Stephen Colbert on the Murdoch Meltdown

Pretty thin on details as far as I can tell. It just sets the numbers for medicaide, medicare, social security and military operations. Anyone know what this means?

SpaceJesus Fri, Jul 15, 2011 11:37:36am

ten foot turban might be a good name for a band

Bulworth Fri, Jul 15, 2011 11:38:49am

re: #5 Killgore Trout

I found the blueprint for the Republican budget…
S.1340 — Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011

Pretty thin on details as far as I can tell. It just sets the numbers for medicaide, medicare, social security and military operations. Anyone know what this means?

What does the “balance” part of the act supposed to refer to?

Gus Fri, Jul 15, 2011 11:42:17am

Apparently Murdoch “apologized to victims families.” Basically an admission of guilt from where I sit. All of the Fox News/News Corpse fan boys are still in denial.

lawhawk Fri, Jul 15, 2011 11:45:10am

re: #5 Killgore Trout

You’ve got to look at those numbers in relation to the base figures in order to start figuring out what’s going on there. Unfortunately, I don’t have the time to suss that out.

Killgore Trout Fri, Jul 15, 2011 11:45:48am

re: #7 Bulworth

What does the “balance” part of the act supposed to refer to?

The want a constitutional amendment to balance the budget (BBA). They’ll never get it.

Bulworth Fri, Jul 15, 2011 11:47:30am

re: #10 Killgore Trout

The want a constitutional amendment to balance the budget (BBA). They’ll never get it.

Ah, yes. Thanks.

lawhawk Fri, Jul 15, 2011 11:48:14am

re: #8 Gus 802

The apology as admission of guilt. That might buy him some time, but if the crimes extend across the pond to the US, that apology wont mean much and people will be demanding his head on a platter.

When you’ve got multiple resignations, indictments, and admissions of wrongdoing at multiple British outlets under his dominion, you can’t just say it was the work of a few rogue journalists. It would seem to be a condoned policy, and one that goes up the chain of command. It will be quite interesting to see if Brooks’ resignation will be top rung, or if it creeps to others at her level or even above her level at corporate.

Killgore Trout Fri, Jul 15, 2011 11:48:56am

re: #9 lawhawk

You’ve got to look at those numbers in relation to the base figures in order to start figuring out what’s going on there. Unfortunately, I don’t have the time to suss that out.

It gets complicated. As far as social security, medicare, etc. it all looks similar to the 2010 budget so I guess all the savings are going to come from shutting down un-named discretionary government agencies.

CuriousLurker Fri, Jul 15, 2011 11:52:20am

Wingnut meltdown alert, aisle 5!

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance Fri, Jul 15, 2011 11:53:09am

Reading this made my head hurt. Those republicans elected to the house last november have to be the dumbest people on the planet.

makeitstop Fri, Jul 15, 2011 11:54:42am

re: #7 Bulworth

What does the “balance” part of the act supposed to refer to?

A Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.

What a freakin’ waste of time.

lawhawk Fri, Jul 15, 2011 11:57:27am

re: #9 lawhawk

Quick hit on that spending…

Take DoD and non-DOD discretionary spending. It sets non-DOD discretionary spending at a $435 billion for each fiscal year beginning after 2012. There’s absolutely nothing that would stop a future Congress from turning around and setting those figures higher or lower (restoring or cutting spending limits). Add that to the DOD spending that starts at $575.790 billion, and it would show a cut of $368 billion and change over the fy 2010 budget ($1.378 trillion).

Then, extending those cuts out over subsequent years gives you the cumulative savings they’re talking about. And that includes a substantial cut over the FY 2010 DOD discretionary budget - $90+ billion.

blueraven Fri, Jul 15, 2011 11:58:16am

re: #15 Dreggas

Reading this made my head hurt. Those republicans elected to the house last november have to be the dumbest people on the planet.

How about this?

