Government Shut down and the US deficit

[Steven]

I never said the Democrats didn't get rebuked.

 

[Morkula]

Problem is, Democrats have expressed a willingness to work out a solution with Republicans and meet them halfway. Every time they do though, the Republicans move where "halfway" is. It's not the Democrats that are unwilling to compromise, it's the Republicans.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I never said the Democrats didn't get rebuked.

I think the Democrats could negotiate some programs that they don't want cut as long as the deficit gets cut by at least $1 trillion in this bill. The Republicans can work on reducing the deficit over several bills over time... or if and when they win majority in the Senate and possibly the White House as well.

Problem is, Democrats have expressed a willingness to work out a solution with Republicans and meet them halfway. Every time they do though, the Republicans move where "halfway" is. It's not the Democrats that are unwilling to compromise, it's the Republicans.

That's not all the Republicans. Those are the Tea Partiers you are referring to. Boehner needs to get them together quick.

 

[The Trotsky]

Boehner has no incentive to get the little novelties that are the Tea Partiers to cooperate and collude with Democrats. He's clearly perfectly happy logjamming legislation while he cries the tears of a clown

 

[Steven]

I think the Democrats could negotiate some programs that they don't want cut as long as the deficit gets cut by at least $1 trillion in this bill. The Republicans can work on reducing the deficit over several bills over time... or if and when they win majority in the Senate and possibly the White House as well.



That's not all the Republicans. Those are the Tea Partiers you are referring to. Boehner needs to get them together quick.

I am a democrat, I want extensive cuts like the Republicans are offering. The Democrats originally offered very little in my opinion. But, since then they have raised it to what was initially the middle ground yet Republicans still say no. :/

 

[notcrazy_iminsane]

-braces for impact- Bring on the shut down! The sooner this country collapses, the sooner I get a good reason to leave!

I have the feeling nothing will be resolved. Both parties sit around and yell instead of cooperatinga nd reaching a middle ground like they're supposed to. I personally see no need in political parties. George Washington said himself that creating political aprties would seperate, and eventually destroy, this nation.

But what do I know? I'm just a teenager. Congress has been screwing us over for their own personal wants taking care of us for much longer than I've been alive.

 

[The Trotsky]

Extensive cuts to the government do not help. Not sure if you guys are familiar with macroeconomics at all, but the GDP (and collective wealth by extension) is C + X + I + G, where C is consumption (as in purchase of all domestic goods), X is net exports (exports minus imports), I is investment spending, and G is government spending. Reducing government spending hurts our GDP. In the same vein, raising taxes would help it, because at a certain level of income, people stop consuming and investing more goods (proportionally) and simply save their monetary wealth. Taxing their excess income is good for everyone and could fund a larger budget, and even help reduce the deficit.

EDIT: Okay about this whole George Washington myth, at no point in time did he say to get rid of them. He said they were a necessary evil, and would form naturally, and we would need to learn to accept them in moderation. George Washington also lived in a time when voting was on the basis of what state you were from (by and large) and not what you believed politically. Politicians were a different breed of men back then, who claimed not to have vested interests but rather worked objectively.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Extensive cuts to the government do not help. Not sure if you guys are familiar with macroeconomics at all, but the GDP (and collective wealth by extension) is C + X + I + G, where C is consumption (as in purchase of all domestic goods), X is net exports (exports minus imports), I is investment spending, and G is government spending. Reducing government spending hurts our GDP. In the same vein, raising taxes would help it, because at a certain level of income, people stop consuming and investing more goods (proportionally) and simply save their monetary wealth. Taxing their excess income is good for everyone and could fund a larger budget, and even help reduce the deficit.

This is why I proposed a $1 trillion cut with some concessions to the Democrats instead of $6.2 trillion all in one bill. Republicans: Let's take our time and make sure we cut spending in a reasonable fashion. Your criticize the Democrats for "throwing money at a problem and hope it goes away. Well, you're cutting money and hoping the problem goes away.

I'm afraid that one of the Tea Party Senators will filibuster a compromise bill even if one can pass the House. 47 Republican Senators is more than enough kill a bill via filibuster.

 

[The Trotsky]

I would be shocked if a bill is passed before the government shuts down. Reality tends to slap hard though, and a compromise of some sort should be worked out by then. And the problem with cuts on the 20% of the budget that isn't Defense, Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid is that the smaller funded projects often serve a vital role in communities, but are ultimately cheap for the nation to handle. The key to trimming the fat off the budget is not in cutting other projects, but rather streamlining spending in the aforementioned Big 4 and making them more fiscally efficient. This will, of course, take time, so I think an extension right now is our best bet while we get committees together to streamline those parts of spending.

 

[Mr Cat Dog]

If the government shutdown goes ahead like the one on Parks & Recreation, then we can hope for an influx of new cast members and extra hilarity all around!*

Seriously though, if this does go ahead, it would start getting into record-breaking territory if it were to last longer than 21 days: the length of the last shutdown during the Clinton era of 1995-96. Only a few more hours to go...

*I apologise if you don't watch Parks and Recreation and had no idea why that statement was supposed to be funny. You should really start watching it, though... The 2 forums members laughing uproariously at this know what I'm talking 'bout!

 

[OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire]

I would also be surprised if they do go ahead with a deal...time is running short...

 

[FreakyLocz14]

The temporary relief the New Deal provided began to fade away in late 1936. 1937-1938 was the second worse period for the stock market behind 1929. It fell 49.1%!

 

[OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire]

If we don't control the deficit we might end up in a worse state than even the great Depression as the dollar will most likely crash if we default...

 

[The Trotsky]

False. Utterly false. The deficit has 0 impact on the dollar or anything else. And we won't ever default on our debt, because corporations, banks, and foreign nations are always willing to buy the debt to support us. And the world went into a panic when Spain nearly defaulted. Never mind the fact that we are nowhere close to them, if we were to default the entire world economy would splutter and die. There is no way it would be allowed to happen

 

[OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire]

So the media lies...well I shouldn't be surprised...
Well the Ussr feel and it was a big economy...the same could happen to the US, the too big to fail mentality got us into this mess in the first place remember?

 

[The Trotsky]

A private sector "too big to fail" mentality got us in the housing bubble mess. And the USSR was structured entirely differently than the US, focusing more on their domestic economy than the global markets. Introversion almost always hurts countries economically. Plus, these are just vastly different situations, you can't even make the comparison.

And on the deficit, just gonna repost what I put on her earlier:

On the subject of the deficit: The reality is that the deficit doesn't really matter. It will always be paid back. Raise taxes on the rich so you have a budgetary surplus and then the deficit goes away. But since we are unwilling to do that, let's talk about living with the deficit. I understand that everyone wants to cause all this hullabaloo about their "grandchildren carrying the burden of the deficit", but let's take a step back. We all have parents, correct? And when our parents were in their formative years, some administrations would run budgetary deficits and increase our national debt. And their grandparents had the same situation. But tell me, men and women of PC over the age of 18: when is the last time you paid a "deficit tax"? Simply put, it will be paid back when America damn well feels like paying back. It is in the world's interest to prop up our debt and keep us the largest economy, supporting global markets. Deficits never need to be paid until we can create a budgetary surplus. Plain and simple.

 

[OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire]

A private sector "too big to fail" mentality got us in the housing bubble mess. And the USSR was structured entirely differently than the US, focusing more on their domestic economy than the global markets. Introversion almost always hurts countries economically. Plus, these are just vastly different situations, you can't even make the comparison.

And on the deficit, just gonna repost what I put on her earlier:

On the subject of the deficit: The reality is that the deficit doesn't really matter. It will always be paid back. Raise taxes on the rich so you have a budgetary surplus and then the deficit goes away. But since we are unwilling to do that, let's talk about living with the deficit. I understand that everyone wants to cause all this hullabaloo about their "grandchildren carrying the burden of the deficit", but let's take a step back. We all have parents, correct? And when our parents were in their formative years, some administrations would run budgetary deficits and increase our national debt. And their grandparents had the same situation. But tell me, men and women of PC over the age of 18: when is the last time you paid a "deficit tax"? Simply put, it will be paid back when America damn well feels like paying back. It is in the world's interest to prop up our debt and keep us the largest economy, supporting global markets. Deficits never need to be paid until we can create a budgetary surplus. Plain and simple.

Even if we take all the money away from the rich we wouldn't be able to pay off the debt...just goes to show how big and immense it is in size...

 

[The Trotsky]

GIFSoup

filling in four words

 

[FreakyLocz14]

A private sector "too big to fail" mentality got us in the housing bubble mess. And the USSR was structured entirely differently than the US, focusing more on their domestic economy than the global markets. Introversion almost always hurts countries economically. Plus, these are just vastly different situations, you can't even make the comparison.

And on the deficit, just gonna repost what I put on her earlier:

On the subject of the deficit: The reality is that the deficit doesn't really matter. It will always be paid back. Raise taxes on the rich so you have a budgetary surplus and then the deficit goes away. But since we are unwilling to do that, let's talk about living with the deficit. I understand that everyone wants to cause all this hullabaloo about their "grandchildren carrying the burden of the deficit", but let's take a step back. We all have parents, correct? And when our parents were in their formative years, some administrations would run budgetary deficits and increase our national debt. And their grandparents had the same situation. But tell me, men and women of PC over the age of 18: when is the last time you paid a "deficit tax"? Simply put, it will be paid back when America damn well feels like paying back. It is in the world's interest to prop up our debt and keep us the largest economy, supporting global markets. Deficits never need to be paid until we can create a budgetary surplus. Plain and simple.

A budgetary surplus will never benefit us if it's all being used to pay off past debt.

 

[The Trotsky]

That's the only purpose of a budgetary surplus.