Obama compares Congress to pre-pubescent schoolgirls

[Spidey]

From what I understand…everything lags a few years when it comes to the economy and government policy…so NAFTA and GATT may well be responsible for the job loss during Bush.

And guess who could be responsible for the economy during Clinton.

EDIT...I placed this here because the topic had moved on.
.....................................

um, a quick check of commonly available data shows that we went through two postwar recessions. Sometimes memory is a tricky thing. Government policy, sensible tax laws and a public willing to embrace both education and personal sacrifice fed the dynamism.

Doh…of course, any economy can have recessions.

That answer is way to simple. The post war economy was different in to many ways to list here, so I will just mention some of the obvious, just so you understand I don’t buy your argument.

1. The debt/deficits had fewer zeros. (adjusted)
2. Much more of the debt was owned by Americans.
3. Energy was cheap and plentiful.
4. There were more workers for every retired person.
Example…

In 1945 there were 45 to 1
By 1960 that number had dropped to 5
We are now at under 3 to 1
The number started at 160+ to 1

5. Most of the manufacturing was here because of the war destroying most of it in Europe and elsewhere.
6. Cost of living...etc...etc...

Don’t misunderstand me…government can have an affect on the economy, good or bad, but is not in control of the basic fundamentals. Therefore your direct analogy cannot apply.

[Will Robinson]

Obama said: "The problem is we cut taxes without paying for them. We instituted prescription drug program without paying for it, we started two wars without paying for them."

which is true but what he left out was:

"And I knew all that before I got the job as well as knowing the economy/housing market was going from bad to worse yet, in spite of all that, I helped pass a healthcare bill that is enormous and unfunded. In fact it is totally unsustainable even with my own fabricated unrealistic projections! Heh! No wait...it gets better! Then I doubled up on the stimulus handouts to banker friends and union contributors that didn't do squat to stimulate anything except their own personal finances...well that and lots of votes for my Party.... Hehe!

And now I'm going to let the ★■◆● hit the fan and all my dumbass lefty voters will slurp my Kool-Aid and join me in blaming the republicans instead of recognize my major role in the totally reckless destruction of your livelihoods!
Hehe, it's good to be King"

[CUDA]

and in the True Democratic Mantra of "Never let a good crisis go to waste"

I'm glad our President feels he needs to use fear tactics and bald faced lies to keep his spending orgy going. not that it's done anyone but the rich and the Unions any good so far.

Here's a look at seven myths that the Obama administration is pushing on the American people:

1) Not increasing the debt ceiling means the U.S. government will default on its debt. This is probably the biggest lie that almost all other claims arise from. Default occurs if the government stops paying interest on the money that it owes. Not increasing the debt ceiling only means that the government can't borrow more money and that spending is limited to the revenue the government brings in. And, with interest payments on the debt making up less than a ninth of revenue, there is no reason for any risk of insolvency.

Time after time, congress and the president have failed to agree on a debt ceiling increase and still there has been no default. Examples include: December 1973, March 1979, November 1983, December 1985, August 1987, November 1995, December 1995 to January 1996, and September 2007.

Indeed, this really shouldn't even be a point of debate. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution requires that the debt payments come first before any other spending.

2) Until the debt ceiling is raised, uncertainty over the payment of U.S. debts will create chaos in financial markets. Given that the Constitution mandates U.S. debts be paid before any other spending and that sufficient money will be available to cover our interest payments, the only uncertainty arises from Obama's actions. Will he try not to pay the interest? Even a delay of a day in paying this interest will create a default. Court action could eventually force Obama to follow the Constitution but a default would have already occurred. But there is a simple way to end this uncertainty: have the president declare now that he will indeed follow the Constitution and make those payments.

Failure to increase the debt ceiling clearly doesn't mean default. During one three week period at the end of 1996 and the beginning of 1996, some of the government shutdown when a similar battle over the debt ceiling occurred, but there was no default. President Clinton used the revenues that were coming in to pay the interest on the debt.

3) Obama doesn't know if there is money to send off Social Security checks on August 3. The president knows very well how much revenue will be available to send out checks on August 3. Indeed, enough money will be available to not only pay the interest, but to also cover all Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and children's health insurance, defense, federal law enforcement and immigration, all veterans benefits, Response to natural disasters. Terrifying elderly people who are dependent on their Social Security checks may make good politics, but it is unconscionable. Yet, these scare tactics aren't really very surprising. The Democrats behaved no differently when they ran television ads bizarrely depicting Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) as pushing an old lady in a wheel chair off a cliff.

4) Mortgage interest rates will rise dramatically if the debt ceiling isn't increased. Not true. Indeed, the opposite is more likely, for not raising the debt ceiling stops the government borrowing more money. Less borrowing by the government could lower mortgage rates as there would be more lending available for potential homeowners. The interest rate paid by the government might go down for a second reason. Just as banks charge individuals a lower interest rate for those who have less debt compared to their incomes, the same is true for governments.

5) Time is Running Out on Debt Deal, and it must be done immediately. Despite Obama’s insistence that a deal be completed by July 15 and Geithner’s claim that a deal had to be reached by July 22, as already noted, there have been many times over the last few decades where negotiations have extended past when the debt limit has been reached. The longest delay lasted three weeks. Besides claiming that there will be a default, no explanation has been offered for why the debate is any different this time.

Possibly all these claims of urgency are part of some grand strategy to scare people, but that strategy depends on voters not knowing what is necessary for a default to occur.

6) If government spending is cut, there will be a depression. Obama promised that a "temporary" increase in government spending would "stimulate" the economy, but he is now telling us that we can't cut that "temporary" increase -- that we are stuck with it.

If Obama's program -- including a 28 percent spending hike since 2008 and more than $4 trillion in deficits -- worked so well, why has our unemployment rate risen more than elsewhere? The European Union, Canada, South America, Japan, and Australia have all had smaller increases in unemployment compared to the U.S. after Obama's "stimulus." We have also had these shutdowns before and the numbers don’t show any negative impact on unemployment or GDP. Figures for the longest shutdowns during the fourth quarter of 1995 and the first quarter of 1996 are available here.

7) The value of the dollar will plummet. Again, the supposed collapse occurs when we default. But there won't be any default. In addition, less government borrowing means lower future taxes, thus making the U.S. a more attractive place to invest. More foreign investment will actually cause the dollar to rise.

It is time for President Obama and his administration to stop scaring people. Cutting government spending back to its 2007 level won't be the end of the world. After all, during the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama himself repeatedly promised “a net spending cut."

[flip]

See, all that's true but it still doesn't address the root problem. Doesn't even mention what the motives could be. It just simply says "those are lies". Why have they all decided to lie? That's left up to the imagination. I'm convinced anyone on this board could write a better piece of journalism, a clearer piece of journalism steeped in truth, than I see from this.

EDIT: I also think pointed letters sent to local congressmen could possibly send a clear message. Considering most are pussies and probably would need a lot of encouragement to stand their 'own' ground. You ever see how a henchmen is treated in the movies

EDIT: I'd be interested in collaborating on a common letter we could all send if anyone else is.

[Will Robinson]

...
EDIT: I'd be interested in collaborating on a common letter we could all send if anyone else is.

If you really want to get something fixed let's don't send a letter, let's send the group pink slip this election instead.
"You are fired, clean out your desk and leave the keys, don't let the door catch you on the ass on the way out."

[flip]

I don't have much optimism after watching everybody vote in "Hope and Change." I'll be honest with you. Nothing is gonna change, I'm well aware of that. I just think it's funny as hell I can say we have a puppet government run by corporations and nobody denies it. Nothing about that sounds good to me. I wish like hell I could convince everyone to vote for a flat tax and stiff anti-trust laws. These huge monopolies should have never been allowed in a country that's foundations were all set with the individual in mind. Maybe it's just natural evolution of society, I dunno. But I think if things keep going the way they are, broke with no real intent to fix it, everybody's gonna get pissed. When you use words like inevitable and nobody opposes it , then I wonder why others are not as alarmed as me. I'm used to living where I was called a free man and an employer. I've been waiting for several years now and that dream keeps getting further and further from sight and Slick keeps telling me they don't give a ★■◆● about me. We been left in the dust and most the dumbass population isn't even discussing it.

[callmeslick]

Small point of curiosity... what gives them the farmland?

currency, viable currency.

[callmeslick]

CUDA,
that list of 'facts' is so wrong, in so many places, that I simply don't have the time to go through them.
One I will address is that we 'technically' won't default on debt. Yes, we will, when the first large bond
issue is due for redemption. That will be in mid-August sometime. We simply will not have the income to
cover the amount due on that date. Default, pure and simple, unless we can raise enough through the sale
of short term notes to cover(which, I suppose means raising debt ceiling at the last minute to do so), and the interest on those might be frightful.

back to packing for Saratoga. Jump races tomorrow, opening day for the flats this coming week. w00t!

[Spidey]

That’s not what I heard on The News Hour the other day…in fact the government does have the capital to pay the interest on all of its dept, it just won’t be able to pay for everything else. Choices must be made.

The Chinese don’t like that idea tho…

I happen to trust the News Hour…

[CUDA]

bull★■◆●. you only default if you do not make the payment. and you know it.

Yes, we will, when the first large bond issue is due for redemption

we have the money AND the ability to make those payments.and you know that too.
and if for some reason we are short then you do what any responsible adult would do. you cut something that is not as important and you make your payments. of course that would require having responsible adults in congress. not the spending whores that are there now.

just because you max out your credit cards doesn't mean you default on your payments. it just means that you CANNOT borrow any more money. it forces you to cut and spend only what you have.

the Government needs to be responsible like MOST Americans and live with-in their means. will it hurt people if we make cuts? SURE, but either way we'll be screwed. because someday we'll be forced to make those cuts and the stakes will be MUCH higher, and MUCH more painful. but those with their hands out don't want to lose the sugar daddy that they have providing for their wants and those pandering to them wish to stay in power more than to do the responsible thing for this nation.

Time after time, congress and the president have failed to agree on a debt ceiling increase and still there has been no default. Examples include: December 1973, March 1979, November 1983, December 1985, August 1987, November 1995, December 1995 to January 1996, and September 2007.

those are the FACTS. it has happened in the past and there was never a default. what reaching the debt ceiling does is force the government to make it's payments as required by the 14th Amendment.
which might require us to make spending cuts to do so, but it will not default us

here ya go some Debt Limit 101 for you since you apparently don't understand what the Debt Ceiling is

What is the debt limit?

The debt limit is a cap that Congress sets on the total amount of money the federal government can borrow. The first debt limit was set in 1917 when Treasury, on behalf of the federal government, was borrowing to finance the First World War. Up until this time, Treasury had to obtain the permission of Congress each time it wanted to issue different types of debt instruments. The 1917 legislation gave the department greater discretion to issue bonds on behalf of the federal government without needing to obtain the permission of Congress each time it chose to do so.

But to maintain some degree of oversight, Congress placed limits on the total amount the Treasury could borrow without requiring additional authorization from Congress. This debt limit exists to this day.

So what will happen if we don’t raise the debt limit?

First, to maintain interest and principal payments on our debt in the absence of an increase to the debt limit would require drastic and immediate cuts in federal government spending that would hurt the U.S. economy and our country in general. To make sure we do not hit the debt limit, the federal government would need to cut a substantial amount from all spending. This could result in large job losses as public spending would fall sharply on everything from construction projects to social programs to government-sponsored research and development.

This would happen because government-funded programs would have to be cut dramatically, government-funded projects would halt mid-stream, and numerous other drastic cuts would lead to a swift reduction in overall economic activity. All of this would occur during a period in which unemployment remains at historically high levels.

Second, failure to raise the debt limit even if we continue making interest and principal payments on our debt could hurt confidence that investors have in the federal government. Investors might lose faith in the federal government’s ability to come together on other important issues, such as dealing with the deficit and charting a path to a balanced budget. This could lead to significantly higher interest rates, the cost of which would be borne by all taxpayers as well as businesses and consumers—all of whom would also face higher borrowing costs as confidence in the United States eroded.

you do not default on the debt. FACT, but the President and the Democrats choose the Lie to us by saying we would. and THEY know it's a lie. and you know it's a lie. then they try to scare the nation into thinking they'll not get their checks, and whats makes it worse is that NOBODY in the media is calling them on it. flip is right Journalism is dead.
Would it effect our economy Yes. but either way this continued spending is a Disaster of IMMENSE proportions if not addressed and soon. as in the near future there will not be enough tax revenue in the entire country to sustain it.

[callmeslick]

That’s not what I heard on The News Hour the other day…in fact the government does have the capital to pay the interest on all of its dept, it just won’t be able to pay for everything else. Choices must be made.

The Chinese don’t like that idea tho…

I happen to trust the News Hour…

viewed over time, yes, but with no borrowing authority, the government has to go solely on incoming revenue, which is at a sort of lowish point on the annual cycle of such things. That, along with a major bond issue coming due too quickly, means that we can and actually will default. I suppose you could scrape the money together if you lose ALL spending, such as supporting all overseas troops, down to shipment of supplies or medical evacuations. "Choices have to be made"? No, this is merely a game designed to force the complete elimination of Social Security, Medicare, Medicade and food and housing subsidies for the poor. Which, coincidentally, has been the stated aim of the Koch Bros(financiers of the Tea Party coalition) for years. Is that the sort of nation you wish to stand for, and live in?

[callmeslick]

[Mod edit - Personal shots belong in the NHB, not Ethics & Commentary.] if you realize what you are suggesting. Which is, this form of 'belt tightening' will adversely affect those least able to cope with it. And yet, through all this belt tightening, I can still write off private jets, get generous subsidies for owning forest land in certain areas, making money through inheritance or collecting dividends and paying historically low taxes. It seems heartening that the nation is appearing to wake up, slowly, to what is being threatened. Essentially, this is becoming a fight for everything that made this a progressive(small p) society from the late 19th century to the present. Sad that some people would see that reality of the pre-Teddy Roosevelt era as desirable or a point of pride for America. Shame.

[CUDA]

[Removed by mod]

Poor and lame excuse for a political guilt trip, and making it a personal attack. you have no Idea how I contribute to those that have greater needs than me, so try harder next time. Besides I only go on Tirades when people Lie to me. stop lying to me and then I'll have no reason for a Tirade

if you realize what you are suggesting.

I know EXACTLY what I'm suggesting

Which is, this form of 'belt tightening' will adversely affect those least able to cope with it.

Maybe, Maybe Not. but your form of fiscal irresponsibility will Surely be MUCH more devastating and affect the poor of this nation MUCH harsher if it's allowed to continue.

And yet, through all this belt tightening, I can still write off private jets, get generous subsidies for owning forest land in certain areas, making money through inheritance or collecting dividends and paying historically low taxes.

Cmon slick if you going to try the Sympathy game at least get your facts right. we currently tax the top tier earners at about 35%. in 1988 we taxed them at 28%, in 1924 we taxed them at 24% and in 1912 we taxed them at 10%. and conversely in 1948 we taxed them at 94%. what gives ANYONE the right to tax someone 94% of their income?

It seems heartening that the nation is appearing to wake up, slowly, to what is being threatened.

I agree it's about time that people see that spending FAR beyond our means is as irresponsible as it could possibly get.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions

[Will Robinson]

That’s not what I heard on The News Hour the other day…in fact the government does have the capital to pay the interest on all of its dept, it just won’t be able to pay for everything else. Choices must be made.

The Chinese don’t like that idea tho…

I happen to trust the News Hour…

viewed over time, yes, but with no borrowing authority, the government has to go solely on incoming revenue, which is at a sort of lowish point on the annual cycle of such things. That, along with a major bond issue coming due too quickly, means that we can and actually will default. I suppose you could scrape the money together if you lose ALL spending, such as supporting all overseas troops, down to shipment of supplies or medical evacuations. "Choices have to be made"? No, this is merely a game designed to force the complete elimination of Social Security, Medicare, Medicade and food and housing subsidies for the poor. Which, coincidentally, has been the stated aim of the Koch Bros(financiers of the Tea Party coalition) for years. Is that the sort of nation you wish to stand for, and live in?

There are other choices to be made, why make it sound like the two extremes are the only options? Other than the fact that you are a party guy.
You need to stop trying to frame reality to match your party's talking points if you are going to have a real discussion.
How many billions do we take in per month? What is the total of the payment on the bond combined with the Social Security, Medicare, Medicade and food and housing subsidies for the poor? for that same period?
Is there enough? Yes.

Now, suppose the repubs decided, 'oh what the hell, lets let them raise taxes...those new revenues don't show up overnight do they?
So really we are going to be using the same money to pay those essential obligations in august regardless of the way the negotiations unfold.
The main thing in the short term that is at stake is do we authorize the printing of more money/issuing of more debt so we can show on paper how we would pay for it out into the future. And you think our continually writing ourselves further in the hole isn't just as bad for our credit standing as capping our spending and sucking it uup to pay the obligations and shut down a bunch of pork and not profitable bureaucratic nonsense?!? I don't see the difference.

But it's all for nothing, the repubs will cave.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Nicely put all around, Will.

If we the people could only have a clear enough picture of why the debt ceiling shouldn't be raised (I admit I don't, despite the fact that I'm opposed to it on principle), we could very well be e-mailing, calling, and writing those folks demanding that they not raise it. They wouldn't cave if they were either convinced it would cost them their position, or were convinced of why the debt ceiling should not be raised.

[Spidey]

Slick…let me make something perfectly clear…you have no idea what kind of country I wish to live in…so you can skip the melodramatics.

[callmeslick]

Slick…let me make something perfectly clear…you have no idea what kind of country I wish to live in…so you can skip the melodramatics.

spell it out for me, then. See below for details, and get creative as you wish. But first....

Some apologies due to CUDA, whom I respect greatly, for my harsh words.. I just don't see how you reconcile your faith, which you've always been upfront about, and, to my mind exhibiting the best traits of that faith, with a fiscal policy(knowingly curtailing the debt limit) that will:
1. Curtail benefits to seniors and disabled people (SS)
2. Throw millions out of work that depend on Medicare reimbursement and other government/private
cooperative programs.
3. Curtail medical benefits to the elderly, poor children and other disabled or indigent persons
4. very possibly cause grave danger to the troops overseas
5. All the while allowing the wealthy to grow richer without personal cost(oh, and that 35% tax rate is a joke.
I paid as little as 9% some years on a multi-six-figure gross. And, the 94% rate cited was only for income
OVER a certain point.....200k at the time, which would equate to like 3 million today).

OR(should we go the non-payment of debt route)--

eliminate the credit ratings of the US, likely for damn near ever, causing massive economic upheaval,
very high costs of credit, huge job losses and likely doom the chance of ever rebuilding the US economy.

Seriously, CUDA, how does this square with the concept of 'the least of these.....etc'? I don't get it.

Hell, people, this is the nation you live in. Spidey wants to play coy about it, but anyone can play.
What sort of nation do you wish to live in? I wonder if my first impressions were that wrong, and you all are simply idle millionaires with a penchant for old school PC games. A few questions from me, for any who wish to entertain them.....I am trying to word these as to not be invasive into stuff I really don't wish to know, nor divulge in detail on my end:

1. Do you have enough assets, at this moment, to feel extremely confident that you can provide for
the health and well being of your entire family for the next two generations?
2. Do you have sufficient non-employment income to, if needed, maintain your household in some fashion
which you all could tolerate, without employment income of any kind?
3. Are you secure that you could always find adequate employment to both survive, but to ensure the
retirement or disablement needs of your family?

If you answered 'NO' to one of the above, I would give REAL serious thought before I endorsed a government that eliminates the current social safety net, given the current world economy(and, NO, there is no way to put that genie back in the bottle, you and yours are going to live in a global economy from here on in, no matter what blather the Green Party generates about regional economics).
If, on the other hand, you answered 'NO' to all three, you have you head up your rear if you don't demand a reinstatement of Clinton tax rates, and demand that Defense be slashed 50% before anyone considers touching the social safety net.
Why? Because, it you get your head out of the sand and look around, it's not about generating class warfare. That has long been established. At this point, the US essentially has polarized, economically, to where there are the wealthy, and the poor. If you can answer yes to the first two questions above, congrats!
You are one of the wealthy, and you will be fine. As for the rest of you, whether you know it or not, you've been sliding into the abyss for decades, it's just that the really steep part might be coming up. You can either demand that the wealthy make amends for the fact that they've had it real good for a couple decades, or accept that your grandchildren will be slaves or peasants. Why folks rationalize reality that is so obvious and come up with alternate realities is beyond me. You are at a crucial point. It's a shame more folks don't see it.

[CUDA]

instead of going line by line, here's my summation. I don't think that spending Money is "necessarily" exercising your faith. and the Bible calls us to be good stewards of our money. those Government programs are poorly managed and fraught with waste, So I feel that they are unwise. not misguided. but unwise. and are being used as a Political tool to keep people in power, not for the benefit of the people.
I exercise my faith more by works, because the Bible tells me "faith without works is Dead" and the only way to explain that properly is to tell you some of what I've done personally.
there was a young couple that was brought into our lives several years ago. to call these two a mess would be a huge understatement. but because of circumstances (VERY long story) we ended up taking the wife and her two young children into our home for 6 months while I worked with Him to correct marital and financial issues, and my wife worked with her to do the same. we did this not asking for or expecting any compensation. we did it to reference the story of the good Samaritan "no matter the cost" I am not a rich man by any means. My wife is a stay at home and I make a whopping 62K last year. but I practice what I preach in my life. I will not question and Individual that gives money to a charity or another person. but the government doing it is just pandering

EDIT:
if people actually invested themselves in caring for others, instead of just throwing money at the problems this world would be a better place. now don't get me wrong there is still a need for money. but the problem is "MOST" people are willing to just send in their check from their rainy day fund and say I did my part. well that's not enough. and IMHO that's not what we were called to do. if you REALLY cared about someone you'd invest yourself personally in their life. you'd build that personal relationship with them. and you make a sacrifice for them. it's easy to give the money you have because it gives you that warm fuzzy feeling. how about giving the money you don't have.

But a certain Samaritan, as he traveled, came where he was. When he saw him, he was moved with compassion, came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. He set him on his own animal, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, and gave them to the host, and said to him, 'Take care of him. Whatever you spend beyond that, I will repay you when I return.

he never asked how much it would cost him. he said whatever you spend I will repay you. Give what you don't have. not just what you can afford.

[Sergeant Thorne]

You can either demand that the wealthy make amends for the fact that they've had it real good for a couple decades

How do you see that playing out?

If there are inequities in the economical structure of this country then they ought to be dealt with effectively and justly. I can't see some retaliatory measure against wealthy people as being just, and I refuse to see the problem in dollar amounts when it should be judged based on moral considerations. If you ask me taking a higher percentage from people who have more is amoral.

[Spidey]

In my world…the “social safety net” wouldn’t act more like a trap.

In my world “Health Care Reform” would be about forcing the providers to price their goods at market value, and not to simply force people to join the profit thick insurance scam. I would also build government subsidized clinics for the people who can’t afford health care…the much cheaper way to go, then buying people insurance. (direct service)

In my world the economy would produce jobs for everyone, by eliminating the stupid social engineering, and other crazy work rules…so like maybe a teenager might actually have a chance to work.

In my world things like Social Security/Medicare would have been set up, with future demographics considered. And we wouldn’t have this mess to make political BS with.

So, there I have listed a few things, just to show you that we disagree with how things should work…and has nothing to do with how “you think, I think the world should be”.

As far as all of us becoming peasants, because of the Republicans…well I don’t buy any of that, so no use responding.

[woodchip]

spell it out for me, then. See below for details, and get creative as you wish. But first....


1. Curtail benefits to seniors and disabled people (SS)
2. Throw millions out of work that depend on Medicare reimbursement and other government/private
cooperative programs.
3. Curtail medical benefits to the elderly, poor children and other disabled or indigent persons
4. very possibly cause grave danger to the troops overseas
5. All the while allowing the wealthy to grow richer without personal cost(oh, and that 35% tax rate is a joke.
I paid as little as 9% some years on a multi-six-figure gross. And, the 94% rate cited was only for income
OVER a certain point.....200k at the time, which would equate to like 3 million today).

.

Typical democratic scare tactics. How about we instead cut or curtail:

1. War on drugs. 7 billion a year for what?

"Despite over $7 billion spent annually towards arresting[111] and prosecuting nearly 800,000 people across the country for marijuana offenses in 2005[citation needed](FBI Uniform Crime Reports), the federally-funded Monitoring the Future Survey reports about 85% of high school seniors find marijuana "easy to obtain." That figure has remained virtually unchanged since 1975, never dropping below 82.7% in three decades of national surveys"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs#Efficacy

2. Environmental Protection agency. Budget about 10 billion a year

3. Dept. of Homeland Security. Budget fiscal year 2011 56 billion a year

4. Bureau of Land Mgt. Budget 1.3 billion

So if you have to cut programs Slick, lets look at other agency's before you start fear mongering the elderly. Just what I listed is 75 billion a year and could be cut much easier than social security or medicare. I suspect there are many more agencies we could look at for major budget cuts. Funny how no one on the left brings up the really non essential agencies and instead brings out their death panel political mantra. Slick, this is a tough board. People here are not like the swooning masses you seem accustomed to pander to.

[Top Gun]

Since when does the EPA serve a non-essential function? Or are you comfortable with the thought of breathing in nice big healthy lungfuls of smog?

[CUDA]

Do you really think that if the EPA is shut down for a few days or even a few weeks that smog is going to increase at all???
or that people will suddenly start driving cars that pollute more? or factories will disconnect all the environmental equipment that was installed? or people will start dumping nuclear waste into the rivers??

[Top Gun]

Was woodchip advocating giving them a few weeks off? It sounded much more like he felt they were an unnecessary expense in general. And given what we see major corporations get away with even with EPA regulations, I'm left wondering exactly how we'd be better off without them.

But while we're talking cuts and all, we could examine other white elephants. As awesome a technological achievement as they are, consider that the B-2 Stealth Bomber cost $1 billion each to build.

[Heretic]

As awesome a technological achievement as they are, consider that the B-2 Stealth Bomber cost $1 billion each to build.

Actually the cost are about twice that. With development, procurement, facilities, construction, and spare parts each one averages about 2.13 billion. I do believe that they are no longer being produced. The money for them is already spent so to save money by stopping the building of some thing not being built actually will save us nothing. Where as what Woodchip suggested would actually save the US real money.

I would still like to see your white elephants though if you really come up with one that is still production.

[Top Gun]

I'm aware that they're no longer in production, but I think they still hold as a valid example of defense spending run amok. There are a number of current and planned defense projects that have extremely huge budgets, too; for instance, just recently, the F-22's production order was cut short because of the astronomical cost of maintaining them. Given the fact that defense occupies the solid majority of our entire budget, and the fact that the projected nature of future conflicts has changed drastically from the days of the Cold War, I'd say that should be the first place we look for expenditures that we frankly don't need and can't afford.

[Heretic]

Let's not look to close at

Council of Economic Advisers
Council on Environmental Quality
Domestic Policy Council
National Economic Council
National Security Council
Office of Administration
Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships
Office of Management and Budget
Office of National AIDS Policy
Office of National Drug Control Policy
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Office of the First Lady
Office of the Vice President
President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board
President's Intelligence Advisory Board
United States Trade Representative
White House Office
Bureau of the Census
Bureau of Economic Analysis
Bureau of Industry and Security
Economic Development Administration
Economics and Statistics Administration
International Trade Administration
Minority Business Development Agency
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Oceanic Service
National Weather Service
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Technical Information Service
Institute of Education Sciences
National Center for Education Statistics
National Assessment of Educational Progress
Education Resources Information Center
Office for Civil Rights
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
Office of Postsecondary Education
Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
Office of Vocational and Adult Education
Energy Information Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
National Laboratories & Technology Centers
National Nuclear Security Administration
Power Marketing Administrations:
Bonneville Power Administration
Southeastern Power Administration
Southwestern Power Administration
Western Area Power Administration
Administration on Aging
Administration for Children and Families
Administration for Children, Youth and Families
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
National Center for Health Statistics
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
Indian Health Service
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Federal Emergency Management Agency
World Trade Center Captive Insurance Company
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
Transportation Security Administration
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
United States Coast Guard
International Ice Patrol
United States Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Border Patrol
United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement
United States Secret Service
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
Office of Health Affairs
Office of Component Services
Office of International Affairs and Global Health Security
Office of Medical Readiness
Office of Weapons of Mass Destruction and Biodefense
Office of Intelligence and Analysis
Office of Operations Coordination
Office of Policy
Homeland Security Advisory Council
Office of International Affairs
Office of Immigration Statistics
Office of Policy Development
Office for State and Local Law Enforcement
Office of Strategic Plans
Private Sector Office
National Protection and Programs Directorate
Federal Protective Service
Office of Cybersecurity and Communications
National Communications System
National Cyber Security Division
United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team
Office of Emergency Communications
Office of Infrastructure Protection
Office of Risk Management and Analysis
United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT)
Science and Technology Directorate
Environmental Measurements Laboratory


The list goes on and on and on and on. How many can and should be targeted for shutdown before we put our defense to rest?

[Top Gun]

...did you miss the part where I specified that defense spending comprises more than 50% of our national budget? If you added up the budget of every single entity in that rather-meaningless list you comprised, it'd still only be a fraction of the defense budget. Of course we should take a long hard look at defense, considering what a major percentage (many would argue ridiculously so) it eats up, and therefore how much corresponding potential excess it has that can be trimmed.

But this is all neither here nor there. Picking and choosing random departments to slash budget from isn't going to help at all in the long run.

[Heretic]

So you think that over 50% is spent in defense Obama's 2012 budget request of $3.729 trillion and Obama asking for only $670.9 billion for the DoD including monies for Overseas Contingency Operations. That's a far cry from 1.8645 trillion. Why don't these numbers support the 50% your saying? Is it because the people are so stupid they don't look into the details and just take in the lies put forth by both parties.

[woodchip]

Was woodchip advocating giving them a few weeks off? It sounded much more like he felt they were an unnecessary expense in general. And given what we see major corporations get away with even with EPA regulations, I'm left wondering exactly how we'd be better off without them.

Woodchip was advocating not paying them in order for SS and Medicare payments to be made.

[CUDA]

that's the way I took it.

it's not likely that this Debit ceiling issue will last more than a few weeks

[Top Gun]

So you think that over 50% is spent in defense Obama's 2012 budget request of $3.729 trillion and Obama asking for only $670.9 billion for the DoD including monies for Overseas Contingency Operations. That's a far cry from 1.8645 trillion. Why don't these numbers support the 50% your saying? Is it because the people are so stupid they don't look into the details and just take in the lies put forth by both parties.

No, it would be because I was misreading some graphs. The over 50% figure comes from the "discretionary spending" portion of the budget, which doesn't include mandatory entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. It does comprise a clear majority of those other expenditures. As you noted, though, even when you look at the overall budget, defense still comprises a significant percentage of the overall budget...$670 billion is a lot of money.

Woodchip was advocating not paying them in order for SS and Medicare payments to be made.

Okay, that's much more reasonable. I think it's absurd that we haven't seen a compromise made yet, but if worst comes to worst, we will have to lay off some payments for a (hopefully) short period of time.

[Tunnelcat]

Do you really think that if the EPA is shut down for a few days or even a few weeks that smog is going to increase at all???
or that people will suddenly start driving cars that pollute more? or factories will disconnect all the environmental equipment that was installed? or people will start dumping nuclear waste into the rivers??

Actually, I worry about our water quality going into the toilet. These bozos in Congress are so locked into their budget battles that the EPA could be shut down for a long time, if not forever.

For all you youngsters, here's a river that actually caught fire it was so polluted in 1969. And I remember our local Willamette River was an open sewer unfit for swimming in back in my childhood too, and Portland still dumps raw sewage into it whenever it rains too much today. I don't see private enterprise protecting our water quality either. Exxon recently dumped thousands of gallons of crude from a broken pipeline into the Yellowstone River, ruining a pristine river for miles. All they could say was "s**t happens, we inspected the pipe and it was OK, and it's not our fault".

http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=1642

[Heretic]

So where is the EPA with all the fracking going on oh that's right the natural gas people got a pass didn't they, now people have bad water where ever the hydrofracking has been going on.

[callmeslick]

I exercise my faith more by works, because the Bible tells me "faith without works is Dead" and the only way to explain that properly is to tell you some of what I've done personally.

no need for detail, I believe in you, and trust what you say. Fair enough, but I am still leery on dependence on the charities as the only societal safety net.
Your edit was correct, in terms of an ideal. But, as I tell Progressives all the time, idealism is not sufficient to actually do practical good.

[callmeslick]

In my world…the “social safety net” wouldn’t act more like a trap.....etc

actually, all well and good. Just see my response to CUDA about idealism vs. reality. I merely don't wish to see people suffer from an economic structure which is ill-positioned to grow, and not being encouraged to do so to any real degree.

Oh, and don't misread me. It isn't the GOP that will turn the bulk of the citizenry into peasants. It is just the GOP that will gladly see the peasants die young, starve and suffer. If the economic system stays at status quo, most folks are headed down the chute into servitude and that isn't really an elephant/donkey type deal.

[callmeslick]

1. War on drugs. 7 billion a year for what?

agreed.

2. Environmental Protection agency. Budget about 10 billion a year

so, allowing folks to pollute your air, drinking water and other resources is just hunky-dory with you?
I'll pass, as I've seen very well the accomplishments. At 10 billion, a bargain.

3. Dept. of Homeland Security. Budget fiscal year 2011 56 billion a year

you realize this includes FEMA, who, even right-wing governors absolutely depend on for coordination and assistance in disasters? Further, isn't domestic security the most pressing of ALL defense needs?

4. Bureau of Land Mgt. Budget 1.3 billion

once again, a bargain. We are blessed, as Americans to have so much land that belongs to the People, not to individuals. Enjoy it, and pay for it.

As you point out, you just proposed slashing a whopping 75 billion dollars. In other words, less than 2% of the budget, and in doing so, leaving us defenseless against wholesale plundering of public lands and rape of the environment in the bargain. Without borrowing power, the shortfall would be closer to 30% of the budget, so you might want to rethink the stupidity about the masses I am supposed to be preaching to. You would appear to either be as dumb as a stump, or think that I am.

[callmeslick]

Was woodchip advocating giving them a few weeks off? It sounded much more like he felt they were an unnecessary expense in general. And given what we see major corporations get away with even with EPA regulations, I'm left wondering exactly how we'd be better off without them.

Woodchip was advocating not paying them in order for SS and Medicare payments to be made.

and, as I showed in the comment above, Woodchip was very wrong.

[callmeslick]

...did you miss the part where I specified that defense spending comprises more than 50% of our national budget? If you added up the budget of every single entity in that rather-meaningless list you comprised, it'd still only be a fraction of the defense budget. Of course we should take a long hard look at defense, considering what a major percentage (many would argue ridiculously so) it eats up, and therefore how much corresponding potential excess it has that can be trimmed.

But this is all neither here nor there. Picking and choosing random departments to slash budget from isn't going to help at all in the long run.

actually, Defense is but 50% of non-mandated spending(discretionary). However, it is worth noting that if you add current defense spending to the non-discretionary spending, you eat up around 83% of the budget, or something like that. Scary that folks seem to think you can tinker around the edges and fix this.

On the other hand, NONE of you really addressed my concern. Which was: are you all doing so well that you cannot envision someone in your circle of family or friends, or your own selves, NOT needing Medicare, Social Security, unemployment, food stamps, Children's health insurance or other such programs, given the proper circumstances to warrant such need? Do you live in such remote, pristine areas that you DON'T value protection of your environment, and cleanup of pollution? Do you produce all of your own food and NOT need the FDA keeping the supply of food relatively healthy? Do you not require any medication, and thus NOT desire that medicines be kept relatively safe? Sometimes, it might be nice to see some of you all ditch the ideological blinders and assess your real world. I'm not talking about idealism, I'm trying to see the best possible life for the most numbers of my fellow citizens under the current real-world economic conditions. These things I pointed out in this thread aren't 'scare tactics' , they are very real. That some of you refuse to see or acknowledge that is sort of depressing.

So, to cheer up(and, as a bonus, not annoy you all for a few days), 'Slick is off to VA to do some marlin fishing off my cousin's boat at Wachapreague, consume some adult beverages, and then go lose my shirt at the Saratoga races(couldn't bet on the jumpers last visit, so the money stayed intact). You all behave yourselves, perhaps I'll check in for a good laugh, or to see if you have solved the nation's economic situation. Ciao!

[woodchip]

2. Environmental Protection agency. Budget about 10 billion a year

so, allowing folks to pollute your air, drinking water and other resources is just hunky-dory with you?
I'll pass, as I've seen very well the accomplishments. At 10 billion, a bargain.

Wow, just wow. So you are saying that all the laws/rules /reg's would somehow disappear if the EPA was shut down for a few weeks? I guess you forget that our real treasure are our senior citizens who have contributed so much to this country. But what the heck. Your side of the aisle seems to think death panels for the elderly are the way to go so making them starve a bit is no big deal ....right?

3. Dept. of Homeland Security. Budget fiscal year 2011 56 billion a year

you realize this includes FEMA, who, even right-wing governors absolutely depend on for coordination and assistance in disasters? Further, isn't domestic security the most pressing of ALL defense needs?

Considering we have:
1. The FBI
2. The CIA
3. The National Security Agency

I'm not sure why we need a new Gestapo type agency that promotes spying on your neighbor.

4. Bureau of Land Mgt. Budget 1.3 billion

once again, a bargain. We are blessed, as Americans to have so much land that belongs to the People, not to individuals. Enjoy it, and pay for it.

As you point out, you just proposed slashing a whopping 75 billion dollars. In other words, less than 2% of the budget, and in doing so, leaving us defenseless against wholesale plundering of public lands and rape of the environment in the bargain. Without borrowing power, the shortfall would be closer to 30% of the budget, so you might want to rethink the stupidity about the masses I am supposed to be preaching to. You would appear to either be as dumb as a stump, or think that I am.

It would appear you have huddle together with the unproductive masses for so long you cannot see the incredibly myopic view you just posted. The big question is why do we need to borrow 30% of the budget? Heretic posted a whole long list of agencies that could be cut back. In fact why don't we start with chopping 30% off the White House's staff budget. Or tell the first Lady to cut back on her travels abroad. I may be dumb as a stump but even I can see the forest for the tree's.