Print Story Breaker's budget report! (B- for Boy George)
Diary
By Breaker (Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 08:31:51 AM EST) (all tags)
Inside:
Budget report.
Attn: Metal infidels!
Footie Footie Footie!


Overall a reasonable budget I thought.  Further cuts are required to bring our spending more in line with what the government confiscates from us, so could do better.

Not too sure about the VAT hike though; then again it's only 2.5%.  Labour spokesweasels seemed to take this as their only line of attack I've read so far. 

As it is a tax on consumption the poor can avoid it easily enough; it's not applied to:

    * food
    * books, newspapers and magazines
    * young children's clothing and footwear
    * special exempt items - for example equipment for disabled people

Unclear if special rated VAT items like electricity (5% VAT) is going to change as part of this though.  Then again seeing as the 5% was levied by Tory Ken "Baron von Greenback" Clarke, they've got form on VAT rises on essentials.

Failure to cut NHS spending was a FAIL, as was overseas aid spending.  I have still yet to understand why we're giving India and China aid money.

Cameron needs to grow a pair and renegotiate our discount to the EU, seeing as Sarkozy has reneged on changes to the CAP that Tony "Liar" Blair "negotiated" away.

Aside from that a lot of the cuts don't affect me.  I get no tax credits, Child benefit is such a small part of income that no increase isn't going to matter anyway. 

Any shares I still hold are protected in a employees share program that I've held for > 5 years so aren't CGT liable, and the rest are in the toilet (thanks ObamaMessiah you cunt) so I won't be selling them anytime soon.

Middle England will bear the squeeze the hardest I think, which is part of the Coalition of Circumstance's (or at least the Tories) longer term plan to wean them from the delusion that surrendering your income for the government to give back to you is a good thing.  Laying the groundwork for reducing overall taxation once the crisis engineered by Labour has passed.

The real squeeze is going to go down in the Autumn review, I think.

Apologies for lack of further analysis, but there is a World Cup on, a massive do or die client deadline (stopped work 2am this morning), a SHED OF POWAH to be finished and a daughter unit to be fussed over.

------------------

I have linked to them before, but Valour are really rather good.  Follow that link and listen to RaveDead - a little Disturbed sounding IMHO; but good melodies, excellent guitaring and their drummer manages to mix traditional style drumming with some seriously brutal double bass action.

-------------------

Well, unless Capello and his merry band of unmotivated, uncoordinated showponies pull their fingers out tonight we'll be out. 

One of the few upsides of being a Newcastle fan is you get used to the taste of defeat often enough it doesn't hurt so much after a while. 

But Capello, go 4-3-3 from the start and let the Potato Boy actually score a goal, perhaps?

Come, on Engerlandland!

UPDATED: Added ObamaMessiah link.

< And behold... | Slovenia 0 - England 1 >
Breaker's budget report! (B- for Boy George) | 38 comments (38 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
Valour by TPD (4.00 / 1) #1 Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 09:03:41 AM EST
just having a listen definitely got the chops. I'm not a big fan of the singing though... Shows lots of potential though.

why sit, when you can sit and swivel with The Ab-SwivellerTM
Innovative by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #2 Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 09:19:32 AM EST
lead guitarist though, I thought.  Singing I quite liked.

They look poised at that make or break moment when they'll have to quit jobs and tour like crazy, keeping fingers crossed that they'll get signed to a major.


[ Parent ]
If you fancy going to see one of there shows by TPD (4.00 / 1) #3 Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 09:23:10 AM EST
before they hit said big time give me  a shout

why sit, when you can sit and swivel with The Ab-SwivellerTM
[ Parent ]
1st August by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #5 Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 09:34:35 AM EST
Could be a goer I think.  And we'll get to vote as it's an unsigned showcase too.  Dunno what you have to do to prove you're a musician to get the 50 point weighting mind.

Do they have a room with instruments in where you go to play some riffs or something?


[ Parent ]
I think I could be up for that too by TPD (4.00 / 1) #8 Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 12:45:06 PM EST
 though by then I might still not have got Bark at the moon down (latest attempt here which is also the first time the sub100poubdrockmachine has been recorded ) maybe I could be allowed a 25 point weighting?

why sit, when you can sit and swivel with The Ab-SwivellerTM
[ Parent ]
Having listened to some of the other bands by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #11 Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 03:49:34 PM EST
At previous events, if tested you'd probably get given a +10 on the 50.

