.

i'm going to ask google and see what i find.

3/14/2011 4:51:08 PM

Quote :

"free healthcare from Medicare. All the while calling for higher taxes on the rich. How in the hell does that make sense? "

It doesnt at all actually.

3/14/2011 4:51:30 PM

It is entirely possible that this ideal can be obtained simply by scrapping both SS and Medicare. If an old person is poor enough to deserve help, they will easily quality for both Medicaid and the disability insurance component of the SS program.

As such, scrap Medicare, and raise the retirement age of SS to 200. If an old person can no longer work and cannot support themselves then they will qualify for disability.

Putting the burden on the individual to show they need help is one option. The alternative (and kinder) option is to put the burden on the government to show an individual does not need help. You get benefits once you turn 65, and whenever the government finishes your paperwork it either keeps paying or sends you a bill for the services paid so far.

[Edited on March 14, 2011 at 5:04 PM. Reason : .,.]

3/14/2011 5:00:57 PM

Loneshark and Lunak need to research the difference between medicare and medicaid.

I doubt people making over 1M would get medicaid.

Also medicare isnt free.


None of it is really, someone has to pay.

3/14/2011 7:11:10 PM

Holy shit, the stupid here makes me want to hurt people.

The OP's cuts are survivable. As much as it pains me to agree with aaronburro, we're gonna have to cut things we'd rather not. Tough shit. It happens. Even if we raise taxes we'll have to cut shit.

Quote :

"maybe because "soak the rich" has been proven not to work. duuuuuh oh, and the consequences of trying it in the middle of a recession would be disastrous."

This is the kind of damn fool talk that's murdering the country. Nobody can even consider raising taxes, even though at this point it is completely necessary, economically, politically, and otherwise.

Quote :

"The only reason raising taxes on the rich might not "work" is because many of the rich will do a lot more of what they've been doing since obama became president and thats "hold their money" and reduce their participation in the economy as a protest to having to pay taxes."

This is retarded. Money follows incentives. So either what you're saying is flat-out wrong, or you're saying that capital will be withheld out of a petty attempt to punish politicians. I don't see a lot of evidence for that.

Quote :

"Private investment did not recover to pre-depression levels until after the war when the government slashed taxes"

It also didn't recover until after the ENTIRE FUCKING PLANET decided to cool it with the protectionism brought on by the depression and WWI before it. It is astonishing to me that you will drink one flavor of libertarian kool-aid (that involving domestic policy) while ignoring the more important other flavor (involving foreign relations).

Quote :

"Recessions aren’t natural, they’re a product of man. "

So are economies. They don't spring out of nothing, they arise from our behavior. The rest of your post is bunk; recessions will come an go, because they are functions of economies, which are in turn functions of our own psychology. You might as well claim, "Murders aren't natural, they're a product of man." Which is true, as far as it goes, but hardly helpful.

We can mitigate the effects of recessions, and we would be better off focusing on that than outright preventing them.

3/15/2011 12:46:13 AM

Quote :

"This is the kind of damn fool talk that's murdering the country. Nobody can even consider raising taxes, even though at this point it is completely necessary, economically, politically, and otherwise. "

that's not the problem though. People want to tax the rich back into the stone ages while still enjoying thier current tax breaks and low tax rates. Everyone needs to contribute additional taxes to get ourselves out of this mess, but no one wants to pay. Claiming that the way out of this mess is to rob the pockets of the rich is just silly.

3/15/2011 1:15:18 AM

Claiming that to tax the rich most/first is equivalent to "robbing" them is equally stupid.

A small middle-class tax increase could go a long way to balancing the budget, and I think it is absolutely necessary. But the wealthy can afford to shed a few more ducats as well. It's only fair to balance out the cuts that must be made in aid to the poor through SS, medicare, etc.

3/15/2011 1:20:38 AM

But why raise taxes on anyone, even the rich, when we can simply stop giving so much government money to the rich and completely eliminate the deficit for both levels of government? None of this going a long way towards crap.

3/15/2011 1:49:18 AM

Well, there are those who would argue that "cutting government money" to one group is equivalent to raising their taxes.

The fact is we're in bad enough shape that radical (by modern political standards) changes are necessary on both ends of the equation.

3/15/2011 1:58:35 AM

Quote :

"Well, there are those who would argue that "cutting government money" to one group is equivalent to raising their taxes. "

You are taking away something they didnt earn though. A difference from taking away what is earned. imo

THough I agree with you about the need to raise taxes on everyone to fix our problem. However, I would like to see evidence that govt simply wont grow to fill in the excess as it has in the past. Or expand these programs that give away more, so it becomes impossible to ever cut anything.

Like this thread. Yes it makes for a good headline, but even the article says it wont make a difference in our ability to warn against tsunamis.

3/15/2011 9:17:03 AM

Quote :

"However, I would like to see evidence that govt simply wont grow to fill in the excess as it has in the past."

I would like to see evidence that "starving the beast" actually works, rather than leading to massive deficits.

3/15/2011 9:58:06 AM

^that would require CUTS in spending. So we agree.

3/15/2011 10:36:25 AM

Quote :

"Well, there are those who would argue that "cutting government money" to one group is equivalent to raising their taxes."

Are you one of them? If so, fine: you want to raise their taxes, here is a "tax" I and others are willing to raise. Will you join us in calling for the immediate implementation of this "tax increase"?

3/15/2011 11:10:11 AM

LoneSnark: explicitly for raising taxes for those who ain't got the money to begin with

Quote :

"Claiming that the way out of this mess is to rob the pockets of the rich is just silly."

Yeah the only way out is to get out of the way and let the rich rob the fuck out of everybody else

[Edited on March 15, 2011 at 2:54 PM. Reason : .]

3/15/2011 2:53:03 PM

^Funny, I thought the government was the only one who could legally rob people. Care to explain how that happens?

3/15/2011 3:10:40 PM

Quote :

"Putting American lives in danger is rather irresponsible and wreckless, don't you think?"

No, I don't.

The floating tsunami detectors already in the ocean are going to tell us if there is a tsunami coming whether or not NOAA gets more or less funding than last year.

The seismograph already next to the volcano is going to take readings before, during, and after an eruption whether or not the USGS gets more or less funding than last year.

If we have another natural disaster, there may be some unfortunate deaths but they would happen whether or not FEMA gets more or less money than last year. As far as clean-up and aid, things like that will come no matter what FEMAs funding situation is.

[Edited on March 15, 2011 at 3:11 PM. Reason : -]

[Edited on March 15, 2011 at 3:12 PM. Reason : ^He isn't going to tell you. ]

3/15/2011 3:11:36 PM

Quote :

"Nobody can even consider raising taxes, even though at this point it is completely necessary, economically, politically, and otherwise."

It's one thing to say that we need to raise taxes. It's another to say that we need to "soak the rich," which is what Dems seem to be proposing.

3/15/2011 3:20:45 PM

Quote :

"Funny, I thought the government was the only one who could legally rob people. Care to explain how that happens?"

The fuck are you blathering about? Am I supposed to enter a conversation where words no longer mean what they do in English? Get lost

3/15/2011 3:21:01 PM