| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/07/2013 09:31:30 PM · #501 |
Dave Ross: Fill In The _________s (Entertaining audio available at link)
Originally posted by Dave Ross:
This is Fill In The Blanks where I read a story that by now is so familiar that all of you can simply fill in the ______.
So of course today's subject is the government shutdown. Which is one of the strangest shutdowns we've ever seen. Because as soon as it started, the very people who allowed the government to close down started passing bills to open it back up.
They wanted to reopen military monuments because closing them was an insult to Veterans. Even though it came out that a large share of the furloughed government workers were also veterans.
Then they wanted to reopen National Institutes of Health because they were turning away people who were sick. Even though one reason for the shutdown was to undermine Obamacare, the whole purpose of which is not to turn away people who are sick.
However, on the bright side, with all those government workers staying home, it meant the nation was at least saving money. Right. Until Congress voted to pay them anyway.
So what's happened after an entire week of heated debate is that our representatives have decided to pay hundreds of thousands of federal workers to stay home. Which is as ridiculous as it gets.
Yes, unless you count what the Speaker of the House told ABC George Stephanopoulos is about to happen, "the President's refusal to sit down and have a conversation about this -"
"Are you saying that if the President continues to refuse to negotiate, the country is going to default?" asked Stephanopoulos.
Replied Speaker John Boehner, "It's the path we're on."
What do you think about that?
Holy _____. |
|
|
|
|
10/07/2013 09:44:11 PM · #502 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Are you kidding me?????????
What about the debt limit debate. Republicans have been fighting with Obama on one thing or anoher since he was elected....You know why. Because he doesnt negotiate.
He is also trying to make things as painful as possible with the shutdown. |
As with quite possibly every single post of this type you've ever made, your belief is sharply at odds with reality. There *is* no debt limit debate. The 14th Amendment (there's more that just two, you know) basically declares that the debt is not subject to debate. The debt limit pays for bills that the House already voted to spend. You can debate future spending all you want, but you still have to pay the credit card for what you already bought. It's non-negotiable, yet Republicans appeal to ignorance by pretending it's an authorization to spend more in the future.
Republicans have been obstructing Obama since day one regardless of the position he takes... even if, in the case of the ACA, it was their own proposal to begin with. As an obvious repudiation of your "he doesn't negotiate" nonsense, the ACA includes 192 Republican amendments including an agreement to drop the important single-payer option. The only reason Boehner went ahead with this particular fight is that Obama DID give in to their hostage demands in 2011, so they figured he would "negotiate" this time, too. It was a reckless gamble, and now they're trapped. If not for the insular effect of Fox News, talk radio and internet blogs on gullible followers who blindly accept the spin of "negotiations," "government slimdown" and false projection, Boehner would have been forced to fold already. He'll have to eventually because the Senate and President will not allow these annual necessities to become Christmas for whatever policy presents the minority wants. Boehner might as well be asking for the moon because it's equally unattainable and not subject to negotiation.
This shutdown isn't more painful than any other (aside from the fact that some funding allocations had already been made in past episodes), and the implication that making things more painful helps Democrats doesn't even make sense unless Republicans are acknowledging blame for the shutdown. I saw a Breitbart propaganda piece yesterday that made a big deal about closing an offshore fishing area because it's open ocean. This sort of thing relies upon the lack of critical thinking among their readership, as if it makes a bit of difference whether a national park is open water or open land. |
Sorry I wasn't able to respond quickly. I was busy and didn't have the time.
1st lets start out with the shutdown / slowdown. Whatever you want to call it. It is making life harder than it has to be.
Lets start in Lake Meade... there are residents that lease govmt land and have built vacation houses on the land. They lease this land so it is a positive income for the govmt with no expense... Yet they give the residents 24 hrs to get out. Lake Meade
ok now lets try the overlook points... They had to make a point to go out and close these...there are no park rangers...there are not any bathrooms. They are just overlook points that they had to send people to so that they could barricade them. overlooks
Or how about closing down private business. An inn on the blue ridge parkway in NC. was closed by park rangers. Was this costing the govmt anything...No....well not until they sent rangers to close it.Inn
There are plenty more examples....It is not hard to find....So tell me are they making it dificult
|
|
|
|
10/07/2013 09:59:43 PM · #503 |
So the Republicans have shut down the government, and they are angry at Obama for not keeping open the parts that make *them* look bad?
What kind of a fantasy world do you live in, Adam? The Debt ceiling, especially, isn't even about future spending: it's about servicing the loans on what we've already spent. |
|
|
|
10/07/2013 10:19:26 PM · #504 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
So the Republicans have shut down the government, and they are angry at Obama for not keeping open the parts that make *them* look bad?
What kind of a fantasy world do you live in, Adam? The Debt ceiling, especially, isn't even about future spending: it's about servicing the loans on what we've already spent. |
The debt ceiling debate is this.........ok we will raise the debt ceiling as long as we cut spending...Come on people we can not continue to spend like this... I understand that the debt ceiling is paying off our past debts. However, if we continue to spend more and more and more...guess what we are even more in debt. The republicans will allow the ceiling to go up if there is a huge effort to reduce spending that will reduce the debt.
seriously does any1 here work on a budget
|
|
|
|
10/07/2013 10:40:27 PM · #505 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
It is making life harder than it has to be.
Lake Meade... the overlook points... An inn on the blue ridge parkway in NC... So tell me are they making it dificult |
The same sites are closed in any government shutdown as a result of the 1870 Antideficiency Act (also true of private businesses in government-owned buildings). It's written into their leases. The law basically requires all government property to be closed and non-essential workers to stop working (they can't even volunteer) until Congress authorizes funding. |
|
|
|
10/07/2013 10:53:29 PM · #506 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
The debt ceiling debate is this.........ok we will raise the debt ceiling as long as we cut spending...Come on people we can not continue to spend like this... |
We already cut spending. A lot. The budget deal of 2011 plus the huge sequestration cuts are still in effect, and Boehner himself declared that those spending cuts went too far. Nevertheless, the continuing resolution passed by the Senate continues funding at the sequestration levels as Republicans demanded. This isn't about spending and never was. It's all about getting SOMETHING for the House's big hostage. First it was Obamacare (no mention of spending), then it was about reducing deficits (gutting Obamacare would increase them) and vague government reforms (also unmentioned in the original demands). Now they're looking at the Keystone pipeline or entitlement reforms. Whatever they can get...and Boehner has mentioned INCREASING spending as a possible point for negotiation. |
|
|
|
10/07/2013 10:53:51 PM · #507 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
The debt ceiling debate is this.........ok we will raise the debt ceiling as long as we cut spending...Come on people we can not continue to spend like this...
seriously does any1 here work on a budget |
Adam, you can't tell your creditors in real life that you'll only pay them if your wife agrees to stop spending so much money on shoes. Try it and see how far you get. Not only that, the budget being torpedoed here was AGREED ON by the Republicans and includes spending cuts. Finally, budget office estimates savings from the ACA in the neighborhood of, I believe, 109 BILLION dollars.
Everything you say has a certain merit but it's all something to be debated and resolved in the next congress, not by holding the citizens of this country hostage. |
|
|
|
10/07/2013 11:24:29 PM · #508 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
The debt ceiling debate is this.........ok we will raise the debt ceiling as long as we cut spending...Come on people we can not continue to spend like this...
seriously does any1 here work on a budget |
Adam, you can't tell your creditors in real life that you'll only pay them if your wife agrees to stop spending so much money on shoes. Try it and see how far you get. Not only that, the budget being torpedoed here was AGREED ON by the Republicans and includes spending cuts. Finally, budget office estimates savings from the ACA in the neighborhood of, I believe, 109 BILLION dollars.
Everything you say has a certain merit but it's all something to be debated and resolved in the next congress, not by holding the citizens of this country hostage. |
I do think, in your analogy, the wife who's buying shoes actually is the creditor, so there's that...
Message edited by author 2013-10-07 23:24:39. |
|
|
|
10/07/2013 11:43:31 PM · #509 |
I was also thinking of the marriage scenario as a good analogy.