BATM - your open chords are much crisper, muting on the rhythm line could be tighter though.

Soloing - you're getting more adventurous but losing flow between phrases.

Overall, this BATM sounds worse than the previous you posted. 

This is a good thing, because I can hear you going for the total accuracy, the harder soloing and the full chords instead of cut down versions.  You're not going to get better at playing it if you just follow the safe slightly wrong route you can play well.

So an improvement, just doesn't sound like it!

That's not a negative criticism, I hope.  Go through your files from when you started and listen to how far you've come as a guitarist.  I'm well impressed and so should you be.


[ Parent ]
Update by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #4 Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 09:30:16 AM EST
Has Capello been reading HuSi?
It could be that captain Steven Gerrard is handed a more central role in a 4-3-1-2 formation.


Ah no by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #6 Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 10:19:55 AM EST
4-4-2.  Because it's worked so well this stage.


[ Parent ]
(Comment Deleted) by xth (2.00 / 0) #18 Thu Jun 24, 2010 at 03:22:59 AM EST

This comment has been deleted by xth



[ Parent ]
Not exactly by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #19 Thu Jun 24, 2010 at 05:57:31 AM EST
Our best group stage though was it?


[ Parent ]
The system's not the problem. by yicky yacky (4.00 / 1) #22 Thu Jun 24, 2010 at 06:16:26 AM EST

The way they were playing was.

Honestly; I've heard so much shit talked about the system in the last ten days. In the Algeria game, they couldn't even pass; their connect percentages were atrocious; the number of mis-hit or inaccurate passes was huge; there were several occasions where they literally passed it to the advertising boards for an opposition throw-in. This was made worse by the fact that there was no movement at all; they'd hit the ball and stand still, possibly thinking about chips, choosing to forego moving a few yards in order to provide their team-mates with options. On top of that, their finishing has been profligate. The obvious causality issues aside, they could easily have scored five yesterday; ditto the US game.

You simply can't begin to assess whether a system is working or not in those circumstances; you don't even have the requisite baseline data to be able to do it.

The only decent criticism of the system that I've heard is that they may end up being out-gunned in midfield when they start coming up against good teams that play a central five in a disciplined fashion. It's certainly possible and is a cause for concern, but it's not really happened yet.


----
Vacuity abhors a vacuum.
[ Parent ]
Watching Ghana vs Germany last night by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #24 Thu Jun 24, 2010 at 07:54:29 AM EST
Ghana played some lovely, lovely football.  Their mid and long rang passing was a joy to watch; what let them down was their short passing - bad choice of target and the Germans would put 3 men on the ball and swamp the Ghanian in possession.  Players didn't have the on the ball skills to retain posession.

I think we have tricksier players that might get through a German defender or two, in which case we might get a result.

But not if our passing and running is as off as it was when playing Algeria.

In light of yesterdays game, when I thought we looked pretty good for the first 75 minutes, perhaps 4-4-2 is the way forward for us.  I suggested a different up from combination as in the previous 2 games we were rubbish.


[ Parent ]
(Comment Deleted) by xth (4.00 / 1) #23 Thu Jun 24, 2010 at 06:40:38 AM EST

This comment has been deleted by xth



[ Parent ]
Out of the group by jump the ladder (4.00 / 1) #7 Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 11:57:03 AM EST
I'd take that. Much improved, hopefully quarter finals as usual.

Oil investments by gpig (4.00 / 1) #9 Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 12:52:01 PM EST
Last year my 'positive ethical' extra pension doubled in value.* A large part of their fund is invested in renewable energy. It'll be interesting to see what happens to that after this year's events.

On the oil spill, I would blame the US government for failing to regulate the oil industry well enough to prevent the incident, or have a plan for catastrophic failure. Ultimately though, it has to come down to BP and the contractors involved, they should have been prepared for this.

I don't know why you'd blame Obama specifically. His administration inherited an oil regulator which was firmly in the pockets of the industry; and he chose to pursue other priorities rather than clean it up. I don't blame him for that as there were (and are) lots of other issues needing attention, a government can't do everything at once.

*I'd only had the thing for a year previously so the sums involved were not gigantic, but still ....
---
(,   ,') -- eep

Well by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #10 Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 01:24:52 PM EST
Renewable energy; depends on how the war between the Warmist Fetishists (WF) and the Deniers goes.  At the minute governments are shovelling money at it to be seen to be "doing something" after the WF's scare tactics.

Oil spill - ObamaMessiah repeatedly calls it "British Petroleum" when no such company exists after the merger with Amoco a while back.  As such BP is 40% US owned, but still FTSE listed, he's talking down Britain for no reason.

You may argue it's in retaliation for Gordon Brown's Labour Government of Liars "it started in America", but Brown and Labour are out of power.  Cameronanon never used the phrase and it's pretty petty politics from the Messiah.

Why aren't the US owned Halliburton and Transocean also being bullied by the Senate?

If you read the link - why wasn't the Jones' Maritime act lifted immediately to get more cleanup ships to site?

Is ObamaMessiah deliberately allowing the environment to be harmed more so he can push his Green agenda?  Is he deliberately using a British company as the tool of this, knowing if BP goes bust over it, the damage to the US is minimal but it might mean a massive hit to pension funds in the UK?

Are those pension funds in the UK paying out to the parents of our soldiers serving and dying in Afghanistan?

I can forgive ObamaMessiah for not getting around to sorting out the oil industry's regulation just yet, but by his action and inaction he's proving himself to be quite the unsavoury character.


[ Parent ]
Well well by gpig (4.00 / 1) #12 Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 04:29:54 PM EST
Renewable energy; ....  At the minute governments are shovelling money at it

.... with a teaspoon, unfortunately. The tax credits given to oil companies for exploration are more than investment in renewables. (Will try to dig up the source for that, I think it was the Economist).

ObamaMessiah repeatedly calls it "British Petroleum"

I don't know if "British Petroleum" was deliberate, if it was it's a pretty petty way to make it look like a British-caused disaster.

Why aren't the US owned Halliburton and Transocean also being bullied by the Senate?

I don't know, but if I had to guess, I would say it's because they fund a number of Senators.

Do you think this would have gone any differently the other way round -- if a similar thing had happened to a hypothetical Exxon rig using British contractors in the North Sea?

why wasn't the Jones' Maritime act lifted immediately to get more cleanup ships to site?

Is ObamaMessiah deliberately allowing the environment to be harmed more so he can push his Green agenda?

If the facts can be explained by a cock-up, why allege a conspiracy? Even if the leak had been completely stopped after a week, it would still lend a lot of weight to the move to renewables. (Falsely, in my opinion -- the overriding reasons to ditch fossil fuel have nothing to do with oil spills).

Neither the government nor BP responded well (in a lot of ways, not just the Jones Act thing) because they didn't have a plan ready to go when it happened. Ultimately, it was BP's responsibility to have a plan.

Are those pension funds in the UK paying out to the parents of our soldiers serving and dying in Afghanistan?

Why the unnecessary appeal to emotion, and why Afghanistan specifically? If you feel that strongly about the relatives of serving military, campaign for them to get some special tax breaks or something. It has precisely fuck all to do with the issue at hand. Some investors have puppies too. What if the puppy breaks its leg? They need that money for the vet or the puppy will limp pitifully for the rest of its life.

Those pension funds (and other shareholders) have benefitted from BP's enormous profits and dividends in the past. They are now suffering the downside of (if reports are to be believed) their corner-cutting, or possibly lack of diligence in employing good contractors. The US government hasn't been perfect, but even if they'd done it right, the BP share price would be in the shitter, because they didn't plan for this.

Incidentally, I don't agree with the blanket 6 month moratorium; I think it should have been applied to operations involving BP and the contractors who were directly involved in the disaster, until those operations could be inspected thoroughly. (After which time the inspectors would move on to other deep water sites). That said, given the huge impact of this disaster, I don't blame them for being cautious in preventing another one.
---
(,   ,') -- eep

[ Parent ]
Well well. by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #13 Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 05:06:04 PM EST
Renewable energy; ....  At the minute governments are shovelling money at it
.... with a teaspoon, unfortunately. The tax credits given to oil companies for exploration are more than investment in renewables. (Will try to dig up the source for that, I think it was the Economist).

