US Government shutdown

The more of this I see the more in favor I am of simply firing all of congress and the president when they do not pass the budget and ban them from federal-level office for a few years.

I know it's probably not constitutional but it seems like losing their positions is the only thing that gets through to politicians.

biochem wrote:I think the Catholics may be onto something. Remember the papal election last spring? The Cardinals were locked into the Vatican and they couldn't leave until a pope had been selected.... This brings to mind lots of interesting ideas for the congress + Obama. Lock them all into a building together and don't let them leave until they have produced a balanced budget.

Indeed I know that answer T2M. My point in asking was that ksandgren espoused the very core principle that binds the various TEA Party groups. Yet he derided the group as though their core principle was rediculous. Are all liberal/progressives OWS extremists even though they share many common ideals?

Its easy to assume those one disagrees with are unworthy to hold their opinions. Unworthy to have their opinions honored and honestly discussed. Everytime someone is shouted down or personally attacked for voicing desent, everyone's freedom of speech is being eroded. Deriding the TEA Party for imagined transgressions or the opinions of the fringe DOES erode our freedom of speech.

If one disagrees with an espoused position, address the position. Don't attack the person for his beliefs.

thinkstoomuch wrote:Not to deny the possible repercussions projected by ksandgren. But sooner or later someone has to draw a line in the sand, the commons or wherever. If nobody draws the line the beach keeps eroding.

It might not happen the American Public might figure out how to do basic analysis. No great hope in this corner.

But PeterZ I know you know the answer. The "progressives" (both Democratic and Republican) have better PR apparatus. Plain and simple.

Add in the fact that some of the Tea Party type people, not a political party, more of a movement have some genuine crazy types(yep I have met some) and the PR perception is lost. They are the ones who get all the exposure not "average" Tea Party person.

It will sooner or later get to the point where someone else paying for "my" stuff from the government will be be understood for the falsehood it is.

The people will pay for it now or later. Like the old commercial "pay me now or pay me (more)later.

We all have our dream.

After all read this story on the BBC site by Mardell.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24394644

So anything can happen.

A Hopeful,
T2M

PeterZ wrote:The administration has ruled by decree or rather EOs. The Tea Party hasn't ruled anything yet. Just as the Dems refuse to give one iota on abortion, the Tea Partys refuse to give one iota on their one common principle: fiscally conservative governance.

Why then is a refusal compromise an essential belief admirable in Dems/liberals but worthy of scorn in conservatives?

Go back and read your original post that started this thread.

You very openly asserted that it was the Republican/Tea Party that was at fault theta by guaranteeing controversy

The US is unusual because government spends a significantly lower percentage of GDP than other countries. This apparently makes us uncivilized. This is partially the result of not having a nationalized healthcare system. Keep in mind that a lot of healthcare spending is already by governments, but it is not universal. Given some of the shut down tactics employed by Obama, I am very thankful that we don't have a government run healthcare system. It would be exploited for political advantage.

I personally agree that increasing taxes to cover expenditures is preferable to deficit spending and a huge national debt. You can always cut taxes but once you accumulate a large debt it is damn difficult to pay off. I want spending restraint to be just as profound as any tax increases.

Daryl wrote:Please excuse me Namelessfly on this, but I've been a (possibly the leading) supporter of your right to speak your mind, yet the statement "This entire thread that is intended to inflame public alarm over what has been an unusual but not unprecedented political maneuver is an example of that tactic of demonization.", is unfair.
As the originator I had no intention of inflaming public opinion and in my original post begged people to be nice and discuss this in a polite way.

I'm not an American, have no connection with any political party (US or Australian), and started this thread with an honest request to be informed.
I still don't understand the US mindset after reading all the posts. On one side I cannot understand how the US can't do as all other responsible developed nations do and balance their budget by raising taxes to meet their outgoings; yet on the other hand I am still not educated as to how a pathetically inadequate healthcare system is a step too far along the "socialism" road.

Firstly I'm quite sorry that I have upset you, as that was not my intention. As you asked I've just gone back & reread my opening statement & am still puzzled by your statement as I didn't mention the Republicans or Tea Party, or as far as I can tell blame them for the problem, just stated that it seemed both unnamed sides were recalcitrant. This further illustrates what many outsiders are confused by, in that we see the Democrats and Republicans as both being to the right from our perspective. Apparently some American citizens see this quite differently, with the Democrats being more to the left than they would prefer. Fine with me, not my country, or my business except as an interested bystander.
Please fix the impasse soon as it does impact on world business and we don't want a second GFC.
I must admit that I quite happily pay higher taxes than I would in the US in order to get more security from governmental support and regulation. Different societies & values, and that's a good thing.

namelessfly wrote:Go back and read your original post that started this thread.

You very openly asserted that it was the Republican/Tea Party that was at fault theta by guaranteeing controversy

The US is unusual because government spends a significantly lower percentage of GDP than other countries. This apparently makes us uncivilized. This is partially the result of not having a nationalized healthcare system. Keep in mind that a lot of healthcare spending is already by governments, but it is not universal. Given some of the shut down tactics employed by Obama, I am very thankful that we don't have a government run healthcare system. It would be exploited for political advantage.

I personally agree that increasing taxes to cover expenditures is preferable to deficit spending and a huge national debt. You can always cut taxes but once you accumulate a large debt it is damn difficult to pay off. I want spending restraint to be just as profound as any tax increases.

Daryl wrote:Please excuse me Namelessfly on this, but I've been a (possibly the leading) supporter of your right to speak your mind, yet the statement "This entire thread that is intended to inflame public alarm over what has been an unusual but not unprecedented political maneuver is an example of that tactic of demonization.", is unfair.
As the originator I had no intention of inflaming public opinion and in my original post begged people to be nice and discuss this in a polite way.

I'm not an American, have no connection with any political party (US or Australian), and started this thread with an honest request to be informed.
I still don't understand the US mindset after reading all the posts. On one side I cannot understand how the US can't do as all other responsible developed nations do and balance their budget by raising taxes to meet their outgoings; yet on the other hand I am still not educated as to how a pathetically inadequate healthcare system is a step too far along the "socialism" road.

The thing is that a big part of the vitriol towards the TP is because of the consequences of heir refusal to compromise. It was pointed out earlier on this thread that compromise is an essential part of the process of American governmental function. Now, both sides have things that htey refuse to compromise on. But to go back to your example, Democrats' refusal to compromise on abortion* isn't threatening the entire country or, for that matter, the global economy.

Standing for your principles is all well and good, but needs to be regarded relative to the cost of doing so.

*Assuming they are refusing to compromise, as from what I've seen abortion rights tend to be fought out in the states and not the federal legislature.

PeterZ wrote:Indeed I know that answer T2M. My point in asking was that ksandgren espoused the very core principle that binds the various TEA Party groups. Yet he derided the group as though their core principle was rediculous. Are all liberal/progressives OWS extremists even though they share many common ideals?

Its easy to assume those one disagrees with are unworthy to hold their opinions. Unworthy to have their opinions honored and honestly discussed. Everytime someone is shouted down or personally attacked for voicing desent, everyone's freedom of speech is being eroded. Deriding the TEA Party for imagined transgressions or the opinions of the fringe DOES erode our freedom of speech.

If one disagrees with an espoused position, address the position. Don't attack the person for his beliefs.

thinkstoomuch wrote:Also to correct some erroneous data.
From
http://www.usfederalbudget.us/federal_d ... chart.html
Quote
FY 2012: $1,087 billion
FY 2011: $1,300 billion
FY 2010: $1,294 billion
Bush Deficits
FY 2009†: $1,413 billion
FY 2008: $458 billion
FY 2007: $161 billion
FY 2006: $248 billion
FY 2005: $318 billion

† Some people have emailed to insist that the FY 2009 deficit should be assigned to Obama. Sorta.
End Quote

Notice that Deficits were going back down until 2007 when the Democrats took over both houses. Then started going back down when the Republicans took over the House of Representatives.

Not saying that what President Bush did with the rebates was correct. Hell anything he did was right(I am not a fan better than the choices but that doesn't say much).

But for whatever reason the facts really don't support all those assertions.

To be fair, there were factors other than Democrat control of congress.

1) If I remember correctly, while Bush was president, weren't the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan handled as supplemental appropriations? If so, were those calculated as part of the deficits you cited?

2) The economy was another part of the reason for the big jump. If tax revenues plummet due to a crash, that's going to result in bigger deficits.


That's not to say that they're blameless, but there are factors beyond control of the House, Senate, and Presidency involved in deficits.

I will grant your point on abortion in the very limited context of this topic. There are other adverse impacts to society from abortion that isn't immediately relevant to this discussion. The point I wanted to make was that the idea is central to TEA Party groups. Compromising on those types of core beliefs tends to destroy the very reason a group exists.

The requirement to compromise should be applied to both sides. The Administration won't compromise at all. He wants to change the law to dely implementation of parts of the ACA. Fine. Yet, I see no bill in congress detailing the changes he wishes to make. If the law is written in such a way as to give him complete control of how health care is to be administered without even advice and consent of Congress, then it needs to be repealed. If the ACA isn't written that way, then the administration cannot change the law without having the changes passed by Congress.

He is willing to delay the Business penalties in the aCA but not the individual manadate. Why not if they entire program isn't ready for implementation? Why can he not compromise and delay the individual mandate?

The Repubs have already allowed the Administration to avoid getting a budget approved. No budget was approved even when the House and Senate were controlled by the dems. That there was no budget has allowed the emergency spending levels inflated by TARP and the other emergency measures after the financial crisis to become baseline spending levels in the Continuing Resolutions. That is compromise for these fiscally conservative groups. Yet, the dems refuse to acknowledge that demand that those groups accept all the dems demands.

In the context of these types of discussions compromise means that those that disagree with the Administration need to begin agreeing or they are not compromising. Sorry but that doesn't sound like compromise to me.

Eyal wrote:The thing is that a big part of the vitriol towards the TP is because of the consequences of heir refusal to compromise. It was pointed out earlier on this thread that compromise is an essential part of the process of American governmental function. Now, both sides have things that htey refuse to compromise on. But to go back to your example, Democrats' refusal to compromise on abortion* isn't threatening the entire country or, for that matter, the global economy.

Standing for your principles is all well and good, but needs to be regarded relative to the cost of doing so.

*Assuming they are refusing to compromise, as from what I've seen abortion rights tend to be fought out in the states and not the federal legislature.

PeterZ wrote:Indeed I know that answer T2M. My point in asking was that ksandgren espoused the very core principle that binds the various TEA Party groups. Yet he derided the group as though their core principle was rediculous. Are all liberal/progressives OWS extremists even though they share many common ideals?

Its easy to assume those one disagrees with are unworthy to hold their opinions. Unworthy to have their opinions honored and honestly discussed. Everytime someone is shouted down or personally attacked for voicing desent, everyone's freedom of speech is being eroded. Deriding the TEA Party for imagined transgressions or the opinions of the fringe DOES erode our freedom of speech.

If one disagrees with an espoused position, address the position. Don't attack the person for his beliefs.

Those are the actual numbers provided by the US Government on real spending and revenue and used on that site. I really recommend it. I mostly don't go for any estimates or today dollar equivalents and such when I post numbers. I like actual stuff, I have been burned too many times by the salesman. <shrug>

I agree there were other factors. Problem is there are always ups/downs and that is what we elect people to deal with. If you look at trend lines it is pretty obvious.

Though I generally only go back `30 years what the "R"s and "D"s were before that seems rather less relevant. What the Last generation supported may not be what the current generation supports. For different reasons the early 80's are reversed oin who was running deficits.

