US Government shutdown

Bullshit. The Democrats do not raise taxes enough. They raise taxes then spend three times the increase.

Read President Obama'a reelection speeches. Do the math. Yes he wanted to raise the tax on the rich. Would have raised ~$60 billion a year. Then he was going to spend $100 billion on this. Then another $100 billion on that. Then again on something else. Of course you would actually have to read 3 speeches. One to college students one to a union worker the other to.

Your statements don't even come close to passing a smell test.

Lets look at what Senator Rand Paul suggested as a budget. Lets look at what President Obama submitted. Then look at what the Senate Budget resolution that was passed this year (hey hurray for them they did their job for once). Notice they raised taxes and still spent more than they were taking in.

According to what the senate passed there would never be a balanced budget. And still had "D" people voting against it.

And now the President wants to end sequester the only thing that has really slowed government growth. Notice slowed not stopped.

The only way the Senate Resoltution reduced debt was when compared to the GDP was when the GDP grew faster than spending for ten years with no economic downturns sure that will happen. Not even every thing went well for President Clinton did that happen for 5 years.

Nope the average Republican doesn't curb Federal Government spending enough in relation to their tax cuts in the real world.

Then again the Democrats haven't increased taxes the taxes ~71% to get to a balanced budget either. Again do the math. 2012 Federal spending(I don't use estimates) 3.5 trillion , Federal Revenue 2.5 trillion.

So those statements are both utter bullshit.

T2M

PS: This is why the American people(mob mentality) are about as stupid as it gets and get the government they deserve. And the rest of the world lets us. They lend us the money to support our government bubble. Bubbles are never a good thing in economics.

Donnachaidh wrote:It's always seemed closer to "Raise the ceiling" "Turn off spending.*"

*But only on things I don't approve of/don't care about, spend more on these 73 other things and cut taxes for these people that gave me lots of campaign money.

The only difference I see between them is the Republicans say spend less and tax less but only get around to the taxing less while the Democrats just spend and tax more.

Obama Administration's "Make in hurt" policy hits a new low Removing priests contracted to serve religious needs of servicemen as civilian employees on US bases, see http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terry-jeffrey/dod-still-barring-50-priests-administering-sacraments-locks-eucharist.

Poker

Lots of well informed and researched intelligent debate here, and as an outsider I couldn't hope to match the precise information, but would like to pose a question.
From what I can see, the US electorate would naturally like to have the same level of government services as the rest of the developed world enjoys, but doesn't want to have the same taxation level as the rest of the developed world endures? Understandable if illogical.
Over the last couple of decades it appears that both major parties have indulged this impossible dream to varying amounts, with the Democrats being the bigger spenders and the Republicans cutting services, however there have been aberrations to this simple rule from both sides.
The majority of US politicians seem to cross their fingers and hope that the problem will: a- Be cured by inflation, b- Blow up after they have moved on, or c- The tooth fairy will sort it.
The Tea Party seek to stop the ongoing insanity, which is commendable; but are prepared to cause significant hardship to many in the process, which is not commendable.

Daryl wrote:Lots of well informed and researched intelligent debate here, and as an outsider I couldn't hope to match the precise information, but would like to pose a question.
From what I can see, the US electorate would naturally like to have the same level of government services as the rest of the developed world enjoys, but doesn't want to have the same taxation level as the rest of the developed world endures? Understandable if illogical.
Over the last couple of decades it appears that both major parties have indulged this impossible dream to varying amounts, with the Democrats being the bigger spenders and the Republicans cutting services, however there have been aberrations to this simple rule from both sides.
The majority of US politicians seem to cross their fingers and hope that the problem will: a- Be cured by inflation, b- Blow up after they have moved on, or c- The tooth fairy will sort it.
The Tea Party seek to stop the ongoing insanity, which is commendable; but are prepared to cause significant hardship to many in the process, which is not commendable.

Unfortunately, a, b and c are all true of the current crop of politicians, including the Tea Party. I would be more supportive of the Tea Party if they would just dump the religious aspect of their program. To me, they are intruding into areas where they have no business. Stick to the money issues.

KNick wrote:Unfortunately, a, b and c are all true of the current crop of politicians, including the Tea Party. I would be more supportive of the Tea Party if they would just dump the religious aspect of their program. To me, they are intruding into areas where they have no business. Stick to the money issues.

Yes this also the reason I am not as supportive of the TEA Party. Which means all you have to do is find which candidate actually supports your ideas of how a government should be run. Then check the voting record of course that involves a lot of effort. And mostly ignoring what the media says, on both sides.

It would help if we only had the Population (GDP?) of those other nations as well. If you want to be a Bible(or other holy book of your choice) thumping idiot move to a state/country of like minded idiots, IMO.

Other nation's really have no idea how big the US actually is. Or the fact that we have state's that spend more money than most countries of the world's governments. Want the ACA move to MA that is supposedly already has it or at least what it is based off of.

Have fun,
T2M

PS. All those other nation's are living proof (in my eyes, anyway) that the farther the government gets from the people (China) the worse it can be manipulated. So is California. After a certain point mob mentality sets in. Just like lynch mobs or whatever.

I guess I wasn't clear with what I said.

I didn't mean to imply that I thought Democrats were increasing spending at the same rate they increased taxes. And I was speaking in generality about the politicians, not about the average Republican or Democrat. For that matter the video you linked to made the excellent point that both parties are pulled to the extremes.

My statements do in fact pass the "smell test" when you look at what I actually said.

thinkstoomuch wrote:Bullshit. The Democrats do not raise taxes enough. They raise taxes then spend three times the increase.

Read President Obama'a reelection speeches. Do the math. Yes he wanted to raise the tax on the rich. Would have raised ~$60 billion a year. Then he was going to spend $100 billion on this. Then another $100 billion on that. Then again on something else. Of course you would actually have to read 3 speeches. One to college students one to a union worker the other to.

Your statements don't even come close to passing a smell test.

Lets look at what Senator Rand Paul suggested as a budget. Lets look at what President Obama submitted. Then look at what the Senate Budget resolution that was passed this year (hey hurray for them they did their job for once). Notice they raised taxes and still spent more than they were taking in.

According to what the senate passed there would never be a balanced budget. And still had "D" people voting against it.

And now the President wants to end sequester the only thing that has really slowed government growth. Notice slowed not stopped.

The only way the Senate Resoltution reduced debt was when compared to the GDP was when the GDP grew faster than spending for ten years with no economic downturns sure that will happen. Not even every thing went well for President Clinton did that happen for 5 years.

Nope the average Republican doesn't curb Federal Government spending enough in relation to their tax cuts in the real world.

Then again the Democrats haven't increased taxes the taxes ~71% to get to a balanced budget either. Again do the math. 2012 Federal spending(I don't use estimates) 3.5 trillion , Federal Revenue 2.5 trillion.

So those statements are both utter bullshit.

T2M

PS: This is why the American people(mob mentality) are about as stupid as it gets and get the government they deserve. And the rest of the world lets us. They lend us the money to support our government bubble. Bubbles are never a good thing in economics.

Donnachaidh wrote:It's always seemed closer to "Raise the ceiling" "Turn off spending.*"

*But only on things I don't approve of/don't care about, spend more on these 73 other things and cut taxes for these people that gave me lots of campaign money.

The only difference I see between them is the Republicans say spend less and tax less but only get around to the taxing less while the Democrats just spend and tax more.

So, with 12 hours to go, who thinks that US congress will manage to pull a deal off? And who thinks that a default will actually happen?

I'll admit that I think that a deal will be signed with about 10 minutes to go. Just like last time. Oh the Drama!!
But I'll also admit, a small part of me WANTS them to default. I don't think anything less will start to shake them up enough to actually do something helpful. Of course, I don't think anything short of a gun to their collective heads could persuade then to actually start reducing their debt....

It's been announced that they have (finally( reached a deal.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/16/politics/shutdown-showdown/

Would someone explain what the "religious aspect" of the Tea Party is? I realize that most are religious and most of the religious being Christian. However; what aspect of the avowed Tea Party agenda is religious? While most Tea Party members are probably Pro-life, that is not part of the avowed political agenda.

thinkstoomuch wrote:

KNick wrote:Unfortunately, a, b and c are all true of the current crop of politicians, including the Tea Party. I would be more supportive of the Tea Party if they would just dump the religious aspect of their program. To me, they are intruding into areas where they have no business. Stick to the money issues.

Yes this also the reason I am not as supportive of the TEA Party. Which means all you have to do is find which candidate actually supports your ideas of how a government should be run. Then check the voting record of course that involves a lot of effort. And mostly ignoring what the media says, on both sides.

It would help if we only had the Population (GDP?) of those other nations as well. If you want to be a Bible(or other holy book of your choice) thumping idiot move to a state/country of like minded idiots, IMO.

Other nation's really have no idea how big the US actually is. Or the fact that we have state's that spend more money than most countries of the world's governments. Want the ACA move to MA that is supposedly already has it or at least what it is based off of.

Have fun,
T2M

PS. All those other nation's are living proof (in my eyes, anyway) that the farther the government gets from the people (China) the worse it can be manipulated. So is California. After a certain point mob mentality sets in. Just like lynch mobs or whatever.

Does anyone here not understand that Congress refusing to raise the debt limit would not put the US in default on it's debts?

The Constitution mandates that debts be paid. If the debt limit isn't increased, then the President's treasury secretary can't barrow more money. However; the Federal government can continue to spend revenue. Right now, Revenue > Interest on the debt. If the Federal government prioritizes properly, they could continue to function by making interest payments, paying legal obligations such as Social Security, Military Pay, and even some civilian workers. It would be painful but educational.

Governor Palin explained this the last time we were bumping on the debt ceiling. Perhaps younwere not paying attention.