I'd be interested in reading it.  But Governments are encouraging entrepreneurs with the promise of a guaranteed market.

I don't know, but if I had to guess, I would say it's because they fund a number of Senators.
In which case it's the job of a Bob the Builder "Yes We Can" President to overrule those, surely?

Do you think this would have gone any differently the other way round -- if a similar thing had happened to a hypothetical Exxon rig using British contractors in the North Sea?
Yep, see Piper Alpha.  Ukian Government fell over themselves to help, there.  Remember how quickly Red Adair was hired and on the site?

If the facts can be explained by a cock-up, why allege a conspiracy?
I'm not sure they have been.  Bush got hammered over late response to hurricane Katerina; why isn't The Messiah?

Even if the leak had been completely stopped after a week, it would still lend a lot of weight to the move to renewables. (Falsely, in my opinion - the overriding reasons to ditch fossil fuel have nothing to do with oil spills).
You're right, but images of endless waves of oil covered sickly birds drive it home.  We'd have had enough of those even with prompt unilateral action.  And for the record, I'm well up for renewables, if they're self sufficient.

Neither the government nor BP responded well (in a lot of ways, not just the Jones Act thing) because they didn't have a plan ready to go when it happened. Ultimately, it was BP's responsibility to have a plan.
Not according to regulation, legally.  I agree though - BP should have had a "fucking hell it's all gone tits" protocol in place.  They didn't, and clearly neither did the US Govt.

If you feel that strongly about the relatives of serving military, campaign for them to get some special tax breaks or something.
What makes you think I haven't, already?

It has precisely fuck all to do with the issue at hand.
Yes it does.  If I have to explain this then I wonder what kind of friends you have.

Those pension funds (and other shareholders) have benefitted from BP's enormous profits and dividends in the past. They are now suffering the downside of (if reports are to be believed) their corner-cutting, or possibly lack of diligence in employing good contractors. The US government hasn't been perfect, but even if they'd done it right, the BP share price would be in the shitter, because they didn't plan for this.
Yes it would.  But then for the POTUS to properly put the boot in, deliberately not make any efforts to help, and obstruct any other help, that's not a fair market.

Incidentally, I don't agree with the blanket 6 month moratorium; I think it should have been applied to operations involving BP and the contractors who were directly involved in the disaster, until those operations could be inspected thoroughly. (After which time the inspectors would move on to other deep water sites). That said, given the huge impact of this disaster, I don't blame them for being cautious in preventing another one.
Me neither.  I think we can probably agree that:

  • Deep sea drilling needs better regulation
  • Deep sea drilling needs better inspection
  • Deep sea drilling needs to have comprehensive company plans for disaster, and a complete liabilities listing
  • Governments permitting deep sea drilling needs to have comprehensive plans for disaster, fast track legislative powers that can temporarily override local laws if environmental or safety issues arise
  • We need to wean ourselves off oil as energy.
Can you disagree with any of those bulletpoints?


[ Parent ]
Well well well by gpig (4.00 / 1) #17 Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 08:34:36 PM EST
In which case it's the job of a Bob the Builder "Yes We Can" President to overrule those, surely?

The President can in no way "overrule" senators. The American political system is made such that senators, and to a lesser degree representatives, have a lot of power -- much more than MPs. Senators in particular have magical powers of obstruction, so any executive has to tread carefully.

Yep, see Piper Alpha.  Ukian Government fell over themselves to help, there.  Remember how quickly Red Adair was hired and on the site?

Fair point.

I'm not sure they have been.

What part of US government action on the oil spill can't be explained by lack of preparedness?

Bush got hammered over late response to hurricane Katerina; why isn't The Messiah?

Katrina was a hurricane. There had been warnings, it was known that the levees were in a bad state, much of the city was below sea level and areas had been severely flooded in previous storms. The oil spill is fundamentally an oil industry engineering problem. On the other hand, the response needed to Katrina was standard humanitarian stuff -- get people out of there, get them fed, get them to a doctor if they need. A well-resourced government that can't do that for its own people has no excuse.

