The Tea Party is back in business! (1 Viewer)

[3C's]

$1300B in 2011

$1100B in 2012

$760B in 2013

They'll just go back to arguing the 18% increase in 08-09. TARP and the stimulus are the crux of their argument. The fact that both those programs were emergency responses to the economic meltdown are irrelevant. It "proves" somehow that Obama is the biggest spender in history and that we're headed to catastrophe.

You're missing the fact that we're basing the "decreases" on a "new baseline" of that temporary spending. What's the average increase from 2007 to 2012? That removes the effect of the one year outlier.

2007 deficit 163 bn. 2007 military spending 530 bn. 2013 military spending 832 bn. 12 months to sept 30th 2013 deficit 760 bn. Half the increase thus increased defense spending

Obama's current budget has 2013 military spending at 652B. A decrease from the 671B in 2012, and in 2014 it will decrease further to 615B before starting to rise again. Your numbers are inaccurate.

Wait, I thought Obama didn't have a budget. That's what some right wingers I know keep saying.

 

[DrJ]

$1300B in 2011

$1100B in 2012

$760B in 2013

They'll just go back to arguing the 18% increase in 08-09. TARP and the stimulus are the crux of their argument. The fact that both those programs were emergency responses to the economic meltdown are irrelevant. It "proves" somehow that Obama is the biggest spender in history and that we're headed to catastrophe.

You're missing the fact that we're basing the "decreases" on a "new baseline" of that temporary spending. What's the average increase from 2007 to 2012? That removes the effect of the one year outlier.

2007 deficit 163 bn. 2007 military spending 530 bn. 2013 military spending 832 bn. 12 months to sept 30th 2013 deficit 760 bn. Half the increase thus increased defense spending

Obama's current budget has 2013 military spending at 652B. A decrease from the 671B in 2012, and in 2014 it will decrease further to 615B before starting to rise again. Your numbers are inaccurate.

Wait, I thought Obama didn't have a budget. That's what some right wingers I know keep saying.

They probably said sensible budget and you weren't paying attention, like in most of this thread.

 

[Statorama]

Hopefully the true conservatives will phase out the RINO's in the coming years so we can finally meet Democrat intransigence head on. Right now there are enough Democrats calling themselves Republicans that we the people are constantly being forced to bend to the will of Obama. Whatever he wants, he gets with this bunch of pansies.

Huge victory for the Tea Party. By creating a huge spotlight on the ACA, the news was forced to have parallel coverage between the budget battle and the enormous failure of the ACA roll out. It wasn't ready, and the Tea Party suggestion of a one year delay was the only voice of reason in this whole mess.

Do you actually think there are enough votes to make the party you want into anything more than a minority party in both houses?

People on the whole tend to trend center-right on most issues.

The problem that the Republican Party has had for several years is a conga line of bad messengers. People that simply can't get their tongues and brains to align and put forth a consistent, charismatic, center right message that sounds reasonable to the public. Paul Ryan has a very effective message, but he's got no charisma and tends to focus on the negative. "People" don't want to hear numbers and don't want to hear how bad things are going to be. Thinking is hard. Hearing about the ACA leading us to Economic Armageddon is a bummer man.

One of Obama's greatest gifts is making horrifying statements sound reasonable.

People are very simple. They want to avoid pain and feel pleasure. That's why their eyes glaze over when Republicans drone on about numbers. They don't want the truth. The truth is painful. They want to accept and go-along with the least painful and most pleasurable sounding talking points. "Everybody gets healthcare" makes people feel good. It's a simple message. "Yeah, well Obama sucks", while truthful and simple, doesn't make people feel as good.

In the coming years, the United States is going to be in such ruinous economic straits (tied directly back to Democrat policies) that the public will have no choice but to elect reform minded conservative Republicans with an agenda to "clean things up".

That's when the real fun begins.

 

[3C's]

$1300B in 2011

$1100B in 2012

$760B in 2013

They'll just go back to arguing the 18% increase in 08-09. TARP and the stimulus are the crux of their argument. The fact that both those programs were emergency responses to the economic meltdown are irrelevant. It "proves" somehow that Obama is the biggest spender in history and that we're headed to catastrophe.

You're missing the fact that we're basing the "decreases" on a "new baseline" of that temporary spending. What's the average increase from 2007 to 2012? That removes the effect of the one year outlier.

2007 deficit 163 bn. 2007 military spending 530 bn. 2013 military spending 832 bn. 12 months to sept 30th 2013 deficit 760 bn. Half the increase thus increased defense spending

Obama's current budget has 2013 military spending at 652B. A decrease from the 671B in 2012, and in 2014 it will decrease further to 615B before starting to rise again. Your numbers are inaccurate.

Wait, I thought Obama didn't have a budget. That's what some right wingers I know keep saying.

They probably said sensible budget and you weren't paying attention, like in most of this thread.

Nope, that's not it. Try again Chachi.

 

[Statorama]

This whole episode just furthers my belief that the Dems are dangerous and the GOP is inept...as we wake-up today the GOP has proven once again that they are clueless...the establishment GOP could not be less media savvy or understand what their constituency wants while the Tea-Party wing needs to figure out they can not get every thing they want and when they don't they can't have a temper-tantrum and act like a five-year old...on the other-side we are about to reap the results of a law that is going to be a complete disaster that was rammed thru in a total non-partisan manner...only an ideologue will say this roll-out has been a success and the future of health-care looks promising...I don't think there has ever been a time in our country where the President, Senate and House were all such complete losers and totally incapable of helping your Average Joe...I really can't comprehend how anyone thinks the likes of Obama, Pelosi, Reid, McConnell and Boehner can solve any issues that face our country today...

Excellent post, and one of the first non-partisan voices in this thread. Kudos.

edit to add: Those of you that like to think of yourselves as "independent", this is how it's done.

 

[DrJ]

I'm with DrJ on this one. Drastic, immediate changes are not what is needed. Gradual, phased-in spending slow-downs are the answer and something that can be done without shocking the economy into recession. Of course, I think that the spending cuts should be compounded with revenue increases (again through gradual changes). It's not a lost cause. We don't need to balance the budget. Just curb the spending growth.

Yah. We don't need to kill the debt, necessarily, but we should get it under 60-70% of GDP. But we don't need to act like it's some pie-in-the-sky impossibility. We were on track to get there when Clinton left office. It'll just be more challenging the next 20 years as we work through the Baby Boomers bulge in Soc Sec/Medicare.

It's a who's who of powerful economies below 60%. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html

It's well above our historical norms and starts getting to the point where spikes in the interests rates can start gumming up what else we can do with our government.

I'm aware of that, just pointing out that our current level is in line with other 1st world economies while those toward the bottom of the debt to gdp ratio are not what we'd typically consider strong economic nations. I'd like it closer to 50% but that's not the current environment.

Did you notice the countries at the top?

I notice quite a few G20 countries higher than the US.

No worries, we're working on it.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Meanwhile, my state is now represented in the Senate of the United States by Robert Menendez and Corey Booker.

Ugh.

 

[Slapdash]

Also when you're leveraged to the hilt, you lose the flexibility to spend into a down economy.

Not really.

 

[spreagle]

Now Obama is hammering the gold price to punish the Tea Partiers for cutting off the governments free money printing! This is starting to get interesting. Is this what financial war looks like?

Don't pay any attention to the money, its all good, just pure coincidence that the fight started with a gold slam and ended with a dollar slam.

 

[dparker713]

Hopefully the true conservatives will phase out the RINO's in the coming years so we can finally meet Democrat intransigence head on. Right now there are enough Democrats calling themselves Republicans that we the people are constantly being forced to bend to the will of Obama. Whatever he wants, he gets with this bunch of pansies.

Huge victory for the Tea Party. By creating a huge spotlight on the ACA, the news was forced to have parallel coverage between the budget battle and the enormous failure of the ACA roll out. It wasn't ready, and the Tea Party suggestion of a one year delay was the only voice of reason in this whole mess.

Do you actually think there are enough votes to make the party you want into anything more than a minority party in both houses?

People on the whole tend to trend center-right on most issues.

The problem that the Republican Party has had for several years is a conga line of bad messengers. People that simply can't get their tongues and brains to align and put forth a consistent, charismatic, center right message that sounds reasonable to the public. Paul Ryan has a very effective message, but he's got no charisma and tends to focus on the negative. "People" don't want to hear numbers and don't want to hear how bad things are going to be. Thinking is hard. Hearing about the ACA leading us to Economic Armageddon is a bummer man.

One of Obama's greatest gifts is making horrifying statements sound reasonable.

People are very simple. They want to avoid pain and feel pleasure. That's why their eyes glaze over when Republicans drone on about numbers. They don't want the truth. The truth is painful. They want to accept and go-along with the least painful and most pleasurable sounding talking points. "Everybody gets healthcare" makes people feel good. It's a simple message. "Yeah, well Obama sucks", while truthful and simple, doesn't make people feel as good.

In the coming years, the United States is going to be in such ruinous economic straits (tied directly back to Democrat policies) that the public will have no choice but to elect reform minded conservative Republicans with an agenda to "clean things up".

That's when the real fun begins.

