Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
The question is, will that serve to wake up their citizens to the reality of their welfare status, or serve as more fodder for demonizing Obama, the Democrats, and progressives and liberals in general? Probably the latter.
Conversely, Republicans would be trying to keep those out, and making their Senators and Electors even more over-representative.
I mean fuck those guys and their love for the military, right?
That aside, you better be thankful for the sequestration, cause it might be the best step forward in keeping the US dollar solvent. If inflation continues to grow, your precious city will become unlivable as law abiding gun owners from rainier valley spread their diversity up to capital hill.
The wealthier segments get their government subsidies mostly in the form of preferential tax treatment, and that won't be affected by cuts in government spending. Those petroleum tax deductions will be just fine thank you very much.
The right's constituency won't be negatively impacted until entitlement cuts to Social Security and Medicare are made.
The Administration better get their shit together. Not only should red states naturally take proportionally higher cuts, just because of the distribution of federal spending at present, but they (the Administration) should go out of their way to skew things so the states represented by the obstructionists and saboteurs that comprise the Republican caucus take even greater hits.
It's not like the House doesn't have a simple remedy if they want this to not happen. They could just lift the sequester.
Do continue voting for the people who reduce funding to VA hospitals while you're getting your ire up.
They also need the Senate and President on board for that, which may not happen even with a clean bill.
@12 "Are the rich in the blue states getting away with murder as well?"
#13 is partially correct, but Andrew Gelman's work has indicated that blue states exist _because_ "the rich" (more expansively than the 1% rich) vote "against their self-interest" in larger proportion.
@5 "But since none of you fucks give two shits about the military contractors and think that anyone who is conservative are assholes, then the furlough of 10,000's shipyard workers isn't a big deal. I mean, who cares about them feeding their family? Amiright? I mean, they are tools of the military industrial complex, so screw them."
Part of the social safety portion of the typical SLOG commenter's politics would help ease these people in the transition towards less military spending that other parts of the typical agenda would drive.
Further, even counting the progressive wing of the Democratic Party against the proposition, they have a much better claim to the conservative label and theories. Unfortunately, the Republican Party, which you correctly identified as being largely comprised and lead by assholes, although I prefer the term radical regressives, has stopped being interested in voting their professed ideology, let alone attempting to participate in government.
Speaking of conservatism, I find your "military industrial complex" usage interesting, as ol' Dwight was talking about the way this spending gets entrenched due to the types of considerations you spell out and their impact on constituent voting and donation patterns.