US Government Shutdown

[Dirty Penguin]

Apparently one in which revenue is supposed to be balanced with expenditures. It is not the one liberals live in......

Wrong.....we've been advocating a balanced approach. This President has already signed into law $2.5 Trillion dollars in cuts....and CBO says the ACA is geared to save us even more money.....

This Republican Lead Shutdown cost us $24 Billion Dollars and Mitch McConnell got a $2 Billion Dollar boondoggle check out of it for a Dam that is years past due from being completed, over budget even before this pork barrel check we just gave him..now it's costing the US taxpayers three times the amount that was originally quoted.............People need to stop referring the Republicans as the party of fiscal responsibility because they clearly aren't.

Now....a balanced approach IS..cuts and revenue through expenditures. but your fellow Republicans want nothing to do with that. I mean have you even seen Paul Ryan's Austerity Budget..? It's all about cuts to pretty much everything else except the military industrial complex and the wealthy/rich......

 

[mystic64]

Let me ask you a question? Would the interest on the debt not have been paid or would the interest on the debt been paid at the expense of other government payments?

That is what is fun about the whole thing . The Fourteenth amendment just says that the US government has to pay what it owes. It does not define levels of debt or how soon that dept has to be paid. At this point in time the focus is on US Treasury Bonds and they are guaranteed to be paid when they come due. So one would speculate that they had to be paid first with the understanding that all debts had to be paid eventually. At this time if the debt limit is not raised, then the US Government will not be able to meet its debt obligations. Not meeting its debt obligations is illegal. And the stop gap measure is not not paying some of the bills, the stop gap measure is "raising" the debt limit. Because precedent has been "solidly set" in the past for raising the debt limit during an income shortage such as we have today, not raising the debt limit could be construed as a Federal crime.

If the House had voted against a "straight" raise debt limit bill or refused to present a not "straight" raise the debt limit bill that would pass, then is would be within Obama's power as president to swear out Federal arrest warrants on the ring leaders that are causing the problem, put them in jail, and then have the House do a re vote. From there it would be up to the Supreme Court to decide what "actually" is the law of the land. And if Obama were to do that nobody would impeach him, because to many folks are upset at congress. And also if he was to do that, US Treasury bonds would be considered "Rock Hard" investments for years to come because today's Supreme Court would have let him do it.

In my opinion what is happening today should never have happened. The reason that the US congress has to pass a budget every year is to prevent this from happening. In my opinion those that created this mess to begin with should be held responsible. But that is not going to happen because there are way to many people involved. So, oh well.

 

[1robin]

Wrong.....we've been advocating a balanced approach. This President has already signed into law $2.5 Trillion dollars in cuts....and CBO says the ACA is geared to save us even more money.....

This Republican Lead Shutdown cost us $24 Billion Dollars and Mitch McConnell got a $2 Billion Dollar boondoggle check out of it for a Dam that is years past due from being completed, over budget even before this pork barrel check we just gave him..now it's costing the US taxpayers three times the amount that was originally quoted.............People need to stop referring the Republicans as the party of fiscal responsibility because they clearly aren't.

Now....a balanced approach IS..cuts and revenue through expenditures. but your fellow Republicans want nothing to do with that. I mean have you even seen Paul Ryan's Austerity Budget..? It's all about cuts to pretty much everything else except the military industrial complex and the wealthy/rich......

Is that what this graph reflects?

If Obama had ever cut anything instead of claiming a reduction in the rates it increases and other BS mathematics, then why is he asking for the debt ceiling to be raised every five minutes? If even 500 billion-1 trillion of actual cuts ever took place in his administration we could lower the ceiling.

 

[Falvlun]

Just a note: That graph goes up to 2020. The Obama administration falls in the middle area, where the big dip is, and the subsequent re-rise.

Just saying this because at first glance, I assumed the right hand side of the graph represented present day, and thus, made Obama's expenditures look much worse than they actually ended up being.

 

[1robin]

Just a note: That graph goes up to 2020. The Obama administration falls in the middle area, where the big dip is, and the subsequent re-rise.

Just saying this because at first glance, I assumed the right hand side of the graph represented present day, and thus, made Obama's expenditures look much worse than they actually ended up being.

The largest increase on that graph is Obama's doing. It does show a slight decrease after that point but then still within his term as emperor, it starts it's inevitable climb again. It was used to point out that no 2.5 trillion has been cut from anything as was claimed, unless it is another one of these ten year plans that amount to nothing other than propaganda and concerns slows in rates of growth or the projections of economic conditions tailored to produce a news bite and which never ever actually occur.

 

[Falvlun]

The largest increase on that graph is Obama's doing. It does show a slight decrease after that point but then still within his term as emperor, it starts it's inevitable climb again. It was used to point out that no 2.5 trillion has been cut from anything as was claimed, unless it is another one of these ten year plans that amount to nothing other than propaganda and concerns slows in rates of growth or the projections of economic conditions tailored to produce a news bite and which never ever actually occur.

If you put Obama's numbers in historical, and economical, perspective, they make sense.

The Great Recession did two things:
1. It greatly reduced government revenue. You graph shows this.
2. It greatly increased the number of people requiring (or qualifying for) government assistant.

Thus, under any president, we would have seen an increase in expenditures and debt/deficit.

Now, regarding the projected increase in expenditures despite 2.5 trillion in spending cuts.

It is hard to make any specific correlation from such a general graph. You can't see what the cuts affected, and you can't see what specific spending item is projected to increase.

The rapid increase in entitlements suggests to me that the problem isn't the cuts, but the increasing number of seniors going on social security and medicare, without the same increase in young people to subsidize it. That too is going to happen to any president.

And, yes, the 2.5 trillion is likely over the course of a span of years, just like every other estimated cuts are presented, your conspiracy theory notwithstanding.

(Also, can someone explain to me the y axis units? It says "billion" but the numbers are all in the thousands. I can't figure out what number that means, then. Would it then be like "6 trillion" instead of 6,000 billion?)

 

[1robin]

If you put Obama's numbers in historical, and economical, perspective, they make sense.

The Great Recession did two things:
1. It greatly reduced government revenue. You graph shows this.
2. It greatly increased the number of people requiring (or qualifying for) government assistant.

OK lets do just that. The recessions was a result of the housing bubble. The bubble was created by Carter and his affordable house stuff. It was doubled down on by Clinton. In 2002 hearings occurred where republicans said a bubble was growing and would burst in the future. I have seen the hearing. Every liberal in congress said they were full of it and were trying to create problems where none existed. The bubble burst no long after and those same scumbags blamed Bush. Obama showed up after one term of voting present in congress to assume the most powerful position in history. He immediately borrowed almost 1 trillions dollars in one bill. I figured out one day he could have paid every person who was unemployed but eligible to work $60,000 a year for many years. Yet he managed to spend the money and unemployment actually get worse. That is a special kind of incompetence I just can't figure. That same incompetence surfaces in place after place and even in ones where the damage was even greater like in foreign policy. Even allowing for and being generous in his behalf for the recessions liberals get nothing but F minuses for what they have been doing since FDR. IN fact the same practices used to buy votes as occurred in the former housing problem are being done the exact same way currently. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing but expecting a different result.

Thus, under any president, we would have seen an increase in expenditures and debt/deficit.

I do not think any president in the past (including liberals) would have spent that much money for that little effect. It is still hard to see how he even managed to do it himself. He could have thrown darts at a board and not ben that inefficient.

Now, regarding the projected increase in expenditures despite 2.5 trillion in spending cuts.

It is hard to make any specific correlation from such a general graph. You can't see what the cuts affected, and you can't see what specific spending item is projected to increase.

I know what his cuts are. They are almost all concerning a theoretical reduction in the projected rates of growth for the next ten years. First when you increase the government (the guys who do not produce money) by 20% in one term how can it help but grow slower. Or you would think so. However his last (and probably worst legislation in our history) Obama care bill grows the IRS by 15,000 people alone. Almost certain (and he knows this very well) the government will continue to expand if another liberal is elected and will demand even more money. Not one dollar will be cut in the net result and hundreds of billions more will be spent. I have heard these numbers before so I will show you what a liar he is by claiming this. Lets say the government grew by an average of 5% over the past 10 years. He will predict (based on nothing) that it will only grow at 3% for the next ten (it will actually probably grow at 7%) so he will claim that he is cutting Government by 2% and so many billions when the number of dollars spent is higher and the government is actually bigger. This is criminal dishonesty. It is not new but what is new is the level of gullible people in the nation that vote for the people claiming it.

The rapid increase in entitlements suggests to me that the problem isn't the cuts, but the increasing number of seniors going on social security and medicare, without the same increase in young people to subsidize it. That too is going to happen to any president.

There are no cuts. What cuts?

And, yes, the 2.5 trillion is likely over the course of a span of years, just like every other estimated cuts are presented, your conspiracy theory notwithstanding.

That is not how most accounting in the Government has been done. Obama has never used an honest number in his presidency. For example he dropped of those who had given up looking for work in his economy so the unemployment numbers would be lower. He was saying 7% when the actual numbers were computed to be 15% - 18%. That example has been used by others before but others being wrong does not make him right. It is still a lie even if others do it. If I started listing just the phony math he alone has used that even just I am aware of it would take several half a dozen posts.