Wow, I could have stopped at Ryan has an effective message. I don't even think his own staffers believe that. After all, they're the ones that help cook the numbers in his budget plans.

And if we're headed to "ruinous economic straits", shouldn't all measures be available to fix them, you know, like tax increases. BTW, we had a surplus until we cut taxes and started two wars at the same time. How you can claim the current financial situation is solely the result of one party's policies is baffling.

 

[dparker713]

Meanwhile, my state is now represented in the Senate of the United States by Robert Menendez and Corey Booker.

Ugh.

The Repubs ran a Tea-Party guy and focused on abortion. How'd you think that was gonna play out in NJ?

 

[TPW]

http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2013/10/16/the-third-party/

Galston’s argues that the conservative insurgency is rooted in some kind of atavism; that it arises from a nostalgic hankering after an America long past in the face of new demography. Nothing could be further from the truth. The hell with demography. People would be just fine with changes in demography if only times were good. When times are bad homogeneity is irrelevant. Rats of the exact same breed will fight to the death over the last piece of cheese.

It’s the cheese that matters. The conservative insurgency is rooted in a lack of money. And so will the coming liberal one. The unrest is not driven by a desire to return to the past. On the contrary it is propelled almost entirely by the growing belief that there is no future.

 

[humpback]

I'm with DrJ on this one. Drastic, immediate changes are not what is needed. Gradual, phased-in spending slow-downs are the answer and something that can be done without shocking the economy into recession. Of course, I think that the spending cuts should be compounded with revenue increases (again through gradual changes). It's not a lost cause. We don't need to balance the budget. Just curb the spending growth.

Yah. We don't need to kill the debt, necessarily, but we should get it under 60-70% of GDP. But we don't need to act like it's some pie-in-the-sky impossibility. We were on track to get there when Clinton left office. It'll just be more challenging the next 20 years as we work through the Baby Boomers bulge in Soc Sec/Medicare.

It's a who's who of powerful economies below 60%. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html

It's well above our historical norms and starts getting to the point where spikes in the interests rates can start gumming up what else we can do with our government.

I'm aware of that, just pointing out that our current level is in line with other 1st world economies while those toward the bottom of the debt to gdp ratio are not what we'd typically consider strong economic nations. I'd like it closer to 50% but that's not the current environment.

Did you notice the countries at the top?

I notice quite a few G20 countries higher than the US.

Sure, like those economic meccas Japan, France, the UK and Italy?

There doesn't seem to be much of a correlation is my point.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Also when you're leveraged to the hilt, you lose the flexibility to spend into a down economy.

Here is the problem we have caused over the years. We spend when we are down. We spend when we are up. There is never relief. Eventually it will hit us hard. There are simply too many people that view the debt as a magical, meaningless number.

People like Tim that argue against any cut since it will cause "pain"are a big problem.

 

[dparker713]

Also when you're leveraged to the hilt, you lose the flexibility to spend into a down economy.

Here is the problem we have caused over the years. We spend when we are down. We spend when we are up. There is never relief. Eventually it will hit us hard. There are simply too many people that view the debt as a magical, meaningless number.

People like Tim that argue against any cut since it will cause "pain"are a big problem.

Well, if you can't get cuts, then you should be in favor of new revenues.

 

[KCitons]

I keep seeing/hearing that the shutdown caused a loss of $20 billion dollars. Does anyone have a link to a breakdown of where this money was lost?

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Has [icon] had a total meltdown yet?

He's really surprised me in this thread.

 

[DrJ]

I'm with DrJ on this one. Drastic, immediate changes are not what is needed. Gradual, phased-in spending slow-downs are the answer and something that can be done without shocking the economy into recession. Of course, I think that the spending cuts should be compounded with revenue increases (again through gradual changes). It's not a lost cause. We don't need to balance the budget. Just curb the spending growth.

Yah. We don't need to kill the debt, necessarily, but we should get it under 60-70% of GDP. But we don't need to act like it's some pie-in-the-sky impossibility. We were on track to get there when Clinton left office. It'll just be more challenging the next 20 years as we work through the Baby Boomers bulge in Soc Sec/Medicare.

It's a who's who of powerful economies below 60%. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html

It's well above our historical norms and starts getting to the point where spikes in the interests rates can start gumming up what else we can do with our government.

I'm aware of that, just pointing out that our current level is in line with other 1st world economies while those toward the bottom of the debt to gdp ratio are not what we'd typically consider strong economic nations. I'd like it closer to 50% but that's not the current environment.

Did you notice the countries at the top?

I notice quite a few G20 countries higher than the US.

Sure, like those economic meccas Japan, France, the UK and Italy? There doesn't seem to be much of a correlation is my point.

Italy makes Arduino boards. UK brought us the raspberry pi. Japan is really good with robots. These countries are the future of mankind.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I still feel like no one in here has really thanked the Republicans for what they were able to get accomplished. Lots of ungrateful people in here. <_<

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

I keep seeing/hearing that the shutdown caused a loss of $20 billion dollars. Does anyone have a link to a breakdown of where this money was lost?

I think a lot of it is bogus, the funds are just delayed or spent elsewhere, meaning if people didn't go to the National Park they'll spend their money regardless. Also I thought all wages were being paid out.

About $3.1 billion in lost government services, according to the research firm IHS

$152 million per day in lost travel spending, according to the U.S. Travel Association

$76 million per day lost because of National Parks being shut down, according to the National Park Service

$217 million per day in lost federal and contractor wages in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area alone

 

[DrJ]

I keep seeing/hearing that the shutdown caused a loss of $20 billion dollars. Does anyone have a link to a breakdown of where this money was lost?

I think a lot of it is bogus, the funds are just delayed or spent elsewhere, meaning if people didn't go to the National Park they'll spend their money regardless. Also I thought all wages were being paid out.About $3.1 billion in lost government services, according to the research firm IHS$152 million per day in lost travel spending, according to the U.S. Travel Association$76 million per day lost because of National Parks being shut down, according to the National Park Service$217 million per day in lost federal and contractor wages in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area alone

Yeah, it's pretty poor to assume Americans actually saved any of the money. They're pretty incapable of that.

 

[Arizona Ron]

I still feel like no one in here has really thanked the Republicans for what they were able to get accomplished. Lots of ungrateful people in here. <_<

What did they accomplish?

 

[KCitons]

Here is one article that I found that takes a somewhat neutral look into the cost of the shutdown. But, again, I'm not sure how credible all this info is.

 

[msommer]

$1300B in 2011

$1100B in 2012

$760B in 2013

They'll just go back to arguing the 18% increase in 08-09. TARP and the stimulus are the crux of their argument. The fact that both those programs were emergency responses to the economic meltdown are irrelevant. It "proves" somehow that Obama is the biggest spender in history and that we're headed to catastrophe.

You're missing the fact that we're basing the "decreases" on a "new baseline" of that temporary spending. What's the average increase from 2007 to 2012? That removes the effect of the one year outlier.

2007 deficit 163 bn. 2007 military spending 530 bn. 2013 military spending 832 bn. 12 months to sept 30th 2013 deficit 760 bn. Half the increase thus increased defense spending

Obama's current budget has 2013 military spending at 652B. A decrease from the 671B in 2012, and in 2014 it will decrease further to 615B before starting to rise again. Your numbers are inaccurate.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_budget_2012_3.html

 

[pantagrapher]

http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2013/10/16/the-third-party/

Galston’s argues that the conservative insurgency is rooted in some kind of atavism; that it arises from a nostalgic hankering after an America long past in the face of new demography. Nothing could be further from the truth. The hell with demography. People would be just fine with changes in demography if only times were good. When times are bad homogeneity is irrelevant. Rats of the exact same breed will fight to the death over the last piece of cheese.

It’s the cheese that matters. The conservative insurgency is rooted in a lack of money. And so will the coming liberal one. The unrest is not driven by a desire to return to the past. On the contrary it is propelled almost entirely by the growing belief that there is no future.

Maybe before all the conservative rats eat each other, they'll realize they're being played for fools. There's plenty of cheese out there, it's just being hoarded by fat cats. They should join liberals and support a more progressive economy, with higher marginal tax rates and stronger social safety net. It beats death!

 

[TheIronSheik]

I still feel like no one in here has really thanked the Republicans for what they were able to get accomplished. Lots of ungrateful people in here. <_<

What did they accomplish?

There will never be another issue with the debt ceiling again thanks to the clause that was added.

 

[KCitons]

I keep seeing/hearing that the shutdown caused a loss of $20 billion dollars. Does anyone have a link to a breakdown of where this money was lost?

I think a lot of it is bogus, the funds are just delayed or spent elsewhere, meaning if people didn't go to the National Park they'll spend their money regardless. Also I thought all wages were being paid out.About $3.1 billion in lost government services, according to the research firm IHS$152 million per day in lost travel spending, according to the U.S. Travel Association$76 million per day lost because of National Parks being shut down, according to the National Park Service$217 million per day in lost federal and contractor wages in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area alone

Yeah, it's pretty poor to assume Americans actually saved any of the money. They're pretty incapable of that.

Due to back pay for government employees, we lost 16 days of productivity. I highly doubt any of those workers are going to double their productivity during the rest of this month.

 

[DrJ]

$1300B in 2011

$1100B in 2012

$760B in 2013

They'll just go back to arguing the 18% increase in 08-09. TARP and the stimulus are the crux of their argument. The fact that both those programs were emergency responses to the economic meltdown are irrelevant. It "proves" somehow that Obama is the biggest spender in history and that we're headed to catastrophe.

You're missing the fact that we're basing the "decreases" on a "new baseline" of that temporary spending. What's the average increase from 2007 to 2012? That removes the effect of the one year outlier.

2007 deficit 163 bn. 2007 military spending 530 bn. 2013 military spending 832 bn. 12 months to sept 30th 2013 deficit 760 bn. Half the increase thus increased defense spending

Obama's current budget has 2013 military spending at 652B. A decrease from the 671B in 2012, and in 2014 it will decrease further to 615B before starting to rise again. Your numbers are inaccurate.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_budget_2012_3.html

They categorize it differently than the US budget apparently. So you're taking exception to veteran's care?

 

[3C's]

I still feel like no one in here has really thanked the Republicans for what they were able to get accomplished. Lots of ungrateful people in here. <_<

I'm thankful. They all but assured the extremist running for Gov of Va won't get elected.

 

[cstu]

Wow, I could have stopped at Ryan has an effective message. I don't even think his own staffers believe that. After all, they're the ones that help cook the numbers in his budget plans.

And if we're headed to "ruinous economic straits", shouldn't all measures be available to fix them, you know, like tax increases. BTW, we had a surplus until we cut taxes and started two wars at the same time. How you can claim the current financial situation is solely the result of one parties' policies is baffling.

Well, it's not THAT ruinous.

 

[DrJ]

I keep seeing/hearing that the shutdown caused a loss of $20 billion dollars. Does anyone have a link to a breakdown of where this money was lost?

I think a lot of it is bogus, the funds are just delayed or spent elsewhere, meaning if people didn't go to the National Park they'll spend their money regardless. Also I thought all wages were being paid out.About $3.1 billion in lost government services, according to the research firm IHS$152 million per day in lost travel spending, according to the U.S. Travel Association$76 million per day lost because of National Parks being shut down, according to the National Park Service$217 million per day in lost federal and contractor wages in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area alone

Yeah, it's pretty poor to assume Americans actually saved any of the money. They're pretty incapable of that.

Due to back pay for government employees, we lost 16 days of productivity. I highly doubt any of those workers are going to double their productivity during the rest of this month.

It's the government. You calculate this like dog years, about 1 government week = 1 private day.

 

[msommer]

$1300B in 2011

$1100B in 2012

$760B in 2013

They'll just go back to arguing the 18% increase in 08-09. TARP and the stimulus are the crux of their argument. The fact that both those programs were emergency responses to the economic meltdown are irrelevant. It "proves" somehow that Obama is the biggest spender in history and that we're headed to catastrophe.

You're missing the fact that we're basing the "decreases" on a "new baseline" of that temporary spending. What's the average increase from 2007 to 2012? That removes the effect of the one year outlier.

2007 deficit 163 bn. 2007 military spending 530 bn. 2013 military spending 832 bn. 12 months to sept 30th 2013 deficit 760 bn. Half the increase thus increased defense spending

Obama's current budget has 2013 military spending at 652B. A decrease from the 671B in 2012, and in 2014 it will decrease further to 615B before starting to rise again. Your numbers are inaccurate.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_budget_2012_3.html

They categorize it differently than the US budget apparently. So you're taking exception to veteran's care?

Nope. Just stating facts.

 

[Don Quixote]

I keep seeing/hearing that the shutdown caused a loss of $20 billion dollars. Does anyone have a link to a breakdown of where this money was lost?

I think a lot of it is bogus, the funds are just delayed or spent elsewhere, meaning if people didn't go to the National Park they'll spend their money regardless. Also I thought all wages were being paid out.

About $3.1 billion in lost government services, according to the research firm IHS

$152 million per day in lost travel spending, according to the U.S. Travel Association

$76 million per day lost because of National Parks being shut down, according to the National Park Service

$217 million per day in lost federal and contractor wages in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area alone

Not all wages are being paid out. Contractors are generally not protected. There were a lot of collateral effects to part-time workers in the service industry in the DC area too.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I still feel like no one in here has really thanked the Republicans for what they were able to get accomplished. Lots of ungrateful people in here. <_<

What did they accomplish?

There will never be another issue with the debt ceiling again thanks to the clause that was added.

I'm not seeing this reported anywhere, and I just went looking for it.

 

[msommer]

I still feel like no one in here has really thanked the Republicans for what they were able to get accomplished. Lots of ungrateful people in here. <_<

What did they accomplish?

There will never be another issue with the debt ceiling again thanks to the clause that was added.

I'm not seeing this reported anywhere, and I just went looking for it.

Tim couldn't find it stated like that earlier in the thread either. Not that that proves anything,,,

 

[DrJ]

$1300B in 2011

$1100B in 2012

$760B in 2013

They'll just go back to arguing the 18% increase in 08-09. TARP and the stimulus are the crux of their argument. The fact that both those programs were emergency responses to the economic meltdown are irrelevant. It "proves" somehow that Obama is the biggest spender in history and that we're headed to catastrophe.

You're missing the fact that we're basing the "decreases" on a "new baseline" of that temporary spending. What's the average increase from 2007 to 2012? That removes the effect of the one year outlier.

2007 deficit 163 bn. 2007 military spending 530 bn. 2013 military spending 832 bn. 12 months to sept 30th 2013 deficit 760 bn. Half the increase thus increased defense spending

Obama's current budget has 2013 military spending at 652B. A decrease from the 671B in 2012, and in 2014 it will decrease further to 615B before starting to rise again. Your numbers are inaccurate.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_budget_2012_3.html

They categorize it differently than the US budget apparently. So you're taking exception to veteran's care?

Nope. Just stating facts.

But most of what they use isn't classified as defense spending. Only the part listed as "military defense".

 

[TPW]

http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2013/10/16/the-third-party/

Galston’s argues that the conservative insurgency is rooted in some kind of atavism; that it arises from a nostalgic hankering after an America long past in the face of new demography. Nothing could be further from the truth. The hell with demography. People would be just fine with changes in demography if only times were good. When times are bad homogeneity is irrelevant. Rats of the exact same breed will fight to the death over the last piece of cheese.

It’s the cheese that matters. The conservative insurgency is rooted in a lack of money. And so will the coming liberal one. The unrest is not driven by a desire to return to the past. On the contrary it is propelled almost entirely by the growing belief that there is no future.

Maybe before all the conservative rats eat each other, they'll realize they're being played for fools. There's plenty of cheese out there, it's just being hoarded by fat cats. They should join liberals and support a more progressive economy, with higher marginal tax rates and stronger social safety net. It beats death!

The Tea Party stands in resistance to the current neo-Marxist/Corporatist alliance made up of modern day ultra-left Democrats, institutional Republicans, and their Wall Street financiers. Indeed, that's where all the true fat cats can be found, along with their enabling, teeming hoards of underclass voters.

I and those like me need none of their ill-gotten cheese to survive. We're feared, hated, and marginalized as a result. Fine with me. I rather stand on my own than start down the slippery slope of dependency. There's no salvation there, only momentary thrills and ever fading false hope. Enjoy it while it lasts.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

I still feel like no one in here has really thanked the Republicans for what they were able to get accomplished. Lots of ungrateful people in here. <_<

What did they accomplish?

There will never be another issue with the debt ceiling again thanks to the clause that was added.

I'm not seeing this reported anywhere, and I just went looking for it.

it's a one-time use for the next one, that's it

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Ok... found a great explanation.

After the debt limit is hit again on February 7th, both houses of Congress can vote on a bill that would take away Treasury's authorization to borrow (i.e. to issue debt). If that vote of 'disapproval' fails in either house Treasury retains to the right to borrow. If it passes both houses the President can still veto it.

So in order to have another debt limit crisis after February 7th both houses of Congress would have to vote to take away Treasury's authorization to borrow with a 2/3rds majority (to prevent a presumed veto).

McConnell has been pushing this idea for a while. Like I said upthread, he's a pragmatic guy and he recognizes that the debt limit fights serve no good purpose since the debt limit has nothing to do with increased debt. But this new process has only been adopted for this single instance -- namely the debt limit authorization ending February 7th. I suspect it will eventually be adopted as SOP, but at this point there's no plan to use it going forward.

ETA: by removing a potential future hostage I'd argue that this move is yet another (bipartisan) aspect of the Tea Party's total defeat.

 

[snogger]

Also when you're leveraged to the hilt, you lose the flexibility to spend into a down economy.

Here is the problem we have caused over the years. We spend when we are down. We spend when we are up. There is never relief. Eventually it will hit us hard. There are simply too many people that view the debt as a magical, meaningless number.

People like Tim that argue against any cut since it will cause "pain"are a big problem.

Well, if you can't get cuts, then you should be in favor of new revenues.

Truth is we don't need to increase taxes.. We just need to get rid of the loopholes/deductions that allow people to avoid paying the taxes that are already there.

I've added this to many, many threads.. but if we followed the plans from 2010 I believe we'd already be on the road to "more revenue".

ENACT FUNDAMENTAL TAX REFORM BY 2012 TO LOWER RATES, REDUCE DEFICITS, AND SIMPLIFY THE CODE.

Eliminate all income tax expenditures, dedicate a portion of the additional revenue to deficit reduction, and use the remaining revenue to lower rates and add back necessary expenditures and credits.

Current Rates for 2010

10% - 15% Bottom rate

25% - 28% Middle rate

33% - 35% Top rate

Corporate Rate -35%

Their plans...

Eliminate all Tax Expenditures*

8% - Bottom Rate

14% - Middle Rate

23% - Top Rate

26% - Corporate Rate

Keep Child Tax Credit + EITC*

9%

15%

24%

26%

 

[Sand]

I keep seeing/hearing that the shutdown caused a loss of $20 billion dollars. Does anyone have a link to a breakdown of where this money was lost?

I think a lot of it is bogus, the funds are just delayed or spent elsewhere, meaning if people didn't go to the National Park they'll spend their money regardless. Also I thought all wages were being paid out.

About $3.1 billion in lost government services, according to the research firm IHS

$152 million per day in lost travel spending, according to the U.S. Travel Association

$76 million per day lost because of National Parks being shut down, according to the National Park Service

$217 million per day in lost federal and contractor wages in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area alone

Such bull#### numbers.

1. Government services are already an expense. We saved by not dispensing them, but somehow they are lost because we didn't dispense them? Really?

2. No accounting for the cost savings of not traveling?

3. If the park service generates 76 million per day of profit why in the world did we have to furlough them? Why are they a line item of expense in the federal budget? If they generate a profit WTF was our administration thinking in shutting them down?

4. Again, we saved on those wages not paid out. The money multiplier for wages would have to be ~2 for that to even itself out and be a real cost. Yeah, the multiplier isn't 2.

 

[Sand]

I still feel like no one in here has really thanked the Republicans for what they were able to get accomplished. Lots of ungrateful people in here. <_<

What did they accomplish?

There will never be another issue with the debt ceiling again thanks to the clause that was added.

I'm not seeing this reported anywhere, and I just went looking for it.

it's a one-time use for the next one, that's it

Yep - it is good until Feb. 7th and then expires.

 

[msommer]

$1300B in 2011

$1100B in 2012

$760B in 2013

They'll just go back to arguing the 18% increase in 08-09. TARP and the stimulus are the crux of their argument. The fact that both those programs were emergency responses to the economic meltdown are irrelevant. It "proves" somehow that Obama is the biggest spender in history and that we're headed to catastrophe.

You're missing the fact that we're basing the "decreases" on a "new baseline" of that temporary spending. What's the average increase from 2007 to 2012? That removes the effect of the one year outlier.

2007 deficit 163 bn. 2007 military spending 530 bn. 2013 military spending 832 bn. 12 months to sept 30th 2013 deficit 760 bn. Half the increase thus increased defense spending

Obama's current budget has 2013 military spending at 652B. A decrease from the 671B in 2012, and in 2014 it will decrease further to 615B before starting to rise again. Your numbers are inaccurate.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_budget_2012_3.html

They categorize it differently than the US budget apparently. So you're taking exception to veteran's care?

Nope. Just stating facts.

But most of what they use isn't classified as defense spending. Only the part listed as "military defense".

The 530bn number comes from Bloomberg with no split so can't see what is included. The budget (that does not seem to specify anything regarding veterans) was for 504bn - but 2005 and 2006 saw addt'l 50bn give or take each year spent over budget.so 530 might be very close to actual.

in 2011 dollars 88bn was spent on veterans in 2007 (82bn in 2007 dollars), vs 125bn in 2012 (and 135bn in 2013).

so either 612 vs 832 or 530 vs 675. Either case big chunk of the extra 600 bn spent

ETA with link on the VA expenses (page 7) http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22897.pdf

 

[TheIronSheik]

I still feel like no one in here has really thanked the Republicans for what they were able to get accomplished. Lots of ungrateful people in here. <_<

What did they accomplish?

There will never be another issue with the debt ceiling again thanks to the clause that was added.

I'm not seeing this reported anywhere, and I just went looking for it.

it's a one-time use for the next one, that's it

Yep - it is good until Feb. 7th and then expires.

You can't expect the Republicans to fix everything. Geez. How about the rest of the government do some work.

