Of course there is a right and wrong, and you can do some things based on principle. I don't think this is huge either way. The government money is a small part of the PP budget, and an iota of the federal budget. We spend federal money to fund all sorts of things that aren't government operations though. We can find all sorts of explicit and implicit examples of that: tax breaks for individuals and corporations, grants for research, etc.
Republican Party is Broken
- Thread starter countryroads89_rivals
- Start date
I don't think most people WANT it to happen, but the dems will definitely try to spin it if it does. My point is that when the dems recently had an opportunity to do the same thing, they did not do it. I'm not trying to hold them up as the moral compass due to that, but it is a point worth noting. Maybe it's a difference of philosophy about the importance of government, but I fail to see how having people in our military and government service worried about getting a pay check is helpful. I fail to see how worrying retirees about getting Soc Sec or military retirement or government service pensions helps us. Let's not forget the people who rely on food stamps - how are they going to get the month's supply of surf and turf? Then you have the people who hold government investments - savings bonds, t-bills, etc. Are we going to be able to make the payments due there? Ripple effect impacts government contractors - do they stop work until their money is made available or do they continue to work without knowing if they can meet payroll. It's a dumb tactic that doesn't help the economy.
Your analogy sucked.
I don't think they should shut down on something as puny as just PP. Now, a 5-10% cut across the board, revamp SS, and cut out PP entirely, I could live with that.
I think that's a reasonable plan, but I don't think the time is there to do it with a CR right now. If they can get a CR for now, then work on a bigger deal, I think that's the smart solution. I believe that's Boehner and McConnel's plan.
Yea, I'm good with that, but if they go to the mattresses, they better damn well be ready to close the deal and outlast the other guy. 1 thing will definitely happen, the GOP will be blamed. 1 of 2 things will happen next, they stay the course and either the President relents (probably won't), or they get enough members of the DNC to capitulate under pressure to override the veto. The latter would be my bet, but it has to be made clear at the onset, they will shut it down and keep it down until the other side relents. It is not something to play with and they better be damn sure they are going to see it through to the end otherwise they lose the PR battle and lose the strategic battle. It won't take long for the PR hit to swing it's focus over to the DNC and President, but no doubt the onset will be squarely on the GOP.
Depending on how long that lasts, the economies in some areas will be immeasurably harmed.
I don't agree with the tactic at all. It is their job to pass budgets, if they can't or won't do it then they should just resign.
Somebody else does it sounds like a pretty lame excuse to me. There is litany of things we could make that association and from your implication, all spending is permitted with that as the reason. We could also justify using one of my mother's reasoning. Just because.
Are you in favor of a 19 trillion debt and growing? Obviously, somebody else is OK with it.
You asked about government money being used to fund something that was not a government operation. My point was that it happens all the time - prison outreach programs are a good comparison. We don't want the government running clinics, so the government gives money to some clinics to help provide cheap options available to the poorer folks - I'm sure PP isn't the only such program, just the most high profile one.
I think we have to address the deficit seriously. I don't think anyone is willing to do that. The D's don't want to cut spending anywhere, and the R's don't want to raise taxes on anyone or anything. We have to do both of those things if we are really going to address this problem. We're also going to have to make cuts that unpopular - something that politicians are not going to do going into an election cycle. On top of that, we need to find a way to repair our infrastructure, not an inexpensive endeavor. BTW, that's not just bridges and roads. It's dams, water delivery systems, the power grid, railways, airports, etc. Not all of that is the ultimate responsibility of the fed, but Ike made a solid point back in the 50's about how a solid infrastructure is a necessity for our security. If you can't get things from point A to point B efficiently, you aren't going to be able to respond quickly to a crisis.
I don't agree with it either, but if the majority party passes a budget the onus then lays on the individual or individuals to approve it or provide the necessary support to override the veto. Party before country is getting pretty damn old. The budget cannot be held hostage just because Obama won't approve something the majority congress passes. If the DNC is backing him up, then it really would be on the DNC for the shutdown. As Obama said, elections have consequences. Clearly the country was unhappy with the DNC congress so it elected a majority GOP House and Senate based on the platforms those candidates ran on. That is a representative of the people's desires. Doesn't the President or the minority party in congress have a duty to respect what the majority of the people want as evidenced by their selection of their representative body?
I have no problem with some of what you say, but I would suggest we are pissing in the wind until we can grow GDP to 6%+. The tried method that has proven effective is to cut taxes so people will have more of their money to spend. We have to realize that growth of government cannot stimulate the economy going forward. Government produces nothing to sell and create a self sustaining model. Government can only take money out of the economy via taxes to perpetuate itself.
It would be nice if government would control spending by not "investing" in more projects. In my case, I would like to see all agencies be put on zero budget(no baseline) and justify itself via cost-benefit model.
Dog, I believe you have given the GOP the solution. We will have a CR into Dec. In the mean time Repub Majority has got to tell the Dem Minority that they will make a stand if 3-4 extreme Dems are going to vote to block a funding bill to carry the government thru to 9-30-16 just to protect a lame duck president. What do we have blocking now - 42 Dem Senators? We only need three to switch to keep the government open. Keep repeating it daily for next two months that three radical Dems are going to be the cause of the shut down in Dec if they don't progress toward a budget and appropriation bill. Repeat it every TV show they appear on.
Now, who is killing Santa - Three Dems or 300 Repubs? Keep reminding the Repubs that Newt never regained status after he backed down from Clinton. Is it time to say Bring it on?
It's probably time to become a little more self aware and step out of the bubble and look at the polling on a lot of issues the American people aren't as keen on as the GOP base. I mean you do have to campaign to the entire Nation next year, not just Iowa. Ya'll learned nothing from the Mitt loss except I guess the crazy idea that he lost because he wasn't conservative enough. Running on defunding PP, Kicking everyone off Obamacare, repealing Gay Marriage and deporting 11 million people isn't gonna be a winner in 16.
To be fair, the majority of people don't vote at all ... so maybe we should respect the wishes of the majority and not fill the positions.
Also, just because there is a majority of one party over the other in Congress, that doesn't mean that the majority of people support their position on any specific topic.
With that kind of attitude, you better damn pray someone in GOP doesn't win the Presidency and they maintain majority in House and Senate. It will be a very long 2 years for you guys.
You learn something new every day. Today I learned, from a wingnut in a bubble, that 2/3 of 100 is 60.
So stop joshing us about getting a degree from WVU. We know the word gullible IS in the dictionary.
Typical Reaganomics crap -- his own VP called it "voodoo economics." And I love it when people clamor to apply business models (cost-benefit analysis) to an organization which, as you said, produces nothing to sell.
And we know that WVU has advanced a real son-of-a=***** in you if they accepted you in school. A stupid son-of-a-***** too, so I really hope it is just another bit of your stupidity to think those of us who did graduate WVU would believe anything you have to offer.
Stupid bastard argued that budget bills can only pass with 60% instead of simple majority. And the ********** even couldn't get over the fact that 51 Senators is a majority. House should not come into question, they have great majority.
And we know that WVU has advanced a real son-of-a=***** in you if they accepted you in school. A stupid son-of-a-***** too, so I really hope it is just another bit of your stupidity to think those of us who did graduate WVU would believe anything you have to offer.
Stupid bastard argued that budget bills can only pass with 60% instead of simple majority. And the ********** even couldn't get over the fact that 51 Senators is a majority. House should not come into question, they have great majority.
Not sure why you went personal there. At least escalating it anyway. It was uncalled for IMO.
Did Ronnie's tax rate cut not stimulate the economy? You attempt to throw around a couple buzz words that you have heard and then suggest you have something of substance to offer. What is "Typical Reaganomics Crap"? What was wrong with his policies? And what is wrong with asking an Agency to justify their being? Have you really looked at our national debt? Is it sustainable in out years when deficits return to a trillion? Who will the debt fall on? Can they pay it? The only thing you offered that was solid was the voodoo economics comment by a one term president. That is not a real good batting average, but when your hero keeps telling you that 2% GDP growth is good and you buy it, what can be expected.
You are forgiven, I am sure you haven't paid any attention to his attempt to bust my chops in less than glorious fashion for the last couple weeks. It is a game that he and his shadow have attempted to play at my expense. I don't want it and don't need it just to come here and attempt to have a political or economic discussion. I do believe I used the same vernacular with him over the past couple weeks when he instituted his ****.
He is a young punk who has to play games that I don't appreciate and will repeat the same names as he continues to barb. And, I don't feel badly about the escalation that you object to if that is the only way I can get him off my ***. Again, I come for the exchange. If he wants to play games, I will repeat that this is about it for my enjoyment for a normal day. I will respond for my enjoyment. If he gets a kick out of pressing me, I am going to greatly enjoy responding. I don't think I have ever said a cross word to you, and that is because you have shown equal respect.
Hey neil, just curious if you realize you're personally responsible for a full 1/3 of the posts in this (thus far) 100 post thread ?? Even by orlando's previous (and truly lofty) standards for an inability to log-off/log-out, that's a "record" I don't believe even he can match..
No problem here if you want to keep it civil, but stop the childish BS like you two were insistent on doing the last couple weeks with my statement that in the Senate it only took 51 and not 60 on budget matters. You two ran it into the ground for a couple weeks. And someone read the process a few days back and concurred with the number required at 51. Only then did I get any relief from your childish ****. It got old, but in the end, it was just part of my enjoyment for the day.
Maybe I am getting too old to be playing with you two juveniles, but I do enjoy the civilized discussion with most over the name calling - that is not to say I object to calling names.
1) they tripled the national debt
2) they slowed job growth
3) bank deregulation started then and continued until the recent collapse. The first part of that was the S&L scandal
I went out of my way to keep things civil with you Neil, but you insisted on unprovoked personal attacks and I responded ... and now you're crying as a victim.
We were trying to explain to you, that in order to override the President's veto, it takes two thirds, not 51, not 60. That's all I'm going to say about that.
In an attempt to try to keep it civil, I will not respond to the charges. Please don't press.
I am compelled to respond to that.We were trying to explain to you, that in order to override the President's veto, it takes two thirds, not 51, not 60. That's all I'm going to say about that.
It takes 51 to pass budget
It takes 60 to stop filibuster
It takes 67 to override a veto
Hopefully we are reading from the same sheet now.
Reagan had to reverse his tax cut in 1982. Then he signed on to tax increases in 1983 and 1986. And what is wrong with his policies is that they didn't work the way he and everyone who invokes his name as some gold standard for cutting taxes and spending and reducing the size of the government. He increased the size of the government and increased the debt. That isn't spin, it's history. And I laugh when anyone says that Obama is a hero of mine, just because I don't agree with the ******** Tea Party lines. I know very well how big the debt is, and I've read the projections that deficits will begin to rise steeply … and you know why the CBO says that's so? Because revenues are projected to keep declining while spending keeps rising. And you know why revenues will continue to fall? Because the supply-siders keep insisting that tax cuts stimulate the economy when historical evidence has proven the opposite -- which is why Reagan reversed his own tax cuts after just a year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics
Will have to wait 'til tomorrow. Reagan inherited a mess that is contended to be worse than Jan 2009. He lowered taxes and it stimulated the economy. There should be no argument there. During his eight years, he had 92 months without downturn. Longest period previously was 58 months.
Top rate when he entered was 70%. During first term, reduction to 50% and ultimately to 28%..
Unemployment declined. GDP growth was substantial. Individulal personal income increased by 30% - not restricted to top 1% (this is memory and will verify tomorrow)
Regardless, he had an extremely successful economy boom during his terms.
What was the tax rate when he left? He cut taxes. You commie libs need to grasp the reality of Reagans awesome economy. Rewriting history is beneath you all. So sad.
Dave, no rewriting history. Pops is correct. Reagan initially lowered taxes and then found out he had to raise them. He was a pretty big spender, contrary to popular misconceptions.
And to nobodies surprise you missed the point.
What were the rates when he took office and what were the rates when he left? He cut taxes.
Who was the big spender? Reagan actually worked with the congress that was elected with him. He agreed to raise taxes if congress would cut spending. Congress never cut spending.
Last edited:
The first amnesty bill was worked out with congress by Reagan. n exchange for amnesty, Congress would secure the border. Like most things in Democratic controlled congresses, it was a lie.
Name the taxes he raised... you won't find personal income rates among them.
Talk about re-writing history.
So he rolled back some of the tax cuts and closed loop holes which still resulted in net lowering. It also lead to increased IRaD as well as flexibility in financing startup ventures which paved the way for the DotCom boom of the 90s.