Government shutdown looms

I can't wait til the Republicans have to explain to seniors that stop getting their social security checks that the government had to be shut down because the Democrats refused to discontinue medicare.
 
The government is telling only UNESSENTIAL workers to stay home.

It's up to the Obama Administration to decide what is unessential. If seniors don't get their checks, then clearly making sure they receive their benefits on time is UNESSENTIAL in Obamaland.

Social Security checks would still go out. Troops would remain at their posts. Furloughed federal workers probably would get paid, though not until later. And virtually every essential government agency, like the FBI, the Border Patrol and the Coast Guard, would remain open.

That's the little-known truth about a government shutdown. The government doesn't shut down.

And it won't on March 5, even if the combatants on Capitol Hill can't resolve enough differences to pass a stopgap spending bill to fund the government while they hash out legislation to cover the last seven months of the budget year.

Fewer than half of the 2.1 million federal workers subject to a shutdown would be forced off the job if the Obama administration followed the path taken by presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. And that's not counting 600,000 Postal Service employees or 1.6 million uniformed military personnel exempt from a shutdown

So we're talking fewer than one in four federal workers staying at home. Many federal workers get paid on March 4, so it would take a two-week shutdown for them to see a delay in their paychecks.

The rules for who works and who doesn't date back to the early 1980s and haven't been significantly modified since. The Obama administration hasn't issued new guidance.

The air traffic control system, food inspection, Medicare, veterans' health care and many other essential government programs would run as usual. The Social Security Administration would not only send out benefits but would continue to take applications. The Postal Service, which is self-funded, would keep delivering the mail. Federal courts would remain open....


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110224/ap_on_re_us/us_what_shutdown
 
Last edited:
Dick Cheney on Budget & Economy

DICK Cheney said 'Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Well, they don't matter when a Republican administration is causing them. They DO matter when a Democratic administration is causing them. You got that straight?

Yes, cuts need to be made, but the GOP is burdened with the Tea Party. The baggers will not compromise. They are dogmatic and will be insistent on getting their way. Batcrazy Bachmann has already said she will not compromise until Obamacare is defunded. She and Palin and now the Donald will prove the death bell of the GOP in 2012.
 
I think the writing was on the wall when the Democrats actually referred to it as 'Kennedy's seat'. It was not 'Kennedy's seat', it is the seat of the people of Mass. Their own arrogance cost them that seat. And, fortunately, the people had a decent alternative in Scott Brown. I like Scott. Don't always agree with him but he votes as a representative of his constituents and that is a lesson for all our representatives. They should not vote party, they should vote in accordance with those who sent them to DC.

Keep in mind that the Republicans also dragged the Al Franken election out for months refusing to allow him to be seated. Super majority only lasted six months

Oh, give me a break. You're fine when the Dems pull a stunt and bitch like a two year old when the GOP do. Such partisan bullshit is pathetic.

And if you recall, Campbell won that election. The bitching and moaning came from the Franken camp until he found someone who couldn't count to satisfy his itch.

Immie
 
Last edited:
We need to cut the spending. It's not our fault if you refuse to recognize this necessity. The Spending has to be cut if we are going to have long term viability as a nation.

I've yet to meet a single person that disagrees with the idea of cutting spending. The problem is no one agrees on how.

The Democrats refuse to touch Medicare and Medicaid. That's ridiculous as those programs have spending estimates that are growing out of control astronomically. On top of that, Medicare/Medicaid is about 20% of the budget. Cuts to that have to be part of the conversation.

However, on the other side of the coin the GOP absolutely refuses to talk about the Defense, which itself is around 18 to 20% of the budget at any given time. You can't have a serious conversation about balancing a budget and NOT be willing to put 20% of it on the table.

No one, absolutely no one, in politics is even willing to talk about Social Security, which itself is right at 20% or so of the budget. That's a shame, as that program could actually be saved and made solvent if people were willing to make a few sacrifices.

EVERYONE seems to think that discretionary spending is the thing to cut, but you're talking about amounts of money there that are literally chump change. It's like me presenting you a bill for $1,000.00 and you digging around in your couch for change.

Until Defense, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are on the table, we're wasting our time. It's just that easy.

800px-Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/opinion/06wed1.html?_r=1

If their goal was to reduce spending, they would have accepted the Democrats’ offer to cut $33 billion out of the budget for the next six months — the same amount as Republican leaders had originally requested before Tea Party members forced them to double it earlier this year. As the president noted, that offer constitutes the largest cut to domestic discretionary spending in history.

The Tea Baggers are holding the GOP hostage. The GOP knows they will lose if there is a shut down, and yet the Baggers insist on just that. FRIGIN AMAZING!

Ok so this should be entertaining.....Why don't you tell us your thoughts on how the budget should be balanced or what steps you would take to curb the massive spending taking place.

