Government Shutdown

[ShellShock]

No, we need to own up right now (every party and affiliation) and mutually agree on a real budget with a plan to reduce the national debt before this gets further off track and we turn into Greece. It's not going to be easy and everyone isn't going to like it, but it has to happen and nobody can argue that. Everyone agrees that the government is the most frivolous spender out there, the arguments come from what each party thinks is important money spent or wasteful money spent.

 
So, raise the debt ceiling with a new budget? I can agree with that. The debt ceiling absolutely has to be raised, though.

Technically speaking, it doesn't. Failing to raise the debt ceiling simply means we can't issue more debt. We have plenty of revenue coming in to meet our current debt servicing obligations. So we wouldn't default on our debt.

Of course, not raising the debt ceiling would essentially require the government to immediately adopt a balanced budget, which would be quite painful initially. The better approach would be to adopt a budget that aggressively reduces the deficit down to a balanced budget over the next few years, but it's virtually impossible in this political climate to accomplish that, particularly when people keep electing liberals. It is not possible to reach a balanced budget or sustain it without significant reduction in spending across the board, and particularly welfare spending. Think Obamacare is bad (well, you don't, but I'm talking figuratively)? It's a puddle compared to Medicare and Medicaid.

It really does to have any type of reasonable outcome. I would like to see defense funding cut by about $200 billion, medicare/medicaid by about $100 billion, and tax revenues increased by about $100 billion.

I would also really like the fed to do something about getting inflation back on track. This super-low inflation over the past 10 years really needs to go away.

I can get behind the thoughts in these posts. I would like to see the defense budget, Medicare, Medicaid and Welfare seriously looked at. The welfare system is garbage and stupid spending on our government's part. I also won't complain that much if our taxes slightly increased and our plan put in place to have a better budget in order to pay down the national debt and be more efficient overall with our money. Adopting a new budget immediately will absolutely be painful, but completely necessary for the future of our country.

I don't think it makes sense to just implement a budget like that immediately, but doing something in small increments over the next 5 years would lessen the tax burden, enable us to simply reduce incentives when recruiting service men and women while honoring our current obligations, and make minor, incremental changes to medicare and medicaid policy. Medicare really needs a death panel, imo. These are public funds, and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a procedure for someone who isn't likely to live more than 2 or 3 more years anyway just doesn't make sense.

[Unruly]

You know, if we SHUTDOWN the government for maybe two months each year, we could balance the budget....

shutting down the govt costs money, it doesn't save money.  i can't believe i ever thought you were rational.

There was a time when you thought I was rational? Wasn't the Trayvon Martin thread, was it? Well anyway, it's a start. You'll come around, buddy.
 
Anyway, you're right, SHUTDOWNs do cost money, at least in some ways. For example, think of all the extra security that has to be hired to enforce petty monument closures just to demonstrate the pain of a SHUTDOWN. I think passing a sensible budget would be a much better way to save money, but golly, Dems just can't seem to propose a budget that would cut spending (I know, that's somehow the Tea Party's fault... )

Hasn't the deficit been reduced every year Obama has been in office?

Or are you just wanting the check books to be balanced instantly?

 

Um no? In his first term, the debt tally rose $6 billion...which is equal to the amount Bush increased it in his two terms. I don't have his current session to date, but I know that the current debt % to GDP is the highest it's been since WW2. (103%)

Obama's starting debt/GDP was around 85% and as of the end of his first term, it stands at 103%.

Sit the next couple out chief.

Well, if you want to argue with facts, feel free...chief

http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm

JFC 

[ShellShock]

You know, if we SHUTDOWN the government for maybe two months each year, we could balance the budget....

shutting down the govt costs money, it doesn't save money.  i can't believe i ever thought you were rational.

There was a time when you thought I was rational? Wasn't the Trayvon Martin thread, was it? Well anyway, it's a start. You'll come around, buddy.
 
Anyway, you're right, SHUTDOWNs do cost money, at least in some ways. For example, think of all the extra security that has to be hired to enforce petty monument closures just to demonstrate the pain of a SHUTDOWN. I think passing a sensible budget would be a much better way to save money, but golly, Dems just can't seem to propose a budget that would cut spending (I know, that's somehow the Tea Party's fault... )

Hasn't the deficit been reduced every year Obama has been in office?

Or are you just wanting the check books to be balanced instantly?

 

Um no? In his first term, the debt tally rose $6 billion...which is equal to the amount Bush increased it in his two terms. I don't have his current session to date, but I know that the current debt % to GDP is the highest it's been since WW2. (103%)

Obama's starting debt/GDP was around 85% and as of the end of his first term, it stands at 103%.

Sit the next couple out chief.

Well, if you want to argue with facts, feel free...chief

http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm

JFC 

Lets hear what you have to say then...go on

[Unruly]

Hasn't the deficit been reduced every year Obama has been in office?

Or are you just wanting the check books to be balanced instantly?

Lets hear what you have to say then...go on

[puniraptor]

Defaulting on our debt is like putting china in furlough.

#shutdownchina

[ShellShock]

Hasn't the deficit been reduced every year Obama has been in office?

Or are you just wanting the check books to be balanced instantly?

Lets hear what you have to say then...go on

Saying we're going to spend less money (over what we bring in) then still spending more than we bring in isn't a way to solve anything my friend. Regardless, we're on a runaway train unless we stop this.

[CNS]

No, we need to own up right now (every party and affiliation) and mutually agree on a real budget with a plan to reduce the national debt before this gets further off track and we turn into Greece. It's not going to be easy and everyone isn't going to like it, but it has to happen and nobody can argue that. Everyone agrees that the government is the most frivolous spender out there, the arguments come from what each party thinks is important money spent or wasteful money spent.

So, raise the debt ceiling with a new budget? I can agree with that. The debt ceiling absolutely has to be raised, though.

Technically speaking, it doesn't. Failing to raise the debt ceiling simply means we can't issue more debt. We have plenty of revenue coming in to meet our current debt servicing obligations. So we wouldn't default on our debt.

Of course, not raising the debt ceiling would essentially require the government to immediately adopt a balanced budget, which would be quite painful initially. The better approach would be to adopt a budget that aggressively reduces the deficit down to a balanced budget over the next few years, but it's virtually impossible in this political climate to accomplish that, particularly when people keep electing liberals. It is not possible to reach a balanced budget or sustain it without significant reduction in spending across the board, and particularly welfare spending. Think Obamacare is bad (well, you don't, but I'm talking figuratively)? It's a puddle compared to Medicare and Medicaid.

I would be fine with taking steps to get to a balanced budget over a reasonable amt of time.  I also agree that there needs to be more fiscally conservative ppl in congress.  I really wish many conservatives could make themselves electable on this basis and not mix in the crazy.  That is all I want. 

[Rage Against the McKee]

No, we need to own up right now (every party and affiliation) and mutually agree on a real budget with a plan to reduce the national debt before this gets further off track and we turn into Greece. It's not going to be easy and everyone isn't going to like it, but it has to happen and nobody can argue that. Everyone agrees that the government is the most frivolous spender out there, the arguments come from what each party thinks is important money spent or wasteful money spent.

So, raise the debt ceiling with a new budget? I can agree with that. The debt ceiling absolutely has to be raised, though.

Technically speaking, it doesn't. Failing to raise the debt ceiling simply means we can't issue more debt. We have plenty of revenue coming in to meet our current debt servicing obligations. So we wouldn't default on our debt.

Of course, not raising the debt ceiling would essentially require the government to immediately adopt a balanced budget, which would be quite painful initially. The better approach would be to adopt a budget that aggressively reduces the deficit down to a balanced budget over the next few years, but it's virtually impossible in this political climate to accomplish that, particularly when people keep electing liberals. It is not possible to reach a balanced budget or sustain it without significant reduction in spending across the board, and particularly welfare spending. Think Obamacare is bad (well, you don't, but I'm talking figuratively)? It's a puddle compared to Medicare and Medicaid.

I would be fine with taking steps to get to a balanced budget over a reasonable amt of time.  I also agree that there needs to be more fiscally conservative ppl in congress.  I really wish many conservatives could make themselves electable on this basis and not mix in the crazy.  That is all I want.

What is the solution, though? No campaign advertisement of any type, even via 3rd parties, and all candidates get to participate in federally funded debates? I'm not saying I necessarily support that, just spit-balling.

[CNS]

I don't think there is a good solution, let alone on the election side.

Reform should start with term limits though.

[WillieWatanabe]

[Tobias]

lol

[p1k3]

lol oh my God that's fantastic

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

No, we need to own up right now (every party and affiliation) and mutually agree on a real budget with a plan to reduce the national debt before this gets further off track and we turn into Greece. It's not going to be easy and everyone isn't going to like it, but it has to happen and nobody can argue that. Everyone agrees that the government is the most frivolous spender out there, the arguments come from what each party thinks is important money spent or wasteful money spent.

So, raise the debt ceiling with a new budget? I can agree with that. The debt ceiling absolutely has to be raised, though.

Technically speaking, it doesn't. Failing to raise the debt ceiling simply means we can't issue more debt. We have plenty of revenue coming in to meet our current debt servicing obligations. So we wouldn't default on our debt.

Of course, not raising the debt ceiling would essentially require the government to immediately adopt a balanced budget, which would be quite painful initially. The better approach would be to adopt a budget that aggressively reduces the deficit down to a balanced budget over the next few years, but it's virtually impossible in this political climate to accomplish that, particularly when people keep electing liberals. It is not possible to reach a balanced budget or sustain it without significant reduction in spending across the board, and particularly welfare spending. Think Obamacare is bad (well, you don't, but I'm talking figuratively)? It's a puddle compared to Medicare and Medicaid.

I would be fine with taking steps to get to a balanced budget over a reasonable amt of time.  I also agree that there needs to be more fiscally conservative ppl in congress.  I really wish many conservatives could make themselves electable on this basis and not mix in the crazy.  That is all I want.

Hmmm....  Probably could have started with electing Romney/Ryan over another 4 of Obama. These were business guys. Numbers guys. They were serious when it came to fiscal responsibility. The did not focus on social issues. And they lost. So now we've got 4 more years of a liberal president who doesn't give a crap about cutting spending.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I just can't believe people are still rolling with this "Obama is cutting the deficit" talking point.  That is so insanely Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).

[sys]

a plan to reduce the national debt before this gets further off track and we turn into Greece. It's not going to be easy and everyone isn't going to like it, but it has to happen and nobody can argue that.

every mainstream economist in the world would argue that.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

a plan to reduce the national debt before this gets further off track and we turn into Greece. It's not going to be easy and everyone isn't going to like it, but it has to happen and nobody can argue that.

every mainstream economist in the world would argue that.

Even if this were true, these are the same guys that guided the world into the "great recession"

[Dugout DickStone]

Serious question: what did the sequester that was such a big deal cause?  Is it still going?  I'm insanely lazy so I don't want to do any research.

[sys]

Serious question: what did the sequester that was such a big deal cause?  Is it still going?  I'm insanely lazy so I don't want to do any research.

probably knocked about 0.5% off gdp growth.  that's the problem with economics, though, there's never a control.  or a replicate for that matter.

[p1k3]

Serious question: what did the sequester that was such a big deal cause?  Is it still going?  I'm insanely lazy so I don't want to do any research.

probably knocked about 0.5% off gdp growth.  that's the problem with economics, though, there's never a control.  or a replicate for that matter.

the mean Republicans caused a depression

[Rage Against the McKee]

Serious question: what did the sequester that was such a big deal cause?  Is it still going?  I'm insanely lazy so I don't want to do any research.

