Government Shutdown

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

idiot trying to talk politics: im going to refer to liberals as libtards, a joke on people who are mentally handicapped

Hate speech like the above does not belong in this thread. We at goEMAW do not refer to the mentally handicapped as **tarded and, besides, they are way smarter than libtards.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Libtard: Hey! We can't agree on a reasonable budget for the government.

-SHUTDOWN-

Libtard: RAISE THE DEBT CEILING!

...why we elect idiots that can't even balance a budget to government is beyond me

This probably belongs in another thread, but why do you believe the national debt is a bad thing? Is it because we might end up defaulting?

Just reported that the US has a $23 billion payment to medicare coming up, and a $30 billion payment on national debt interest too. So, the national debt is costing us more than medicare. That seems like a bad thing.

[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?

 

[Headinjun]

We're seeing the beginning of a new era folks! Hopefully everyone can open their eyes and treat healthcare like the good/service it really is. If you can't afford it, i'm sorry but you can't get treated. It's the same principle that runs everything else in the world. If you don't have money to buy a nice car, you don't get to.

This may get me blasted, but it's how things have worked for hundreds of years. Everything has been going downhill since we've been giving a crap about not hurting everyones feelings.

not having a nice car isnt a matter of living or dying. apples and oranges you heartless prick.

It's really not though...

Why do you feel the need for everyone that works hard for a living to pay for people that don't even want to find jobs? I work my ass off in order to do what I want and i'm tired of people freeloading off successful people. This country was built off of hard work and opportunity. Everyone has the opportunity to achieve more and have more success, but they have to work for it. Whether it's a minimum wage job that provides small healthcare or one where you have all the money in the world. The problem with Americans now is that we're lazy and feel like we're entitled to everything and that's just not how it works.

SS,

Just so you know the ACA was put into effect to help middle class families protect their assets and savings too. 

If you're not aware of that then I'm not sure you really pick up a newspaper or have a clue about what has or is going on.

It's not the middle class families that i'm worried about. Most of the middle class families aren't even involved in whats going on as many have healthcare plans already. The ACA does not address the underlying issues which cause health care costs to soar, it just papers over those high costs with taxpayer dollars and government imposed mandates on employers. The costs are still there and still going up. All the ACA did was point a gun to everyone's head and force them to buy insurance. Sort of like trying to fix homelessness and high home prices by forcing everyone to buy a home and mortgage.

If you believe everything the paper says all the time, you're just a herded sheep.

I still don't think you understand the full scope of the ACA and the financial risk benefits afforded to everybody insured including you.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Uh oh, one of the NPS rangers has left the reservation...

“It’s a cheap way to deal with the situation,” an angry Park Service ranger in Washington says of the harassment. “We’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we can. It’s disgusting.”

[Rage Against the McKee]

Libtard: Hey! We can't agree on a reasonable budget for the government.

-SHUTDOWN-

Libtard: RAISE THE DEBT CEILING!

...why we elect idiots that can't even balance a budget to government is beyond me

This probably belongs in another thread, but why do you believe the national debt is a bad thing? Is it because we might end up defaulting?

National debt and national spending isn't a bad thing at all. Uncontrolled national debt and uncontrolled spending is.

Because we default if we can't pay that debt?

In the past couple years, no that wasn't the case. Now that our debt ceiling and spending is out of control, we could potentially default on our debt because our national debt is higher (and climbing) than our GDP. We're not to the point of no return, but if we increase it to the proposed 25 trillion mark, then we'll have some issues. Our good old boy Bill Clinton had it figured out when he was in office. The fact that the US has been downgraded from AAA to AA+ (and soon just AA) is a slap in the face and shows us that the world firmly believes that we don't know what the hell we're doing.

So basically, we should just give up now and default by not raising the debt ceiling rather than continue on a path that may lead to default later?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

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?

 

Sorry, been having too much fun with this whole SHUTDOWN theater. In answer to your question, yes, the deficit has slightly decreased under each year of the Obama admin, but when you first jack up spending to the highest level in history in 2010, it's hard to give the President much credit for then marginally reducing that spending, particularly when he did not do so willingly, but rather was the result of a sequester brought on by the President's inability to corral his own party into proposing a budget that actually reduced spending. The deficit has also been reduced somewhat by record high tax revenues, which are unlikely to continue, and even then the deficit is still nearly $1 trillion. Please stop pretending that this President, or the Dems, are fiscally responsible.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Libtard: Hey! We can't agree on a reasonable budget for the government.

-SHUTDOWN-

Libtard: RAISE THE DEBT CEILING!

...why we elect idiots that can't even balance a budget to government is beyond me

This probably belongs in another thread, but why do you believe the national debt is a bad thing? Is it because we might end up defaulting?

