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

[RCon]

There are no winners here.

Seems like a lot of Obama supporters disagree with Obama.

Clearly McConnell is a winner. He managed to snag billions in pork.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

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.

This is the #1 problem I have with you, you ALWAYS go to extremes to try to prove your point. Why do you assume the only solution is to try to cut it by 50%? Why not try to cut it by 5% and take 20 years to fix the problem?

Because, much like a personal budget things change too much over the course of 20 years. College education, new car, furnace breaks down. The government is no different.

Start a college fundYou don't need a new car

Have savings for unexpected furnace break downs

Proper Planning Prevents Poor Performance

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Then toss out the lobbyists, special interest groups, and reform campaign finance laws.

At the very least ditch SuperPAC's and that stupid law that states corporate entities are no different than individuals when it comes to campaign contributions.

There is no such law. Corporations are not allowed to make campaign contributions at all.

corporations make campaign contributions all the time.

Not in federal elections. The maximum amount a corporation may contribute to a campaign for a federal election, under current federal law, is $0.

They donate to PACs to impact federal campaigns.

They sure do, but those are not campaign contributions. PACs are a different problem, and a harder one, IMO.

 

[Fennis]

Then toss out the lobbyists, special interest groups, and reform campaign finance laws.

At the very least ditch SuperPAC's and that stupid law that states corporate entities are no different than individuals when it comes to campaign contributions.

There is no such law. Corporations are not allowed to make campaign contributions at all.

corporations make campaign contributions all the time.

Not in federal elections. The maximum amount a corporation may contribute to a campaign for a federal election, under current federal law, is $0.

They donate to PACs to impact federal campaigns.

They sure do, but those are not campaign contributions.

[SIZE=10.5pt]I beg to differ. Just because it doesn’t go directly to a candidate doesn’t mean they aren’t contributing to the campaign.[/SIZE]

 

[tommyGunZ]

Corporations also contribute to state and local candidates.

 

[Henry Ford]

This thread is a perfect representation of what is going on in our government. 107 pages of talking in circles. Arguing over semantics and definitions and who did what first and who is to blame and name calling and all of it.

Enjoy the downfall, America, it was a good run.

This thread is a perfect representation of what is going on in our government. A few nutjobs and extreme positions dominating the conversation, while most people make reasonable and decent arguments about what they want out of our country's future. The nutjobs are louder, but they don't affect anything substantive long-term, they just bring every worthwhile discussion to a screeching halt until the reasonable people get together and show them that they're essentially powerless and silly, and they will quickly move on to whatever the next nutjob focus is.

 

[TheIronSheik]

This thread is a perfect representation of what is going on in our government. 107 pages of talking in circles. Arguing over semantics and definitions and who did what first and who is to blame and name calling and all of it.

Enjoy the downfall, America, it was a good run.

This thread is a perfect representation of what is going on in our government. A few nutjobs and extreme positions dominating the conversation, while most people make reasonable and decent arguments about what they want out of our country's future. The nutjobs are louder, but they don't affect anything substantive long-term, they just bring every worthwhile discussion to a screeching halt until the reasonable people get together and show them that they're essentially powerless and silly, and they will quickly move on to whatever the next nutjob focus is.

Wait. Are you talking about the FFA or the government?

 

[Henry Ford]

This thread is a perfect representation of what is going on in our government. 107 pages of talking in circles. Arguing over semantics and definitions and who did what first and who is to blame and name calling and all of it.

Enjoy the downfall, America, it was a good run.

This thread is a perfect representation of what is going on in our government. A few nutjobs and extreme positions dominating the conversation, while most people make reasonable and decent arguments about what they want out of our country's future. The nutjobs are louder, but they don't affect anything substantive long-term, they just bring every worthwhile discussion to a screeching halt until the reasonable people get together and show them that they're essentially powerless and silly, and they will quickly move on to whatever the next nutjob focus is.

Wait. Are you talking about the FFA or the government?

Exactly.

Man, stuff is so much like other stuff, it's scary sometimes.

 

[Henry Ford]

Next, we all need to think hard about how a raven is like a writing desk.

 

[TheIronSheik]

The American people are completely fed up with Washington.

He knows he's part of said "Washington", right?

 

[Fennis]

Corporations also contribute to state and local candidates.

People are charged with murder even if they dont pull the trigger.

 

[Fennis]

The American people are completely fed up with Washington.

He knows he's part of said "Washington", right?

every politician in washington is an outsider

 

[dparker713]

Wow, I just skimmed it but I didn't see a thing on either the carried interest exemption nor the cap gains. The two places where the system is most broken. Also, just 3 tax brackets? Really? We need more, not less.

Plus, the SS section is pretty dumb. They even recognize that the current cap on the tax is ineffective, but instead of removing the cap and making the system solvent, they recommend modifying the benefits, increasing the retirement age, and increasing the cap slightly.

That's because, as usual, you're reading what you want to read- try looking again.

And at those things being where the system is most broken.

Sorry, his post lost me at "We need MORE tax brackets!!!"

Yea.. Add more code to already a Tax code.

I get people are bad at math, but here's a tip, they print charts out for the tax brackets. Its really actually quite simple for you.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

There are no winners here.

Seems like a lot of Obama supporters disagree with Obama.

I will say I agree with Obama that there are no winners here - but there was a loser.

I agree. The loser was America.

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/10/sen_elizabeth_warren_glad_gove.html

U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren: "According to the S&P index, the government shutdown had delivered a powerful blow to the U.S. economy. By their estimates, $24 billion has been flushed down the drain for a completely unnecessary political stunt.”

 

[TheIronSheik]

There are no winners here.

Seems like a lot of Obama supporters disagree with Obama.

I will say I agree with Obama that there are no winners here - but there was a loser.

I agree. The loser was America.

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/10/sen_elizabeth_warren_glad_gove.html

U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren: "According to the S&P index, the government shutdown had delivered a powerful blow to the U.S. economy. By their estimates, $24 billion has been flushed down the drain for a completely unnecessary political stunt.”

Not sure what's going on here. Are you agreeing with me?

 

[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.

Um, isn't that the opposite side of the Tea Party coin that everyone calls moronic? That is, the Tea Party says "no new revenues, cuts only", and everyone calls them stupid, childish, and intransigent. Now you're saying "no cuts, revenues only" is a viable plan?

I read it as a statement of fact.

If you have: A + B = C and you're stipulating that B = 0 then A must be > 0 if you want C to be > 0.

Well yes, clearly true. The issue seems to be that one side is stipulating that A = 0, while the other side is stipulating that B = 0, yet both sides call the other side stupid for such a stipulation.

Except that Dems have not stated that cuts are off the table from them. Now, they may not be the cuts the Repubs want, but they're not starting from the position that any concessions on cuts are tantamount to treason to the party.

 

[humpback]

There are no winners here.

Seems like a lot of Obama supporters disagree with Obama.

I will say I agree with Obama that there are no winners here - but there was a loser.

I agree. The loser was America.

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/10/sen_elizabeth_warren_glad_gove.html

U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren: "According to the S&P index, the government shutdown had delivered a powerful blow to the U.S. economy. By their estimates, $24 billion has been flushed down the drain for a completely unnecessary political stunt.”

She may want to learn what the S&P index is.

 

[Statorama]

This thread is a perfect representation of what is going on in our government. 107 pages of talking in circles. Arguing over semantics and definitions and who did what first and who is to blame and name calling and all of it.

Enjoy the downfall, America, it was a good run.

This thread is a perfect representation of what is going on in our government. A few nutjobs and extreme positions dominating the conversation, while most people make reasonable and decent arguments about what they want out of our country's future. The nutjobs are louder, but they don't affect anything substantive long-term, they just bring every worthwhile discussion to a screeching halt until the reasonable people get together and show them that they're essentially powerless and silly, and they will quickly move on to whatever the next nutjob focus is.

Just because someone disagrees with the policies of "your side" doesn't automatically make their arguments unreasonable.

 

[T Bell]

Next, we all need to think hard about how a raven is like a writing desk.

I imagine how writing desks are black all the time.

 

[dparker713]

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.

Unfortunately, the contractors have a lot of people at the bottom of the hill. I was reading a story about a cafeteria worker at one of the Smithsonian museums. Contract worker; no back pay.

While I do feel bad for the cafeteria worker, I also have to wonder why they continue to work at that job. To me, this is exactly the same as the Walmart fair wage argument. If you don't improve your own situation, then you have no one to blame but yourself.

This is not the first time there has been a government shutdown. If you think it won't happen again,then you deserve to be furloughed without pay.

Wages are stagnant/declining in all fields. Is no one trying to help themselves?

Every job has it's good things and bad things. In the case of this cafeteria worker, the shutdown for 2 weeks is a bad thing. If there are no good reasons to offset this, then he/she should go to work at Walmart or McDonald's.

There are so many things wrong with this I don't even know where to begin.

 

[TheIronSheik]

This thread is a perfect representation of what is going on in our government. 107 pages of talking in circles. Arguing over semantics and definitions and who did what first and who is to blame and name calling and all of it.

Enjoy the downfall, America, it was a good run.

This thread is a perfect representation of what is going on in our government. A few nutjobs and extreme positions dominating the conversation, while most people make reasonable and decent arguments about what they want out of our country's future. The nutjobs are louder, but they don't affect anything substantive long-term, they just bring every worthwhile discussion to a screeching halt until the reasonable people get together and show them that they're essentially powerless and silly, and they will quickly move on to whatever the next nutjob focus is.

Just because someone disagrees with the policies of "your side" doesn't automatically make their arguments unreasonable.

I disagree. Your argument is unreasonable.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Next, we all need to think hard about how a raven is like a writing desk.

I imagine how writing desks are black all the time.

Racist.

 

[Statorama]

With democrats winning the argument of more borrowing and spending, without offsetting spending cuts, the Chinese have lowered our sovereign credit rating. Great job, guys. Nice "win"

 

[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

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.

Unfortunately, the contractors have a lot of people at the bottom of the hill. I was reading a story about a cafeteria worker at one of the Smithsonian museums. Contract worker; no back pay.

While I do feel bad for the cafeteria worker, I also have to wonder why they continue to work at that job. To me, this is exactly the same as the Walmart fair wage argument. If you don't improve your own situation, then you have no one to blame but yourself.This is not the first time there has been a government shutdown. If you think it won't happen again,then you deserve to be furloughed without pay.

Wages are stagnant/declining in all fields. Is no one trying to help themselves?

Every job has it's good things and bad things. In the case of this cafeteria worker, the shutdown for 2 weeks is a bad thing. If there are no good reasons to offset this, then he/she should go to work at Walmart or McDonald's.

There are so many things wrong with this I don't even know where to begin.

What is so hard to understand that each opportunity has risks? If you work for a tech start-up there's a chance it goes belly up in 2 years.

 

[RCon]

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.

Um, isn't that the opposite side of the Tea Party coin that everyone calls moronic? That is, the Tea Party says "no new revenues, cuts only", and everyone calls them stupid, childish, and intransigent. Now you're saying "no cuts, revenues only" is a viable plan?

I read it as a statement of fact.

If you have: A + B = C and you're stipulating that B = 0 then A must be > 0 if you want C to be > 0.

Well yes, clearly true. The issue seems to be that one side is stipulating that A = 0, while the other side is stipulating that B = 0, yet both sides call the other side stupid for such a stipulation.

Except that Dems have not stated that cuts are off the table from them. Now, they may not be the cuts the Repubs want, but they're not starting from the position that any concessions on cuts are tantamount to treason to the party.

I wasn't responding to the idea that Democrats have stated cuts are off the table. I was responding to your response to parasaurolophus's statement "People like Tim that argue against any cut since it will cause "pain"are a big problem." You seemed to be arguing that since some people are against all cuts, it makes sense that we should all simply approve of revenues as a fix. That would seem to be the opposite of the Tea Party argument that revenues are off the table, therefore we should all simply approve of cuts as a fix.

 

[TheIronSheik]

With democrats winning the argument of more borrowing and spending, without offsetting spending cuts, the Chinese have lowered our sovereign credit rating. Great job, guys. Nice "win"

Waiting for the johnnycakes response.

 

[timschochet]

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.

This is the #1 problem I have with you, you ALWAYS go to extremes to try to prove your point. Why do you assume the only solution is to try to cut it by 50%? Why not try to cut it by 5% and take 20 years to fix the problem?

Here's why. Currently the debt is at 17 trillion, and the deficit is at 900 billion give or take. If we cut the deficit by 5%, we're still increasing the debt by 855 billion a year. If we cut the deficit by 5% more each year (which I'm assuming is your suggestion) and it takes 20 years to eliminate the deficit, by that time the debt will have gone up to 30 trillion or so. And that's assuming all costs stay the same, which it won't. And it's also assuming that the American public is going to put up with reducing spending by 45 billion a year every year for the next 20 years- which they won't either.

THERE IS NO WAY TO SOLVE ThE DEBT PROBLEM BY CUTTING SPENDING. It cannot be done. That doesn't mean that cutting spending is necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes it can help the economy to cut spending. Sometimes it can create stimulus all by itself. But it won't help with the debt.

 

[Henry Ford]

This thread is a perfect representation of what is going on in our government. 107 pages of talking in circles. Arguing over semantics and definitions and who did what first and who is to blame and name calling and all of it.

Enjoy the downfall, America, it was a good run.

This thread is a perfect representation of what is going on in our government. A few nutjobs and extreme positions dominating the conversation, while most people make reasonable and decent arguments about what they want out of our country's future. The nutjobs are louder, but they don't affect anything substantive long-term, they just bring every worthwhile discussion to a screeching halt until the reasonable people get together and show them that they're essentially powerless and silly, and they will quickly move on to whatever the next nutjob focus is.

Just because someone disagrees with the policies of "your side" doesn't automatically make their arguments unreasonable.

I can't tell if you are intending to reply to my post. I don't think I mentioned anything about people just disagreeing about things.

 

[T Bell]

Next, we all need to think hard about how a raven is like a writing desk.

I imagine how writing desks are black all the time.

Racist.

Some of my best friends are black writing desks.

 

[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.

Um, isn't that the opposite side of the Tea Party coin that everyone calls moronic? That is, the Tea Party says "no new revenues, cuts only", and everyone calls them stupid, childish, and intransigent. Now you're saying "no cuts, revenues only" is a viable plan?

I read it as a statement of fact.

If you have: A + B = C and you're stipulating that B = 0 then A must be > 0 if you want C to be > 0.

Well yes, clearly true. The issue seems to be that one side is stipulating that A = 0, while the other side is stipulating that B = 0, yet both sides call the other side stupid for such a stipulation.

Except that Dems have not stated that cuts are off the table from them. Now, they may not be the cuts the Repubs want, but they're not starting from the position that any concessions on cuts are tantamount to treason to the party.

I wasn't responding to the idea that Democrats have stated cuts are off the table. I was responding to your response to parasaurolophus's statement "People like Tim that argue against any cut since it will cause "pain"are a big problem." You seemed to be arguing that since some people are against all cuts, it makes sense that we should all simply approve of revenues as a fix. That would seem to be the opposite of the Tea Party argument that revenues are off the table, therefore we should all simply approve of cuts as a fix.

Was merely pointing out that fixating on cuts only is a hallmark of people that aren't actually serious about fiscal responsibility.

 

[parasaurolophus]

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.

This is the #1 problem I have with you, you ALWAYS go to extremes to try to prove your point. Why do you assume the only solution is to try to cut it by 50%? Why not try to cut it by 5% and take 20 years to fix the problem?

Here's why. Currently the debt is at 17 trillion, and the deficit is at 900 billion give or take. If we cut the deficit by 5%, we're still increasing the debt by 855 billion a year. If we cut the deficit by 5% more each year (which I'm assuming is your suggestion) and it takes 20 years to eliminate the deficit, by that time the debt will have gone up to 30 trillion or so. And that's assuming all costs stay the same, which it won't. And it's also assuming that the American public is going to put up with reducing spending by 45 billion a year every year for the next 20 years- which they won't either.

THERE IS NO WAY TO SOLVE ThE DEBT PROBLEM BY CUTTING SPENDING. It cannot be done. That doesn't mean that cutting spending is necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes it can help the economy to cut spending. Sometimes it can create stimulus all by itself. But it won't help with the debt.

You just need to say it 4000 more times. It is almost true.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

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.

Unfortunately, the contractors have a lot of people at the bottom of the hill. I was reading a story about a cafeteria worker at one of the Smithsonian museums. Contract worker; no back pay.

While I do feel bad for the cafeteria worker, I also have to wonder why they continue to work at that job. To me, this is exactly the same as the Walmart fair wage argument. If you don't improve your own situation, then you have no one to blame but yourself.This is not the first time there has been a government shutdown. If you think it won't happen again,then you deserve to be furloughed without pay.

Wages are stagnant/declining in all fields. Is no one trying to help themselves?

Every job has it's good things and bad things. In the case of this cafeteria worker, the shutdown for 2 weeks is a bad thing. If there are no good reasons to offset this, then he/she should go to work at Walmart or McDonald's.

There are so many things wrong with this I don't even know where to begin.

What is so hard to understand that each opportunity has risks? If you work for a tech start-up there's a chance it goes belly up in 2 years.

I was reading somewhere that only 43% of able adults are currently fully employed. Those are EU levels. We have an economy of underemployed and part-time workers now, and that trend only seems to be becoming more the norm.

 

[KCitons]

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.

This is the #1 problem I have with you, you ALWAYS go to extremes to try to prove your point. Why do you assume the only solution is to try to cut it by 50%? Why not try to cut it by 5% and take 20 years to fix the problem?

Because, much like a personal budget things change too much over the course of 20 years. College education, new car, furnace breaks down. The government is no different.

Start a college fundYou don't need a new car

Have savings for unexpected furnace break downs

Proper Planning Prevents Poor Performance

Exactly. The same applies to the cafeteria worker. Save your money for a rainy day. (or a rainy 16 days) Should we really feel sorry for someone that continues to work in a government contracted job if they know that they could be furloughed. Life is about choices. Make a different choice.

 

[timschochet]

And Rich, for the umpteenth time, I don't argue against ANY cut. I am in favor of means testing for Medicare. I am in favor of certain, carefully thought out, targeted cuts to defense spending. I'm willing to remove certain corporate loopholes. I'd like to stop subsidizing agriculture. And if you show me wasteful government spending anywhere, I'm for dealing with it. All of these things, I believe, would make us eventually a more prosperous society, because as a general principle, the less government spends the better. I firmly believe that.

BUT- all of this stuff has to be done very carefully. The transition in particular has to be careful and slow, so that people aren't necessarily hurt. (For instance, rather than slash agriculture subsidies, you announce that they will be reduced over the next 10 years until they are eliminated, give people time to prepare, etc.) We do our best not to suddenly throw anyone out of work if we can help it. AND- you need to accept that while all of these moves might make us more prosperous, none of them is going to solve our debt problems. We can't solve them other than growing our economy.

 

[Rick James]

THERE IS NO WAY TO SOLVE THE DEBT PROBLEM BY CUTTING SPENDING.

This statement is beautiful.

 

[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.

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

Um, isn't that the opposite side of the Tea Party coin that everyone calls moronic? That is, the Tea Party says "no new revenues, cuts only", and everyone calls them stupid, childish, and intransigent. Now you're saying "no cuts, revenues only" is a viable plan?

I read it as a statement of fact.

If you have: A + B = C and you're stipulating that B = 0 then A must be > 0 if you want C to be > 0.

Well yes, clearly true. The issue seems to be that one side is stipulating that A = 0, while the other side is stipulating that B = 0, yet both sides call the other side stupid for such a stipulation.

Except that Dems have not stated that cuts are off the table from them. Now, they may not be the cuts the Repubs want, but they're not starting from the position that any concessions on cuts are tantamount to treason to the party.

I wasn't responding to the idea that Democrats have stated cuts are off the table. I was responding to your response to parasaurolophus's statement "People like Tim that argue against any cut since it will cause "pain"are a big problem." You seemed to be arguing that since some people are against all cuts, it makes sense that we should all simply approve of revenues as a fix. That would seem to be the opposite of the Tea Party argument that revenues are off the table, therefore we should all simply approve of cuts as a fix.

Was merely pointing out that fixating on cuts only is a hallmark of people that aren't actually serious about fiscal responsibility.

You didn't point out anything. Being serious about fiscal responsibility would automatically be directly related to a desire to not pay more in taxes. People who are responsible with their money don't like to piss it away.

If you want people to accept paying more in taxes you need to prove to them it is a benefit and that it would lead to a better long term living situation. The way we spend money right now and having people ##### and moan about 45 billion in cuts is absurd and does not provide any hope it could be different with higher taxes.

 

[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.

Unfortunately, the contractors have a lot of people at the bottom of the hill. I was reading a story about a cafeteria worker at one of the Smithsonian museums. Contract worker; no back pay.

While I do feel bad for the cafeteria worker, I also have to wonder why they continue to work at that job. To me, this is exactly the same as the Walmart fair wage argument. If you don't improve your own situation, then you have no one to blame but yourself.

This is not the first time there has been a government shutdown. If you think it won't happen again,then you deserve to be furloughed without pay.

Wages are stagnant/declining in all fields. Is no one trying to help themselves?

Every job has it's good things and bad things. In the case of this cafeteria worker, the shutdown for 2 weeks is a bad thing. If there are no good reasons to offset this, then he/she should go to work at Walmart or McDonald's.

There are so many things wrong with this I don't even know where to begin.

Start at the beginning.

True or False? Every job has good things and bad things?

True or False? The 2 week shutdown was bad for the cafeteria worker?

True or False? If your job sucks, you make minimum wage, and you are at risk of unpaid furloughs, then find another job.

Seems simple enough to me.

 

[Sand]

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/10/sen_elizabeth_warren_glad_gove.html


U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren: "According to the S&P index, the government shutdown had delivered a powerful blow to the U.S. economy. By their estimates, $24 billion has been flushed down the drain for a completely unnecessary political stunt.”

Financial acumen of Democrats on display. And these people make decisions for us.

I was reading somewhere that only 43% of able adults are currently fully employed. Those are EU levels. We have an economy of underemployed and part-time workers now, and that trend only seems to be becoming more the norm.

Which is why immigration reform is now on the top of the President's list. Because, you know, a few million more uneducated workers is going to make our fiscal problems so much better. Brilliant.

 

[lod01]

I wonder if this thread can live on until the next shutdown in Feb. 2014.

 

[Henry Ford]

With democrats winning the argument of more borrowing and spending, without offsetting spending cuts, the Chinese have lowered our sovereign credit rating. Great job, guys. Nice "win"

I think you're misreading something.

http://www.fxstreet.com/news/forex-news/article.aspx?storyid=f7480cb9-3bb1-466b-a5e6-e0a115ab16ef

The agency explained in the official statement that the downgrade was motivated by the concerns over the country's ability to deal with the debt crisis and with the damage done to the US economy due to the prolonged government shutdown."Hence the US government is still approaching the verge of default crisis, a situation that cannot be substantially alleviated in the foreseeable future," Dagong said in the statement.

Also, it's Dagong. Who the #### cares?

Edit:

Nope, I was using incomplete information. Read the full release. "It's Dagong" still applies, however.

 

[timschochet]

THERE IS NO WAY TO SOLVE THE DEBT PROBLEM BY CUTTING SPENDING.

This statement is beautiful.

Not beautiful, just true.

 

[dparker713]

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.

This is the #1 problem I have with you, you ALWAYS go to extremes to try to prove your point. Why do you assume the only solution is to try to cut it by 50%? Why not try to cut it by 5% and take 20 years to fix the problem?

Because, much like a personal budget things change too much over the course of 20 years. College education, new car, furnace breaks down. The government is no different.

Start a college fundYou don't need a new car

Have savings for unexpected furnace break downs

Proper Planning Prevents Poor Performance

Exactly. The same applies to the cafeteria worker. Save your money for a rainy day. (or a rainy 16 days) Should we really feel sorry for someone that continues to work in a government contracted job if they know that they could be furloughed. Life is about choices. Make a different choice.

You know who's taken this advice to heart? The Fortune 500. Record profits. Record levels of corporate cash. Stagnant wages. Maybe we should choose some public policies that make this a less likely outcome.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I wonder if this thread can live on until the next shutdown in Feb. 2014.

Easily. I could see it living on until the next 4 shutdowns.

 

[timschochet]

And by the way, raising taxes won't solve the debt problem either.

 

[timschochet]

I wonder if this thread can live on until the next shutdown in Feb. 2014.

Easily. I could see it living on until the next 4 shutdowns.

I will bet anyone here not named Gobbler that there will not be another shutdown next year. $100.

 

[Rick James]

raise revenue and reduce spending = debt problem solved.

 

[parasaurolophus]

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.

This is the #1 problem I have with you, you ALWAYS go to extremes to try to prove your point. Why do you assume the only solution is to try to cut it by 50%? Why not try to cut it by 5% and take 20 years to fix the problem?

Because, much like a personal budget things change too much over the course of 20 years. College education, new car, furnace breaks down. The government is no different.

Start a college fundYou don't need a new car

Have savings for unexpected furnace break downs

Proper Planning Prevents Poor Performance

Exactly. The same applies to the cafeteria worker. Save your money for a rainy day. (or a rainy 16 days) Should we really feel sorry for someone that continues to work in a government contracted job if they know that they could be furloughed. Life is about choices. Make a different choice.

You know who's taken this advice to heart? The Fortune 500. Record profits. Record levels of corporate cash. Stagnant wages. Maybe we should choose some public policies that make this a less likely outcome.

Heaven forbid companies put themselves in stable financial shape.

Everybody knows having mounds of debt is the proper way to run a business.

 

[humpback]

While I do feel bad for the cafeteria worker, I also have to wonder why they continue to work at that job. To me, this is exactly the same as the Walmart fair wage argument. If you don't improve your own situation, then you have no one to blame but yourself.

This is not the first time there has been a government shutdown. If you think it won't happen again,then you deserve to be furloughed without pay.

Wages are stagnant/declining in all fields. Is no one trying to help themselves?

Every job has it's good things and bad things. In the case of this cafeteria worker, the shutdown for 2 weeks is a bad thing. If there are no good reasons to offset this, then he/she should go to work at Walmart or McDonald's.

There are so many things wrong with this I don't even know where to begin.

Start at the beginning.

True or False? Every job has good things and bad things?

True or False? The 2 week shutdown was bad for the cafeteria worker?

True or False? If your job sucks, you make minimum wage, and you are at risk of unpaid furloughs, then find another job.

Seems simple enough to me.

Aren't you the guy who was #####ing about potential cuts at the USPS, where your wife works?

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

There are no winners here.

Seems like a lot of Obama supporters disagree with Obama.

I will say I agree with Obama that there are no winners here - but there was a loser.

I agree. The loser was America.

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/10/sen_elizabeth_warren_glad_gove.html

U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren: "According to the S&P index, the government shutdown had delivered a powerful blow to the U.S. economy. By their estimates, $24 billion has been flushed down the drain for a completely unnecessary political stunt.”

Not sure what's going on here. Are you agreeing with me?

I think we agree that the American people lost but might defer in our opinion of whom played the grinch.

 

[Schlzm]

Then toss out the lobbyists, special interest groups, and reform campaign finance laws.

At the very least ditch SuperPAC's and that stupid law that states corporate entities are no different than individuals when it comes to campaign contributions.

There is no such law. Corporations are not allowed to make campaign contributions at all.

corporations make campaign contributions all the time.

Not in federal elections. The maximum amount a corporation may contribute to a campaign for a federal election, under current federal law, is $0.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?cycle=2012&id=N00009638