Shutting Down the Federal Government (1 Viewer)

Thales750 · Apr 8, 2011

If it wasn’t bad enough that the single biggest issue in last 20 years has been abortions.

Now we see the American Government shut down because Pro-Lifers will stop at nothing to force their agenda on the American People.

We now have the showdown they have been waiting for: will the American people see the Tea Party and the rest of the ultra conservatives for what they are? Or will their lies win the day?

I guess we shall see. No more fence riding America, we will now decide who poses the greatest risk to Life and Liberty.

Be careful what you wish for.

Vassago · Apr 8, 2011

No kidding!!! And here I thought our elected officials were supposed to be working FOR us, not against us. I hardly see how taking pay away from 800,000 federal employees, including active duty military, is working for us, all because they want to push their personal agendas. That doesn't sound like the right way to do it at all. You compromise by keeping business as usual, give the funding to them, and work on changing things on this one single issue later. You don't shut down our entire government to try and enforce a change.

The Republicans and Tea-Party activists sound more like children in a grocery store begging their Mom for candy and refusing to get off the floor until they recieve what they want. I hope we, the voters, are smart enough to spank them for their immaturity.

And to top it all off, of course they still receive pay even though our military, national park employees, government building janitors, all voting Americans, do not during this shutdown. Can you tell this makes me angry yet?

The_Doc_Man · Apr 9, 2011

Looks like they have brokered a stop-gap measure for a week while they work on what they are calling a decent compromise.

"Decent compromise" is verging on being an oxymoron like "jumbo shrimp" and "military intelligence." Particularly since I have to use the word "Decent" in the same sentence as the word "Congress." Then, of course, it might be time to pull out the old comparison that we can have either progress or congress but not both.

Thales750 · Apr 9, 2011

The_Doc_Man said:
Looks like they have brokered a stop-gap measure for a week while they work on what they are calling a decent compromise.

"Decent compromise" is verging on being an oxymoron like "jumbo shrimp" and "military intelligence." Particularly since I have to use the word "Decent" in the same sentence as the word "Congress." Then, of course, it might be time to pull out the old comparison that we can have either progress or congress but not both.

I heard last night, glad to be wrong.

statsman · Apr 11, 2011

For over 40 years pro choice and pro life advocates have been battling for our attention and attempting to swing public opinion to their position.

In 1970 the stats were:
Pro abortion - 20%
Anti abortion - 20%
No opinion - 60%

The latest numbers are out. They are:
Pro abortion - 20%
Anti abortion - 20%
No opinion - 60%

Thales750 · Apr 11, 2011

statsman said:
For over 40 years pro choice and pro life advocates have been battling for our attention and attempting to swing public opinion to their position.

In 1970 the stats were:
Pro abortion - 20%
Anti abortion - 20%
No opinion - 60%

The latest numbers are out. They are:
Pro abortion - 20%
Anti abortion - 20%
No opinion - 60%

Except I would be willing to bet us "No Opinions" are 100% sick and tired of the fate of the country riding on the tails of the ideologues.

Vassago · Apr 11, 2011

The sad thing is, federal money is NEVER used for abortions. Planned Parenthood uses federal money for women's health: breast exams, birth control, annual checkups, and even pregnancy care, etc... It's never used for abortions. It's part of the Republican agenda to tarnish Planned Parenthood to put them out of business because of idealogical views.

kjyoung · Apr 11, 2011

Thanks for the information. Found it enlightening!

Banana · Apr 11, 2011

Personally, it's too bad it didn't actually shut down. I think that would be a good thing™. Maybe by then, everyone will come to the terms that morality simply can't be legislated and we're all better off without the armies of bureaucrats controlling every minutiae of our lives yet are never ultimately accountable.

I also can't help but think the whole "shutdown" story is some kind of circuses and bread.

Vassago · Apr 11, 2011

What really seems ironic to me is that the so called "Tea Party" is supposed to be about less federal government involvement in our lives, yet they are calling for bans on idealogical beliefs that should be up to the individual. Hypocricy at it's finest. I hope people realize how full of crap they really are and start separating themselves from the group before they find themselves drinking the poison Kool-Aid at a cult function.

Banana · Apr 11, 2011

Perhaps, but was that really a new song? They've been singing the same old song. They just changed the name of song but not the lyrics.

Thales750 · Apr 12, 2011

Banana said:
Personally, it's too bad it didn't actually shut down. I think that would be a good thing™. Maybe by then, everyone will come to the terms that morality simply can't be legislated and we're all better off without the armies of bureaucrats controlling every minutiae of our lives yet are never ultimately accountable.

I also can't help but think the whole "shutdown" story is some kind of circuses and bread.

What do you mean by that?

Steve R. · Apr 12, 2011

The whole budget deficit discussion is incorrectly presented to the American people. The media, in general, fosters the image these are real cuts. They are not real cuts; they are simply a reduction in proposed spending.

Think of it this way, you want to go to a restaurant for dinner. Instead of the "bank" loaning you $10 to go to dinner, the "bank" only lets you have $8 at the ATM. You still get to go out to dinner, you just can't buy as much.

The media (in general), however mindlessly fans the flames of fear by regurgitating the Obama's administration mantra that these supposed cuts would somehow damage the affected programs. These are absurd statements. The Obama administration has been proposing increased deficit spending.

The Washington Post did grudgingly(?) acknowledge: "But some of the worst-sounding trims are not quite what they seem, and officials said they would not necessarily result in lost jobs or service cutbacks. In several cases, what look like large reductions are actually accounting gimmicks. "

Tomorrow (Wednesday, April 13, 2011), Obama is supposed to make a speech on the budget deficit. Based on Obama's past empty rhetoric, I don't have much hope that we will have real deficit reduction.

Real deficit reduction means revenue in excess of expenses. The Obama administration (Republicans included) are addicted to deficit spending and have no real intent of balancing the budget. To reiterate the in-phrase of the day, "the can is being kicked down the street".

Adam Caramon · Apr 12, 2011

Steve R. said:
The media (in general), however mindlessly fans the flames of fear by regurgitating the Obama's administration mantra that these supposed cuts would somehow damage the affected programs. These are absurd statements.

Why? It would seem to logically follow that if a program receives 100 million dollars/year in federal money, and then is cut to 50 million dollars/year, there would be significant changes in the program.

When the NPR conversation first started, they said that if federal funds were withdrawn, many of the local programs through out the country would have to be cancelled.

I think it is quite obvious that withdrawing funds from a program will damage the program. The question is, which programs SHOULD be damaged or stopped entirely?

Steve R. said:
Tomorrow (Wednesday, April 13, 2011), Obama is supposed to make a speech on the budget deficit. Based on Obama's past empty rhetoric, I don't have much hope that we will have real deficit reduction.

Every president has goals that they want to accomplish, and most of those goals cost money. What would motivate the current president to put his goals on hold and cut the deficit when the previous "conservative" president exploded the deficit?

Steve R. said:
Real deficit reduction means revenue in excess of expenses. The Obama administration (Republicans included) are addicted to deficit spending and have no real intent of balancing the budget.

That's because wealthy Americans are addicited to their tax cuts, middle class Americans are addicted to their standard of living, and poor Americans are addicited to their entitlements.

If Republicans would be willing to discuss taxing wealthy Americans and corporations, and Democrats would be willing to discuss reforming entitlements, then some actual headway could be made.

However, both sides feel like they're the ones that have been sacrificing and are now expecting the other side to do so.

Wealthy Americans have seen their tax rates continually drop throughout the years, they won't be satisfied until they're paying next to $0.

Middle class and poor Americans, on the other hand, have seen their jobs lost, their raises frozen, and the cost of good and services going higher and higher (which affects them more sharply than it affects wealthy Americans).

I think it is pretty clear which group should be the next to sacrifice.

AnthonyGerrard · Apr 12, 2011

Adam Caramon said:
If Republicans would be willing to discuss taxing wealthy Americans and corporations, and Democrats would be willing to discuss reforming entitlements, then some actual headway could be made.

What you guys need is Nick Clegg!

Steve R. · Apr 12, 2011

Adam Caramon said:
Why? It would seem to logically follow that if a program receives 100 million dollars/year in federal money, and then is cut to 50 million dollars/year, there would be significant changes in the program.

You miss the point. Obama is proposing increased deficit spending, not a reduction in spending. So if you propose to spend $1.7 trillion dollars and decrease that amount by $38 billion dollars, you are still proposing to spend $1.662 trillion dollars, which is a reduction of proposed spending; not a cut based on prior funding.

------------------
Update: Since posting I found this website: Time Series Chart of US Government Spending. According to the website, in 2008 Federal government spending amounted to $2982.54 billion dollars. In 2010 the total was $3456.21, which amounts to an increase of $473.67 billion dollars.

For 2011, the budgeted estimate is (was) $3818.82 billion dollars or an increase of $836.28 billion dollars over 2008 expenditures.