“Now is a time for choosing. Now is your time for choosing. As I pointed out to John Boehner yesterday, despite what the pundits in Washington are telling you, it is you and not Obama who hold most of the cards. Obama has a legacy to worry about. Should the United States lose its bond rating, it will be called the “Obama Depression”. Congress does not get pinned with this stuff,” - Erick Erickson, RedState.

[Link: www.redstate.com…]

Oh yes, as long as Obama gets the blame, who cares if the country goes down in flames.

Bulworth Fri, Jul 15, 2011 11:59:02am

re: #16 makeitstop

A Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.

What a freakin’ waste of time.

In other words, a regular rite of passage for Republicans when they regain control of the House when a Democrat is President.

The election of Romney or some other GOPer in 2012 will bring an end to any further chatter about a BBA.

Killgore Trout Fri, Jul 15, 2011 11:59:23am

re: #14 CuriousLurker

Wingnut meltdown alert, aisle 5!

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

Heh.

Bulworth Fri, Jul 15, 2011 11:59:55am

Oh yes, as long as Obama gets the blame, who cares if the country goes down in flames.

RedState sure is Very Serious.

CuriousLurker Fri, Jul 15, 2011 12:02:49pm

re: #20 Killgore Trout

Heh.

I can’t believe it took, what, like 15 months for me to be accused of being a Hamas sympathizer. Sheesh, get with the program, people. /

BongCrodny Fri, Jul 15, 2011 12:03:42pm

re: #10 Killgore Trout

The want a constitutional amendment to balance the budget (BBA). They’ll never get it.

I was gonna go with “that tightrope Republicans must walk between conservatism and derp,” but yours works too.

Fozzie Bear Fri, Jul 15, 2011 12:08:19pm

I think Rebekah Brooks has conclusively proven that at least one ginger has no soul.

Jaerik Fri, Jul 15, 2011 12:11:36pm

Anyone talking about amendments to the constitution at the federal level these days should pretty much just be written off and ignored.

There is absolutely no way that any single party’s pet issue can pass 75% of all state legislatures anymore. Hell, they can’t even get such a thing through both houses of Congress.

The mere suggestion implies the person has been so lost in their own echo chamber for so long, they actually believe a super-duper-duper-majority of everyone in the entire country already agrees with them.

Fozzie Bear Fri, Jul 15, 2011 12:11:45pm

re: #16 makeitstop

A Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.

What a freakin’ waste of time.

Maybe some day people can begin to talk about fiscal policy without having to pretend it’s the same thing as personal or corporate finance. Corporations and individuals must balance their budgets. The same is not true of governments which are in control of their own money supply. (Note: this means that this does not apply to Greece, as Greece doesn’t control it’s own currency.)

Fozzie Bear Fri, Jul 15, 2011 12:15:10pm

Parenthetically, I find it surprising that the fact that Greece is not in control of its own fiscal policy is so infrequently discussed, as though it is an inconsequential tangent. It isn’t. It’s central to the problems Greece faces. Greece must pay the piper by taking austerity measures in the way it is doing so precisely because the piper they must pay is an outside entity.

The E.U. is in much more trouble than the talking heads I have seen on TV seem to realize.

Decatur Deb Fri, Jul 15, 2011 12:15:58pm

Candidate for “Quote of the Day”:

“A senior administration official recently noted those who simply choose not to believe any of the warning related to the debt limit. “These are the kinds of people who get eaten by bears,” the official said.”

[Link: www.washingtonmonthly.com…]

Killgore Trout Fri, Jul 15, 2011 12:16:22pm

re: #25 Jaerik

Anyone talking about amendments to the constitution at the federal level these days should pretty much just be written off and ignored.

There is absolutely no way that any single party’s pet issue can pass 75% of all state legislatures anymore. Hell, they can’t even get such a thing through both houses of Congress.

The mere suggestion implies the person has been so lost in their own echo chamber for so long, they actually believe a super-duper-duper-majority of everyone in the entire country already agrees with them.

