When people stop talking....guberment stops working

[MobBoss]

Well, I had this fairly accusatory post aimed at JH's response about military readiness.....then I realized he was being sarcastic.

Just let me add in that shutting down the military for an entire year with no training would set back our readiness by a magnitude. In fact, it could create a situation where it would take us years to make up the difference, and in the long run, cost a lot of people their lives.

Not a good thing at all.

 

[Benefactor]

Can't, you know, your two main parties come to some sort of compromise?
It could possibly involve a bit of give and take based on there current representation in Government? Republicans can get some concessions but a mainly Democrat budget goes through?

... nah.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Can't, you know, your two main parties come to some sort of compromise?
It could possibly involve a bit of give and take based on there current representation in Government? Republicans can get some concessions but a mainly Democrat budget goes through?

... nah.

Even if they work together it's usually to our detriment. They're really just clones with some trimmings added on.

Both are devoted to screwing us over in the name of the few. Because the many allow this to continue. And in turn, this alienates more people, making the few ever more powerful.

It's the perfect plan.

 

[Cutlass]

I wouldn't mind shutting down all the government programs for a year to pay off the US debt.

And the millions of people who's lives are ruined by that should just suck it up?

Can't, you know, your two main parties come to some sort of compromise?
It could possibly involve a bit of give and take based on there current representation in Government? Republicans can get some concessions but a mainly Democrat budget goes through?

... nah.

When one side sees more advantage in not compromising, and doesn't care about the results, like the Republicans do now, then there's no chance. Both sides have to be willing to work at it. The Republicans are not.

 

[Ajidica]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the difference between the Senate plan (that is almost agreed on) and the house plan a mere $7 billion that despite sounding like alot, is effectively pocket change on this scale?

I was reading in the paper that if the government is shut down, SocSec and the VA Medical will stay open. Is there a reason for that? I was under the impression that a 'shutdown' meant everything but the most essential, somethign that I don't see SocSec as falling under.
The VA I can understand, but SocSec? If Gramma Betty doesn't have a couple months of savings set up, its her fault.

 

[BasketCase]

Yeah. Not happening. Shut down the non-Mil discretionary side and that's what , 12% of government spending.

Dreadnought didn't say "non-mil discretionary". He said all. He said, "shut down all government programs".

You seem to have got the idea that there are some programs we "can't" shut down. That we simply "must" have. There is no such thing. If America's credit rating tanks, and nobody is willing to lend to us any more, you will discover we CAN do without those programs, because we will be unable to get money to fund them and they will all crash. There will not be a choice about it.

You need to get your spending under control, so that doesn't happen.

 

[duckstab]

Dreadnought didn't say "non-mil discretionary". He said all. He said, "shut down all government programs".

You seem to have got the idea that there are some programs we "can't" shut down. That we simply "must" have. There is no such thing. If America's credit rating tanks, and nobody is willing to lend to us any more, you will discover we CAN do without those programs, because we will be unable to get money to fund them and they will all crash. There will not be a choice about it.

You need to get your spending under control, so that doesn't happen.

Once again, you're willfully ignoring the revenue side of the issue. If America's credit were really that much in jeopardy, then spending cuts alone wouldn't save us. We'd have to raise taxes.

If the GOP's not willing to even consider sunsetting the Bush tax cuts or closing corporate tax loopholes then they really don't care about America's credit worthiness. It's the same free lunch nonsense they've been peddling since Reagan.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

I just don't understand that some of the posters here narrowly discuss on the debates between the Democrats and the Republicans when in fact corporations like G.E. never paid their Federal taxes, and yet they still have received tax returns even after they have cut jobs over the years.

 

[Cutlass]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the difference between the Senate plan (that is almost agreed on) and the house plan a mere $7 billion that despite sounding like alot, is effectively pocket change on this scale?

I was reading in the paper that if the government is shut down, SocSec and the VA Medical will stay open. Is there a reason for that? I was under the impression that a 'shutdown' meant everything but the most essential, somethign that I don't see SocSec as falling under.
The VA I can understand, but SocSec? If Gramma Betty doesn't have a couple months of savings set up, its her fault.

It doesn't matter how far apart they are when one side keeps moving the goal posts and insisting on a 100% win. It's like with the health care bill last year. The opposition is not on the substance. It's for the politics.

 

[Ajidica]

Given how much the last government shutdown hurt the GOP, I would have thought they wouldn't want to push it over pocket-change.

I do wonder through, are agricultural and oil subsidies being cut?

Lastly, why is Social Security still functioning in a government shutdown (but I believe MEdicare/Medicaid are shut down)? As much as I think programs like those are helpful to society, they hardly make my list to top ten most essential programs in the US government.

 

[Cutlass]

Polls have the public about evenly split on whether they blame the Republicans or Obama. So that increases the odds that the Republicans will take the risk.

 

[Ajidica]

Why is it that Obama has failed so remarkably in taking the bully pulpit? He was a great speaker in the campaign, why can't he do it now?

If he can capture the bully pulpit here, it would do alot of good.

 

[Cutlass]

I'm not sure on the why. But the reality is that the Republicans are simply better at taking their message to the public. And that pays off for them.,

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I just heard the news say that even though soldiers and civil servants won't get paid if this happens, the president and congress still will. Apparently some democratic lawmakers are now trying to pass through a bill that prevents congress and the president from being paid when the government shuts down.

I don't think that goes far enough. I'd rather deny them any income any year that there is a deficit. If I'm feeling very generous I might allow those who proposed debt reducing balanced budgets to keep their salaries even if the majority shoots their proposals down.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Well, its an age old adage in Washington......whatever happens under the Presidents term, the President is resposible for....good or bad.

The Dems hold the office of the President and control the Senate. Not sure how you can law blame solely on the GOP for this one.

You should know better then anyone what the American Public is like.

Age old military adage. Victory has a hundred fathers, defeat is but an orphan

 

[GoodGame]

Well if the Democrats can't find the money to cut in all the bloody entitlements they so dearly love, that's on them if the government grinds to a halt. You all know who to properly blame. Obama and Co.

But they could also cut tax breaks for the wealthiest top tier as well. I could do without NPR, personally.


@Thoughtful Thug, GE not paying taxes is no different than the oil industry getting billions in subsidies or any other pork barrel we can mention. But really the government set up the scenario that some industries get better breaks, so it makes more sense to me to focus on the politicians, see they technically wield the power to seize assets among other things.

What makes this so silly, from the wonk side (as opposed to the political side), is that we don't strictly need actual cuts in programs; what we need is cuts in the projected growth rate of programs. You favorite programs can still be funded, and their funding can increase every year, but it's the rate of increase that needs to come down.

What Jericho Hill said, plus apparently the current rhetoric is to keep tax cuts for the wealthy on the basis of trickle down benefit to cause growth (it's been validated? Didn't we already find out that Bush's tax cuts money ended up overseas, and not propping up the economy in 2008-2009?) versus cutting medicare, and other social spending.

 

[warpus]

Excuse me, I'm a bit Canadian and not sure what's happening here. What's the deal? The U.S. government is going to shut down and won't be able to get anything done? And they might not get paid either?

How is that worse than them not doing anything and getting paid? I say you guys go with it, maybe this will help with your budget problems

 

[GoodGame]

Excuse me, I'm a bit Canadian and not sure what's happening here. What's the deal? The U.S. government is going to shut down and won't be able to get anything done? And they might not get paid either?

How is that worse than them not doing anything and getting paid? I say you guys go with it, maybe this will help with your budget problems

Basically. What I was too ignorant (untill today) to realize was that this is about the past year's budget. Normally they should be arguing about passing the next year's budget.

 

[Cutlass]

Excuse me, I'm a bit Canadian and not sure what's happening here. What's the deal? The U.S. government is going to shut down and won't be able to get anything done? And they might not get paid either?

How is that worse than them not doing anything and getting paid? I say you guys go with it, maybe this will help with your budget problems

On a day to day basis the government does a LOT!. Parks, monuments, and museums will be closed. Government offices, and all the work they do will close. All the many jobs they do will not be done.

 

[BasketCase]

Once again, you're willfully ignoring the revenue side of the issue. If America's credit were really that much in jeopardy, then spending cuts alone wouldn't save us. We'd have to raise taxes.

No. You're overly-obsessing on the revenue side of the issue. When your credit is toast and you have X dollars to spend, you must spend less than X. Spending cuts are the only solution. You went seriously pie-in-the-stratosphere.



Whatever monkeying about you decide to do with the tax code, at the end of the fiscal year, the government will collect X in taxes. You have to spend less than X. Period.

If the GOP's not willing to even consider sunsetting the Bush tax cuts or closing corporate tax loopholes then they really don't care about America's credit worthiness. It's the same free lunch nonsense they've been peddling since Reagan.

Maybe. Doesn't matter. Tax increases are not gonna happen. You don't have a choice any more. You're forgetting who really holds the power here. The Republicans are where they are right now because the voters put them there in 2010. Never forget, it's the American voter who has the final say. Not you. Remember that--or the voters will give you another, sterner reminder in 2012, by electing Sarah Palin President.....