US Government shutdown

Read the poll in this link, carefully:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... #printMode
It doesn't really address the issue you raise but gives some idea of how TEA Party members self identify.

I need to take you to meet some folk I had a discussion with outside of Smokey Mountains National Park. They were the ones that the media would give a huge amount of time to in their broadcast, not to the TEA Party's benefit.

Is there an Avowed TEA Party agenda? To my knowledge there isn't not really. Just a collection of somewhat like minded individuals. Who are anti-statists. Mostly.

Have fun,
T2M

PS The link came out of Kratskeller over on Baen's Bar and I have been toying with the idea of starting a new topic for it. Thanks for helping me make a decision.

namelessfly wrote: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.

I'm probably going out on a limb here, but can quote from my country's system.
Most of the Federal Government's expenditure is not optional. So much has been outsourced that a significant percentage is done by outside contractors under contract which must be paid.
Regarding the public/civil servants roles there is a misconception that most are pen pushers whose contribution would not be missed. Federal Police (FBI equiv), Customs, Air Traffic Controllers, those administering the welfare/health/education systems, and enough more to fill pages are absolutely essential to keep on the job.
In 1975 the conservative opposition managed to block supply in our Senate, which led to the government collapsing, and a new election being called. The Murdock press did such a number on the past government that those who caused the crisis ended up getting elected. History has not been kind to them, and all sides have pledged to never repeat such an act of bast**dry.
So I'm not sure about the US but expect that the government would have been unable to pay everything that they were legally obliged to pay. You obviously have a different opinion of Palin and her financial expertise than I do.

namelessfly wrote: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.

at least it was sorted quickly though, so it didn't do as much damage as it could have.

Daryl wrote:I'm probably going out on a limb here, but can quote from my country's system. and as the online jok goes: Australia went into shutdown once. ONCE......
Most of the Federal Government's expenditure is not optional. So much has been outsourced that a significant percentage is done by outside contractors under contract which must be paid.
Regarding the public/civil servants roles there is a misconception that most are pen pushers whose contribution would not be missed. Federal Police (FBI equiv), Customs, Air Traffic Controllers, those administering the welfare/health/education systems, and enough more to fill pages are absolutely essential to keep on the job.
In 1975 the conservative opposition managed to block supply in our Senate, which led to the government collapsing, and a new election being called. The Murdock press did such a number on the past government that those who caused the crisis ended up getting elected. History has not been kind to them, and all sides have pledged to never repeat such an act of bast**dry.
So I'm not sure about the US but expect that the government would have been unable to pay everything that they were legally obliged to pay. You obviously have a different opinion of Palin and her financial expertise than I do.

namelessfly wrote: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.

Then you aren't looking at the budgets being proposed.

One believes in balanced budgets and getting out of debt and one doesn't.

If you are going to use spending/taxes as a metric.

What to spend it on varies greatly, even inside each party.

But to use an old Popeye saying from wimpy "I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today." Which is how a lot of the American Public lives their lives. How well did that work out for Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Iceland and Spain?

People say that America isn't divided. The following graphic would say otherwise:

http://i1131.photobucket.com/albums/m54 ... 885a7f.png

Remember that there was only a few hundred thousand vote difference in the "party" votes cast in 2012 for the House of Representatives. So Gerrymandering doesn't even enter into it.

T2M

Donnachaidh wrote: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.

I probably have a different opinion of Governor Palin's financial expertise than you do because I am actually aware of her record, particularly as Governor. Palin forced Exxon to finally pay the Billions that the courts had awarded in the Exxon Valdez disaster. She also restructured Alaska's system of taxes and royalties on petroleum production to not only generate more revenue but encourage new exploration to reverse the gradual decline in production. Palin also aggressively enforced provisions of oil leases that obligated oil companies to actually develop potential reserves rather than just monopolize them as had been normal. Palin was kicking BP's ass long before the Obama administration was approving the well drilling plan for the Macondo well that seemed to be intentionally designed to fail.

You are correct that not all government expenditure is optional. Servicing the debt is mandatory. Paying Social Security benefits based on contributions is also an obligation. Government contracts with private corporations require the government to pay, but many include clauses that allow the government to cancel the contracts.

I actually believe that we can't safely wind down the government spending spree by simply refusing to barrow any more money indefinitely. However; a few weeks or months of forcing the Federal government to prioritize spending would be educational.

Would people please stop the crap about the US should become like most civilized countries that have higher taxes. The Europeans are beginning to understand that they need to be less European. Even Sweden has been reducing tax rates. Comparing Federal tax rates in the US to other countries is inaccurate because we have a higher, relative percentage of State, County, City and other local taxes.

Daryl wrote:I'm probably going out on a limb here, but can quote from my country's system.
Most of the Federal Government's expenditure is not optional. So much has been outsourced that a significant percentage is done by outside contractors under contract which must be paid.
Regarding the public/civil servants roles there is a misconception that most are pen pushers whose contribution would not be missed. Federal Police (FBI equiv), Customs, Air Traffic Controllers, those administering the welfare/health/education systems, and enough more to fill pages are absolutely essential to keep on the job.
In 1975 the conservative opposition managed to block supply in our Senate, which led to the government collapsing, and a new election being called. The Murdock press did such a number on the past government that those who caused the crisis ended up getting elected. History has not been kind to them, and all sides have pledged to never repeat such an act of bast**dry.
So I'm not sure about the US but expect that the government would have been unable to pay everything that they were legally obliged to pay. You obviously have a different opinion of Palin and her financial expertise than I do.

namelessfly wrote: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.

Thanks for a well thought out response Fly. I admit to being a bit provocative in mentioning Palin as I do like a robust discussion.
I fully agree that the US must learn to live within its means, and that if it doesn't I hope I'll read the entrails correctly and take my portfolio out of shares etc just before the crash, to invest in gold & more assault rifles.
I concede your point about Europe as well, as some of the bloc is well run and some less so. The Scandinavian countries and Germany seem OK, and the UK is tolerable. In our case the taxes levied by Federal, State and Local governments are also complex. We have many inefficiencies and duplications, but overall seem to have approximately nailed it.
Important building blocks seem to be a free press, no tolerance for official corruption, an educated populace, and a secular state. Having all adults involved (male and female) in the productive economy helps as well.
As to whether a country is civilised, all is in the eye of the beholder. I personally prefer a society that has universal health care, a comprehensive welfare net, small prison population, no death penalty, and religion kept out of politics. For this I'm prepared to pay more tax than I'd like. Feel free to differ and to live accordingly.

To illustrate Namelessfly's point.

Edit: For 2012
Total Government Revenue
in the United States
Federal, State, and Local
Total Direct Revenue $5.1 trillion
Total Direct Revenue 35% GDP
Total Direct Revenue $18,382 / person
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/percent_gdp
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/per_capita

Total 2012 Government Spending
Total Spending $6.2 trillion
Guesstimate

Federal Deficit for 2012
FY 2012: $1,087 billion
http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/us_deficit

Virtually all the debt is at the Federal Government level. (Edit)But about half the revenue.(edit)

Would love to see other countries numbers but every time I go looking, the data is very hard to find.

A lot of which is caused by my lack of understanding of the definitions. Like what constitutes a still born when calculating life expectancy.

People may be people but what they expect out of a government is NOT the same.

Have fun,
T2M

Governor Palin is not stupid. You don't accomplish what she has in life by being stupid. However she is really terrible at giving extemporaneous interviews (I've seen her several times and she is uniformly awful even on Fox) and as a result she does give that perception. She is hated by the media for her views. With the sole exception of Fox, they are liberal and they hate conservative idealists. So they are more than happy to showcase her poor interview talents and characterize them as stupidity. They've done the same in the past several times with people they dislike.

I'll disagree with Namelessfly that she would be a great president. She's a genuine idealist and not very good at playing the backroom games so popular in DC. I think she would have many of the same problems governing as Obama is currently having, as he has exhibited the same trait. And I think he is a very poor president, not just because I disagree with his views but primarily because he is not good at working with the opposition, compromising etc. Yes I know he was just re-elected but the independents who decide the elections weren't voting for him, they were voting against Romney.

Well, I would suggest that she would do better as she actually goverened a state. Obama did nothing prior to being elected to nation wide office but work at organizing a voting block in Chicago. That's pretty much what he is doing now, but for the entire US electorate.

I would trust Mrs. Palin and all her well documented flaws over Barak "Post America" Obama any day of the week and 3 times on Sundays.

biochem wrote:Governor Palin is not stupid. You don't accomplish what she has in life by being stupid. However she is really terrible at giving extemporaneous interviews (I've seen her several times and she is uniformly awful even on Fox) and as a result she does give that perception. She is hated by the media for her views. With the sole exception of Fox, they are liberal and they hate conservative idealists. So they are more than happy to showcase her poor interview talents and characterize them as stupidity. They've done the same in the past several times with people they dislike.

I'll disagree with Namelessfly that she would be a great president. She's a genuine idealist and not very good at playing the backroom games so popular in DC. I think she would have many of the same problems governing as Obama is currently having, as he has exhibited the same trait. And I think he is a very poor president, not just because I disagree with his views but primarily because he is not good at working with the opposition, compromising etc. Yes I know he was just re-elected but the independents who decide the elections weren't voting for him, they were voting against Romney.

You're right, I'm not using proposed budgets, I'm using what they actually have done in the past. When you look at that neither party is using balanced budgets nor are they getting out of debt.

Do some members believe in that? Absolutely, and many of them are fighting for it. But what's actually happened isn't that.

I'm not defending the spending priorities of Democrats, they get things incredibly wrong financially. But the fact is I have a bigger problem with the social policies that the Republican party espouses than I do with the moronic financial policies of the Democratic party.

thinkstoomuch wrote:Then you aren't looking at the budgets being proposed.

One believes in balanced budgets and getting out of debt and one doesn't.

If you are going to use spending/taxes as a metric.

What to spend it on varies greatly, even inside each party.

But to use an old Popeye saying from wimpy "I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today." Which is how a lot of the American Public lives their lives. How well did that work out for Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Iceland and Spain?

People say that America isn't divided. The following graphic would say otherwise:

http://i1131.photobucket.com/albums/m54 ... 885a7f.png

Remember that there was only a few hundred thousand vote difference in the "party" votes cast in 2012 for the House of Representatives. So Gerrymandering doesn't even enter into it.

T2M

Donnachaidh wrote: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.