Real patriots sacrifice their lives for their country. If conservatives, Republicans and Tea Baggers are patriots why won't they sacrifice a few dollars to save the country? Much as they are willing to send other peoples kids into harms way, they want others to sacrifice.
My plan, the Congress needs to pass a one time tax of 10% on all income tax due April
15; all of this revenue to be used to reduce our debt. Congress should also authorize war bonds, and issue paper bonds large enough for them to be place in the window of homes, the walls of an office or a car's bumber. Each bond showing how much the patriot gave to support our troops (of course the bond itself should pay no interest, but be payable at face value to the heirs of the patriot after their death).
 
We need to cut the spending. It's not our fault if you refuse to recognize this necessity. The Spending has to be cut if we are going to have long term viability as a nation.

I've yet to meet a single person that disagrees with the idea of cutting spending. The problem is no one agrees on how.

The Democrats refuse to touch Medicare and Medicaid. That's ridiculous as those programs have spending estimates that are growing out of control astronomically. On top of that, Medicare/Medicaid is about 20% of the budget. Cuts to that have to be part of the conversation.

However, on the other side of the coin the GOP absolutely refuses to talk about the Defense, which itself is around 18 to 20% of the budget at any given time. You can't have a serious conversation about balancing a budget and NOT be willing to put 20% of it on the table.

No one, absolutely no one, in politics is even willing to talk about Social Security, which itself is right at 20% or so of the budget. That's a shame, as that program could actually be saved and made solvent if people were willing to make a few sacrifices.

EVERYONE seems to think that discretionary spending is the thing to cut, but you're talking about amounts of money there that are literally chump change. It's like me presenting you a bill for $1,000.00 and you digging around in your couch for change.

Until Defense, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are on the table, we're wasting our time. It's just that easy.

800px-Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg

The only part of this post that I disagree with is your statement that you've "yet to meet a single person that disagrees with the idea of cutting spending". Maybe you have not yet met a politician and lord knows I can't think of one that I have met face to face except for a mayor of a local town here in my area. But, I don't think any of our elected officials in Washington have any desire to cut spending in any way shape or form. Republicans (even those that stand "with" the Tea Party) may say that they insist on spending cuts, but they have done not a damned thing to actually prove that point.

Quite frankly, I doubt they will either at least not in any significant way.

Immie
 
Last edited:
The only part of this post that I disagree with is your statement that you've "yet to meet a single person that disagrees with the idea of cutting spending". Maybe you have not yet met a politician and lord knows I can't think of one that I have met fact to face except for a mayor of a local town here in my area.

I typically don't hang out with the politicians. I'm a happier person that way.

What I meant was, I interact with a lot of folks with differing political views between academia, family, and church. Some are hardcore liberal, and some are hardcore Conservative. None of the folks I've met are against cutting spending. I've yet to meet any two people that would cut in the same places. That's the real tragedy. We all agree there's a problem, but we can't iron out the details because we've forgotten how to actually compromise with each other.
 
The only part of this post that I disagree with is your statement that you've "yet to meet a single person that disagrees with the idea of cutting spending". Maybe you have not yet met a politician and lord knows I can't think of one that I have met fact to face except for a mayor of a local town here in my area.

I typically don't hang out with the politicians. I'm a happier person that way.

What I meant was, I interact with a lot of folks with differing political views between academia, family, and church. Some are hardcore liberal, and some are hardcore Conservative. None of the folks I've met are against cutting spending. I've yet to meet any two people that would cut in the same places. That's the real tragedy. We all agree there's a problem, but we can't iron out the details because we've forgotten how to actually compromise with each other.


CBO Can't Conceive of Anyway' Economy Can Continue Past 2037: Someone better figure something out pretty damn soon because its all coming apart.

My thoughts are to start with 30% removed from all budgets that means all budgets and then 3% each year there after. This isn't a game now isn't the time for finger pointing this nation is headed towards a Train wreak it may not recover from.

800%
 
The only part of this post that I disagree with is your statement that you've "yet to meet a single person that disagrees with the idea of cutting spending". Maybe you have not yet met a politician and lord knows I can't think of one that I have met fact to face except for a mayor of a local town here in my area.

I typically don't hang out with the politicians. I'm a happier person that way.

What I meant was, I interact with a lot of folks with differing political views between academia, family, and church. Some are hardcore liberal, and some are hardcore Conservative. None of the folks I've met are against cutting spending. I've yet to meet any two people that would cut in the same places. That's the real tragedy. We all agree there's a problem, but we can't iron out the details because we've forgotten how to actually compromise with each other.


CBO Can't Conceive of Anyway' Economy Can Continue Past 2037: Someone better figure something out pretty damn soon because its all coming apart.

My thoughts are to start with 30% removed from all budgets that means all budgets and then 3% each year there after. This isn't a game now isn't the time for finger pointing this nation is headed towards a Train wreak it may not recover from.

800%

I agree about the train wreck.

I don't think Congress gives a shit.

Immie
 
The White House just announced that Social Security Checks will go out on time.

So the Leftwing Hyperbole is proven wrong yet again.
 
The White House just announced that Social Security Checks will go out on time.

So the Leftwing Hyperbole is proven wrong yet again.

Would you rather they not send out the checks? I think it is a matter of doing what should be done. Don't be a Hack when it comes to people who really need help, getting it.
 
Why would we cut social security, medicare and medicade which provide a needed and necessary service to our nations people yet continue to fund defense, which seems more about turning a profit than providing real defense to our nation? Real Christians would such abhor a policy, denying the aged and/or infirm life supporting services and continuing to produce weapons designed to kill.
It might be understandable if the money spent on new, larger and more leathal means of killing were spent instead to protect our borders, our chemical plants, our water supply, our ports, our people.

Why haven't the members of Congress voted first to cut their salary and benefits? Isn't that a form of leadership? Why haven't supporters of war offered to pay for war (it's far easier to put a ribbon on ones bumber I suppose).

This entire debate is crap; it is a sad commentary on a nation which has lost its soul; avarice is a deady sin and seems to be the guiding force of the New Right.
 
Why would we cut social security, medicare and medicade which provide a needed and necessary service to our nations people yet continue to fund defense, which seems more about turning a profit than providing real defense to our nation? Real Christians would such abhor a policy, denying the aged and/or infirm life supporting services and continuing to produce weapons designed to kill.
It might be understandable if the money spent on new, larger and more leathal means of killing were spent instead to protect our borders, our chemical plants, our water supply, our ports, our people.

Why haven't the members of Congress voted first to cut their salary and benefits? Isn't that a form of leadership? Why haven't supporters of war offered to pay for war (it's far easier to put a ribbon on ones bumber I suppose).

This entire debate is crap; it is a sad commentary on a nation which has lost its soul; avarice is a deady sin and seems to be the guiding force of the New Right.

I don't know if you think I want to cut services to the poor or elderly or not, but if you do, you would be wrong. There are plenty of other areas to cut including waste in the social services areas. Lots of waste throughout our government.

I've got no problem cutting the defense budget either, as long as you are not talking about cutting soldiers pay and expecting them to put their lives on the line in Iraq for minimum wage! Again, there are plenty of areas throughout our government to cut.

But, no one in Washington wants to stand up and say, we need to cut and we need to cut now. The time for playing games is over.

You are right, it is a sad commentary on our nation, but the right is no less guilty than the left.

Immie
 
CBO Can't Conceive of Anyway' Economy Can Continue Past 2037: Someone better figure something out pretty damn soon because its all coming apart.

My thoughts are to start with 30% removed from all budgets that means all budgets and then 3% each year there after. This isn't a game now isn't the time for finger pointing this nation is headed towards a Train wreak it may not recover from.

800%

My argument has always been you need to take the pie chart I gave, keep the part that involves interest on the debt, and reset all of it, ALL OF IT, to zero. Turn the debate on its head. Prioritize spending where it's important, and if you run out of money reconfiguring the budget, then that's it.

Past that, I think you need to have a line item payroll tax that represents a person's share of the federal debt. People would get motivated really quick to find a solution if they understood they personally are in debt up to their eyeballs thanks to the Feds.
 
CBO Can't Conceive of Anyway' Economy Can Continue Past 2037: Someone better figure something out pretty damn soon because its all coming apart.

My thoughts are to start with 30% removed from all budgets that means all budgets and then 3% each year there after. This isn't a game now isn't the time for finger pointing this nation is headed towards a Train wreak it may not recover from.

800%

My argument has always been you need to take the pie chart I gave, keep the part that involves interest on the debt, and reset all of it, ALL OF IT, to zero. Turn the debate on its head. Prioritize spending where it's important, and if you run out of money reconfiguring the budget, then that's it.


Past that, I think you need to have a line item payroll tax that represents a person's share of the federal debt. People would get motivated really quick to find a solution if they understood they personally are in debt up to their eyeballs thanks to the Feds.


The other part is getting rid of all the "special" interests the only damn "special" interest should be the American Tax payer who seemingly has no representation on what they become obliged to pay back.
 
I don't believe any sane person believes we should maintain the current level of spending. The question is not whether to cut spending, but rather what to cut, when, and how much. Obama is proposing a 1.1 trillion cut in the deficit over 10 years. His plan does not add new taxes or include savings from the phase out of spendings in Iraq. There is also no mention of savings from a phase out of the war in Afghanistan.

I believe an economic domesday would not occur suddenly without warning. More likely there would be a series of small economic disasters over a period of years. First inflation would build coupled with economic stagnation, and a series of recessions. Bond rating agencies would issue their warnings then place US treasures on a credit watch followed by downgrading US debt from it's AAA rating. This would result in sizable increases in interest rates on treasuries and further increases in the of debt.

Long before the end of civilization as we know it, spending cuts, and tax increase will lower deficits. Even if the US tried to avoid this, China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and a number of countries whose economies are linked to ours would put pressure on the US. These countries have huge holdings in the US plus a sizable portion of the US debt.
 
Last edited:
The last several posts are great arguments, but I am not sure anyone in DC is listening...
 

Forum List

Back
Top