I am unhappy with the amount that my wife and I pay for rent, and even though we've just signed a new lease committing to this sum, I'm still upset and have decided to freeze our bank account so that our landlord will not get paid. Or anyone else, for that matter. I see this as a shrewd move that bolsters my credibility with the thrifty set, and when the Internet, electricity and other things get shut down, and we ultimately end up on the street -- making me look bad! -- I'll blame it on my toddler (cast unwittingly in the role of Obama), who doesn't actually have a say in passing our budget, but it's an easily regurgitated sound byte. |
|
|
|
10/07/2013 11:46:19 PM · #510 |
Originally posted by Cory:
I do think, in your analogy, the wife who's buying shoes actually is the creditor, so there's that... |
Not really. The creditors are the American citizens, companies and foreign countries who invest in the "wife's" bonds. |
|
|
|
10/08/2013 02:32:11 PM · #511 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
The debt ceiling debate is this.........ok we will raise the debt ceiling as long as we cut spending...Come on people we can not continue to spend like this... |
We already cut spending. A lot. The budget deal of 2011 plus the huge sequestration cuts are still in effect,... |
Just to be objective, the sequestration can't really be considered "huge" unless what needs to still be done is "huger".
The estimated amount of cutting by the sequestration is $1.1 trillion over 8 years. Numbers can be hard to find, but I found the NYT report that the projection for the deficit over the next 10 years WITH the sequestration is $6.5 trillion (or $5.2 trillion for the next 8 years if we just multiply by 0.8).
You can see how the Republicans feel it was only a starting point. Of course, I'm not sure anybody wants to tackle Medicare and Social Security which will NEED to be adjusted. At least defense was cut somewhat in the sequestration. It needs more.
Edit: typo
Message edited by author 2013-10-08 14:33:59. |
|
|
|
10/08/2013 02:33:12 PM · #512 |
Cory's point about the US being its own creditor may be talking about quantitative easing which is, essentially, us borrowing from ourselves (or printing money, whichever way you want to look at it).
Message edited by author 2013-10-08 14:33:24. |
|
|
|
10/08/2013 04:27:01 PM · #513 |
| Nice stock market "correction" today. Sh1t be gettin' real, homies. |
|
|
|
10/08/2013 04:52:09 PM · #514 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... At least defense was cut somewhat in the sequestration. It needs more. |
No arguments here.
Considering that the USA spends more on defence than the next 20 countries combined, and that most of those are allies, I am certain that some savings could be made there.
However, can we honestly believe that this will ever occur.
Ray |
|
|
|
10/08/2013 04:54:54 PM · #515 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Nice stock market "correction" today. Sh1t be gettin' real, homies. |
ROFL... That might be the best post you've ever made. :D |
|
|
|
10/08/2013 05:35:07 PM · #516 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... At least defense was cut somewhat in the sequestration. It needs more. |
No arguments here.
Considering that the USA spends more on defence than the next 20 countries combined, and that most of those are allies, I am certain that some savings could be made there.
However, can we honestly believe that this will ever occur.
Ray |
Pffft. If it wasn't for our awesome military might, you Canadiots would be speaking Mexican. :P |
|
|
|
10/08/2013 05:47:13 PM · #517 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... At least defense was cut somewhat in the sequestration. It needs more. |
No arguments here.
Considering that the USA spends more on defence than the next 20 countries combined, and that most of those are allies, I am certain that some savings could be made there.
However, can we honestly believe that this will ever occur.
Ray |
Pffft. If it wasn't for our awesome military might, you Canadiots would be speaking Mexican. :P |
... just so you know my friend, Mexican is NOT a language... besides, you can't hurt my feelings, I been insulting by the best, oh wait, that was you TOO. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
10/08/2013 05:51:42 PM · #518 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... At least defense was cut somewhat in the sequestration. It needs more. |
No arguments here.
Considering that the USA spends more on defence than the next 20 countries combined, and that most of those are allies, I am certain that some savings could be made there.
However, can we honestly believe that this will ever occur.
Ray |
I dunno. Can you ever believe cuts to social security or Medicare will ever occur? If the answer to all three is "no" then we are already lost. There is no solution that doesn't involve cutting these. (Well, you could always increase revenue, but it would involve the middle class and be substantial. Five trillion divided by every person in the US is $1736/year. If you divide by the number of actual "taxpayers" it comes to $4629/year.) |
|
|
|
10/08/2013 05:54:59 PM · #519 |
| The math doesn't work that way. Scrap the cap, done & done. The middle class won't be any worse off, the poor wouldn't feel any difference. The only people it would effect are the wealthy. SS needs to be expanded, not cut. |
|
|
|
10/08/2013 06:00:00 PM · #520 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
The math doesn't work that way. Scrap the cap, done & done. The middle class won't be any worse off, the poor wouldn't feel any difference. The only people it would effect are the wealthy. SS needs to be expanded, not cut. |
I'm not quite sure what you are saying here, Kelli. There is no math where you can only tax the wealthy, not cut SS, and medicare, or defense, and not raise taxes on the rest of us and balance the budget.