And actually, from a US resident's point of view, he is getting some flak for his handling of it. The most bizarre moment, which may or may not have made it across the Atlantic, was early on when he was criticised for "not showing enough anger".

If I have to explain this then I wonder what kind of friends you have.

Wonder away, I was calling you out on an appeal to emotion, nothing more.

But then for the POTUS to properly put the boot in, deliberately not make any efforts to help, and obstruct any other help, that's not a fair market.

Again, incompetence and lack of preparedness, not conspiracy. As I said above, if you have any evidence I would be interested to see it.

Can you disagree with any of those bulletpoints?

No. Good to agree with you on something, at last -- it seems to happen eventually if we both keep typing long enough.
---
(,   ,') -- eep

[ Parent ]
Well well well well by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #21 Thu Jun 24, 2010 at 06:08:34 AM EST
The President can in no way "overrule" senators.
Expose and cajole them then?

What part of US government action on the oil spill can't be explained by lack of preparedness?
Uhh, the refusal of help from other nations?

Bloody hell, Breaker and gpig agree on many things, truly the new politics!


[ Parent ]
!?! by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #25 Thu Jun 24, 2010 at 09:05:16 AM EST

THAT'S NOT HOW SENATORS WORK!!

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

[ Parent ]
That's PRESIDENT Fartbongo to you by ammoniacal (4.00 / 1) #14 Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 05:36:20 PM EST
Engerlander scum.

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

[ Parent ]
The president can't revoke law by lm (4.00 / 1) #15 Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 06:55:54 PM EST
The president can act Congress to revoke a law or sue to have the supreme court overturn a law. But Obama is pretty helpless when it comes to revoking a law all by his lonesome.

Also, you're barking up the wrong tree with regards to his "green agenda" when it comes to offshore drilling. Obama made expanding offshore drilling part of his campaign. And, in fact, he'd just given the go-ahead for expansion of the Virginia coast.

I can't recall off the top of my head where I'd read it or heard it but somewhere I heard a really good point. Imagine a BP rig in the North Sea suffered the same fate and the coast of France was now awash in oil. What are the odds that Sarkozy would be anywhere near as mild in his language as Obama has been? Seriously, Obama's words for BP are about as intimidating as a stern look.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
whereby 'can act' I mean 'can ask' by lm (2.00 / 0) #16 Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 07:47:36 PM EST
The president can ask Congress.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Then why didn't he? by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #20 Thu Jun 24, 2010 at 06:04:53 AM EST
The green agenda goes beyond offshore oil drilling; it's all about the carbon taxation.  This is just a useful tool in the furthering of that.

If the coast of France was awash with oil, a pan European cleanup effort would be underway; if Sarkozy had had a call from the Dutch (see link in diary) he'd have said merci beaucoup when can you get here?


[ Parent ]
How do you know he didn't? by lm (2.00 / 0) #26 Thu Jun 24, 2010 at 06:30:05 PM EST
I would not expect a phone call to the senate majority leader to be made into a press release unless it looked like it was going to work.

Obama: "Do we have enough votes to overturn Jones?"

Reid: 'Probably not, but let me get back to you.'

But nice goal-post shifting on Sarkozy.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Then by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #27 Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 05:11:58 AM EST
There would have been a press release going on about how the opposition were risking the environment for political reasons.


[ Parent ]
Perhaps that's not a good idea by lm (2.00 / 0) #28 Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 06:08:50 AM EST
I don't know that the American public would take kindly to a press release from the oval office admitting that we are unable to fix it ourselves.

The art of politics is at least as much about public perception as it is getting things done. A great example of this is the last months of Saddam Hussein in power. Regardless of the reality of the situation, he had to keep his subjects convinced that he had weapons of mass destruction while convincing the US that he had none.

This is part of why I was convinced that whoever won this past the US presidential election was utterly fucked. Multiple present crises not only require an unusually good leader but also an extremely persuasive one because the steps that need to be taken for many of the crises are painful ones.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
They'd do it over here. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #29 Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 06:41:24 AM EST
Anonymous leak to the press "Cabinet minister said we can't do the good deed x because evil Opposition party y won't support it, putting party political pointscoring over the good of the nation, typical party y"...

Is ObamaMessiah now on a lower approval rating than Bush was?  He has something of the Tony Blair about him.