Clearly a purported $38 billion dollar reduction in spending is just chump change and that assertions of severe cutbacks in government programs and services are being overblown as a means of fanning the flames of public outrage.
------------------

If a program previously received $50 million dollars a year and the President proposes to increase the program's budget to $100 million dollars, that is expanding the program. Now, if the budget is "cut" to $80 million dollars, it is still an increase of $30 million dollars form the prior base. It is NOT a cut. It is still an increase.

PS: There some programs that will receive real reductions based on prior funding levels. The Post wrote:"In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency, long a target of conservatives, will see a $1.6 billion cut, representing a 16 percent decrease from 2010 levels. At the Department of the Interior, affected agencies include the Fish and Wildlife Services ($141 million cut from last year), the National Park Service ($127 million cut from last year) and “clean and drinking water state revolving funds” ($997 million cut from last year)."

Thales750 · Apr 12, 2011

Steve R. said:
You miss the point. Obama is proposing increased deficit spending, not a reduction in spending. So if you propose to spend $1.7 trillion dollars and decrease that amount by $38 billion dollars, you are still proposing to spend $1.662 trillion dollars, which is a reduction of proposed spending; not a cut based on prior funding.

If a program previously received $50 million dollars a year and the President proposes to increase the program's budget to $100 million dollars, that is expanding the program. Now, if the budget is "cut" to $80 million dollars, it is still an increase of $30 million dollars form the prior base. It is NOT a cut. It is still an increase.

PS: There some programs that will receive real reductions based on prior funding levels. The Post wrote:"In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency, long a target of conservatives, will see a $1.6 billion cut, representing a 16 percent decrease from 2010 levels. At the Department of the Interior, affected agencies include the Fish and Wildlife Services ($141 million cut from last year), the National Park Service ($127 million cut from last year) and “clean and drinking water state revolving funds” ($997 million cut from last year)."

The President is not increasing anything. The Congress is in charge of the budget.

All the President can do is veto, sign or abstain.

The Presidential Budget is a framework of spending to support the platform that the American People elected him to pursue. From that, Congress will pass a budget that represents their individual Constituents and States.

Vassago · Apr 12, 2011

Thales750 said:
The President is not increasing anything. The Congress is in charge of the budget.

All the President can do is veto, sign or abstain.

The Presidential Budget is a framework of spending to support the platform that the American People elected him to pursue. From that, Congress will pass a budget that represents their individual Constituents and States.

I was about to make that point. Everyone is so quick to blame the President for every problem our nation faces.

At any rate, I wish political parties were abolished. They serve no real need for the people, only the corporations that fund them and the puppets that are elected to act in their best interests.

Steve R. · Apr 12, 2011

Thales750 said:
The President is not increasing anything. The Congress is in charge of the budget.

Point taken. Absolutely correct.

I have made, on past occasions, the point that the House of Representatives is in charge of the appropriations. Which leads me to the point that the Republicans could simply hand Obama a balanced budget and there is very little that Obama could actually do about it. It surprises me that the Republicans despite their supposed new found belief in fiscal responsibility are really hypocrites.

Nice U-Tube video: Jack Daniels Explains The Deficit

Thanks for pointing out my oversight.

Adam Caramon · Apr 12, 2011

Steve R. said:
You miss the point.

No, I don't. I understand what you're saying about cuts. If you spend more than you bring in, it is defecit spending, regardless of the amount you lower your initial projections.

I'm disagreeing with your assertion that these cuts won't affect the programs that will be receiving less (and in some cases, much less) federal funds.

The budget is actually very simple to understand, but complex to balance. You have revenue, and you have expenses. When your expenses exceed your revenue, that is a Bad Thing. However, cutting expenses can be very difficult, especially when those expenses are such things as supporting home heating costs for poor families, or medical care for people who cannot otherwise afford medical care.

It seems most economists agree that we need to increase revenue and decrease expenses. Makes you wonder why the Republicans fought so hard to keep tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans (which, had they expired, would have increased revenue).

Shutting Down the Federal Government (1 Viewer)

Formerly Jsanders

Former Staff Turned AWF Retiree

Immoderate Moderator

Formerly Jsanders

Active member

Formerly Jsanders

Former Staff Turned AWF Retiree

Registered User.

split with a cherry atop.

Former Staff Turned AWF Retiree

split with a cherry atop.

Formerly Jsanders

Retired

Registered User

Registered User.

Retired

Formerly Jsanders

Former Staff Turned AWF Retiree

Retired

Registered User

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread