In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 449
Online now 211 Record: 4850 (6/6/2012)
The home for discussion on USC athletics
FightOn247 message board for off topic posts
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Once again you argue apples and oranges. The difference being that at one time Barack went by Barry. I did not create that name. Bush never went by shrub.
One is clearly derogatory and made up and the other referencing another name he has gone by. I didn't call him a clown name or anything else.
"...an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough jobs or enough profits" JFK
This "discussion" does bring up an interesting question. What is the most deragatory nickname for a US President?
Join the fight for YOUR liberty!
Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers?
Does he go by Barry now? If Ronald Reagan asked everyone to call him Samantha in the playground in 8th grade would it have been cool for me to taunt him with that name when he was our President? I thought he was a terrible President too but I still won't make myself look so small-minded and petty as to call him by the name that he doesn't use in a derogatory way. Just stop being a child and have some respect. It reflects much worse on you than on our President.
This post was edited by swr22 13 months ago
“Close tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share,” Reagan vowed.
No response swr22? I'd be curious to see where, in my "simplistic" view, of leftist policy/ideology I've gone astray ...
Cry Havoc; and let slip the dogs of war!
"Martin Van Ruin"
"Little Jemmy" and "His Little Majesty"
It deserves a proper reply. It's my birthday today and I have too many depressing deadlines. If I don't get back to you in a day or two, remind me.
I do genuinely want to hear your thoughts. Maybe it will blossom into something productive.
Gov't: Budget cuts already causing airport delays
WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. airports, including Los Angeles International and O'Hare International in Chicago, are already experiencing delays in waiting lines as a result of automatic federal spending cuts, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Monday.
Both of those big-city airports routinely suffer delays. Napolitano was describing wait times inside airports. The Federal Aviation Administration reported Monday there were no significant flight delays in either Los Angeles or Chicago.
Napolitano, who spoke at a Politico-sponsored event on the 10th anniversary of DHS, said delays will become worse. The Transportation Security Administration and Customs and Border Protection agencies, which are part of the Homeland Security Department, are issuing furlough notices and have cut overtime for employees.
Napolitano said she expects a cascading effect during the week, with wait times expected to double in worst cases.
I posted the above in the sequestration thread. I believe it is also appropriate for this one.
"Obama continues to complain the sequester does not represent a balanced approach to deficit reduction, and wants to replace some of the spending cuts with tax increases. But the Simpson-Bowles Commission laid out what a “balanced” approach should entail: $3 of spending cuts for every $1 dollar in tax increases. Well according to Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), by that standard Congress and the president have nearly met that mark ..."
Sequester cuts get us closer to the Simpson-Bowles plan.
'The administration has every incentive to make the sky fall, lest we suffer that terrible calamity — cuts the nation survives. Are they threatening to pare back consultants, conferences, travel and other nonessential fluff? Hardly. It shall be air-traffic control. Meat inspection. Weather forecasting.
A 2011 GAO report gave a sampling of the vastness of what could be cut, consolidated and rationalized in Washington: 44 overlapping job training programs, 18 for nutrition assistance, 82 (!) on teacher quality, 56 dealing with financial literacy, more than 20 for homelessness, etc. Total annual cost: $100 billion to $200 billion, about two to five times the entire domestic sequester.
Are these on the chopping block? No sir. It’s firemen first. That’s the phrase coined in 1976 by legendary Washington Monthly Editor Charlie Peters to describe the way government functionaries beat back budget cuts. Dare suggest a nick in the city budget and the mayor immediately shuts down the firehouse. The DMV back office stacked with nepotistic incompetents remains intact. Shrink it and no one would notice. Sell the firetruck — the people scream and the city council falls silent about any future cut ..."
As I understand it (which may be wrong; please correct me if that is the case), the cuts must be spread between non-exempted agencies in a pre-determined percentage to each agency. Obama has left it up to each agency to decide how to meet the mandated cuts. The plans by the agencies have been sent to Congress a few days ago.
Good thing you bring up President Reagan.
When he was younger, and even to his wife he was known as "Ronnie" - however, those on the left took to calling him that under his Presidency and after, even though he clearly preferred Ronald or Ron...interesting to me that nobody on the left stood up to claim that was disrespectful.
But calling the POTUS Barry, which was his preferred name for a large part of his life seems to be the same thing.
This post was edited by deetj13 13 months ago
The cuts are indiscriminant and across the board.
The first meeting with the cabinet to discuss the cuts was today.
The House offered to pass a bill that allowed the departments to use their discretion as to which programs would be cut and eliminate non-essential programs, etc - but Obama said he would veto anything that did not contain a tax increase (not to mention that there was little chance that a House bill could get passed the Senate).
The game of political chicken has been played by both sides on this. Any attempt to absolve EITHER side in this matter is merely partisan politics.
Like I said earlier, this is the best example we have that we need to clean house (and senate) and start over.
If I am understanding you correctly (if not, correct me) the legislation mandated how much must be cut from each area?
My understanding is that each of the areas that are cut are done so by a specific % that indiscriminately cuts each account, without input for the particular department.
The cuts were supposed to be so broad and so impactful that they would never be instituted. They were supposed to be a nuclear option that raided ALL programs in ALL departments.
There is little to no discretion allowed or built into the Sequestration bill - in order to avoid the typical politics of the departments to cut programs that were important to some political parties and not to others (eg - Defense programs are kept in Blue States and not in Red States) - the legislation was written to impact both parties equally with across the board cuts.
Like I said, this was a game of political chicken and both sides figured the other would turn the wheel - and neither did. This is ridiculous and now the people they serve are getting hurt, not the politicians in DC.
Throw them all out on their ass and lets start new with representatives that actually want to get things done and have the best interests of their constituents at heart, rather that the political grandstanding that we have today in DC.
Assuming that is true, Phear's assertion that Obama is intentionally cutting certain areas for political gain is nonsense. The legislation is being followed and thre is not much discretion..
My point was not to defend Phear, but rather establish, as I understand, that there is not ability for the government to cut in one place and not another.
However, I do find that each side is HIGHLIGHTING certain things that will be cut that make the biggest impact on public perception.
I also will point out that many Democrats have been claiming that there will be fewer fire and police on the streets - trying to strike a chord regarding public safety. I think we can all agree that this is political grandstanding, since Fire and Police is not a Federal expense, it is usually a municipal, and in some cases a state expense. To claim that there will be fewer police and firemen on the streets due to Federal budget cuts is an exaggeration of gigantic proportions.
It is similar to the GOP claiming that we would be vulnerable to invasion.
The point of the Krauthammer article was that some give could have been allowed to maintain the cuts but add more discretionary powers. But THAT wasn't done out of political motivation.
This is my point. I wasn't trying to claim any kind of superiority of one side over the other (although LowPoint seems keen to do just that). A more general point about being respectful in political debate more generally. I was not saying that no one was rude about Presidents Bush or Reagan- they clearly were- but you'll agree that this doesn't justify being juvenile and moronic to President Obama.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports