Is the government going to shut down?

[Reverend Rick]

Same here.

When everyone was complaining about the economy in 2008, I was having my best year ever. 2009 I was still completing contracts but things where slowing. 2010 was challenging, but by the fall, things picked up big time. 2011, I am swamped. I'm not sure I could handle any more business than I have right now.

 

[Revoltingest]

2011, I am swamped. I'm not sure I could handle any more business than I have right now.

My spider sense tells me you don't live in Michigan.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Who are you debating, the other members and myself or the people you have pictures of?

Nice try, Rick. Now can we stop playing these games and get back to the debate? Denying the fact that millions of people have suddenly taken interest in cutting the deficit only since Obama took office, does not cease to make it so.

Seriously, you have an axe to grind and I don't appreciate being pigeon holed into some preconceived position you believe I hold.

Stop assuming that you know my motives and intents.

I stand for responsibility for Republicans and Democrats.

What specifically do you mean by this?

I have said many times that if we want to invade any more countries, we should have to vote for a war tax to pay for it. That would stop most Republicans in their tracks.

Now that doesn't sound too bad. The only problem was, a lot of people were lining up behind Bush to defend his practices, even as he was running up the deficit. It's just fascinating that this tends to be the same group that condemns Obama for so-called "reckless spending."

I really have an issue with people who maintain just because one side did something wrong, the other side should be given carte blanche.

 

[Revoltingest]

Denying the fact that millions of people have suddenly taken interest in cutting the deficit only since Obama took office....

Did anyone deny this?
It would make sense to me that as things worsen terribly under Obama, that even more
people would become fiscal conservatives than under Dubya. People should be waking up.

 

[Reverend Rick]

What specifically do you mean by this?

What I meant is, we have kicked the can down the road too long. This is not an Obama thing, it is an American thing. If we do not get a handle on spending, Social security and interest on the debt will take every penny of the budget in our life time. We are spending our children's money. That is morally wrong. We act like we are some rich country when in fact, we are going broke.

I'm going to try to get you to address the issue of taxing corporations to the extent that they leave and take their jobs with them. Are you going to seriously address any issues or just give me more flippant half sentances?

During the election season, Democrats maintained they where the fiscal party unlike George W. Bush. Honestly I don't see much difference between the two in regards to the war, spending, Gitmo, gay marriage among other things.

The last midterm election the American people gave the Republican party one last chance to get a handle on spending. People want change.

That is what I meant by Republicans and Democrats taking responsibility.

 

[Magic Man]

Think about it, Democrats brag about Clinton having a surplus. He used this tactic to get that done and it worked.

He also raised taxes. I'm not opposed to paying more taxes if they where not wastefully spent. Education is a good example of somewhere I would be willing to spend more. The thing is, I want to see positive results not more of the same.

We are letting our children down by not educating them correctly. There are too many substandard teachers being protected by corrupt unions. In the private sector people get paid for performance. Perhaps we could spend the additional money for bonuses paid to teachers who perform and remove substandard teachers.

In my company, I use the carrot and the stick approach. I have a meeting with under performers and inform them that they have two options. Get up to speed and receive a bonus or hit the road. The decision is theirs not mine.

In surprising news I mostly agree with Rick. The only thing I'd say is that teachers need the cooperation of parents too. Bonuses for good teachers and removing substandard teachers are good ideas, but most of the time their performance as determined by the performance of their students isn't solely a reflection on them.

 

[Reverend Rick]

In surprising news I mostly agree with Rick.

There is hope for both of us.

The only thing I'd say is that teachers need the cooperation of parents too. Bonuses for good teachers and removing substandard teachers are good ideas, but most of the time their performance as determined by the performance of their students isn't solely a reflection on them.

I agree with this as well. Many parents don't value education and do nothing to improve the situation which just results in another generation of ignorance and poverty. I don't have the solution to this problem, but I would support any solutions the teachers would like to suggest.

 

[ninerbuff]

I'm just wondering when the Revolution is going to start? I better stock up on some food and ammo.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I'm just wondering when the Revolution is going to start? I better stock up on some food and ammo.

Don't forget water. You need that more than anything.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Re the OP: For now, the government will not shut down. Congress has reached a tentative stopgap measure, and odds appear good that it will pass.

What I meant is, we have kicked the can down the road too long. This is not an Obama thing, it is an American thing. If we do not get a handle on spending, Social security and interest on the debt will take every penny of the budget in our life time. We are spending our children's money. That is morally wrong. We act like we are some rich country when in fact, we are going broke.

But my question is, why now. Why, in a time of shaky recovery, would you pull the rug up from investment spending? I continue to ask, and I have yet to receive a straight answer: Why were so many libertarian/conservatives so silent about the deficit during Bush's term in office? Prior to Obama, people such as Ron Paul, who have been consistent about their position on the deficit across the last several years, represented a tiny minority. Yet all of a sudden, the deficit is important again!

I'm going to try to get you to address the issue of taxing corporations to the extent that they leave and take their jobs with them. Are you going to seriously address any issues or just give me more flippant half sentances?

Oh I'M the one dodging questions. I see.

-The current budget proposal does not cut one penny from fossil fuel subsidies. We could have saved upwards of 80 billion dollars by cutting that.
-That little thing called health care reform that the Tea Party loves to hate? If they took it out, it could increase the long-term deficit by 230 billion dollars.

During the election season, Democrats maintained they where the fiscal party unlike George W. Bush. Honestly I don't see much difference between the two in regards to the war, spending, Gitmo, gay marriage among other things.

You realize that, for all intents and purposes, Obama inherited a 1.3-trillion-dollar deficit from George W. Bush? And you do realize that since Obama has taken office, the deficit has remained relatively flat? Despite the fact that he inherited an economy that was on the verge of collapse?

The last midterm election the American people gave the Republican party one last chance to get a handle on spending. People want change.

That is what I meant by Republicans and Democrats taking responsibility.

All I am looking for from the Republicans is specifics. If they want to cut spending, we deserve to know what. If they want to preserve the endless sea of tax breaks and exemptions for the tiny fraction of super rich people and super profitable energy corporations, we deserve to know why. All I am asking for is the truth. Nothing more.

 

[Revoltingest]

But my question is, why now. Why, in a time of shaky recovery, would you pull the rug up from investment spending? I continue to ask, and I have yet to receive a straight answer: Why were so many libertarian/conservatives so silent about the deficit during Bush's term in office?

We weren't silent. We just weren't in fashion, so no one outside of our tin foil hat crowd paid any attention.
If you read my posts on the forum I inhabited during Dubya's reign, you'd be deaf & bleeding from my vitriol.
Read Cato Institute publications from the period. We cut Bush no slack for his waste & power grabs.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Looks like the Republicans are helping progressive causes in the way that the most rabid liberal could not have possibly done.

Poll: Americans want the deficit down, but they are concerned about what government spending cuts will do

61% of Americans OPPOSE Scott Walker's anti-union law; 33% support it

Whouda thought that just four months after the midterm elections, opinions would have swung like this?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Oh I'M the one dodging questions. I see.

I would like to thank you for posting meaningful replies in this post. I will address the points you made shortly. I want to take the time necessary to give you a factual reply.

This thread is getting somewhere now.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

I would like to thank you for posting meaningful replies in this post. I will address the points you made shortly. I want to take the time necessary to give you a factual reply.

This thread is getting somewhere now.

We'll see. And no rush--I sometimes take several days between posts.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Re the OP: For now, the government will not shut down. Congress has reached a tentative stopgap measure, and odds appear good that it will pass.

If I am not mistaken, all we did was kick the can down the road for another two weeks.

But my question is, why now. Why, in a time of shaky recovery, would you pull the rug up from investment spending?

Because all of the "investment spending" has not produced much results. I firmly believe that anything the government is doing in that regard has been wasteful at worst or temporary at best.

I continue to ask, and I have yet to receive a straight answer: Why were so many libertarian/conservatives so silent about the deficit during Bush's term in office? Prior to Obama, people such as Ron Paul, who have been consistent about their position on the deficit across the last several years, represented a tiny minority. Yet all of a sudden, the deficit is important again!

I thought Ron Paul was a kook back in 2008, I see now that he was right. I realise you think there is a hidden agenda, but honestly something has to be done and there is really no good time to sacrifice. The thing is, to continue to do nothing is going to end up being even worse.

-The current budget proposal does not cut one penny from fossil fuel subsidies. We could have saved upwards of 80 billion dollars by cutting that.

I agree, it needs to go.

-That little thing called health care reform that the Tea Party loves to hate? If they took it out, it could increase the long-term deficit by 230 billion dollars.

Lets side line the health care debate or we will get on a tangent.

You realize that, for all intents and purposes, Obama inherited a 1.3-trillion-dollar deficit from George W. Bush? And you do realize that since Obama has taken office, the deficit has remained relatively flat? Despite the fact that he inherited an economy that was on the verge of collapse?