[ Parent ]
I haven't checked the latest polls recently by lm (2.00 / 0) #30 Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 07:52:28 AM EST
But popularity of the president is besides the point. For a press release (or a leak) to be effective, it has to play to strong public opinion on the issue at hand. "Outing" an inability to get a strategy of which most Americans disapprove passed through Congress is hardly a winning game.

It seems to me what it boils down to is Obama isn't doing the things that would make him attractive to you and you're wondering why he doesn't do them.

That's an easy enough question to handle. There isn't a significant voting bloc in the US that thinks like you do on the immediate question at hand.

And, for all of Obama's faults, I don't he does a pretty good job of keeping his eye on political realities. He's not going to waste his time on a fool's errand that most Americans don't support.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
What it boils down to by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #31 Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 08:33:32 AM EST
Is Obama isn't doing the things that are best for the environment, because he has pressure elsewhere - sacked Afghan General, deficit, failure to push through healthcare reforms and plunging popularity.


[ Parent ]
Except he did push through health care reform by lm (2.00 / 0) #33 Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 04:58:19 PM EST
It just hasn't taken effect yet. It will.

And the deficit was a known factor from the get-go. No new surprises there.

That leaves popularity and a sacked general as pressure to go green. The latter didn't happen until after the incident alleged to be part of his great green conspiracy. So its hard to view that as a pressure for him to move more green, especially when it comes to offshore drilling. In fact, just the month before the BP SNAFU, he approved more drilling off the Virginia coast.

Which leaves popularity alone. I suspect that Obama isn't much worried about popularity this far out from the next presidential election.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Reform by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #34 Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 06:42:23 PM EST
In its original state?  Some commentators I've read claim it's a mish mash of compromise that will be the worst of both worlds.

The debt was there, but Obama can do something about the deficit.  Has he?

He always had the green agenda, just now he's got some grist for his mill.

I wonder when Al Gore's coming over to the White House next?  (After therapy to cure him of his "crazed sex poodle" tendencies, of course).


[ Parent ]
I can find commentators that think anything by lm (2.00 / 0) #35 Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 08:46:18 PM EST
The health care bill that passed does have quite a bit of dreck in it. I'm not very happy about the way that much of it works.  But that's besides the point. It does contain significant and much needed reform.

You're also missing the point about the deficit. Outside of a few small groups (like the Concord Coalition) nobody in the US gives a rip about the deficit. Quite a few people say that they care about it but ask those people what specifically they can cut out of the budget and all you hear is the chirping of crickets. Not to mention, strictly speaking, it's the job of Congress to balance the budget. The president has veto power over the budget that Congress passes but other than that, it's their job to balance the book.

Lastly, on the green agenda, it's irrelevant because he's always supported limited offshore drilling. His difference with McCain with regards to offshore drilling was entirely one over the extent to which new wells should be allowed, not whether or not new wells would be allowed at all. In fact, I have friends that almost didn't vote for him because of that.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
The trouble is by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #36 Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 05:54:16 AM EST
From what I've read, that some parts of that dreck have the possibility of clogging up the works, so that some parties can point at them and say "see - socialised medical care doesn't work".  Which would be bad; I fully agree that reform was necessary.

Oh the deficit will bite people soon enough once you head into Grecian territory.

Green agenda is not limited to drilling; it's the mess of taxes that follow it that bothers me. 


[ Parent ]
I suspect that's the heart of our difference by lm (2.00 / 0) #37 Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 07:39:20 AM EST
I don't think that having the possibility of not working, or even of making things worse, necessarily means that reform isn't present.

I personally would have preferred a series of much simpler bills, each of which attacked one specific item in a way that was easy to understand. Then legislators would be on record as to exactly what they support and what they don't support.

But the US Congress seldom works like that. They prefer to pass a big honking mess and then trim it down over time with amendments on entirely unrelated bills.

I think that's an ugly way to get their business done.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Bad reform by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #38 Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 05:51:59 PM EST
Is worse than no reform at all.


[ Parent ]
did you check the latest polls a long time ago? by nathan (2.00 / 0) #32 Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 11:16:19 AM EST
</lm>

[ Parent ]
Breaker's budget report! (B- for Boy George) | 38 comments (38 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback