shutting down the government!!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Mensch1351, Apr 6, 2011.

  1. Mensch1351

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,205
    Likes Received:
    24
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    In the only other State that begins with "K"!
    once again --- I'm just a little confused. (what else is new?!:biggrin1:)

    The Republicans are outraged about our reckless out of control spending...........and yet they "demanded" the extension of the Bush Tax cuts which added $700 billion (borrowed again from China) to the debt. It was THEIR Congress that kept raising the debt limit over and over again to 9 Trillion in 06 I believe -- and then of course panicked when Wall Street tanked that we absolutely HAD to bail out the banks (yet another huge cost -- however -- we did actually manage to make a little money on that). Bush started his 8 years with a surplus and wahlah -- not only gone in 8 years but.......whew.....tons of pork we couldn't afford and 2 wars that....well.....we just decided not to include their cost in the budget!!

    And now..............they're all concerned about spending. But it isn't just ANY spending......... we don't "touch" Corporate Government subsidies or the military. We don't even talk about Corporations paying "ZERO" in taxes. They only want to discuss how we're going to slash programs they don't like (and they truly believe as a country we don't need)--- because...........well........you tell me!

    Personally, if I needed extra cash........curbing my spending is only 1/2 the equation. Finding ways to boost my income would be the other 1/2. Do these Republicans think we Americans who have watched our purchasing power slowly ebb away over the last "generation" are really taking seriously THEIR perspective that all the "haves" of the nation should be exempt from taking a hit in their taxes so that the rest of us should "tighten" our belts.

    It's becoming fairly obvious don't you think that Republican interests only center around corporations being able to make higher profits and NOT average Americans being able to make higher wages. Why is it that when "States/countries" are BROKE -- the first things they start looking at are all those programs that have been put into place to give substantive help to those who are the "have nots."???

    Do they honestly believe that we are not going to hold their party responsible for shutting down the government ALL BECAUSE we draw a line between what THEIR priorities seem to be and what it appears the vast majority of Americans want??? Opinions??
     
  2. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Only someone who is either thoroughly misinformed or blinded by their own political beliefs to consider the facts would blame Democrats or Obama if the government shuts down on Friday. Note to GOP... if you expect to have a prayer come 2012, put your teabagging ideologues in check.
     
  3. D_JuanAFock

    D_JuanAFock New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2007
    Messages:
    568
    Likes Received:
    0
    Clinton didnt leave with a surplus, he still had a deficit. Though it was close, it still wasnt a surplus.
    Debt accumulated in 8 years of Bush: ~4 trillion
    Debt accumulated in ~2.5 years of Obama: ~5 trillion (public debt is up to 14 trillion now)

    I would say that the last couple of years has been a pretty reckless amount of spending.

    Also, the more you scare people that have money into spending less of it the worse the economy gets. Also, where do you draw the line? On a national level, the dollar "value" varies a lot state to state. A dollar in NYC doesnt go as far as a dollar in some other city.

    Case in point: A 1100 sqft manufactured home on a small lot in my old city sold for $150k
    I just bought a new 2700 sqft brick house on a larger lot (1/3 acre) for the same price. More than twice the home for the same price.

    So if you are taxing income, then how far down do you drag people that live in NYC with higher incomes that actually NEED the higher income to live there?

    PS: I agree that there needs to be corporate tax reform though. Currently small business hurt from it and large ones have lawyers and offshore stuff that lets them get around it too much.
     
  4. eurotop40

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,523
    Likes Received:
    122
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Zurich (ZH, CH)
    I like to think that these "republican" economists are the PIGS, not Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain etc. such as the financial establishment wants us to believe...
     
  5. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    In other words, based on this simple math Obama has added more to the debt than Bush. If that's your argument, then it's disingenuous. Much of the debt under Obama was accumulated due to the mismanagement of the previous administration and the recession it spurred on. Certain measures that required spending were necessary from preventing millions of people from falling through the cracks.

    To some degree, yes. But where would you say it's been reckless? Be specific, because as we all know just saying that we need to cut all spending is not only a bad solution, it's makes absolutely no sense.
     
  6. Jason

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    9,926
    Likes Received:
    639
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    London (GB)
    From a UK or EU perspective the USA has amazingly low levels of tax, but also lacks the level of social spending found in the UK and EU. The sovereign debt problem faced by the USA is therefore different to that in the UK/EU.

    In the UK/EU there is reasonably broad consensus that deficits must be tackled by both austerity and increased tax, but that the biggest contribution has to be through austerity. Politicians argue endlessly about just how much austerity and how much extra tax, but once you get through their political statements there is not all that much difference. Tax cannot be increased much as it would choke off too much demand. The old Keynesian ideas of governments borrowing yet more to stimulate economies has reached its limits with levels of debt beyond anything Keynes could have imagined.

    The USA by contrast actually has a meaningful choice. It is reasonable to put the emphasis of USA restructuring on either increased tax or reduced expenditure. Republicans have a coherent argument - the USA could slash state spending and keep tax low (I'm not sure about reduce it) and yes it would work. But the Democrats are also coherent - the USA can have more social spending, but it does have to pay for it through taxes.

    What isn't coherent is the ostritch option of simply running up more and more debt - though it has a degree of political short-term attractiveness. If the USA goes down this road the dollar will weaken and all Americans become poorer.
     
  7. B_Boy_Boy_Boy

    B_Boy_Boy_Boy New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2010
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    0
    We're tried raising taxes during a recession. It's not like its a new idea. Small businesses bring our economy out of recessions, not more government spending. In fact, government spending bringing us out of a recession is akin to picking yourself up by your socks.

    I'm not sure if you're complaining or applauding the bailouts. You may have forgotten that the Democrats had control of the Senate and the House when that passed.

    Wahlah? Not like everything was fine from 2001-2009.

    I'm not sure what budget you've been reading, but the wars are in the 'budget'.

    It amusing to me how some people can't stand when a tiger changes his stripes. The American people were sick of the Republicans out of control spending, so they changed the control of Congress and the presidency. What the Republicans were doing was wildly unpopular, and a lot of the 'old guard' got ran out or retired.

    I am assuming you haven't read Paul Ryan's proposal, or anything else writtin by Republicans. A quote from his proposal: "

    Ending Corporate Welfare: Ends the taxpayer bailouts of failed financial institutions, reforms Fannie Mae

    and Freddie Mac, and stops Washington from picking the winners and losers across sectors of the
    economy."

    No Republican is advocating that the rich don't pay taxes, that is complete nonsense.​

    They are focused on where the money goes, if money is going to these programs and they aren't sustainable, then we need to rethink it. We can't just wait till the states or fed declares bankruptcy to change. If you read what the Republicans are saying, they are straight out saying we need to 1) end corporate welfare and bailouts, and 2) end duplicative programs. One study found that the gov was wasting hundreds of billions on duplicating the exact same programs. ​

    They know you are going to blame them no matter what happens. They are playing to the, currently, very large portion of the nation that wants a balanced budget. In terms of who is being held responsible, the Democrats just suffered the biggest political loss in US history. The Republicans advocated cutting spending as their primary election issue. They were elected on a sweep. You can't tell me that the voters are going to say, "well, that fad has passed, lets go back to trillion dollar a year deficits." Clinton shut down the government, and it made him more popular.
     
  8. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Business AND Government working together gets us out of recessions. Regardless of where you stand ideologically, the government cannot shut down or eliminate all spending in order to prevent a recession or rally out of one.

    You also may have forgotten that Senate Republicans in the last Congress obstructed and filibustered more legislation than any other Congress in our history, including many bills that they once supported only to change their minds as soon as the president endorsed them. That's because they were more interested in making Obama a one term president and padding the pockets of their wealthy benefactors through tax cuts at the expense of the Middle Class, instead of working together to make sure necessary reforms were agreed upon. And judging by your own opinionated scribe, you also fall in line with that faulty ideology as well. Congrats, you've been duped.

    Control of any branch in Congress is not an open invitation to run amuck and do whatever you wish, as many of our teabaggin' brethren are now learning the hard way with the current budget fiasco (if they can learn anything at all).

    LOL... his proposal was proven to add more to the debt one day after it was released. You decided to post some meaningless, grandstanding quotes that look all nice and pretty. Here are some with numbers that put into perspective what the bill is really about:

    It cuts the top income tax rate by nearly a third, from 35 percent to 25 percent and makes the Bush tax cuts permanent. In other words, more taxation for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. It cuts over $1 Trillion in Medicare & Medicaid ($389 billion from Medicare, $735 billion Medicaid) which directly hurts poor & elderly Americans, on top of trying to repeal the Health Care Law which would mean another $1.4 Trillion dollars in lost money since many of the elements aimed at raising revenue or reducing costs would no longer be in existence. Discretionary spending on domestic programs is also reduced by $923 billion. That's just to start.

    Paul Ryan's Budget Proposal: Analysis Of The Numbers [UPDATE]
    Paul Ryan
    PolitiFact | Matt Miller blasts deficit, debt implications of Paul Ryan's budget proposal

    "Cutting spending" is not a problem... it's WHERE and HOW they're deciding to make these cuts that are under heavy scrutiny. You don't do it at the expense of the poor & middle class, which is made up of many of the people who voted Republican in 2010. With all of the continued actions of many members of the GOP, it becomes more and more apparent that this talk about balancing budgets is just a facade for their ideological culture wars to try and ensure a victory in 2012. Wisconsin was the first clue of that on a state level, and many more citizens across the nation are becoming aware of it as well.
     
  9. D_JuanAFock

    D_JuanAFock New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2007
    Messages:
    568
    Likes Received:
    0
    Strange, I thought the recession was spurred on from shitty banking. What did bush do that wouldve caused the recession? I am genuinely curious as I have no clue.

    Mostly bailouts. I dont know the extent of federal spending, but cuts can be made in a lot of places. Also, actually having federal employees that do work would go a long way. I have some family that has worked with government jobs and most all of them say their co-workers are quite lazy. I mean, why do these people that do almost no work keep their jobs when somebody else could work their job? Getting that efficiency up would save even more money. Thats not a problem from this administration, but its something that could be looked into.

    Big leaps could be made by making things efficient, making small cuts across the board, stopping the spending with government intervention in private business (cars and banks), and finally fixing corporate taxes (fixing loopholes and also creating incentive for business to not have everything offshore).
     
  10. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Your sarcasm would've worked if I actually did say that Bush did something, but I didn't. So let me repost my statement again so you can flex those elite comprehension skills again, OK? - "Much of the debt under Obama was accumulated due to the mismanagement of the previous administration and the recession it spurred on."

    I didn't blame Bush. That is, unless, you think the administration was only ran by one person. Then again, that's not how a Democracy works since everyone in an administration, not just the president, gets a say on matters. Secondly, if you want to talk about the causes of the recession there were MANY factors that lead to this. It's not just to "shitty banking", although that is one of the main components.

    I think most people will agree with you on this. However, the issue is where we should cut, when to do it and how? You know, those little details that nobody ever wants to get into because they're too busy using the overly generalized political catchphrases?

    I've had two sisters that worked for the IRS for several years. I know they did their job, but association by way of family member is not a logical reason for defending or criticizing federal employees. Not sure about what you're family is looking at, but it's not as if federal employees are going into work everyday and are having keg parties till 5PM. Beyond displaying an unhealthy mistrust towards government, you have not provided one logical thought or argument that suggests that federal employees do "almost no work"

    Sorry... the continued deregulation of laws controlling big business over the last few decades lead to the recession we see now. Where do you think many of our corporate tax loopholes came from? Lastly, we don't need to make small cuts "across the board" at this time. There are plenty of places our government can focus on that do not impede on the already complicated lives of the average American. We can start with thinning down unnecessary Defense spending, focusing on alternative energy sources, as well as establishing much needed financial reforms to Wall Street and the Housing Market... not by going after Medicare, Medicaid, Unions, Planned Parenthood and women's abortion rights while giving even more tax breaks to the wealthiest people.
     
    #10 B_VinylBoy, Apr 7, 2011
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2011
  11. D_JuanAFock

    D_JuanAFock New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2007
    Messages:
    568
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry, bush administration. The two go hand in hand though, saying "i didnt blame bush" is just something people say so they dont seem like they are anti-bush. Regardless, what did the bush administration do that caused the recession?



    I dont get paid or have the time to look at every detail of government spending, government income, and all of the other things necessary to judge where I would want to cut, when to cut, and how to cut. There is a reason we elected people to represent us...



    By "almost no work" I mean they go in, do nothing for an hour or two, then work for a while then call it quits an hour or two early. I dont know about the IRS, but there are other branches that this does occur in. I also dont see where I have displayed any mistrust towards the government at all, I trust them I just dont approve of what they are doing.



    When I said government intervention, I meant the bailouts. If a company is failing, why are we bailing them out? They obviously are either not managing the company properly or they have a product that people dont want. It should be natural that they would fail.

    Small cuts across the board would have a ridiculously small effect on the average american. Also, across the board includes military spending. I mean, a 1% cut in all spending would be pretty substantial with minimal effect on anybody. You can then do focused cuts in other areas.

    PS: Nowhere did I say we should "go after" medicare, medicaid, unions, PP or abortion rights.
     
  12. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Blaming an administration and blaming Bush are not the same thing. Bush is one person. An administration includes THOUSANDS of people. Stop equating the two, because one does not equal thousands. Also, I was never "anti-Bush". Despite having ideologies that lean to the left, I don't wish for any of my governmental officials to fail. That would be bad for the country regardless of who is running it. With that said, I did have major grievances with how our previous administration handled the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, with their continued deregulation and leniency towards big business, their failure to improve conditions in schools with bad legislation in Education to name a few. That's even before we get to the debt, and the tax cuts for the rich, the culture war using gays & lesbians as the "boogeyman" to get re-elected in swing states in 2004 with a pathetic crusade to have marriage defined in the Constitution... need I go on?

    I already provided some examples in my previous paragraph. Now do keep in mind, not every single thing listed there qualifies so don't act naive and suggest something silly.

    That's true... so who did you elect?

    If that's the stipulation, then I've seen this happen at every single job I have ever held since 1991. There will always be some people who cheat the system and not do their job properly. With that said, we don't blame the entire workforce for this issue.

    Retracted, for now.

    Sorry, I don't completely agree here. There are other people besides the figureheads of a failing company to be concerned about, as in the case of the automobile bailout. Millions of people who work within automotive companies as well as other industries that help to make the auto industry function would have been unemployed. With less cars being made in our country, that would mean less items for our country to export and less money for our consumer to contribute to our economy. And so forth, and so forth...

    Where's your math to back this? No sense in providing a percentage without any details.

    And I never said that you did. I was just providing specifics to coincide with my opinion about where our government should be focused on for budget cuts.
     
    #12 B_VinylBoy, Apr 7, 2011
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2011
  13. B_Boy_Boy_Boy

    B_Boy_Boy_Boy New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2010
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is a genuinely good post.

    The CBO has said that simply cutting programs that overlap, streamlining them into one program, could save hundreds of billions per year. They aren't talking about cutting anything, just eliminating several agencies from having similar programs that cover the same people.

    I don't believe that government employees are simply lazy. I know of several federal employees that work their asses off. Including one who is an FBI agent who has literally given her life to agency. She gets paid six figures (though she'll never be rich) and earns every penny.
     
  14. D_Barry Balzitch

    D_Barry Balzitch Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    0
    I say unequivocably that "No-Drama" Obama should call the Republicans BLUFF and let "The government shut down!" "Effem!" We should fire the lot of them on the spot! I have never in my life seen such childish behavior since kindergarten! If Queen Elizabeth I were alive she would have them all beheaded for treason! The Republicans, as usual, what to out the burden of there mismanagement on the baks of the poor, the sick andthe elderly!"

    Not long ago, the same thing was happening in German! Everyone was unhappy about there government! This discord, like today, helped put a person, like Hitler, into power! Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it!" I do not profess to know alot about politics, however, I have studied history and human nature! The time is ripe for such a "horrible" event to occur! OMG! Sarah Palin is the "Third and Final" incarnation of the "AntiChrist!" He failed twice as a man (Napolean & Hitler) so now He will take the form of a woman! "Christ ona Cracker - get me to the root cellar and nail it shut!"
     
  15. D_JuanAFock

    D_JuanAFock New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2007
    Messages:
    568
    Likes Received:
    0
    I dont really feel like arguing about bush... but being anti-bush doesnt mean you want him to fail it just means you are against his policies.

    Honestly? I didnt vote. I havent liked any presidential candidates so far and I was busy moving so I didnt vote in the most recent local elections at all.


    Normal jobs, people are more likely to get fired. I dont have any solid evidence that its a huge problem, just anecdotal so I wont argue this anymore.

    I know that there were lots of jobs that couldve been lost, but at the same time the missing industry can lead to innovation, and potentially more jobs. Personally, I think that we got lucky with the auto industry when the government bailed them out, imagine if they continued to lose money...



    Total spending in 2010: 3.456 trillion
    a 1% cut across the board in all spending:
    34,560,000,000
    Thats 35 billion closer to coming out even/ahead.
    Make harder cuts in other areas and figure out how to get close to that mark.

    If you balance the budget and make foreign countries and citizens more comfortable with the economy and the US dollar, then spending goes up and you have more money to work with, particularly on a local level. If you get better state income then the federal government can cut some more stuff and let the state handle some of that burden and/or create more jobs.
     
  16. Mensch1351

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,205
    Likes Received:
    24
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    In the only other State that begins with "K"!
    Well guys (and any gals that have responded) -- I appreciate the input on the question........but listening to some of the arguments tonite on TV -- I'm even a little more confused than I was before.

    The TEA party people are calling for a shut-down of the government because..........."we have no business, when we're soooooooooo far in debt, spending our tax money for planned parenthood." Well -- if you're going to argue particulars --- when we're this far in debt we also have no business giving corporations (making great profits) Federal Tax dollars as subsidies!!

    Anybody got statistics as to how "much" in tax dollars is spent funding NPR, planned parenthood, etc. over against the Corporate "Wealth"fare is costing us.

    It seems to me when you weigh "making your social agenda points" over against the consequences of shutting down the government --- well --- God help the next conservative friend who sends me an e-mail telling me how unpatriotic I am if I don't "support" the troops -- while THEIR party is fully prepared to just deny them their paychecks and literally stop "supporting" them -- all over --------- abortion?? If the Republicans have NO scruples about calling Obama a socialist -- could somebody please give me a good definition of "fascist"??
     
  17. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Doesn't that seem a bit too broad? I mean, I support Obama even though I sometimes find grievance with some of his actions. But that wouldn't make me "anti-Obama".

    This is something I never really understood why people do in this country. In some countries such as Brazil, it's actually a requirement for adults to vote. If they don't, they can face fines and/or penalties. Because of that fact alone, it forces people to be engaged and informed on the issues that face the country. I'm not suggesting that these rules be applied here in the United States. However, from my standpoint even if none of the presidential candidates are perfect I know one of them would be better than the other based on our country's needs at that time. If I was too busy waiting for the perfect candidate I would never vote. Nobody that I've ever voted for in a ballot box has ever done everything in office exactly as I would like them. Not Obama... not Clinton... not Weld... nobody. But I still vote anyhow. The pessimistic view is that you're choosing the "lesser evil". The optimistic view is that you're choosing the best for the job based on the options provided.

    It's possible that would happen, however, in order for industry to push for more innovation there needs to be technological advances & incentive for them to do so. In regards to the auto industry, I tend to believe they should be focused more on cars that run on alternative fuels. Not only does that help our nation reduce its consumption and demand for oil, it's better for our environment and could potentially save consumers money in the long run. Have you ever rode or driven a Toyota Prius? If you have a license or know someone who owns one, you should. It's a great car, and something our American car companies could easily make.

    Ironically, funding for such things have been provided in the Stimulus under the Obama Administration. Alas, more people were worried about it being "Socialism" or a "bailout" than to pay attention to the details.

    The current budget being disputed by Democrats and Republicans in Congress are circulating around these numbers. However, as I stated before there are much better places to provide cuts at this time instead of slashing everything. We're still in the delicate process of recovering from a recession, so touching programs that really benefit the lower and middle class is not the way to go. Everyone understands that "entitlements" need to be looked at. But there are much bigger sources to deal with for immediate results.
     
  18. seterwind

    seterwind New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2005
    Messages:
    216
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Edmonton, AB, Canada
    Here is the comparison you are looking for.

    Infographic: Tax Breaks vs. Budget Cuts

    Essentially, everything could be payed for by not extending the bush tax cuts. Or closing all tax loop holes.
     
  19. Mensch1351

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,205
    Likes Received:
    24
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    In the only other State that begins with "K"!
    thanks for the infografics chart..............sad..........very very very sad!

    And to think.........all those good Christian Republican voters who think their party automatically has the moral high ground when it comes to how we spend our money in the wealthiest nation on earth. I've said it before....here it comes again:

    "For as much as you have done it unto the LEAST of these, my brothers and sisters......you've done it unto ME! Matt 25: verses 40 & 45
     
  20. Mensch1351

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,205
    Likes Received:
    24
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    In the only other State that begins with "K"!
    I wonder if all those Women who voted for Republican Congress people in 2010 because of jobs and out of control government spending (JB's mantra) -- ever dreamed that the big budget issue would be "abortion"!!

    "if we can't overturn Roe vs Wade -- we'll just hold the country hostage until we get our viewpoint rammed through!" I hope we've got long term memory enough to tuck this away for 2012.

    The same with those in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Maine, Wisconsin, Florida...............wonder if those good honest down to earth voters had an inkling that their vote was REALLY for stamping out collective bargaining??

    Always the "hidden agenda" -- ALWAYS the "hidden agenda!"
     
Draft saved Draft deleted