Will there be another Government Standoff in 2 month?

[Fergasun]

I think most folks here may know that I work for Department of Defense. I'm kind've sick of having my job and livelyhood treated like a pawn in a political game. In my mind, the GOP/TEA party folks are pointing a gun at me, and then saying, "OBAMA IS GONNA SHOOT YOU! OBAMA IS GONNA SHOOT YOU!" and then if I happened to get harmed they are going to be saying, "SEE, OBAMA SHOT YOU!" even while the smoking gun is in their hands. Just wondering if anyone things we'll be through this again, after deailing with it in March, and now (August), or did the debt ceiling deal take care of the FY2012 budgeting? I can only assume it did...

[NOLASKINSFAN]

As a fellow Government employee my whole adult life (5 years navy, rest DoD) I know your concern. But if you have just followed the media’s guided tour into believing this is the GOP/TEA Parties fault, all I can say is you’ve tricked, duped, led astray, hoodwinked, bamboozled. I recommend doing some research and understanding this matter a little more before assigning blame, sounds fair huh?
To answer, your question, No; this will not happen in again 2 months, BUT it will happen again in 2 years. That is because we put enough on the credit card (roughly 2 trillion) to last us until 2013 (after the Presidential election) I’ll also go out on a limb and say that that lack of a 2012 budget, will bleed into 2013, that is if Obama wins reelection, which at this point I’m putting at 55/45 in his favor.
Our first problem (2 months ago) was the lack of a budget, meaning we had the money (credit) but it wasn’t allocated to be spent. The problem this time around was a lack of money (credit) to spend all together. In both cases the military (and DoD civilians) absolutely would have been paid. Both parties used the military and social security as pawns but at no time were they in and danger.

[Bang]

I'd love to know just how everyone would get paid if there was no danger, especially when you preface that by saying the problem was a lack of money all together.
Sounds like pie-in-the-sky to me.

~Bang

[NOLASKINSFAN]

I, especially when you preface that by saying the problem was a lack of money all together.
Sounds like pie-in-the-sky to me.

The government was out of “credit”, still had revenue. Meaning they take in approx. 200 billion dollars in federal taxes monthly. (We need about 372, I believe) That is enough for DoD, social security and other things (i.e. do you think lawmakers were gonna go hungry?). Still a crisis, but they weren’t shutting the power off at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Now, admittedly there are constitutional issues with the President determining what debts can be paid, and I have no idea how this thing was going to work, had the the deal we all knew was going to be made wasn’t made.I know it is a crazy concept, federal government only spending what it takes in. ( I mean most states and ALL Americans have to do that but hey, the Federal government is special I guess)

[Bang]

How long can that be expected to last?
I don't disagree there was a lot of theater involved, but I think you may be overselling the idea that there is / was no danger.
Assuming they did just go ahead and do that, that doesn't leave money for anyone else on the gov't payroll, and that is a hell of a lot of people beyond the politicians themselves.

(Oh, and for fun, i also note that most Americans are SUPPOSED to spend less than they take in.. but we know better, eh? This is more than a governmental problem when you get right down to it. I think as a people we very much want our cake and to eat it, but paying for it is usually pretty low on the priorities... so long as we get the cake up front. This whole country swims in debt. It's part of our mindset that we're entitled to live like kings, even if we ca't afford it. We want what we see.. and it seems to me we're quite happy being up to our ears in debt,, just so long as the neighbors think we're rich.)

~Bang

[DRSmith]

I think most folks here may know that I work for Department of Defense. I'm kind've sick of having my job and livelyhood treated like a pawn in a political game. In my mind, the GOP/TEA party folks are pointing a gun at me, and then saying, "OBAMA IS GONNA SHOOT YOU! OBAMA IS GONNA SHOOT YOU!" and then if I happened to get harmed they are going to be saying, "SEE, OBAMA SHOT YOU!" even while the smoking gun is in their hands. Just wondering if anyone things we'll be through this again, after deailing with it in March, and now (August), or did the debt ceiling deal take care of the FY2012 budgeting? I can only assume it did...

The problem is the smart Republicans who get things are called names like Rino by the tea party sort, this article by Frum is well done and makes sense.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/08/01/frum.debt.republicans/index.html?hpt=po_bn1

1) Unemployment is a more urgent problem than debt.

The U.S. can borrow money for 10 years at less than 3%. It can borrow money for two years at less than one-half a percent. Yes, the burden of debt is worrying. Yet lenders seem undaunted by those worries.

Meanwhile, more than 14 million Americans are out of work, more than 6 million for longer than six months. The United States has not seen so many people out of work for so long since the 1930s.

2) The deficit is a symptom of America's economic problems, not a cause.

When the economy slumps, government revenues decline and government spending surges.

Federal revenues have collapsed since 2007, down from more than 18% of national income to a little more than 14%. To put that in perspective: That's the equivalent of losing enough revenue to support the entire defense budget.

Federal spending has jumped to pay for unemployment insurance, food stamps and Medicaid benefits.

Fix the economy first, and the deficit will improve on its own.

Cut the deficit first, and the economy will get even sicker.

3) The time to cut is after the economy recovers.

Businesses are hoarding cash. Consumers are repaying debt. State and local governments are slashing jobs. (Since 2009, the number of Americans working for government has shrunk by half a million, the biggest reduction in civilian government employment since the Great Depression.) Right now, there's only one big customer out there: the federal government. How does it help anybody if the feds suddenly stop buying things and paying people?

4) The place to cut is health care, not assistance to the unemployed and poor.

[mardi gras skin]

The problem is the smart Republicans who get things are called names like Rino by the tea party sort, this article by Frum is well done and makes sense.

And the smart Democrats, the Blue Dogs, are derided for not being liberal enough. Both parties sneer at the smart people in their caucus.

[Fergasun]

NOLASKINSFAN,
There is one political party/ideology that is saying "this government spending is out of control". Oddly enough, their stance on that hardened and only became an issue on or around January 20, 2009. This was the same party that just 2 months prior to that date passed a $700B bailout plan for the banks.

There is one political party/ideology that is now saying "we cannot afford this debt". No one has rationally explained to me why $14T is that line in the sad vs. $25T.

There is one political party/ideology who has such a very odd stance on government spending and deficits. The GOP/TEA party talks about our debt/deficit level like it's a moral issue. Yet they had no problem giving out tax breaks earlier this year. Don't you think they would realize that he path we've taken, of *not* paying the debt has actually alleviated some of the economic concerns... yet somehow having a deficit that is not paid for by anyone is causing a huge crisis. The GOP/TEA party would be the first complaining if we had to close the deficit by increased taxes (even though they are claiming it's a huge moral crisis and this is about the future of the nation). Where were they for the past 30 years?

Does the GOP/TEA party really thing that private companies are going to pick up the slack in the economy when the government money gets sucked out by these cuts? It's asinine.

The truth is that neither party is really representing this issue honestly; we're already at the point of which any cuts or savings is politically unpopular. And the truth is we aren't arguing about $17T; the argument is whether we hit $22T and whether that is max'd out.

[DRSmith]

And the smart Democrats, the Blue Dogs, are derided for not being liberal enough. Both parties sneer at the smart people in their caucus.

Wasn't Ben Nelson one of those people called Blue Dogs and all he was holding for was more money?

Frum makes plenty of good factual points in his peace I would like to see one debunked

[Madison Redskin]

The GOP/TEA party talks about our debt/deficit level like it's a moral issue. Yet they had no problem giving out tax breaks earlier this year.

That's because many of them have still believe in supply side economics and the popular refrain "job killing tax increases." Nevermind the fact that an overwhelming majority of economists think supply side economics is bunk and the phrase "job killing tax increases" is misleading at best.

In case you missed it last Sunday morning, you should watch this clip that neatly summarizes my thoughts on the debt crisis and the tea party.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XM863b1Z6lg

As for the OP, I'm not sure what the deal looks like right now, other than the broad contours widely reported by the media.

[DeaconTheVillain]

What did Ben Stein say? That video won't play

[Madison Redskin]

What did Ben Stein say? That video won't play

Sorry, the embed request was denied. See the link in my post.

[DRSmith]

What did Ben Stein say? That video won't play

Made a lot of good points about how lower taxes do not lead to more money for the government.

That America has been through alot.

And supply side economics is a farc basically the math does not work. It is true if I take a twenty percent vut in pay to work 20 percent more I am behind was I was making when I was working 40 hours

[mardi gras skin]

Wasn't Ben Nelson one of those people called Blue Dogs and all he was holding for was more money?

Frum makes plenty of good factual points in his peace I would like to see one debunked

There you go. Tear down the moderates in your own party. The Blue Dogs aren't really moderate, they're extortionists.

This is exactly how Rabid Conservatives tear down the "DINOs".

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Two questions:

1) What is the standoff in two months going to be over? Is there some looming issue I don't know of?
2) Can someone explain how a "jobs bill" is going to get passed when the tea party has made it clear they are going to block anything that spends any money? I guess a third question is, what would a "jobs bill" even do?

[DRSmith]

There you go. Tear down the moderates in your own party. The Blue Dogs aren't really moderate, they're extortionists.

This is exactly how Rabid Conservatives tear down the "DINOs".

What are you talking about my party?

I am Canadian for starters

Heck if Nelson was really a blue dog ficcal conservative he would and all those who claim to be fiscal conservatives would support sinlge payer health care to bring down costs and to exercise more control on it and realize government programs need funding.

[mardi gras skin]

What are you talking about my party?

I am Canadian for starters

Yeah, I don't believe you any more. I don't give one toot about Canadian politics but you can't stay out of a single political thread on ES. By birth or by choice, Democrats are clearly your party.


Heck if Nelson was really a blue dog ficcal conservative he would and all those who claim to be fiscal conservatives would support sinlge payer health care to bring down costs and to exercise more control on it and realize government programs need funding.
I didn't say anything about Nelson, you did. He's the example you wanted to use as the standard bearer as a Blue Dog moderate. And really, just one vote on one issue in Nelson's carrerr. That one vote from that one Blue Dog is the example you want to use for a Blue Dog. Congratulations. You're an extremist.

[DRSmith]

NO I am going by what people called him.

I do not care if you do not believe me there are people on here who know me and have met me and know I am from Canada.

And if the Dems are my party then you should go find the threads I started pre election talking about why I though Obama was a bad choice.

[twa]

Two questions:

1) What is the standoff in two months going to be over? Is there some looming issue I don't know of?
2) Can someone explain how a "jobs bill" is going to get passed when the tea party has made it clear they are going to block anything that spends any money? I guess a third question is, what would a "jobs bill" even do?

1) I vote we have a fight over the expiring federal gas taxes:evilg:

Let the states set and collect it,thereby removing the feds favorite extortion tactic of withholding hwy funds

2) a easy jobs bill(w/o fiscal cost) is opening up energy development:beatdeadhorse:

[NOLASKINSFAN]

NOLASKINSFAN,
There is one political party/ideology that is saying "this government spending is out of control". Oddly enough, their stance on that hardened and only became an issue on or around January 20, 2009. This was the same party that just 2 months prior to that date passed a $700B bailout plan for the banks.

There is one political party/ideology that is now saying "we cannot afford this debt". No one has rationally explained to me why $14T is that line in the sad vs. $25T.
.

Have you not been paying attention to the rest of the world? If you don't not see the harm in 25 trillion dollars in debt, I'm really not going to be able to explain it to you in this format. We cannot just
keep printing money untill we run out of ink. Things have got out of hand and I will agree it started under Bush. but Obama has just taken to another level. Americans flat out rejected Obama's explosion of gov't spending and the GOP had responsibilty to stand up for the mandate of the people that we are not willing to pay more taxes until Washington learns how to spend.

[mardi gras skin]

I do not care if you do not believe me there are people on here who know me and have met me and know I am from Canada.

:ols:

come on. You might live in Canada and you might have been born in Canada but, heart and soul, you clearly belong to the Democratic Party of the United States of America. ;)

[DRSmith]

:ols:

come one. You might live in Canada and you might have been born in Canada but, heart and soul, you clearly belong to the Democratic Party of the United States of America. ;)

Nope I just see the harm brought in by Republican economic policies and I really have grown tired self righteous crap spewed by the rifght while they act like they are victims all the time.

[mardi gras skin]

Nope I just see the harm brought in by Republican economic policies and I really have grown tired self righteous crap spewed by the rifght while they act like they are victims all the time.

But the self righteous crap spewed from the far left...you're ok with that. :)

[DRSmith]

But the self righteous crap spewed from the far left...you're ok with that. :)

If you can give me examples of where it is used to get people to act

You hear and see the religous right not so much the religous left

[mardi gras skin]

If you can give me examples of where it is used to get people to act

I gave you an example. Half the Democrats in the House voted against raising the Debt Ceiling. The final vote. If you're willing to forgive that vote as an expression of political posturing than you have to forgive all the Republican opposition to the debt ceiling leading up to that vote because, ultimately, none of those votes mattered. Just like the Democrats in this final vote, they didn't succeed in voting down the debt limit.

Of course, you don't see it that way. You're only concerned about the political posturing from the other side. Your team are the good guys.

[DRSmith]

No I see the vote the same as those Pubs who voted against the Bohener plan after they had enough to pass it

[mardi gras skin]

No I see the vote the same as those Pubs who voted against the Bohener plan after they had enough to pass it

Great. So, in the end, neither the extreme Republicans nor the extreme Democrats who voted against raising the debt ceiling really did any damage. This whole thing was just a lot of drama with nothing to get worked up about. Neither party is ruled by their extremes.

I can agree with that.

[Bang]

Not adding to the thread with this, but Canadian or not, DRSmith you definitely fall on the left side of the aisle.
Not even close, my man.

~Bang

[NoVaO]

Two questions:

1) What is the standoff in two months going to be over? Is there some looming issue I don't know of?
2) Can someone explain how a "jobs bill" is going to get passed when the tea party has made it clear they are going to block anything that spends any money? I guess a third question is, what would a "jobs bill" even do?


1, twa mentioned the gas tax fight that will be upcoming, but remember the potential Government shutdown that we averted earlier in the year? That comes up again in September.

2. I'm not sure how any jobs bill get past the tea party Congress. It's just really hard to imagine. I suppose when the tea party takes the Government hostage again, Democrats can extract some jobs-related legislation in exchange for long term deficit reduction.

A jobs bill would include extending unemployment benefits, or a payroll tax cut extension, both of which put money into pockets of people. Also included in that is infrastructure spending

---------- Post added August-2nd-2011 at 04:29 PM ----------


Have you not been paying attention to the rest of the world? If you don't not see the harm in 25 trillion dollars in debt, I'm really not going to be able to explain it to you in this format. We cannot just
keep printing money untill we run out of ink. Things have got out of hand and I will agree it started under Bush. but Obama has just taken to another level. Americans flat out rejected Obama's explosion of gov't spending and the GOP had responsibilty to stand up for the mandate of the people that we are not willing to pay more taxes until Washington learns how to spend.

Exactly how has Obama taken government spending to another level? How much has come directly because of Obama and how much is it due to factors out of his control? The recession caused a huge drop in revenue into the treasury and safety net spending significantly increased as well. The stimulus package was worth $800 billion and will be off the books by 2013 I think.

The deficit is made up of the same things that made up the deficit when Obama entered office, only the recession has only exacerbated things. The wars, the tax cuts, the Medicare Part D bill, an aging population, and the Great Recession. If you're looking for what makes up our deficit, there it is. Most of what makes up our deficit is ultimately out of Obama's control.

[Fergasun]

I think China has a bigger country than we do. If we "default" what are the other countries going to do? Kill our soldiers and invade our country? Like it or not, we are like AIG circa September 2008, too big to fail.

This is really nothing people have been screaming on for about a decade however. I think the question in my mind is not "We can't raise the debt ceiling now!" it's, "what's the credible plan so that we stabilize our deficits in 15 years."

[DRSmith]

Not adding to the thread with this, but Canadian or not, DRSmith you definitely fall on the left side of the aisle.
Not even close, my man.

~Bang

When the right side of aisle ignore reality you end up seeming ike you on the left.

---------- Post added August-3rd-2011 at 08:49 AM ----------


Great. So, in the end, neither the extreme Republicans nor the extreme Democrats who voted against raising the debt ceiling really did any damage. This whole thing was just a lot of drama with nothing to get worked up about. Neither party is ruled by their extremes.

I can agree with that.

If niether party was ruled by extremes then there would have been a bill that had revenues and spending cuts to come and the biggest part of the bill would have been about creating job which required money for investment.

And the cuts would have come a little quicker also, heck if they started means testing applicants that would save money.

[Seabee1973]

You had better pick a different livelyhood. The DOD will always be the source of debate when it comes to funding. It was gutted under Clinton and built back to it's bloated self under Bush. Obama (in typical Obama fashion) has not lived up to his promise(s) to cut defense and the DOD budget has actually INCREASED under him. But, as I have said numerous times here, I believe that lowering the DOD budget significantly while troops are in harms way is political suicide, so nothing big will happen until we have vacated from Afghanistan and Iraq.

They have already started cutting back on the military a program started in 2004 or 5 has been ramped up the last 2 years
the are also cutting 2000 seabees from the navy while also cutting 6000 troops that fall under NECC comand these are troops that will not be replaced
along withe the 2000 seabees getting cut they are getting rid of two Construction battalions this was brought to the plans last year and is starting its finalization right now