DescentBB

without breaking it down into detail(I came back to far too much real work to go into that level), it works like this. There is a part of the budget plan which sets an ever-lowering cap upon federal expenditures as a percentage of GDP. The GDP isn't going to grow at much more than 3% most years, and the percentage drops, as I recall, down to 16%. Given the aging of the population, and even with the 'voucher' based Medicare plan Ryan endorses in the budget plan, there is no way we could keep Medicare for more than 8 years or so without giving up other essential services such as national defense. Ryan himself sort of danced around that math when questioned. In reality, if the tax cuts which the GOP wants got passed, the wall would be hit nearly immediately. The Social Security thing, although technically an isolated budget item, might fall prey to the same inflexible budgetary structure. In short, Ryan's plan is economic suicide, as you cannot put a fixed cap on expenditures on a government whlch encounters unforseen spending needs on a regular basis(military action, disasters, infrastructure emergencies, etc). Ryan's budget is an inflexible trainwreck which would leave the government no choice but to punish the elderly and poor.

Overlooking your "I recall" with no real excerpts, what I found interesting in your post was the GDP growing at a 3% rate. Yet under our baseline budgeting, federal budget increases by 7% a year. Knock off 4% from the base line and it sounds like Ryans plan would work...even by your assumptions.

woodchip wrote:Overlooking your "I recall" with no real excerpts, what I found interesting in your post was the GDP growing at a 3% rate. Yet under our baseline budgeting, federal budget increases by 7% a year. Knock off 4% from the base line and it sounds like Ryans plan would work...even by your assumptions.

not really. The Ryan plan lowers the cap over a 10 year period. And that 7% increase can't just have 4% simply 'knocked off'. That, in essence, is the core problem with the current debate. Some folks think you can just cut, without thinking it through, and not hurt a lot of people. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

callmeslick wrote: Some folks think you can just spend, without thinking it through, and not hurt a lot of people. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

fixed it for you

come on, CUDA, where's the usual, predictable comparison of a government budget to a household budget? You're letting me down.....or maybe, just maybe, you've figured out that the two don't work the same way.

What budget?
All I see coming out of Congress is continuing resolutions and legislation without the details included...

callmeslick wrote:come on, CUDA, where's the usual, predictable comparison of a government budget to a household budget? You're letting me down.....or maybe, just maybe, you've figured out that the two don't work the same way.

As Will said that would be all fine and well but this government has not had a budget since the Democrats took office in 2008. so your position is pointless.

"We just took out a credit card from the bank of China"
Barack Obama

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote:come on, CUDA, where's the usual, predictable comparison of a government budget to a household budget? You're letting me down.....or maybe, just maybe, you've figured out that the two don't work the same way.

As Will said that would be all fine and well but this government has not had a budget since the Democrats took office in 2008. so your position is pointless.

"We just took out a credit card from the bank of China"
Barack Obama

ummmm, they didn't take office until January 2009. They did pass a budget in 2009, but not since, as the GOP blocked conference committee processes and even the production of a Senate appropriations bill one year. You act as if the President is responsible when in fact, it is clearly the do-nothing obstructionists, who we now can all see are all too glad to bring down both the government and the economy(all because they lost a lot of elections).

Will Robinson wrote:What budget?
All I see coming out of Congress is continuing resolutions and legislation without the details included...

right you are. Can you do me a favor? Ask Ted Cruz why he put a one-person hold on forming a Senate conference panel to reconcile this year's appropriation bills( both the House and Senate passed a version, they just never went to conference.....and it's been 7 months).

Tom Tomorrow nails it:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/0 ... l=facebook

more serious, and scarily so. Now, I know the usual suspects will go 'NY Times', 'Paul Krugman' and turn off immediately. And, actually, Krugman addresses that issue pretty lucidly. Here's the read:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/07/opini ... share&_r=0

OK, a brief return to the spirit of the original post, then back to your food fight

So, the Washington Mall was shut down and Obama sent more security there than he did to Bengahzi to keep out, and threatened with possible arrest, WWII Vets if they crossed the barriers put up because of the shut down. And I thought there was some kind of humor in that.

Now we could have a follow up headline:
Obama doesn't threaten to arrest or block illegal immigrant protesters who are setting up now to use the shut down Washington Mall for a rally.

I know I know they ultimately did let the WWII Vets in....but come on! This is too rich! WWII Vets get threats of jail, protesters for illegal immigrants get access citing their....wait for it.....1st Amendment rights....

OK, back to the fight....I call the Jello catapult!!

The National Mall in Washington, D.C., has been famously “closed” ever since the government shutdown began. Attempts have been made to lock Veterans out of war memorials and keep visitors away from national monuments.

However, the “Spite House” is at it again, because the Park Service has approved a request for an “immigration reform” rally at the National Mall tomorrow:



So I guess we know where this administrations priorities are

The lie thats called the government shutdown.

congress passed legislation, and the president signed it, to give backpay to the furloughed workers. So if they are going to get paid. Then there is no shutdown. GET YOUR ASSES BACK TO WORK

meanwhile, as the do-nothing House clogs up the nation's economy and well-being with ideological stupidity: What is being done to address Immigration Reform, trade policy, job creation, or any of the other REAL issues the nation faces? All some of you want to do is whine over trivia, but the real harm is that with actual problems facing the nation, the GOP has chosen to MAKE THINGS WORSE. Why? Oh, and according to statements the representatives have put out into local media and their own websites, over 20 GOP reps are more than willing to back a straight-up continuing resolution, yet Boehner won't bring it to the floor? No wonder 24 safe seats just moved sharply towards the Dems in the past two weeks polling.

callmeslick wrote:meanwhile, as the do-nothing House clogs up the nation's economy and well-being with ideological stupidity: What is being done to address Immigration Reform, trade policy, job creation, or any of the other REAL issues the nation faces? All some of you want to do is whine over trivia, but the real harm is that with actual problems facing the nation, the GOP has chosen to MAKE THINGS WORSE. Why? Oh, and according to statements the representatives have put out into local media and their own websites, over 20 GOP reps are more than willing to back a straight-up continuing resolution, yet Boehner won't bring it to the floor? No wonder 24 safe seats just moved sharply towards the Dems in the past two weeks polling.

I think using immigration as an example when complaining about 'do nothing' republicans is really working against you. No group is more prone to do nothing and circumvent existing law than the democrats and Obama when it comes to immigration reform.

the bill awaits House action. Boehner won't bring that one to the floor, either.

I'm sorry wasnt it slick that said obama care is the law of the land and we should just get over it?

last time I looked immigration and naturalization was the law of the land. Maybe he should just get over it.

CUDA wrote:The lie thats called the government shutdown.

congress passed legislation, and the president signed it, to give backpay to the furloughed workers. So if they are going to get paid. Then there is no shutdown. GET YOUR ASSES BACK TO WORK

They'll have a few personal expenses between now and the time when they officially open for business, but I would have to agree with you. It's all a game. Pity us that most of the country is probably willing to play along.

CUDA wrote:I'm sorry wasnt it slick that said obama care is the law of the land and we should just get over it?

last time I looked immigration and naturalization was the law of the land. Maybe he should just get over it.

well, if the status quo works for you, fine. At least I don't suggest throwing the nation in economic disaster, taking food from the mouths of mothers and children, denying death benefits to fallen soldiers, closing Natiional Parks, putting 1 million people out of work, setting back scientific research, etc, etc, etc, to get what I hope for. See how government is SUPPOSED to work, CUDA? No, I suppose you don't.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

CUDA wrote:The lie thats called the government shutdown.

congress passed legislation, and the president signed it, to give backpay to the furloughed workers. So if they are going to get paid. Then there is no shutdown. GET YOUR ASSES BACK TO WORK

They'll have a few personal expenses between now and the time when they officially open for business, but I would have to agree with you. It's all a game. Pity us that most of the country is probably willing to play along.

for the people out of work(oh, and there never is back pay for furloughed CONTRACT workers, so those 200,000 or so fellow citizens are screwed,huh?) it is sort of insulting that you think this is a game. This is, purely and simply, abuse of the responsibility of the House, compounded by Boehner flat-out lying. The other day, he actually suggested that this process, and the debt ceiling, has ALWAYS been used to force radical legislative action. The truth is that the debt ceiling has NEVER been used as a lever, nor has a CR been successfully used at all.

Has there ever been a piece of legislation so large as Obamacare...so vague and even empty of details, blank pages to be filled in AFTER it was passed....the cost of it so outrageously misrepresented by the President....and put into law by way of reconciliation to avoid needing 60 votes...that after passing the President simply declares which parts of the law apply and which ones he decided should be on hold...so invasive in its scope and authority that it equals selling our souls to the company store?

No, we have never seen that before either.
So welcome to the world we created.

The fight over Obamacare is not about healthcare coverage, it is about power in the political arena and it has some really high stakes. There will be many collateral casualties in this fight.

Insulting to whom, slick? This is a lot of things. What it isn't is responsible governance. I'm not saying there are no stakes, or people are not effected, I'm saying that there are people to whom it is only a matter of winning or losing, more than appreciating the responsibility of the office or the government. Anyone who believes that this is going to be a win for their side is playing a game. Someone should have seen this coming and determined that a government shutdown should not have been the outcome of a dispute on the funding of "Obamacare". Furthermore someone (the White House) should not have seen it as an opportunity to put the screws to the electorate and the opposition. Put that all together, and I call that a game.

Will Robinson wrote:Has there ever been a piece of legislation so large as Obamacare...so vague and even empty of details, blank pages to be filled in AFTER it was passed....the cost of it so outrageously misrepresented by the President....and put into law by way of reconciliation to avoid needing 60 votes...that after passing the President simply declares which parts of the law apply and which ones he decided should be on hold...so invasive in its scope and authority that it equals selling our souls to the company store?

please note both Social Security and Medicare. The GOP fought those, too.

No, we have never seen that before either.
So welcome to the world we created.

if you're going to make stuff up, try to avoid utter nonsense. A lot of legislation is complex(check out the food safety laws, or, heaven forbid, the current tax code).

The fight over Obamacare is not about healthcare coverage, it is about power in the political arena and it has some really high stakes. There will be many collateral casualties in this fight.

it was fought already, through the electoral process. Obamacare won, handily. Apparently, you are ok with poor women and children and elderly people and sick people being 'collateral casualties'? Says loads about your character.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Insulting to whom, slick? This is a lot of things. What it isn't is responsible governance. I'm not saying there are no stakes, or people are not effected, I'm saying that there are people to whom it is only a matter of winning or losing, more than appreciating the responsibility of the office or the government. Anyone who believes that this is going to be a win for their side is playing a game. Someone should have seen this coming and determined that a government shutdown should not have been the outcome of a dispute on the funding of "Obamacare". Furthermore someone (the White House) should not have seen it as an opportunity to put the screws to the electorate and the opposition. Put that all together, and I call that a game.

I accept your definition of 'game', on those terms Thorne. What is being overlooked is that if Obama gives in ANYTHING to a small group of extortionists, he sets a precedent for the future. Thus, 'winning' this game is crucial for the ongoing stability of the nation.

The group can't be that small if the stalemate cut off funding for our entire federal government. Slick I'm afraid you're misrepresenting the situation. The fact is the Obamacare bill passed, and now the funding has not. This situation by definition CANNOT constitute insubordination or extortion. This is the function of government. The precedent is set! Are these representatives not responsible for the allocation of government funds?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:The group can't be that small if the stalemate cut off funding for our entire federal government. Slick I'm afraid you're misrepresenting the situation. The fact is the Obamacare bill passed, and now the funding has not. This situation by definition CANNOT constitute insubordination or extortion. This is the function of government. The precedent is set! Are these representatives not responsible for the allocation of government funds?

the group is but 50 very safe seat GOP members. The control leverage comes from their financial backers, who can create absolute hell for semi-moderate Republicans who cross them. There is a great article in the NY Times this morning about the jam some of them are in. Their constituents are mad as hell, and right now, it looks as if they might not get re-elected no matter which way they vote. However, rather than link that article, this is an informative history and overview of the 14th Amendment. Well worth a read within the next, say 9 days:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/08/opini ... anted=2&hp

Slick that's all fascinating, and I appreciate your opinion on the matter, but an answer to the situation it is not. In reality it's irresponsible to romanticize the situation and engage in finger-pointing to justify your party's desire to paint and navigate the situation in willful ignorance of the governmental parameters (rules) which do apply. You can't pretend these people do not represent, just to vilify them. The truth is that if in fact they do not represent, then it only falls to those whom they are supposed to represent to deal with them. I find the "my opponents do not represent their constituents!" to be a position which is naturally disingenuous--a conflict of interests, if you will.

So you want to ignore the fact there is Article I Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Has there ever been a piece of legislation so large as Obamacare...so vague and even empty of details, blank pages to be filled in AFTER it was passed....the cost of it so outrageously misrepresented by the President....and put into law by way of reconciliation to avoid needing 60 votes...that after passing the President simply declares which parts of the law apply and which ones he decided should be on hold...so invasive in its scope and authority that it equals selling our souls to the company store?

please note both Social Security and Medicare. The GOP fought those, too.

No, we have never seen that before either.
So welcome to the world we created.

if you're going to make stuff up, try to avoid utter nonsense. A lot of legislation is complex(check out the food safety laws, or, heaven forbid, the current tax code).

The fight over Obamacare is not about healthcare coverage, it is about power in the political arena and it has some really high stakes. There will be many collateral casualties in this fight.

it was fought already, through the electoral process. Obamacare won, handily. Apparently, you are ok with poor women and children and elderly people and sick people being 'collateral casualties'? Says loads about your character.

slick, you are the one making stuff up. There was no election based on the actual Obamacare legislation. The cost and the scope and the actual results were definitely NOT in anyone's campaign promises.
And neither Social Security nor Medicare give the federal government any where near the control over the people that Obamacare will....hence the need to create Obamacare! Otherwise the President would have simply implemented all these new mandated-by-law behaviors using the existing Medicare and Social Security law.

And please don't assign to me the desire to hurt people, you have no idea what my feelings are...what I'm "Ok with". You simply do like TC and too many other liberals do, you demonize people who have anything critical to say about your beloved team. It is your character that is on display by what you actually say not mine by what you say...

Heretic,

You would do well to put the 14th Amendment in that list.

Ok here you go 14 amendment Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Not the President but Congress has the power again.

funny that you skipped over this part:
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.




because, as you noted in your select-a-quote, the Congress is INDEED bound to uphold this, and to fail to do so would be Unconstitutional and in violation of their oathes of office.

callmeslick wrote:funny that you skipped over this part:
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.




because, as you noted in your select-a-quote, the Congress is INDEED bound to uphold this, and to fail to do so would be Unconstitutional and in violation of their oathes of office.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorf ... -increase/

"Ignore what you hear and read in the news. The federal government actually reached the legal debt ceiling about four months ago. Since then, the government has been financing its monthly budget deficit by stealing/borrowing money from other government funds, like the federal government employees’ pension fund. In about two weeks, the government will run out of tricks to keep operating as if nothing has happened. If the debt ceiling is not raised by then, the government has to balance its budget.

That’s right. As much as the politicians and news media have tried to convince you that the world will end without a debt ceiling increase, it is simply not true. The federal debt ceiling sets a legal limit for how much money the federal government can borrow. In other words, it places an upper limit on the national debt. It is like the credit limit on the government’s gold card."

another pathetic attempt by the Democrats to lie to the American people and by the forum pawn of the left

actually, by reading the 4th section of the 14th, THERE IS NO SUCH THING as a legal debt limit. All debts incurred by legal Congressional legislation are valid in full. There is the core issue here....you have a group who wishes to welsh on established obligations, because due to cash flow, borrowing has to occur to fulfill outstanding debts. Unless, of course, one chooses to have no Medicare, no Social Security, no Food Stamps, no Housing Assistance.......hmmmm, maybe I see one party or group within it who thinks such things as a frivolous waste. Heaven help those people when the public finally wises up to them and votes in their self-interest. What is sad, to me, is that such programs are all things I could exist without, and essentiallhy pay into, but I view that as my social bargain to live in the greatest, most diverse and potentially creative nation on earth. Others don't feel any obligation to those less-better-off. We've lost, as a nation, a sense of empathy.

Or, as some wag put it on Facebook: You say we are a Christian nation. But, you don't want your taxes to help the old, the sick or the poor?
Aren't you special!

I skipped over that section because the power to act on the public debt is in Congressional reps alone not the president. Obama and his advisers have consistently rejected using the amendment to justify raising the debt ceiling without Congressional support. Not only that the 14th Amendment just requires him to pay the interest and principal on Treasury Notes, Bills and Bonds before anything else should there be insufficient funds to cover it all.

the debt limit ONLY limits what we can borrow. GET IT RIGHT. we can still operate our government. it is not shut down. we can still pay our bills. the ONLY difference it we will be mandated to spend what we take in. nothing more.

CUDA wrote:the debt limit ONLY limits what we can borrow. GET IT RIGHT. we can still operate our government. it is not shut down. we can still pay our bills. the ONLY difference it we will be mandated to spend what we take in. nothing more.

but cash flow dictates mandatory borrowing, at some points of the cycle(just like with a business, I note). Also, I take it you are another one who is sanguine with just paying for old debts and not spending on Medicare, Food Stamps, FEMA, food inspections, FAA, the military?

never said there wouldn't be hardships or difficulties. But yours and the Presidents position that we will "DEFAULT" on our debt is just flat untrue.

besides with your scenario that will eventually happen if we continue at our current approach. we will reach that point where our interest payments alone stifle our cash flow. Then we WILL default.

Medicare is already unfunded so is Social Security we owe trillions of dollars on those two Funds alone.