Stop Roger. We've been through this. So it was congress not Reagan who led the downfall of the Soviet Union?<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 11:45 AM, lfalen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen@turbonet.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Congress, not the president raises the debt celing and writes the budget.<br>
Roger<br>
<div><div class="h5">-----Original message-----<br>
From: Joe Campbell <a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a><br>
Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 15:23:05 -0800<br>
To: Paul Rumelhart <a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a><br>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Budget cuts could slash $1B from vets health care<br>
<br>
> No, Paul. You're drinking the conservative cool aid.<br>
><br>
> Reagan raised the debt as a creative way to cut government programs. The<br>
> story was he crushed the Soviet Union with an arms race. No one said<br>
> anything because that government spending had to do with the military and<br>
> for reasons that escape me conservatives refuse to think of the military as<br>
> part of the government.<br>
><br>
> By the time Clinton took office we were in debt. To lose the debt, welfare<br>
> and other programs were cut. When Bush II took over he raised the debt<br>
> again, this time by waging 2 different wars. Again, no one said anything<br>
> because this was military spending -- and that's safety not government. So<br>
> more government programs now "must" get cut in order to get out of the<br>
> terrible shape we're in. It's the only "rational" thing to do.<br>
><br>
> I have a hard time looking at these patterns and thinking these are<br>
> anything other than Republican strategies to cut government by<br>
> circumventing the democratic process -- cutting programs not by voting in<br>
> folks with that kind of mind set but by creating economic crises. The fact<br>
> that Congress can agree on how to cut "big" government might just be an<br>
> indication that there is less government fat than the conservative myths<br>
> suggest.<br>
><br>
> And I want to be clear that I don't think you're the anti-Christ! (I know<br>
> this comment wasn't directed at me but I want to be clear.) Actually, I've<br>
> always liked you. I just disagree with much of what you say. I'm a little<br>
> tougher on you when it comes to the global warming debate because that is a<br>
> huge issue of importance to future generations, indeed to the human race.<br>
><br>
> Best, Joe<br>
><br>
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Paul Rumelhart <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>>wrote:<br>
><br>
</div></div>> > **<br>
<div class="im">> ><br>
> > Because the Congressional "super-committee" couldn't agree on budget cuts<br>
> > and we've since defaulted to across-the-board cuts. That was all part of<br>
> > the deal that was passed when we were trying to shave the smallest amounts<br>
> > off a small piece of the debt during the whole "debt ceiling" fiasco.<br>
> ><br>
> > We did this to ourselves by electing such a contentious Congress.<br>
> ><br>
> > Paul<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > On 01/02/2012 10:09 AM, Joe Campbell wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > Why do we have to cut back on programs? We were fine with the programs. It<br>
> > was the wars that got us in debt, right?<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > On Jan 2, 2012, at 9:50 AM, Paul Rumelhart <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Well, that's the problem with across-the-board budget cuts, isn't it?<br>
> > Nobody is going to be pleased.<br>
> ><br>
> > We have to cut budgets, and since nobody in Congress can agree on which<br>
> > way is up, this is our only real solution.<br>
> ><br>
> > We have to cut back on how much we spend, since our spending is out of<br>
> > control. It's ridiculous.<br>
> ><br>
> > Paul<br>
> ><br>
> > On 01/02/2012 09:31 AM, Tom Hansen wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > Nice, huh?<br>
> ><br>
> > Courtesy of the January 9, 2012 edition of the Army Times.<br>
> ><br>
> > ------------------------------<br>
> ><br>
</div>> > *Budget cuts could slash $1B from vets health care**<br>
> > Lawmakers may reverse on promises not to cut VA*<br>
<div><div class="h5">> ><br>
> > By Rick Maze<br>
> ><br>
> > As veterans groups face the pos sible automatic, across-the-board cuts in<br>
> > federal spending that could begin in 2013, fear of the unknown is strong.<br>
> ><br>
> > The Budget Control Act of 2011 is “imprecise,” says a House staff member<br>
> > who has been trying to advise lawmakers on how the Vet erans Affairs<br>
> > Department would fare if $1.2 trillion in automatic budget cuts are ordered<br>
> > Jan. 2, 2013.<br>
> ><br>
> > Veterans disability, survivor, education and training benefits, and<br>
> > low-income pensions are exempt from the automatic cuts, a process known as<br>
> > sequestra tion. But it is unclear whether veterans health care funds are<br>
> > protected.<br>
> ><br>
> > A 2 percent cut in veterans health care funding appears possi ble under<br>
> > some readings of the law — and its references back to the 1985 Balanced<br>
> > Budget and Emer gency Deficit Control Act, more commonly known as the<br>
> > Gramm-Rudman Act.<br>
> ><br>
> > “We have not heard any specifics, only vague references that earlier<br>
> > pledges not to cut VA health care or benefits may not be honored by<br>
> > Congress,” said David Autry of Disabled American Veter ans. “That is<br>
> > worrisome.” With a health care budget of about $51 billion to serve 6.2<br>
> > million patients, a sequester could result in a $1 billion cut at a time<br>
> > when the population of Iraq and Afghanistan combat veterans seeking<br>
> > treatment for the physical and mental wounds of war is on the rise.<br>
> > Some patients, particularly veterans who do not have serviceconnected<br>
> > disabilities, could be turned away, say representatives of veterans groups<br>
> > who have studied the potential impact.<br>
> ><br>
> > Fear of devastating cuts from sequestration is partly why leaders of the<br>
> > House and Senate Veterans’ Affairs committees were willing in October to<br>
> > propose cuts in veterans benefits.<br>
> ><br>
> > A joint letter signed by Sens. Patty Murray, D-Wash., and Richard Burr,<br>
> > R-N.C., and Reps. Jeff Miller, R-Fla., and Bob Filner, D-Calif., the<br>
> > leaders of the committees, acknowledged that a “plausible legal<br>
> > interpretation” of the budget law puts veterans medical funds at risk for<br>
> > cuts.<br>
> ><br>
> > “We would rather make the difficult decisions now so that we may never<br>
> > reach that possibility down the road,” the four lawmakers said in a letter<br>
> > to the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction that tried but failed to<br>
> > come up with an overall $1.2 trillion deficit reduction package that would<br>
> > have avoided sequestration.<br>
> ><br>
> > The four were so concerned about harm to the VA health care budget that<br>
> > they were willing to take some controversial actions, including capping<br>
> > annual increases in GI Bill benefits at a level below increases in tuition.<br>
> ><br>
> > Miller, the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee chairman, said any automatic<br>
> > cuts “would have a negative impact on VA’s health care system and its<br>
> > ability to properly care for our veterans.” He expressed frustration that<br>
> > the White House and VA have not clarified the situation. “I have raised<br>
> > this concern numerous times in the past few months, but I am still waiting<br>
> > to hear,” he said. “It is now incumbent on the administration to clarify<br>
> > this issue immediately for veterans once and for all.” Ryan Gallucci of<br>
> > Veterans of Foreign Wars said there is still time to fight to protect<br>
> > veterans programs. “Since no one seems to know for sure, we have a year to<br>
> > make our case to preserve our earned veterans benefits,” said Gallucci,<br>
> > VFW’s deputy national legislative director.<br>
> ><br>
> > “It’s important for our members to call and write Congress to explain why<br>
> > these programs are important and why our veterans need them to remain<br>
> > intact.” In a Nov. 22 statement to its members, the VFW warns that<br>
> > sequestration could lead to increases in co-payments for medical visits and<br>
> > prescription drugs for veterans, and an increase in the enrollment fee for<br>
> > veterans who sign up for VA treatment but do not have service-connected<br>
> > health issues.<br>
> ><br>
> > Signed by Robert Wallace, executive director of VFW’s Washington office,<br>
> > the statement encourages members to contact lawmakers to press for a full<br>
> > VA exemption to sequestration.<br>
> ><br>
> > “Over the next year, many in Congress as well as thousands of registered<br>
> > lobbyists will be working hard to protect their special interests and<br>
> > programs,” the VFW statement says.<br>
> ><br>
> > “We must all work hard to protect the Department of Veterans Affairs<br>
> > health, benefits and cemetery administrations, as well as all military<br>
> > quality of life programs for the troops, their families and military<br>
> > retirees.”<br>
> ><br>
> > ------------------------------<br>
> ><br>
> > Seeya later, Moscow.<br>
> ><br>
> > Tom Hansen<br>
> > Spokane, Washington<br>
> ><br>
> > "If not us, who?<br>
> > If not now, when?"<br>
> ><br>
> > - Unknown<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > =======================================================<br>
> > List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
> > <a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
</div></div>> > mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a> <<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a>><br>
<div class="im">> > =======================================================<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > =======================================================<br>
> > List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
> > <a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
</div>> > mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a> <<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a>><br>
> > =======================================================<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
><br>
><br>
</blockquote></div><br>