Looming "gov't shutdown" - so what is this

[Kid Cid]

Prior to the last two years you calling someone a partisan shill might have carried some weight, but you've shown your true colors. I've criticized the GOP where I think it has been warranted, but I won't criticize them for trying to cut spending which is exactly what most of them ran and beat the dems on.

Damnit perch, if they are going to cut spending then tackle the big issues: military, social security and medicaid. Instead they play political games trying to shave pennies off the budget by attacking NPR and Planned Parenthood. It's f'ing disgusting and even you should know that.

[westvirginia]

That should help an infantry PFC's wife buy groceries.

 

 

Oh I completely agree w/the sentiment. My point is that the political hacks will make out like bandits, as az illustrated. Their petty fiefdoms/bureaucracies will be unmolested. I think the reps/senators still get paid for God's sake - if that doesn't make you want to grab TimC's torch, I don't know what will.

 

But I heard Jamie DuPree saying yesterday (and this guy sometimes can't get out of his own way trying to be so even-handed and unbiased) that this looked like Harry Reid was using a 40-year old amendment of some kind to beat boner with, so I'm not sure the issue is as simple as the social zealots trying to enact policy.

[Perchoutofwater]

Damnit perch, if they are going to cut spending then tackle the big issues: military, social security and medicaid. Instead they play political games trying to shave pennies off the budget by attacking NPR and Planned Parenthood. It's f'ing disgusting and even you should know that.

 

I agree those issues should be tackled, and have said as much on many occasions. The problem is the GOP can't get the dems to go along with these little cuts, how successful do you think they are going to be with the major ones. I look at this as a good start, and a hell of a lot better than the alternative the other side is offering up. What is the other side offering up again?

[detlef]

I agree those issues should be tackled, and have said as much on many occasions. The problem is the GOP can't get the dems to go along with these little cuts, how successful do you think they are going to be with the major ones. I look at this as a good start, and a hell of a lot better than the alternative the other side is offering up. What is the other side offering up again?

So you're saying the GOP would love to cut defense spending but the Democrats won't let them?

[SEC=UGA]

Ya know what really pisses me off... The republicans try to get the one week extension of troops pay pushed through and just to be a bunch of grandstanding pricks they attach that BS rider onto the bill about not allowing tax dollars to go to abortion clinics in DC.... Now they are trying to paint anyone who didn't vote for this bill as being against the troops, which is an absolute disservice to the troops. Thes jack holes, the republicans, are now playing games with the financial lives of those that are putting their literal lives on the line and I find this to be inexcusably re-fu(king-diculous. The republicans just showed that they could give a sh!t less about the well being of our troops by putting in this asinine rider in this bill. I hope the get roundly criticized for it and have to walk away from the press conferences hanging their heads in shame that they tried to play political games with troop funding. Once again, the right has shown that the christian conservative movements whims override any other policy initiative that comes up. There is no place in todays politics, with the issues that we are facing, to try and inject such frivolity into a very real issues.

 

I sincerely hope that whoever's idea it was to attach that rider to the troop funding extension is drummed out of office in the next election cycle and that thousands of bees descend upon their genitals.

[Perchoutofwater]

So you're saying the GOP would love to cut defense spending but the Democrats won't let them?

 

I'm saying there are a good number of conservatives myself included that would like to see significant cuts in defense spending. I do not think the majority of the GOP wants that, but a large enough number of them do that if the dems would get off their hands and actually come to the table they could get it done.

[Yukon Cornelius]

Ya know what really pisses me off... The republicans try to get the one week extension of troops pay pushed through and just to be a bunch of grandstanding pricks they attach that BS rider onto the bill about not allowing tax dollars to go to abortion clinics in DC.... Now they are trying to paint anyone who didn't vote for this bill as being against the troops, which is an absolute disservice to the troops. Thes jack holes, the republicans, are now playing games with the financial lives of those that are putting their literal lives on the line and I find this to be inexcusably re-fu(king-diculous. The republicans just showed that they could give a sh!t less about the well being of our troops by putting in this asinine rider in this bill. I hope the get roundly criticized for it and have to walk away from the press conferences hanging their heads in shame that they tried to play political games with troop funding. Once again, the right has shown that the christian conservative movements whims override any other policy initiative that comes up. There is no place in todays politics, with the issues that we are facing, to try and inject such frivolity into a very real issues.

 

I sincerely hope that whoever's idea it was to attach that rider to the troop funding extension is drummed out of office in the next election cycle and that thousands of bees descend upon their genitals.

U taint so bad for a mooslim

[WaterMan]

Ya know what really pisses me off... The republicans try to get the one week extension of troops pay pushed through and just to be a bunch of grandstanding pricks they attach that BS rider onto the bill about not allowing tax dollars to go to abortion clinics in DC.... Now they are trying to paint anyone who didn't vote for this bill as being against the troops, which is an absolute disservice to the troops. Thes jack holes, the republicans, are now playing games with the financial lives of those that are putting their literal lives on the line and I find this to be inexcusably re-fu(king-diculous. The republicans just showed that they could give a sh!t less about the well being of our troops by putting in this asinine rider in this bill. I hope the get roundly criticized for it and have to walk away from the press conferences hanging their heads in shame that they tried to play political games with troop funding. Once again, the right has shown that the christian conservative movements whims override any other policy initiative that comes up. There is no place in todays politics, with the issues that we are facing, to try and inject such frivolity into a very real issues.

 

I sincerely hope that whoever's idea it was to attach that rider to the troop funding extension is drummed out of office in the next election cycle and that thousands of bees descend upon their genitals.

 

It's sad and I agree. Everyone in Congress needs to be shown the door.

[detlef]

I'm saying there are a good number of conservatives myself included that would like to see significant cuts in defense spending. I do not think the majority of the GOP wants that, but a large enough number of them do that if the dems would get off their hands and actually come to the table they could get it done.

Think about it like this. Say you and your wife are hashing out your finances. She's spending $1000 a month at day spas and the like, you're spending $100 a year on Fantasy Football leagues that both you and her know you have no chance of winning because you never do.

 

So, you start in with, "Honey, what say we cut that day spa habit of yours in half."

 

"OK, then quit Fantasy. I give up something, you give up something."

 

"Um, but I'm spending $8 a month on it. We could cut your day spa gig in half and you're still at $500."

 

"So basically, you want me to slash my day spa trips in half and you're not even willing to budge on Fantasy Football? Call me when you're ready to actually discuss this in earnest."

Edited April 8, 2011 by detlef

[Perchoutofwater]

Think about it like this. Say you and your wife are hashing out your finances. She's spending $1000 a month at day spas and the like, you're spending $100 a year on Fantasy Football leagues that both you and her know you have no chance of winning because you never do.

 

So, you start in with, "Honey, what say we cut that day spa habit of yours in half."

 

"OK, then quit Fantasy. I give up something, you give up something."

 

"Um, but I'm spending $8 a month on it. We could cut your day spa gig in half and you're still at $500."

 

"So basically, you want me to slash my day spa trips in half and you're not even willing to budge on Fantasy Football? Call me when you're ready to actually discuss this in earnest."

 

Well if defense wasn't a necessity, but a frivolity like going to the day spa you might have a point. Now I agree we do not need nearly as much spent on it as we currently are spending, but what you are talking about is cutting back on a necessity vs cutting back on frivolous items like government paid for abortions and other non-essential functions. Again I'd say if the dems would actually come to the table defense could probably be pared back, but as long as they are sitting on their hands doing nothing buy complaining there are not enough votes to cut defense spending.

[SEC=UGA]

Well if defense wasn't a necessity, but a frivolity like going to the day spa you might have a point. Now I agree we do not need nearly as much spent on it as we currently are spending, but what you are talking about is cutting back on a necessity vs cutting back on frivolous items like government paid for abortions and other non-essential functions. Again I'd say if the dems would actually come to the table defense could probably be pared back, but as long as they are sitting on their hands doing nothing buy complaining there are not enough votes to cut defense spending.

 

[grinding axe] I'm not really in favor of the federal/state government providing funding for abortions, but it is for different ideological reasons than the anti-abortion crowd. It is a real conundrum to me, however. If you don't subsidize some abortions, many teenagers and poor will give birth to unwanted children. Children that they have neither the money nor the constitution to raise properly. Then what do you have, you are creating a permanent underclass, a group of people bereft of discipline, education and in many cases a moral bearing.

 

I'm not saying all of the children from these people will turnout badly, but I would be willing to wager that a good majority of them would. You then have the burden of taking care of these children from the time they are birthed through adulthood, whether it be through higher incarceration rates, a larger demand on social services, a larger demand on the welfare state, etc...

 

You really have to decide, is the short term, the final solution, of subsidizing abortions the more economically viable solution or is supporting these people throughout the bulk of their life the more economically viable solution. The problem with many of the anti-abortion crowd is that they want toban abortion but don't want to pay taxes or spend the monies privately to properly care for these unwanted children who will be neglected. [grinding axe/]

[Azazello1313]

there HAVE been defense cuts in the continuing resolutions to this point, so it's inaccurate to assert that the military has been off the table.

 

at some point, congress will have to get around to talking about a REAL budget, rather than these little CR's to keep the doors open a couple more weeks. if they're using each one of these CR's to lop off 20 billion here, 30 billion there...they're not going to solve the nation's long term fiscal woes by themselves, but hey, I say more power to them.

 

remember in 2009, when the obama administration came out trumpeting cuts of $100 million in costs? I see it as a good sign that in two years we've gone from talking about a hundred million to tens of billions...even if we've got to be talking about trillions before we're ever going to actually get a handle on this.

[bpwallace49]

Ya know what really pisses me off... The republicans try to get the one week extension of troops pay pushed through and just to be a bunch of grandstanding pricks they attach that BS rider onto the bill about not allowing tax dollars to go to abortion clinics in DC.... Now they are trying to paint anyone who didn't vote for this bill as being against the troops, which is an absolute disservice to the troops. Thes jack holes, the republicans, are now playing games with the financial lives of those that are putting their literal lives on the line and I find this to be inexcusably re-fu(king-diculous. The republicans just showed that they could give a sh!t less about the well being of our troops by putting in this asinine rider in this bill. I hope the get roundly criticized for it and have to walk away from the press conferences hanging their heads in shame that they tried to play political games with troop funding. Once again, the right has shown that the christian conservative movements whims override any other policy initiative that comes up. There is no place in todays politics, with the issues that we are facing, to try and inject such frivolity into a very real issues.

 

I sincerely hope that whoever's idea it was to attach that rider to the troop funding extension is drummed out of office in the next election cycle and that thousands of bees descend upon their genitals.

 

Very well said. It is the politics of sound bites and mollifying the base.

 

Like if you didnt think invading Iraq was such a hot idea you were labeled as a traitor for "not supporting our troops".

 

Pull the stupid rider already and fund the troops. You have the votes to pass an anti abortion funding bill all by itself.

[detlef]

Well if defense wasn't a necessity, but a frivolity like going to the day spa you might have a point. Now I agree we do not need nearly as much spent on it as we currently are spending, but what you are talking about is cutting back on a necessity vs cutting back on frivolous items like government paid for abortions and other non-essential functions. Again I'd say if the dems would actually come to the table defense could probably be pared back, but as long as they are sitting on their hands doing nothing buy complaining there are not enough votes to cut defense spending.

So, you focus on the fact that I'm supposedly comparing defense spending to going to the day spa but somehow missed that, if that's truly the case, then I was also comparing many essential and far less expensive left-leaning programs to Fantasy Football. Like usual, you mine from a post what most easily fits into your argument.

 

The simple fact is that I specifically made a point of choosing two things a couple might argue about, neither of which is certainly and undeniably more important than the other so the focus would be on the relative impact on the budget.

 

OK, how 'bout this one.

 

Now you and your wife are arguing about how to make ends meet. You spend $10,000 a month on a fence and security system to protect the family that requires special threaded nails that cost $100 each to assemble. Further, your security system requires you paying to arm everyone in your neighborhood and unilaterally bankroll occasional trips into the bad parts of town to take out gang bangers, thus "taking the war to them so they don't bring it to you". Meanwhile, she's wasting $500 a month on food for your family. Someone's got to give because there's not enough to cover both. She asks you if you can figure out some way to protect the family for only $5000 a month, you counter with telling her that, unless she's ready to cut the food budget in half as well, you've got nothing to talk about.

 

Work any better for you?

Edited April 8, 2011 by detlef

[gbpfan1231]

How about everyone agrees on the 60 or so billion the repubs are talking about and then we kick in an ADDITIONAL 10-20 billion that comes out of defense.

 

That all works for me.

Edited April 8, 2011 by gbpfan1231

[Ursa Majoris]

government paid for abortions

It is flat out untrue that the Federal government funds abortions.

[Ursa Majoris]

there HAVE been defense cuts in the continuing resolutions to this point, so it's inaccurate to assert that the military has been off the table.

True. $3 billion in already agreed cuts.

 

Here's a quote from a Republican strategist:

 

"Voters will not understand why Congress couldn't come to an agreement," says Mark McKinnon, a former adviser to President George W. Bush. "Democrats will exploit that for political advantage. The Republicans have gotten more than half of what they asked for. Best strategy would be to declare victory."

[detlef]

True. $3 billion in already agreed cuts.

 

Here's a quote from a Republican strategist:

Another good quote from that article that sort of echos what SEC brought up...

 

Democrats, Reid argued, have already agreed to more cuts than the $34 billion first proposed in the House. Senate Democrats upped their offer yesterday to $34.5 billion - more than half of the $61 billion House Republicans ultimately demanded - including $3 billion in Pentagon cuts approved by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and tacked on yesterday. "They're not taking yes for an answer on these spending cuts," said a Senate Democratic aide. "Now they're digging in their heels on these extreme riders. If they shut down the government over this, it will be viewed as overreach."

 

The sticking point is not really about funding the government anymore. The original bill passed by the House came with hundreds of controversial riders attached to it. Boehner is pushing for riders in three specific areas: on abortion, particularly efforts to defund Planned Parenthood (though it should be noted that the group does not use federal money to fund abortions); efforts to defund the Environmental Protection Agency's greenhouse-gas, mountaintop-mining and Chesapeake Bay regulations; and amendments to block implementation of health care reform. Democrats have drawn the line at any rider that wouldn't garner enough votes to pass the Senate as a standalone bill, which rules out almost all of the dozen riders Boehner is seeking.

[Ursa Majoris]

Another good quote from that article that sort of echos what SEC brought up...

Exactly. The Republicans are expecting Obama to gut his own health care reform.

[Brent]

I got 5 ideas that will turn this economy around, and fix this country. sure there are even more that needs to be done, but these 5 will put us on the right track.

 

 

1. Get Lobbyist out of Washington. Make them illegal like prostitution. Convictions are felonies for first offense.

 

2. Eliminate riders on bills completely. No more free anything, check and balance everywhere. If Washington shuts down, Congress and the Prez are hit 3 months before anyone else. You think they will get something done then. Hell yea they would.

 

3. Stop all new citizenship, we cant pay for the people we have here now. If you are illegal and you give birth to a child here, they are not citizens either, we deport you and your child back to where you came from. If you get caught here illegally, we deport you imediately and we seize your belongings and sell them at govt auctions to help pay for more border patrol. You think if illegals knew they would lose everything they had here, their vehicles clothes, and anything else, and get deported immediately, they would still be here. We also need to reward whistle blowers here as well, and punish people who hire them, for anything. and I mean anything. If you pay an illegal to mow your grass, you are fined $1000 each offense. They must have papers before you hire them. And no more DL to illegals either. If you are caught here a 2nd time, we put you on the chain gang for 3 years, and instead of pounding rocks, you use your skills here for free. You mow yards for a living, illegally. Now you will be in prision each night and we will send you to mow yards and the prision system collects the money, to actually pay for your time in our corrections facilities, instead of tax payers picking up the bill. we catch you a 3rd time, its 10 years or until we feel you are no longer useful then we deport you immediately. This way we have the funds to build more prisions, hell we will use you for free labor for that too.

 

 

4. End corporation outsourcing. Make the cost of outsourcing so high, that if you lay off a person in the US for a job somewhere outside the border, not only do you pay a full 2 years salary for them, you are responsible to make unemployment checks to them after those 2 years, or you hire them back for the same salary they left at. No more Cobra, no more unemployment from the govt, the private sector pays this for outsourcing, if you have outsourced a single job in the last 24 months.

 

5. Actually punish those responsible for corporate crimes. Not just the Madoffs of the world, but everyone caught doing anything like what we had with the housing industry, banking industry, and the accounting tricks of the telecoms. Its a joke how many people lost their savings to these crooks and many of them didnt lose anything. First offense are 20 years to life and we seize your assets and send those funds to the victims.

 

 

 

Its time to have a backbone again in this country. We did the right thing with Plaxico, he broke the law, he did the time. We need to do this for everyone, including govt and CEO's if they are caught breaking the law. And when we seize their assets, we use that to pay for their time. Its time to get serious about fixing this country, and not leave a mess for our kids and grand kids.

Edited April 8, 2011 by Brent

[Perchoutofwater]

So, you focus on the fact that I'm supposedly comparing defense spending to going to the day spa but somehow missed that, if that's truly the case, then I was also comparing many essential and far less expensive left-leaning programs to Fantasy Football. Like usual, you mine from a post what most easily fits into your argument.

 

The simple fact is that I specifically made a point of choosing two things a couple might argue about, neither of which is certainly and undeniably more important than the other so the focus would be on the relative impact on the budget.

 

OK, how 'bout this one.

 

Now you and your wife are arguing about how to make ends meet. You spend $10,000 a month on a fence and security system to protect the family that requires special threaded nails that cost $100 each to assemble. Further, your security system requires you paying to arm everyone in your neighborhood and unilaterally bankroll occasional trips into the bad parts of town to take out gang bangers, thus "taking the war to them so they don't bring it to you". Meanwhile, she's wasting $500 a month on food for your family. Someone's got to give because there's not enough to cover both. She asks you if you can figure out some way to protect the family for only $5000 a month, you counter with telling her that, unless she's ready to cut the food budget in half as well, you've got nothing to talk about.

 

Work any better for you?

 

I think you are missing the point entirely. I want to cut military spending. If it were up to me we would have across the board cuts of 10% in every department, and get rid of about 20 departments entirely. I would completely cut off funding to many outside organizations such as planned parenthood, npr, etc...... , and I would streamline the tax code to a flat tax with the only deductions being gifts to charitable organizations. No more corporate welfare, no more subsidies to businesses, I'd also make people that are on welfare work for their welfare checks (unless they are mentally or physically disabled) at least 20 to 30 hours a week. They can clean trash on the side of the road, and maintain our parks.

[Square]

[grinding axe] I'm not really in favor of the federal/state government providing funding for abortions, but it is for different ideological reasons than the anti-abortion crowd. It is a real conundrum to me, however. If you don't subsidize some abortions, many teenagers and poor will give birth to unwanted children. Children that they have neither the money nor the constitution to raise properly. Then what do you have, you are creating a permanent underclass, a group of people bereft of discipline, education and in many cases a moral bearing.

The book Freakonomics has a good section on how legalizing abortion (and making it affordable to lower class citizens) has lead to the dramatic decrease in crime in the US. They believe it's one of the major reasons we are at historical lows for crime in the US.

[Ursa Majoris]

I think you are missing the point entirely. I want to cut military spending. If it were up to me we would have across the board cuts of 10% in every department, and get rid of about 20 departments entirely. I would completely cut off funding to many outside organizations such as planned parenthood, npr, etc...... , and I would streamline the tax code to a flat tax with the only deductions being gifts to charitable organizations. No more corporate welfare, no more subsidies to businesses, I'd also make people that are on welfare work for their welfare checks (unless they are mentally or physically disabled) at least 20 to 30 hours a week. They can clean trash on the side of the road, and maintain our parks.

Well, if we're going to have a wish list...........

 

I'd have a draft, no exceptions, so that when the warmongers rattle their sabers, everyone pays attention because then they'd mostly have skin in the game. Real skin. I'd also have an immediate automatic 5% tax increase on everyone and everything to pay for said war so it wouldn't get pushed off on the kids and their kids.

 

If war is worth fighting, it's worth everyone fighting..........and sacrificing and paying for.

[Perchoutofwater]

Well, if we're going to have a wish list...........

 

I'd have a draft, no exceptions, so that when the warmongers rattle their sabers, everyone pays attention because then they'd mostly have skin in the game. Real skin. I'd also have an immediate automatic 5% tax increase on everyone and everything to pay for said war so it wouldn't get pushed off on the kids and their kids.

 

If war is worth fighting, it's worth everyone fighting..........and sacrificing and paying for.

 

I'd actually agree with you on the tax as long as it was across the board on everyone over the poverty limit. I don't know that it needs to be 5%, it might need to be more or less. If the economy was in better shape right now, I'd be for an across the board tax increase even without the wars to pay down all this debt we've been accumulating. With regard to the draft, I'm not necessarily against it, if it is needed to maintain proper troop strength. It would have been a good idea a few years ago, though I'm not sure it's needed right now unless Obama has lied to us again and we start putting boots on the ground in Lybia.

[detlef]

I think you are missing the point entirely. I want to cut military spending. If it were up to me we would have across the board cuts of 10% in every department, and get rid of about 20 departments entirely. I would completely cut off funding to many outside organizations such as planned parenthood, npr, etc...... , and I would streamline the tax code to a flat tax with the only deductions being gifts to charitable organizations. No more corporate welfare, no more subsidies to businesses, I'd also make people that are on welfare work for their welfare checks (unless they are mentally or physically disabled) at least 20 to 30 hours a week. They can clean trash on the side of the road, and maintain our parks.

Then I'm not misreading you at all and my comparison is spot on. Just lopping a set percentage off the top without regard to what it's doing seems rather simplistic. Also, the fact that you keep bringing up "state funded abortions" makes it really hard to take anything you say seriously.

 

Not sure if you knew this, but Planned Parenthood does things besides give abortions, and certainly avoids far more unwanted pregnancies than the church does. This avoids the need for abortions as well as children being born into a welfare state. There's always the battle-cry about pushing off the debt into the next generations. Well, what about saving $5 today so that the next generation is saddled with another welfare recipient that costs them far more? Regardless of where one stands on the issue of abortion, trying deny groups like Planned Parenthood any money at all simply because they do preform what is currently a legal operation in this country is reckless and fiscally stupid. Because, they're a whole cheaper to pay for than the consequences of getting rid of them would.