Government Shutdown

[sd'sker]

we can do both. and you know that those who scream about the debt could not care less about spending the money on the needy. they just want a smaller gov't, so they inflate this issue to get their way.

[tschu]

Thursday's Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll hit the Republican Party like a bomb.

 

It found, as Gallup had, the Republican Party (and, separately, the Tea Party) at "all-time lows in the history of the poll." It found Republicans taking more blame for the shutdown than they had in 1995. It found more Americans believing the shutdown is a serious problem than in 1995.

 

Even worse for the GOP is what the pollsters called "the Boomerang Effect": Both President Obama and Obamacare are more popular than they were a month ago. Obamacare in particular gained seven points. (More poll highlights here, full results here.)

 

It's hard to overstate the magnitude of the GOP's strategic failure here: Obamacare's launch has been awful. More than a week after the federal insurance marketplaces opened, most people can't purchase insurance on the first try. But Republicans have chosen such a wildly unpopular strategy to oppose it that they've helped both Obamacare and its author in the polls.

 

This could've been a week when Republicans crystallized the case against Obamacare. Instead it's been a week in which they've crystallized the case against themselves.

http://www.washingto...er-for-the-gop/

 

[JJ Husker]

The more debt you have, the more of your budget becomes devoted to principle and interest payments. The more that happens, the less the government can actually do that we all love for them to do.

Do you think that dumping the borrowed money into the economy has any effect?

Absolutely the money the government puts back into the economy has positive effects. But it has less effect than consumers and businesses being the ones dumping it into the economy. The government is rife with corruption and inefficiency. Every dollar we give to them comes back severely reduced.

[JJ Husker]

we can do both. and you know that those who scream about the debt could not care less about spending the money on the needy. they just want a smaller gov't, so they inflate this issue to get their way.

 

I don't know any such thing. It sure is awful convenient to blame only one party for not caring about the needy when it is quite obvious neither party really helps them. I think the debt is too high and that continually increasing it (at least at the rate it has been) is ludicrous. I want a smaller, more efficient government. Does that mean I could not care less about helping the needy?

 

Both sides inflate the issue to serve themselves, to stay in power. If you think these people are fundamentally different deep in their hearts, well, they have already succeeded in your brainwashing.

[carlfense]

OK here is an example of what I'm thinking. I'll apologize in advance for not citing any intellectual or government studies and for using my common sense.

That's not what I intended.

 

If the debt were lower, we would have to pay less interest on the debt. Now I'll just make up a dollar amount that we have saved by not paying interest on the debt- $100 billion dollars (don't worry, it doesn't matter if that number is low or high- it's an example). What else could we do with that $100B?

-Healthcare

-Feed the poor

-Reduce taxes

-Government programs of all sorts

In the long term, I agree. In the short term, (particularly when we were in the midst of a severe recession) I strongly disagree.

 

 

Sure a bunch of that interest payment ends up going to other countries but a substantial amount also goes to the richest of our rich.

Somewhere under half goes out of the US (IIRC). Some goes to the richest of the rich here in the US. Something like 15% of it is interest free and paid back to the Social Security trust fund.

 

Poor people are not the ones investing in government debt and profiting off of it. They're the ones who get denied services and benefits because we're spending that money on servicing debt instead of things that could help them.

Conversely, they might be one of the major beneficiaries of the borrowed money, right? When the poor are referred to as "takers" it's because they're being accused of taking government money and services without paying into the system, correct?

 

So, IMO, it is contradictory for a person to think increasing the debt is not a bad thing while at the same time whining that some other political party doesn't care about the poor.

See above. You can't ignore the actual benefits of the spending and just focus entirely on the long term costs of the debt. That money is spent. It's in our economy. It's in our wallets. It's not borrowed just for the sake of borrowing.

 

Caring for the poor becomes much easier if you can use existing revenues and it doesn't have to be pick pocketed from an ever dwindling number of taxpayers.

"Ever dwindling number of taxpayers"?

[carlfense]

The government is rife with corruption and inefficiency. Every dollar we give to them comes back severely reduced.

How so? You seem to be implying something beyond interest payments to foreign creditors.

[sd'sker]

you are right that neither party really helps the needy, but one party seems much more inclined to adopt social dawinism and only protect a certain, opulent, minority.

 

and i believe that you are a sympathetic human being, this has nothing to do with individuals who vote for republicans, it just has to do with those who represent them.

 

as a matter of fact, i like the conservative ideology at its core. personal responsibility, fiscal responsibility, personal freedom. i just see private entities being a greater threat to individuals than the gov't, and the gov't is the only entity with enough leverage to do anything about it. i would probably be a republican ... [remember nixon? if it was not for his foreign policy (a common black-eye for presidents), his blatantly racist southern strategy, and his insane paranoia, he would have been a pretty great president] ... if we nationalized banks and healthcare, and if there were no multinational corporations. but as that is not the case, republicans seemed to have decided to only represent evangelicals and the opulent minority. while democrats do mostly only pay lip-service, they seem to do less damage and have a better chance of progressing this nation. and the fact of the matter is that the republican party has moved so far to the right that today reagan would look like a centrist, if not left-of-center. if you do not believe me, just look at the surpreme court. when rehnquist became a judge, he was considered a far right member; when he left, he was the centrist. the party shifted and now it represents too narrow a spectrum.

 

as always, imo.

[carlfense]

as a matter of fact, i like the conservative ideology at its core. personal responsibility, fiscal responsibility, personal freedom. . . while democrats do mostly only pay lip-service, they seem to do less damage and have a better chance of progressing this nation. and the fact of the matter is that the republican party has moved so far to the right that today reagan would look like a centrist, if not left-of-center. if you do not believe me, just look at the surpreme court. when rehnquist became a judge, he was considered a far right member; when he left, he was the centrist. the party shifted and now it represents too narrow a spectrum.

+1

[zoogs]

It's no wonder our government is as out of control as it is. Not only do we allow them to operate the way they do, many people are convinced it makes sense and go out of their way defending the lunacy.

 

All due respect JJ but I don't think anybody's bending over backwards to excuse something, only trying to explain how the system works -- it should be no surprise that 'common sense principle' has limited application to reality.

[BigRedBuster]

we can do both. and you know that those who scream about the debt could not care less about spending the money on the needy. they just want a smaller gov't, so they inflate this issue to get their way.

 

 

Depends on the individual or group you are talking about. If you are talking about the whack job Tea Party....sure. If you are talking about someone who actually tries to use common sense on an issue...not so much.

 

Yes, I think we could have a smaller government and accomplish the same things we are doing now. There is gross inefficiencies in our entire government. Some of that comes from the attitude at the top that...."hey...we can spend it and try to figure out how to pay for it later".

 

I don't like a lot of the results from sequester that has been in place. BUT, what it has done is FORCED the issue of various departments to actually see if they can cut back and accomplish the same thing. This is what most private businesses have had to do and the government should be doing the same thing.

 

BUT...let me give you one example of the idiocy of the government.

 

I know a guy who owns a building in a small town which houses a governmental agency. The agency has been there for years and pays rent. Hmmmm....now they are being forced to cut back. So....the upper management of this agency came up with this great idea that they put in a rule that the offices they rent can not be over a certain size.

 

Sounds decent right? Hmmm...so, since this is the only building in this small town that works for this agencies office, they turned around and told the owner that he needs to come in and put up a wall in the conference room which would decrease the number of square feet in the office and then it would meet the goal of the rule as renting a smaller space. If you don't understand what I just said, he would need to put up a wall and there would be completely dead space BEHIND that wall that prevents it from being used. So, the guy I know protested and said that since he rents on a per square foot basis, he then is losing money since he could rent the space to someone else that would pay for the entire office.

 

They said..."oh..not really....you can up the rent on the rest of the space to cover it.

 

 

Waste waste waste....and no real regard to actually fixing a problem of inefficiencies. THIS is what needs to be fixed. But, when the entire government is basically given a blank check to do what ever they want because...heck...they can just borrow the money anyway.....why change.

 

As JJ pointed out, there is a benefit of the government putting money into the economy. However, it is not as great as individuals using that money to actually produce goods and services in private business and creating wealth in the population.

[wildman]

It's no wonder our government is as out of control as it is. Not only do we allow them to operate the way they do, many people are convinced it makes sense and go out of their way defending the lunacy.

 

I prefer the debt not be as high or no debt at all. But I do see it as a necessary evil. They do spend and waste a lot of money. But a lot of it is for a good cause. Cause with out the government spending the way it is our military for example wouldn't be the size, trained or equipped the way they are today. I know it's just one example to support the government spending but it's an important one. I'm sure there are others that would justify the debt as well. But I don't think the entire debt can be justified, some changes do need to be made.

[carlfense]

we can do both. and you know that those who scream about the debt could not care less about spending the money on the needy. they just want a smaller gov't, so they inflate this issue to get their way.

Depends on the individual or group you are talking about. If you are talking about the whack job Tea Party....sure. If you are talking about someone who actually tries to use common sense on an issue...not so much.

 

Yes, I think we could have a smaller government and accomplish the same things we are doing now. There is gross inefficiencies in our entire government. Some of that comes from the attitude at the top that...."hey...we can spend it and try to figure out how to pay for it later".

 

I don't like a lot of the results from sequester that has been in place. BUT, what it has done is FORCED the issue of various departments to actually see if they can cut back and accomplish the same thing. This is what most private businesses have had to do and the government should be doing the same thing.

 

BUT...let me give you one example of the idiocy of the government.

 

I know a guy who owns a building in a small town which houses a governmental agency. The agency has been there for years and pays rent. Hmmmm....now they are being forced to cut back. So....the upper management of this agency came up with this great idea that they put in a rule that the offices they rent can not be over a certain size.

 

Sounds decent right? Hmmm...so, since this is the only building in this small town that works for this agencies office, they turned around and told the owner that he needs to come in and put up a wall in the conference room which would decrease the number of square feet in the office and then it would meet the goal of the rule as renting a smaller space. If you don't understand what I just said, he would need to put up a wall and there would be completely dead space BEHIND that wall that prevents it from being used. So, the guy I know protested and said that since he rents on a per square foot basis, he then is losing money since he could rent the space to someone else that would pay for the entire office.

 

They said..."oh..not really....you can up the rent on the rest of the space to cover it.

 

 

Waste waste waste....and no real regard to actually fixing a problem of inefficiencies. THIS is what needs to be fixed. But, when the entire government is basically given a blank check to do what ever they want because...heck...they can just borrow the money anyway.....why change.

What exactly do you think that your (ridiculous, I agree) story shows that is relevant to this discussion?

 

However, it is not as great as individuals using that money to actually produce goods and services in private business and creating wealth in the population.

Could you explain why a public dollar is worth less than a private dollar? And what exactly do you mean by "private business . . . creating wealth in the population"?

[BigRedBuster]

you are right that neither party really helps the needy, but one party seems much more inclined to adopt social dawinism and only protect a certain, opulent, minority.

 

and i believe that you are a sympathetic human being, this has nothing to do with individuals who vote for republicans, it just has to do with those who represent them.

 

as a matter of fact, i like the conservative ideology at its core. personal responsibility, fiscal responsibility, personal freedom. i just see private entities being a greater threat to individuals than the gov't, and the gov't is the only entity with enough leverage to do anything about it. i would probably be a republican ... [remember nixon? if it was not for his foreign policy (a common black-eye for presidents), his blatantly racist southern strategy, and his insane paranoia, he would have been a pretty great president] ... if we nationalized banks and healthcare, and if there were no multinational corporations. but as that is not the case, republicans seemed to have decided to only represent evangelicals and the opulent minority. while democrats do mostly only pay lip-service, they seem to do less damage and have a better chance of progressing this nation. and the fact of the matter is that the republican party has moved so far to the right that today reagan would look like a centrist, if not left-of-center. if you do not believe me, just look at the surpreme court. when rehnquist became a judge, he was considered a far right member; when he left, he was the centrist. the party shifted and now it represents too narrow a spectrum.

 

as always, imo.

 

So....how is JJ and I owning a business a threat to individuals?

[carlfense]

So....how is JJ and I owning a business a threat to individuals?

You or JJ owning a business (or me partially owning a business, for that matter) isn't a threat to individuals.

 

The actions of your business (or my business. or JJ's business.) very well might pose a threat to individuals.

[BigRedBuster]

What exactly do you think that your (ridiculous, I agree) story shows that is relevant to this discussion?

 

I believe if the government needs to spend less so it has less debt over time which would cause less of the budget to be dedicated to nothing more than debt relief and interest.

 

You believe the services the government provides are important enough that the debt is really not an issue. (correct me if I'm wrong).

 

My example shows that I believe we both actually can have what we want, but, we are stuck in the argument that everyone in Washington would actually LIKE us to be in which divides us. That gives them power.

 

If the government would actually make concerted efforts to be efficient and SAVE money, over time, the deficit would be reduced, might even be possible we reduce our debt, we could spend less on interest and principle payments and in turn the government could actually do MORE for the people while actually spending LESS. There would be less of a tax burden on people and that would help individuals and private business.

 

But, instead, we have a system everyone just gives lip service to saving money and instead, they are rewarded for spending more.