Yeah, I suspect even the Republicans don’t believe their own bullshit. They keep trying publicity hollow stunts but in a few days they’re going to have to comprimise or default on the debt.

lawhawk Fri, Jul 15, 2011 12:16:56pm

re: #24 Fozzie Bear

Ginny, her brothers, and Amy Pond all make up for that… /i wish

Bulworth Fri, Jul 15, 2011 12:17:45pm

re: #27 Fozzie Bear
a very good point, and you’re right that it hasn’t gotten any attention, at least as far as what I’ve read on it.

engineer cat Fri, Jul 15, 2011 12:18:05pm

if we ever had a republican dominated government that passed a balanced budget amendment, this is what would happen next:

1) they discover that they have to use real numbers
2) they discover how not to use real numbers
3) therefore, the budget is never actually anything like balanced
4) but after a while it becomes too obvious that they will never balance the budget no matter how hard they try to hide it
5) thereafter they ignore the fact that they ever passed a balanced budget amendment by routinely passing emergency bills to evade the fact

jvic Fri, Jul 15, 2011 12:19:41pm

re: #18 blueraven

How about this?

[Link: www.redstate.com…]

What if the country’s credit rating is downgraded? “Don’t worry, be happy”, sez…National Review?!

Fozzie Bear Fri, Jul 15, 2011 12:20:06pm

re: #32 engineer dog

Yep. Bush took war spending out of the budget entirely for that exact reason. If it had been in the budget, we would have had to reckon directly with the cost. So instead, he just made the entire thing discretionary.

Then, when Obama put it on the books, every started screaming that he increased spending, as though, somehow, that money wasn’t already being spent.

Bulworth Fri, Jul 15, 2011 12:21:27pm

re: #32 engineer dog

if we ever had a republican dominated government that passed a balanced budget amendment, this is what would happen next:

1) they discover that they have to use real numbers
2) they discover how not to use real numbers
3) therefore, the budget is never actually anything like balanced
4) but after a while it becomes too obvious that they will never balance the budget no matter how hard they try to hide it
5) thereafter they ignore the fact that they ever passed a balanced budget amendment by routinely passing emergency bills to evade the fact

I think they wouldn’t bother trying to enforce it and if some entity or political party did attempt to have it enforced the teabagger government would just yell something about the “unitary executive theory”, accuse Democrats and the “liberal” media of hating America or some other such bs.

Bulworth Fri, Jul 15, 2011 12:24:53pm

5) thereafter they ignore the fact that they ever passed a balanced budget amendment by routinely passing emergency bills to evade the fact

This

sagehen Fri, Jul 15, 2011 12:32:50pm

re: #10 Killgore Trout

The want a constitutional amendment to balance the budget (BBA). They’ll never get it.

Because it would be stupid.

Let’s go with the “nation’s budget just like a family’s budget” metaphor.

How many of y’all have mortgages? You mean you didn’t save up to pay the full price for your house in cash? Your budget is unbalanced. I’ll bet you’re in debt by more more than a year’s HDP (household domestic product). DEFAULT!!

Decatur Deb Fri, Jul 15, 2011 12:38:04pm

re: #37 sagehen

Because it would be stupid.

Let’s go with the “nation’s budget just like a family’s budget” metaphor.

How many of y’all have mortgages? You mean you didn’t save up to pay the full price for your house in cash? Your budget is unbalanced. I’ll bet you’re in debt by more more than a year’s HDP (household domestic product). DEFAULT!!

Find a bunch of TPGOPs. Grab one-by-one their Gadsden Flag t-shirts. Scream that into their faces until their eyes begin to focus.

Fozzie Bear Fri, Jul 15, 2011 12:46:18pm

re: #37 sagehen

Because it would be stupid.

Let’s go with the “nation’s budget just like a family’s budget” metaphor.

How many of y’all have mortgages? You mean you didn’t save up to pay the full price for your house in cash? Your budget is unbalanced. I’ll bet you’re in debt by more more than a year’s HDP (household domestic product). DEFAULT!!

Not to mention the fact that your household’s income isn’t measured in terms of a currency over which your family has complete control.

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Stephen Colbert on the Murdoch Meltdown

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud