Reply to Republicans and the debt ceiling

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Republicans and the debt ceiling "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Ouch. [twitter]https://twitter.com/ArthurDelaneyHP/status/1664395512382996483?s=20[/twitter]

Double ouch:
Kevin McCarthy once suggested the president needs "soft food.” Now he's the one serving a "sh!t sandwich" to his caucus.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joe-biden-debt-limit-kevin-mccarthy_n_64774f6ce4b045ce2485f035[/quote]

So tax payers get to keep $40B of their income? I call that a win.

Plus 12 separate appropriaions bills (essentially one per month) by cabinet, instead of one massive omnibus bill every year
[/quote]

Oh come on, this isn't a win for the little guy.  The overwhelming majority of taxpayers taxes are extremely straightforward, most Americans use Turbotax or other simple methods for filing, and there's very little to be audited or investigated.  The people getting and who need to be audited are the people with tens, hundreds, and billions in assets and complicated schemes for trying to hide it.  And, it's not $40B in lost revenue, it's more than an order of magnitude higher.

Also, federal budgets don't work the way you seem to think they do, with your 'essentially one per month' comment.  They all start and finish at the same time government wide with the federal fiscal year.   If the Republicans truly want 12 separate appropriations bills, that's all fine and good, but then they need to start by actually reading the PresBud and the detailed budget requests which come from each agency, rather than the dippy "well I think x agency should be eliminated" or "well I think we should slash x by half" without actually having any sound or rational basis for doing so, because that is exactly what derails the approprations bills.  And along with it, looking at how Appropriations Bill A affects Appropriations Bill B because too often they will say "we're cutting expenditures in agency A because it's being done in agency B and should be combined and expanded over there" in one bill and then in the next bill go ahead and cut Agency B's funding even though they just put a bunch of extra work on Agency B.  The appropriations bills are often being influenced by clueless ideologues who've only been in office 2 or 4 years and who don't even understand how anything works, or who are being completely manipulated by slick corporate lobbyists (energy sector, DoD contractors etc).[/quote]

Extra work on Agency B?

What is that extra work? Shuffling more paper, having more do-nothing meetings, rehashing the same ground covered 50 times before, discussing the mission statement wording again, redesign the interdepartmental logo, reorganize/rename the org charts for the 5 zillionth time, blast out diversity and inclusion emails again and again, reword/stretch your performance review, redesign internal websites and HR policies for the thousandth time, battle in interdepartmental and inter-agency politics and turf wars, getting dozens of people to concur on any decision for fear of retribution?

Do you honestly believe most of these federal departments and offices even have an institutional memory on their proper roles that haven't been bent out of shape by politics (often contrary to the Constitution)? Do you think they have the wherewithall to do anything well or have the agility to do anything well outside of redistribute income?

I'm a former federal contractor in three seperate govt agencies over five years. I've seen it all. Do not try to BS me with crocodile tears for .gov[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics