A political crisis unfolds

[Karee 4,191]

No, that is incorrect. There are no rims, stereos or paint jobs on the docket. Discretionary spending is at the lowest level in decades. Our infrastructure is being neglected to a point where it is almost criminal. What you are and have been advocating for is not getting that transmission fixed becasue we don't have that $500.00. That's short-sighted nonsense that will cause this country to be in deeper #######, owing more money rather than less and having a smaller economy to tackle that larger debt with.

So should we raise taxes? I mean something has to give.

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

So should we raise taxes? I mean something has to give.

If the government helps keep the economy going, people make more money, and pay more taxes.

[Karee 4,191]

If the government helps keep the economy going, people make more money, and pay more taxes.

I'd be curious if there's some non-partisan numbers out there that show for every $1 the govt. spends, how much does that actually contribute to the economy? Keep in mind they would have to take into account the interest they would have to pay on those funds when calculating the return, since they have to borrow any money they spend.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So should we raise taxes? I mean something has to give.

We need to tackle non-discretionary spending and / or bring the revenues in line with the anticipated spending. There is no debate that there are long term issues that require resolution. That resolution will likely mean a combination of reduced expenditures and increased revenues. A simpler tax code that doesn't give away more than a trillion dollars in the way of exemptions and credits each year might be helpful. And there are certainly items we spend money on that we shouldn't spend money on. We don't need to subsidize oil and sugar, for example. But we do. Gotta put away with that. There are probably benefits paid out to millions of people that do not need them - we gotta take a look at that. Then there's the outrageous military budget that needs to be pared back to more reasonable levels.

But all that needs to happen in a give-and-take kind of way and it needs to happen in an orderly fashion. What is happening here at current from the Republican side is beyond ridiculous. They have abandoned any sense of reason and reality and continue to throw a temper tantrum over issues that they can't win at the ballot box and that they can't win in the courts. That's not a reasonable approach and that is not going to make anything better nor is it going to solve a single issue. It's irresponsible and outright dangerous. It's domestic, economic terrorism, really.

Edited October 7, 2013 by Mr. Big Dog

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

I'd be curious if there's some non-partisan numbers out there that show for every $1 the govt. spends, how much does that actually contribute to the economy? Keep in mind they would have to take into account the interest they would have to pay on those funds when calculating the return, since they have to borrow any money they spend.

I would be interested to see that too.

Are you familiar with the multiplication effect? This is the idea that money changing hands is worth more than the sum of its parts. So if the gov spends a dollar to pay a worker, then that worker buys food, the restaurant pays their worker, and also their supplier, then the worker who got paid does this all again, then the supplier pays their distributor, who pays the farmer, who pays the tractor maker, who pays the steel company, who pay their workers, who buy food, etc.

The government collects tax on all of this too.

I think economists calculate this.

[Karee 4,191]

We need to tackle non-discretionary spending and / or bring the revenues in line with the anticipated spending. There is no debate that there are long term issues that require resolution. That resolution will likely mean a combination of reduced expenditures and increased revenues. A simpler tax code that doesn't give away more than a trillion dollars in the way of exemptions and credits each year might be helpful. And there are certainly items we spend money on that we shouldn't spend money on. We don't need to subsidize oil and sugar, for example. But we do. Gotta put away with that. There are probably benefits paid out to millions of people that do not need them - we gotta take a look at that. Then there's the outrageous military budget that needs to be pared back to more reasonable levels.

But all that needs to happen in a give-and-take kind of way and it needs to happen in an orderly fashion. What is happening here at current from the Republican side is beyond ridiculous. They have abandoned any sense of reason and reality and continue to throw a temper tantrum over issues that they can't win at the ballot box and that they can't win in the courts. That's not a reasonable approach and that is not going to make anything better nor is it going to solve a single issue. It's irresponsible and outright dangerous. It's domestic terrorism, really.

I agree with 100% of everything you said above except the part about blaming the Republicans for everything. I think they all share the blame. Congress, Obama, Reagan, Grover Cleveland, whatever. The issue as I see it is that none of those dimwits are going to do anything to resolves this issue unless they are forced to. This "shutdown" seems like a good way to force them to do it. They should have a balanced budget ammendment that can only be overridden in times of war or some other major calamity. They should not be able to spend one more dime than they take in. I'm not buying this B.S. about having to increase the deficit to grow the economy. I could see that if the debt was at a manageable level, but it's not. That debt has to be paid back at some point, and it is ultra irresponsible to keep it growing. We don't need all this frivolous bullsh!t with parks and monuments, and sugar subsidies and corn subsidies. All thois things are nice to have if you have the money to pay for them. We don't

[Karee 4,191]

I would be interested to see that too.

Are you familiar with the multiplication effect? This is the idea that money changing hands is worth more than the sum of its parts. So if the gov spends a dollar to pay a worker, then that worker buys food, the restaurant pays their worker, and also their supplier, then the worker who got paid does this all again, then the supplier pays their distributor, who pays the farmer, who pays the tractor maker, who pays the steel company, who pay their workers, who buy food, etc.

The government collects tax on all of this too.

I think economists calculate this.

I didn't realize there was a name for it, but I understand the principle that when a dollar is spent on something, that dollar has more than just the effect of making they guy that got the dollar, a dollar richer. Of course that guy has to sepnd that dollar and not stick it in his mattress or bury it in his back yard. I guess my problem is that it's not good to rely on government spending to prop up the economy. I understand the government needs to spend money, but to have govt. spending account for almost 40% of GDP is ridiculous.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I agree with 100% of everything you said above except the part about blaming the Republicans for everything. I think they all share the blame. Congress, Obama, Reagan, Grover Cleveland, whatever. The issue as I see it is that none of those dimwits are going to do anything to resolves this issue unless they are forced to. This "shutdown" seems like a good way to force them to do it. They should have a balanced budget ammendment that can only be overridden in times of war or some other major calamity. They should not be able to spend one more dime than they take in. I'm not buying this B.S. about having to increase the deficit to grow the economy. I could see that if the debt was at a manageable level, but it's not. That debt has to be paid back at some point, and it is ultra irresponsible to keep it growing. We don't need all this frivolous bullsh!t with parks and monuments, and sugar subsidies and corn subsidies. All thois things are nice to have if you have the money to pay for them. We don't

I think the administration and the Democrats have been open to negotiating a resolution to the deficit and debt issue. It was the Republicans that came to the table and took revenues off that table before the negotiations started. In other words, they eneded negotiations before they ever begun. Remember how the Republican candidates for president stood on that stage last year and all raised their hands when asked who would reject a budget deal that cuts $10.00 of spending for every $1.00 of revenue? That is why we are where we are and there's one party responsible for that.

The shutdown is not a good way because it will not resolve anything at all. The President cannot give in on this because if he does, he will be pulled across the table on the debt ceiling. This is actually where the President does share some responsibility for the situation we're in - he allowed negotiations over the debt ceiling previously. He should have rejetced that idea then so that nobody comes to think that this is an acceptable way forward - it isn't.

Congress has already appropriated more than the current debt ceiling covers. That means Congress has already ordered more money to be spent than is actually available. If the President does spend that money, he'll be breaking the law by breaking through the debt ceiling. If he doesn't break through the debt ceiling, he'll be breaking the law for not spending the funds Congress has duly appropriated. There's nothing to be negotiated here. Congress needs to raise the debt ceiling to match what Congress has already spent.

[Peikko 1,575]

There has to be at least one serious flaw in the US government mechanism for it even to be possible to arrive in this ridiculous situation.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

There has to be at least one serious flaw in the US government mechanism for it even to be possible to arrive in this ridiculous situation.

There is. Congress should be required to raise the debt ceiling as needed when passing the appropriations which are not matched by anticipated revenue - plus a cushion for possible revenue shortfalls. Or they could do the proper thing and just do away with that debt ceiling altogether. The debt ceiling does not raise or lower debt levels. In fact, it serves no purpose at all. All it has ever done is allow the party in opposition an opportunity for political grandstanding when the party in power had to raise it.

Edited October 7, 2013 by Mr. Big Dog

[Peikko 1,575]

Well, that's my vote then, remove the fictional debt ceiling and let's get on.

[Karee 4,191]

Well, that's my vote then, remove the fictional debt ceiling and let's get on.

Or better yet make sure they can't spend more than they take in.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Or better yet make sure they can't spend more than they take in.

You mean pay-go? Well, Republicans abandoned that in the earlier 2000's. They'll abandon it each and every time they run the show for deficits only matter when they're not in charge. You should know that.

[Karee 4,191]

You mean pay-go? Well, Republicans abandoned that in the earlier 2000's. They'll abandon it each and every time they run the show for deficits only matter when they're not in charge. You should know that.

Republicans, Democrats, Communists, Wiccans, I don't care. It should be that way.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Republicans, Democrats, Communists, Wiccans, I don't care. It should be that way.

I agree. And next time we have a budget surplus, we should not cut taxes to make sure that the surplus is turned into huge deficts. That's what your fiscal hawks of the Republican party have been doing last time around. And I can guarantee you that they'd do the same the next time around. Because this is not nor has it ever been about deficits and debt.

Edited October 7, 2013 by Mr. Big Dog