 

[wadegarrett]

Could be a repeat but I'm on board with this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3BHujm3cpY

 

[timschochet]

None of what you're proposing would significantly reduce the deficit. Let's be clear- the tax raises and/or the sequester reduced the deficit from slightly over 1 trillion a year to slightly under 1 trillion a year. Let's say you want to cut it in half- that means you have to find a way to reduce spending by around 40 billion a month. That cannot be done with "targeted intelligent cuts", or legalizing pot. That would involve SERIOUS cuts to the military, to Social Security or Medicare, which the public has no stomach for and which would surely push us into a recession.And at the end of it, even if you were successful in cutting the deficit in half, you're still increasing the debt by nearly 500 billion every year. And all the concerns you have about the size of the debt would still be around. So you would succeed in maximizing pain and with really nothing to show for it.

There is no way to solve our debt issue by cutting spending. There's no way to come close to solving it by cutting spending. Perhaps you and Dr. J are right, and therefore we're doomed. If so, it's inevitable- there's no way to stop it.

So, just to be clear, your position is:

* We're in so deep that the situation cannot be fixed.

* Those who wish to take incremental steps in an attempt to fix the debt problems are misguided and wrong.

* Those who wished not to exacerbate the problems back in 2008 and 2011 were misguided and wrong.

* Those who wish to take drastic steps in an attempt to fix the debt problems are "extremist".

* The best plan is to hope that a magic deficit fairy comes along and fixes things with her magic wand.

And you call others extremist?

1. No, we're in so deep that the situation cannot be fixed through small spending cuts. That doesn't make all spending cuts necessarily bad, but it does make across the board spending cuts like the sequester especially stupid.

2. No, but the incremental steps should involve looking for ways to help grow ourselves out of it.

3. No, not necessarily. But in 2008 we had to have TARP- no choice IMO. I'm not sure what you refer to in 2011.

4. Those who wish to take drastic steps to make ANY significant change are extremist, IMO.

5. The best plan is to find ways to help grow our economy out of it: more free trade, less red tape for industry whenever possible, a large scale energy plan.

6. Some of my views on certain issues would have to be regarded as extreme in comparison to the general public (for example, immigration.) But I don't believe my views on this issue are extreme, no.

 

[msommer]

I still feel like no one in here has really thanked the Republicans for what they were able to get accomplished. Lots of ungrateful people in here. <_<

What did they accomplish?

There will never be another issue with the debt ceiling again thanks to the clause that was added.

I'm not seeing this reported anywhere, and I just went looking for it.

it's a one-time use for the next one, that's it

Yep - it is good until Feb. 7th and then expires.

You can't expect the Republicans to fix everything. Geez. How about the rest of the government do some work.

Wait, the Republicans are in government?

Bold move, to unfund themselves...

 

[KCitons]

I keep seeing/hearing that the shutdown caused a loss of $20 billion dollars. Does anyone have a link to a breakdown of where this money was lost?

I think a lot of it is bogus, the funds are just delayed or spent elsewhere, meaning if people didn't go to the National Park they'll spend their money regardless. Also I thought all wages were being paid out.

About $3.1 billion in lost government services, according to the research firm IHS

$152 million per day in lost travel spending, according to the U.S. Travel Association

$76 million per day lost because of National Parks being shut down, according to the National Park Service

$217 million per day in lost federal and contractor wages in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area alone

Not all wages are being paid out. Contractors are generally not protected. There were a lot of collateral effects to part-time workers in the service industry in the DC area too.

I can agree with this. But, I also fully believe that these contractors overcharge our government in the long run.

The only person I truly feel sorry for is the guy at the bottom of the hill. S##t always rolls down hill. Everyone above him/her is just fine.

 

[snogger]

Truth is we don't need to increase taxes.. We just need to get rid of the loopholes/deductions that allow people to avoid paying the taxes that are already there.

I've added this to many, many threads.. but if we followed the plans from 2010 I believe we'd already be on the road to "more revenue".

ENACT FUNDAMENTAL TAX REFORM BY 2012 TO LOWER RATES, REDUCE DEFICITS, AND SIMPLIFY THE CODE.

Eliminate all income tax expenditures, dedicate a portion of the additional revenue to deficit reduction, and use the remaining revenue to lower rates and add back necessary expenditures and credits.

Never going to happen.

Biggest tax expenditure is mortgage interest deduction which nobody is going to do away with. Tax credits/deductions at the lower end have ballooned over the past 20 years, being put in place instead of social welfare. You can probably find some to tinker with, but nothing big enough to really make a dent in anything.

I understand it's a "Dream" but raising the tax rates isn't going to solve it either..

Those that make the money know how to "play the game" and will always find ways to take advantage of the deductions to lower the amount of taxes they pay.

Until the country get's serious about truly revamping the current tax code, instead of adding to it, we will continue to have revenue issues no matter how much you raise the tax rates.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Could be a repeat but I'm on board with this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3BHujm3cpY

I like that guy.