It is an impossibility.
|
|
|
|
10/08/2013 06:06:54 PM · #521 |
We could all play with the numbers ourselves and come up with a solution. Hopefully we can agree on some basics:
Deficit: $6.5 trillion over 10 years.
Number of Taxpayers: 135 million
Throw out some numbers. How much will you cut from where (can be really rough...$2 trillion from defense over 10 years), and who will you tax (can be rough...$2 trillion from the wealthy 1% over 10 years). Give me a solution that doesn't involve the middle class (you'll have to define that, but I'll leave that up to you). |
|
|
|
10/08/2013 06:34:12 PM · #522 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We could all play with the numbers ourselves and come up with a solution. Hopefully we can agree on some basics:
Deficit: $6.5 trillion over 10 years.
Number of Taxpayers: 135 million
Throw out some numbers. How much will you cut from where (can be really rough...$2 trillion from defense over 10 years), and who will you tax (can be rough...$2 trillion from the wealthy 1% over 10 years). Give me a solution that doesn't involve the middle class (you'll have to define that, but I'll leave that up to you). |
Radically cut military spending, reduce our levels of involvement to be equivalent to say, England's or Australia's per capita percentile spending, and concentrate on domestic defense rather than international offense.
Done.
I'd take the extra funds and put them into science and education. |
|
|
|
10/08/2013 06:53:25 PM · #523 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We could all play with the numbers ourselves and come up with a solution. Hopefully we can agree on some basics:
Deficit: $6.5 trillion over 10 years.
Number of Taxpayers: 135 million
Throw out some numbers. How much will you cut from where (can be really rough...$2 trillion from defense over 10 years), and who will you tax (can be rough...$2 trillion from the wealthy 1% over 10 years). Give me a solution that doesn't involve the middle class (you'll have to define that, but I'll leave that up to you). |
Radically cut military spending, reduce our levels of involvement to be equivalent to say, England's or Australia's per capita percentile spending, and concentrate on domestic defense rather than international offense.
Done.
I'd take the extra funds and put them into science and education. |
Sorry. No joy.
England spends $1142/year/person on defense (72 billion dollars, 63 million people).
In the US that would be $411 billion/year.
Currently we spend about $689 billion/year.
We would save $278 billion/year or $2.78 trillion over 10 years.
That leaves a deficit of $3.7 trillion dollars over 10 years.
:( |
|
|
|
10/08/2013 07:11:29 PM · #524 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Kelli:
The math doesn't work that way. Scrap the cap, done & done. The middle class won't be any worse off, the poor wouldn't feel any difference. The only people it would effect are the wealthy. SS needs to be expanded, not cut. |
I'm not quite sure what you are saying here, Kelli. There is no math where you can only tax the wealthy, not cut SS, and medicare, or defense, and not raise taxes on the rest of us and balance the budget.
It is an impossibility. |
Social Security has nothing to do with the debt. It shouldn't even be in the equation or a part of any negotiation. Period. It's not an "entitlement". It is earned through a lifetime of working. And if the cap was lifted, and the wealthy paid into it for their full pay, it would not run out of money. Ever. The working poor pay on their whole income. Why are the rich exempted from that? |
|
|
|
10/08/2013 07:21:50 PM · #525 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Social Security has nothing to do with the debt. It shouldn't even be in the equation or a part of any negotiation. Period. It's not an "entitlement". It is earned through a lifetime of working. And if the cap was lifted, and the wealthy paid into it for their full pay, it would not run out of money. Ever. The working poor pay on their whole income. Why are the rich exempted from that? |
And in any case Social Security currently sports a healthy surplus. Unfortunately SS funds collected are shoved (illegally?) into the operating funds and replaced with interest-bearing T-bills, which is why it's possible SS could run out of assets to pay with until this is cleared up. It's all BS. A shell game. |
|