I realize that Obama spent more in his first year than GWB did in four. Lets not talk about who is worse or who did what. Both sides have spent money like drunken sailors. There is plenty of blame to go around.

All I am looking for from the Republicans is specifics. If they want to cut spending, we deserve to know what. If they want to preserve the endless sea of tax breaks and exemptions for the tiny fraction of super rich people and super profitable energy corporations, we deserve to know why. All I am asking for is the truth. Nothing more.

If the government is going to do what is necessary, there is going to be plenty of upset people. Military contractors, medicaid recipients, government workers, state pet projects, you name it.

If people are unwilling to cut, can we at least agree that we cannot afford to expand things any further?

Ear marks have to go. Don't you agree?

Perhaps the Democrats should get to cut something of their choosing and then let the Republicans have a turn cutting an equal amount of their choosing.

I would bet both sides would want to work together if it came down to that.

This is not going to be easy, but if we do nothing, we are just as greedy as the big corporations you rail against. We are going to leave our children a real mess if we do nothing. Yes, it's going to hurt, but to do nothing will hurt even more later if we don't get a handle on spending. Raising taxes does very little good if we continue to have run away spending.

My solution would be something simple like cut a certain percentage across the board. You have to admit it would be simple. Nothing draconian, say 5 or 10%.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

If I am not mistaken, all we did was kick the can down the road for another two weeks.

That's basically what I said but with a different POV.

Because all of the "investment spending" has not produced much results. I firmly believe that anything the government is doing in that regard has been wasteful at worst or temporary at best.

According to the CBO:

-The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act lowered unemployment by at least 1% or so, added around 2 to 3 million jobs, and possibly raised the GDP by up to 4%
-TARP is expected to cost the government about 25 billion dollars. That's down from prior estimates of $109 billion and then $66 billion. Note that the original price tag was set at $700 billion, though some of this was never used. Also note that Bush, not Obama, signed TARP into law.

I thought Ron Paul was a kook back in 2008, I see now that he was right. I realise you think there is a hidden agenda, but honestly something has to be done and there is really no good time to sacrifice. The thing is, to continue to do nothing is going to end up being even worse.

Rick this specific issue is not going to go away. The fact that the Right is far more outspoken about the deficit now than Obama is in office than when Bush was in office, cannot be dismissed as coincidence.

I agree, it needs to go.

Yeah. What's sad, is, it's way more than the amount they're targeting to save.

Lets side line the health care debate or we will get on a tangent.

We've already gotten off on multiple tangents! But the health benefits themselves aside, the CBO has been very clear that the reform will cut the long-term deficit.

I realize that Obama spent more in his first year than GWB did in four. Lets not talk about who is worse or who did what. Both sides have spent money like drunken sailors. There is plenty of blame to go around.

Got a source for that? And even if it's true, so what? How come public spending is some sort of horrible evil?

If the government is going to do what is necessary, there is going to be plenty of upset people. Military contractors, medicaid recipients, government workers, state pet projects, you name it.

I partially agree, but you're begging the question as to whether cutting spending right now is necessary.

If people are unwilling to cut, can we at least agree that we cannot afford to expand things any further?

It isn't as simple as yes/no. And whatever happened to looking at the revenue side of the equation?

Ear marks have to go. Don't you agree?

Again, it isn't that simple. Besides, earmarks are a rather small portion of the budget.

Perhaps the Democrats should get to cut something of their choosing and then let the Republicans have a turn cutting an equal amount of their choosing.

I would bet both sides would want to work together if it came down to that.

Well, the fact that they passed this stopgap means they're at least talking. It looks like there's a chance we may not have to endure another government shutdown.

This is not going to be easy, but if we do nothing, we are just as greedy as the big corporations you rail against. We are going to leave our children a real mess if we do nothing. Yes, it's going to hurt, but to do nothing will hurt even more later if we don't get a handle on spending. Raising taxes does very little good if we continue to have run away spending.

But again, why now? How come out of nowhere, on January 20, 2009, deficits suddenly became this horrific thing again that we have to take care of NOW? See, where you and I differ is not whether we should cut into the deficit. We agree on that. What we disagree on is when, and how.

My solution would be something simple like cut a certain percentage across the board. You have to admit it would be simple. Nothing draconian, say 5 or 10%.

Well, sure. But finding items to cut that most people can agree on is not going to be easy. And again, don't fall victim to taxophobia. Raising revenue does not necessarily mean hitting everyone; nor does it necessarily mean that we think that rich = bad. It's simply a matter of one's ability to pay and the standard of living that that gives them.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Rick this specific issue is not going to go away. The fact that the Right is far more outspoken about the deficit now than Obama is in office than when Bush was in office, cannot be dismissed as coincidence.

For me, I never heard of a trillion dollars till recently. I'm not even sure if I can wrap my mind around that many zeros. Even Democrats eyes started bulging when GWB signed tarp. I don't want to throw stones here, but I could ask you why so many people who complained about the amount of money GWB spent on the war have became silent when BHO became president. So many people claimed the Democrats where the fiscal party using Clinton's surplus as a shining example of what another Democrat presidency would be like.

Perhaps a good example might be when your child does something wrong, you have love and understanding and apply tolerance to the situation but when a strangers kid does the same thing, you look upon them in a different light.

My logic with the budget is like my opinion of giving citizenship to undocumented Americans. Seal the border, and I am ready to give these folks a path to citizenship.

Stop the uncontrolled spending, and I would be in favor of raising taxes to balance the budget. To raise taxes first would be akin to sending water to people dieing of thirst with a leaky bucket on a long trip.

How come public spending is some sort of horrible evil?

It's not evil, but please let me ask you this. Did you send your house payment to Haiti after the earth quake?

It isn't as simple as yes/no. And whatever happened to looking at the revenue side of the equation?

It's going to take both sides if we want a balanced budget and is going to be something Republicans are going to have to address.

As much as they like to go to war, you would think they might consider having the means to in the future. You never know, perhaps there might be an action even Democrats could get behind but we might be powerless to do anything at all because we are broke. What are we going to do, ask our enemy to lend us the money to fight them?

Again, it isn't that simple. Besides, earmarks are a rather small portion of the budget.

It's a start. How about having to cut something before adding anything else? Families do this all the time. No vacation vs an inexpensive swimming pool in the back yard.

Well, the fact that they passed this stopgap means they're at least talking. It looks like there's a chance we may not have to endure another government shutdown.

Until we learn to have bipartisan support for the common good, nothing will be accomplished. Both sides could make an attempt at least. It sure beats demonising each other and fanning the flames all the time.

But again, why now? How come out of nowhere, on January 20, 2009, deficits suddenly became this horrific thing again that we have to take care of NOW? See, where you and I differ is not whether we should cut into the deficit. We agree on that. What we disagree on is when, and how.

I believe we could work out a solution on the how, where we disagree is on the when. I believe we have procrastinated long enough.

Well, sure. But finding items to cut that most people can agree on is not going to be easy. And again, don't fall victim to taxophobia. Raising revenue does not necessarily mean hitting everyone; nor does it necessarily mean that we think that rich = bad. It's simply a matter of one's ability to pay and the standard of living that that gives them.

I believe the biggest issue is where to draw the line. I hate to see class warfare. People making under a million are not as rich as they used to be. To treat them the same as billionaires is no different than railing against a flat tax.

One thing I support is taking the cap off of social security taxes. That would solve lots of problems with one small change.

If we are ever going to come together as a country however, we will all have to make at least a token participation effort.

To vote that one segment do everything is like three wolves and one sheep vote on whats for dinner.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

For me, I never heard of a trillion dollars till recently. I'm not even sure if I can wrap my mind around that many zeros. Even Democrats eyes started bulging when GWB signed tarp. I don't want to throw stones here, but I could ask you why so many people who complained about the amount of money GWB spent on the war have became silent when BHO became president. So many people claimed the Democrats where the fiscal party using Clinton's surplus as a shining example of what another Democrat presidency would be like.

Perhaps a good example might be when your child does something wrong, you have love and understanding and apply tolerance to the situation but when a strangers kid does the same thing, you look upon them in a different light.

My logic with the budget is like my opinion of giving citizenship to undocumented Americans. Seal the border, and I am ready to give these folks a path to citizenship.

Stop the uncontrolled spending, and I would be in favor of raising taxes to balance the budget. To raise taxes first would be akin to sending water to people dieing of thirst with a leaky bucket on a long trip.

1. You're begging the question as to whether public spending is "uncontrolled." Regardless of how many or few people hold that opinion, it is just an opinion.

2. Despite what the Tea Party wants us to believe, Obama's spending is a very, very different animal. First, he's generally used pay-as-you-go strategies, which is why the deficit hasn't changed that much since he took office. Second, Obama's spending has been for a far greater variety and purpose than bombs, guns, and wars.

3. Your opening paragraph is simply an appeal to fear. Again, my question--and I still don't think you've gotten to the heart of it yet--is why Fox "News" & Co. showed such silence to Bush's runaway spending. Of course I am aware that there were some conservatives who hate both his and Obama's. But there is a legion of people who did not get the least bit upset about the runaway deficit until TARP, the automaker bailout, and the stimulus package came along. Ironically, many of those don't realize that Bush signed two of three of those acts into law.

It's not evil, but please let me ask you this. Did you send your house payment to Haiti after the earth quake?

And what good would that have done? I think you missed my point of why I asked why some people believe that public spending is inherently evil. Case in point, Social Security has increasingly come under attack from the Right, despite the fact that its spending efficiency is in the high nineties.

It's going to take both sides if we want a balanced budget and is going to be something Republicans are going to have to address.

As much as they like to go to war, you would think they might consider having the means to in the future. You never know, perhaps there might be an action even Democrats could get behind but we might be powerless to do anything at all because we are broke. What are we going to do, ask our enemy to lend us the money to fight them?

Wait, so we DO need to look into raising more revenue? Because if so, I'm willing to listen and accept some budget-cutting compromises.

It's a start. How about having to cut something before adding anything else? Families do this all the time. No vacation vs an inexpensive swimming pool in the back yard.

This would be a much more nearly relevant point if we weren't recovering from the worst recession in almost a century. What the Tea Party DOES NOT GET is that if we shut off the valve now, then let's just say that we will long for the darkest days of the Great Recession, because suddenly they'll look pretty good by comparison.

Until we learn to have bipartisan support for the common good, nothing will be accomplished. Both sides could make an attempt at least. It sure beats demonising each other and fanning the flames all the time.

Hmm. Answering this would be a discussion in its own right.

I believe we could work out a solution on the how, where we disagree is on the when. I believe we have procrastinated long enough.

No, what we should have done is maintain the Clinton surplus and not allow Bush to annihilate the economy. Had we done that, none of this would really be an issue. THIS IS NOT OBAMA'S FAULT AT ALL.

I believe the biggest issue is where to draw the line. I hate to see class warfare. People making under a million are not as rich as they used to be. To treat them the same as billionaires is no different than railing against a flat tax.

Though I am no fan of patronizing billionaires, as the Right seems to love to do, there is a grain of truth here: People making right around $1 million or so really aren't the super-rich. The billionaires are the ones who are making off with a highly disproportionate amount of America's wealth.

Furthermore, I want to emphasize something: "Rich" does not equate to "bad." Just like "poor" does not equate to "lazy." The sole reason why I want taxes raised on the super-rich and lowered for the poor is that the rich have the means to pay a little extra. Having a smaller yacht (or yacht collection) is not going to hurt them!

One thing I support is taking the cap off of social security taxes. That would solve lots of problems with one small change.

:yes: I'm shocked that this idea hasn't gained serious traction in Congress. I think that this alone could make Social Security solvent for even longer than it is projected to be.

If we are ever going to come together as a country however, we will all have to make at least a token participation effort.

To vote that one segment do everything is like three wolves and one sheep vote on whats for dinner.

Yes, but we must approach this issue with facts and not ideology. We need to stop concerning ourselves over whether a policy is liberal or conservative and start concerning ourselves over whether it WORKS. That's my interest, Rick, is having a nation that is rational, reasonably efficient, and works. (Incidentally, I think you have the same desires. You and I just differ on how to get there.)

 

[Kathryn]

In my fantasy world, our illustrious elected officials and "public servants" get together and make a list of pet projects and expenditures. These lists are categorized by "basically Republican-supported" and "basically Democrat-supported."

That list is broken down into dollars spent by the federal government. There are categories of expenditures - for the sake of argument, small - medium - large.

Each "side" - Democrats and Republicans - has to agree to cut ONE program in EACH category. They get to pick the program.

They have to either completely eliminate it, or cut each budget equally.

Of course, this is a pipe dream. In the real world, it would take them five years to get the list together - and there would have to be a committee formed, a committee which needed to fly on private jets with their entourages, back and forth to meetings in the south of France every summer. A committee which would need a full staff, redecorated offices, new suits, plenty of catering, and a PR department - also fully staffed, with a huge expense account, and new offices.

And that would just be step one.

They'd find a way to make CUTTING a program actually cost more than funding a program.