Never said there weren't other factors and none of this is simple other than the fact that the Democratic House, Senate and President couldn't get a budget. Yet when just the Presidency was controlled by a "Republican" they could.

Somehow or other it is all the TEA Party's fault. So if our system is so screwed up that what ~30 people out of more than 500 can stop the government, maybe that is a bad thing. Then again I bet those ~10% of the Coptic Christians in Egypt wish they had a similar system before the not coup happened.

Then again it might just be that the ~30 people currently elected by standing on principles of the Tax Enough Already are the forefront of more. Hmm.

Enjoy,
T2M

PS: Not going to go more into my opinion more than that. Though I am not really a TEA person just what I consider a true conservative. I hate
change. Does that mean I am against it nope not if someone can demonstrate a need to change. Then I got no choice. Government is one of those things that ensures civilized behavior. Of course the problem is too much government leads to uncivilized behavior.

Starsaber wrote:
To be fair, there were factors other than Democrat control of congress.

1) If I remember correctly, while Bush was president, weren't the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan handled as supplemental appropriations? If so, were those calculated as part of the deficits you cited?

2) The economy was another part of the reason for the big jump. If tax revenues plummet due to a crash, that's going to result in bigger deficits.


That's not to say that they're blameless, but there are factors beyond control of the House, Senate, and Presidency involved in deficits.

Although the moment in time we would like to preserve might be different, I have always viewed myself as a conservative of your definition. Someone needs to raise the threshhold for change to prevent throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Cheers to those who wish to conserve!

thinkstoomuch wrote:snip
PS: Not going to go more into my opinion more than that. Though I am not really a TEA person just what I consider a true conservative. I hate
change. Does that mean I am against it nope not if someone can demonstrate a need to change. Then I got no choice. Government is one of those things that ensures civilized behavior. Of course the problem is too much government leads to uncivilized behavior.

PeterZ wrote:The requirement to compromise should be applied to both sides. The Administration won't compromise at all. He wants to change the law to dely implementation of parts of the ACA. Fine. Yet, I see no bill in congress detailing the changes he wishes to make. If the law is written in such a way as to give him complete control of how health care is to be administered without even advice and consent of Congress, then it needs to be repealed. If the ACA isn't written that way, then the administration cannot change the law without having the changes passed by Congress.

FWIW, this discusses the issue.

He is willing to delay the Business penalties in the aCA but not the individual manadate. Why not if they entire program isn't ready for implementation? Why can he not compromise and delay the individual mandate?

Supposedly, the delay was due to issues employers had with the reporting requirements, which don't apply to individuals.

The Repubs have already allowed the Administration to avoid getting a budget approved. No budget was approved even when the House and Senate were controlled by the dems. That there was no budget has allowed the emergency spending levels inflated by TARP and the other emergency measures after the financial crisis to become baseline spending levels in the Continuing Resolutions. That is compromise for these fiscally conservative groups. Yet, the dems refuse to acknowledge that demand that those groups accept all the dems demands.

In the context of these types of discussions compromise means that those that disagree with the Administration need to begin agreeing or they are not compromising. Sorry but that doesn't sound like compromise to me.

As I understand, the "clean" CR is already a Democratic compromise, as it involves considerable cuts to the budget set forth by the administration (I can't find the reference now, but IIRC it was something on the order of $200 billion).

And honestly, in the Democrats' shoes would you yield on this point? They're being asked to defund a piece of legislation which is key to them in return for minor gains and the prospect of having a new fight (with another shutdown threat) in 6 weeks when the CR expires and right after that again for the debt ceiling. And then they get to repeat it all over again when the delayed date for the ACA implementation comes around (don't forget, the Republicans aren't trying to delay the ACA to improve it or solve problems - they've been quite open about their intention to get it stricken down one way or another. I might agree that the Democrats whould consider a delay if the Republicans placed something major on the table, but they haven't done that.