National debt and national spending isn't a bad thing at all. Uncontrolled national debt and uncontrolled spending is.

Because we default if we can't pay that debt?

In the past couple years, no that wasn't the case. Now that our debt ceiling and spending is out of control, we could potentially default on our debt because our national debt is higher (and climbing) than our GDP. We're not to the point of no return, but if we increase it to the proposed 25 trillion mark, then we'll have some issues. Our good old boy Bill Clinton had it figured out when he was in office. The fact that the US has been downgraded from AAA to AA+ (and soon just AA) is a slap in the face and shows us that the world firmly believes that we don't know what the hell we're doing.

So basically, we should just give up now and default by not raising the debt ceiling rather than continue on a path that may lead to default later?

Holy false-choice, Batman! Do you write speeches for the President?

[The Tonya Harding of Twitter Users Creep]

MODS:

can we change the word filter so that "libtard" and "libtards" shows up as like "imafuckingbigot" or something like that? would make this thread (and life, i suppose) more enjoyable.

TIA

[Rage Against the McKee]

Holy false-choice, Batman! Do you write speeches for the President?

I'm honestly just wondering exactly what the consequences of the debt could possibly be that make defaulting this month a viable alternative.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

MODS:

can we change the word filter so that "libtard" and "libtards" shows up as like "imafuckingbigot" or something like that? would make this thread (and life, i suppose) more enjoyable.

TIA

Don't take it personally, TTHOTUC, it's a term of affection.

[The Big Train]

So why don't we print like 17 Trillion dollars and just pay it off?  I mean we already don't have a gold standard. 

[p1k3]

the fact that the world buys shittons of us debt at ridiculously low interest rates is slightly more meaningful than a rando credit rating.

federal reserve, tho

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

the fact that the world buys shittons of us debt at ridiculously low interest rates is slightly more meaningful than a rando credit rating.

$400 billion of last years budget went to paying interest on the outstanding debt. How is that not meaningful?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

the fact that the world buys shittons of us debt at ridiculously low interest rates is slightly more meaningful than a rando credit rating.

$400 billion of last years budget went to paying interest on the outstanding debt. How is that not meaningful?

Well, obviously, if the debt doesn't matter, we can spend as much money as we want paying interest on that debt. We can always print more. Don't you see how this works?

Being concerned about the interest paid servicing the debt is so 2006, like when Barack Obama was giving speeches as a Senator.

[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%.

[ShellShock]

Libtard: Hey! We can't agree on a reasonable budget for the government.

-SHUTDOWN-

Libtard: RAISE THE DEBT CEILING!

...why we elect idiots that can't even balance a budget to government is beyond me

This probably belongs in another thread, but why do you believe the national debt is a bad thing? Is it because we might end up defaulting?

National debt and national spending isn't a bad thing at all. Uncontrolled national debt and uncontrolled spending is.

Because we default if we can't pay that debt?

In the past couple years, no that wasn't the case. Now that our debt ceiling and spending is out of control, we could potentially default on our debt because our national debt is higher (and climbing) than our GDP. We're not to the point of no return, but if we increase it to the proposed 25 trillion mark, then we'll have some issues. Our good old boy Bill Clinton had it figured out when he was in office. The fact that the US has been downgraded from AAA to AA+ (and soon just AA) is a slap in the face and shows us that the world firmly believes that we don't know what the hell we're doing.

So basically, we should just give up now and default by not raising the debt ceiling rather than continue on a path that may lead to default later?

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.

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

the fact that the world buys shittons of us debt at ridiculously low interest rates is slightly more meaningful than a rando credit rating.

And when he says "the world" he means the federal reserve and us gubmint.  I wonder what unmanipulated interest rates would look like?

[Rage Against the McKee]

Libtard: Hey! We can't agree on a reasonable budget for the government.

-SHUTDOWN-

Libtard: RAISE THE DEBT CEILING!

...why we elect idiots that can't even balance a budget to government is beyond me

This probably belongs in another thread, but why do you believe the national debt is a bad thing? Is it because we might end up defaulting?

National debt and national spending isn't a bad thing at all. Uncontrolled national debt and uncontrolled spending is.

Because we default if we can't pay that debt?

In the past couple years, no that wasn't the case. Now that our debt ceiling and spending is out of control, we could potentially default on our debt because our national debt is higher (and climbing) than our GDP. We're not to the point of no return, but if we increase it to the proposed 25 trillion mark, then we'll have some issues. Our good old boy Bill Clinton had it figured out when he was in office. The fact that the US has been downgraded from AAA to AA+ (and soon just AA) is a slap in the face and shows us that the world firmly believes that we don't know what the hell we're doing.

So basically, we should just give up now and default by not raising the debt ceiling rather than continue on a path that may lead to default later?

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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

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.