It causes annual budget cuts to all federal agencies to the tune of a few percent per year. At first, the changes aren't very noticeable, but they build on themselves, and if you have to work with a federal agency on a multi-year project, funding becomes a concern because most of that agency doesn't really know what is going to get cut moving forward. The whole idea sucks because there is no input as to what gets funded and what doesn't. It's just across the board cuts to everything except for the golden geese, like defense and entitlements.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Serious question: what did the sequester that was such a big deal cause?  Is it still going?  I'm insanely lazy so I don't want to do any research.

It causes annual budget cuts to all federal agencies to the tune of a few percent per year. At first, the changes aren't very noticeable, but they build on themselves, and if you have to work with a federal agency on a multi-year project, funding becomes a concern because most of that agency doesn't really know what is going to get cut moving forward. The whole idea sucks because there is no input as to what gets funded and what doesn't. It's just across the board cuts to everything except for the golden geese, like defense and entitlements.

This is the way its always been and always will be with government contracts.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Serious question: what did the sequester that was such a big deal cause?  Is it still going?  I'm insanely lazy so I don't want to do any research.

It causes annual budget cuts to all federal agencies to the tune of a few percent per year. At first, the changes aren't very noticeable, but they build on themselves, and if you have to work with a federal agency on a multi-year project, funding becomes a concern because most of that agency doesn't really know what is going to get cut moving forward. The whole idea sucks because there is no input as to what gets funded and what doesn't. It's just across the board cuts to everything except for the golden geese, like defense and entitlements.

This is the way its always been and always will be with government contracts.

Yeah, I'm still pretty young and have much to learn, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't suck. It's a lot of work securing the funding in the first place, and potentially losing it because Congress can't get along just blows. I don't really think we are going to lose any of our projects, but just planning around the uncertainty costs us money, and sys is definitely accurate when he says that this shutdown is a huge net financial loser for the federal agencies involved.

[Dugout DickStone]

Serious question: what did the sequester that was such a big deal cause?  Is it still going?  I'm insanely lazy so I don't want to do any research.

It causes annual budget cuts to all federal agencies to the tune of a few percent per year. At first, the changes aren't very noticeable, but they build on themselves, and if you have to work with a federal agency on a multi-year project, funding becomes a concern because most of that agency doesn't really know what is going to get cut moving forward. The whole idea sucks because there is no input as to what gets funded and what doesn't. It's just across the board cuts to everything except for the golden geese, like defense and entitlements.

This is the way its always been and always will be with government contracts.

So let's just keep sequestering it a few clicks every year and we can ween some of the fat out, no?

[Rage Against the McKee]

Serious question: what did the sequester that was such a big deal cause?  Is it still going?  I'm insanely lazy so I don't want to do any research.

It causes annual budget cuts to all federal agencies to the tune of a few percent per year. At first, the changes aren't very noticeable, but they build on themselves, and if you have to work with a federal agency on a multi-year project, funding becomes a concern because most of that agency doesn't really know what is going to get cut moving forward. The whole idea sucks because there is no input as to what gets funded and what doesn't. It's just across the board cuts to everything except for the golden geese, like defense and entitlements.

This is the way its always been and always will be with government contracts.

So let's just keep sequestering it a few clicks every year and we can ween some of the fat out, no?

The only problem is that we are cutting infrastructure. We already live in a nation where 50% of all bridges are structurally deficient, we have the 7th highest cancer rate in the world, our energy and internet corridors need massive improvement to move forward, etc. It is much better to not fund a program at all than it is to underfund it. Our federal agencies used to develop massive projects like the Hoover Dam and the interstate system. Now, they are relegated to providing subsidized funding on small scale projects, and even the future of that funding is questionable. The problem with sequestration is that it treats all agencies as equally important so they should all face equal cuts without regard to what it is they are actually doing or what obligations they already have moving forward. A system that relied entirely on congressional earmarks would a lot be more efficient, as scary as that sounds.

[puniraptor]

sequester was a problem because it cut the budget 9% across the board non negotiable AFTER the fiscal year had already been planned for. now that we are starting a new fiscal years with the sequester known it can be planned for and will not really be as damaging.