(Also, can someone explain to me the y axis units? It says "billion" but the numbers are all in the thousands. I can't figure out what number that means, then. Would it then be like "6 trillion" instead of 6,000 billion?)

A thousand billion is a trillion. Just think of that number. We take in 2000 billion plus a year. We only have 300 million people to take care of and all he can do is yell more more more. This is insanity. Bush fought two wars for 8 years and spent less than a trillion. Obama chickened out of both (and could not even protect our embassy or ambassador) and is still demanding more. There is no other possibility than bankruptcy if some one does not do what the tea party folks suggest. Forget who is morally right or wrong. You just can't borrow money forever.

 

[Curious George]

OK lets do just that. The recessions was a result of the housing bubble. The bubble was created by Carter and his affordable house stuff. It was doubled down on by Clinton.

So, I am trying to decipher how much of any of your posts is colorful exaggerations, and political Romanticism vs. how much you actually believe is factual and a realist interpretation of current affairs.

You made claim about Obama's "impeachable" offense regarding the debt ceiling. I wrote a post better explaining the constitutional law involved. And never received a reply. I understand that you are not required to reply, nor should I expect one. Yet, I couldn't help but wonder if the whole rant of yours was just an emotional outburst with colorful language rather than an articulation of any truth. Many people suggest that Obama should be impeached or that the "liberals" are wreaking havoc. But the way that you paint your post with half-truths and facts, suggests that you actually believe all that you post. Certainly curious.

Anyhow- in case you just missed it:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3534087-post212.html

But if you just chose not to respond, ignore this post too and I will get the hint.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Is that what this graph reflects?

If Obama had ever cut anything instead of claiming a reduction in the rates it increases and other BS mathematics, then why is he asking for the debt ceiling to be raised every five minutes? If even 500 billion-1 trillion of actual cuts ever took place in his administration we could lower the ceiling.

Source for the image please.

And as already stated. The revenue loss was from the depression that we saw back in 2008-current. Hardly Obama's fault. The 2009 spending was set up in 2008 prior to Obama and his administration actually got elected. Then we saw the increase in 2009 (set up in 2008 by the previous congress) and then slightly down in 2010 and then back up in 2011 and then back down in 2012. Then a slight increase in 2013. Everything after that predicts total chaos and rapid spending that doesn't seem to follow the pattern that is indicated by the data in the chart.

 

[metis]

OK lets do just that. The recessions was a result of the housing bubble. The bubble was created by Carter and his affordable house stuff. It was doubled down on by Clinton. In 2002 hearings occurred where republicans said a bubble was growing and would burst in the future. I have seen the hearing. Every liberal in congress said they were full of it and were trying to create problems where none existed. The bubble burst no long after and those same scumbags blamed Bush.

What a bucket of dung the above is, and one can determine as such by just using sheer logic alone. In 2002, the Republicans controlled both houses and the presidency, and yet the Democrats somehow miraculously not only caused the bubble but then somehow miraculously stopped the Republicans from doing anything about it? Wow, you really do believe in miracles, don't you?

Instead, reality is quite different. First of all, presidents from Eisenhower on used the housing market to bolster the country economically, but the real problem crept in starting in 1999 with changes to Glass-Steagall that allowed the banks to speculate more than they were able to in the past. This change was proposed by Phil Gramm, a Republican, and was signed on by both Clinton and the Republicans. The single largest group to oppose it were the Keynesian economists, with Krugman and Drogan (D.-ND) just being two of them.

And this was made even more of a problem when the Bush administration through Paulson allowed banks to use their accounts to invest in the shadow-banking system, which eventually killed so many 401K's when the market collapsed.

According to Alan Greenspan, a Republican appointed conservative economist, he realized that we were in trouble starting in 2005 but was afraid to act, and he also told a congressional investigation carried on C-Span that I watched that he had been operating from a faulty paradigm whereas he believed that investment industry could be trusted to self-regulate. He also testified that the shadow-banking system was so complicated that even he couldn't keep up with it, and that the lack of adequate regulation essentially brought its demise.

On top of this, Bush in a press conference in the summer of 2008 stated that the banking system was sound, and that we had nothing to worry about, meanwhile proposing nothing to alter a worsening situation.

I didn't quote nor comment on the rest of your post, which is no more "logical" than the part I quoted above, but it's no less bizarre.

 

[metis]

Source for the image please.

And as already stated. The revenue loss was from the depression that we saw back in 2008-current. Hardly Obama's fault. The 2009 spending was set up in 2008 prior to Obama and his administration actually got elected. Then we saw the increase in 2009 (set up in 2008 by the previous congress) and then slightly down in 2010 and then back up in 2011 and then back down in 2012. Then a slight increase in 2013. Everything after that predicts total chaos and rapid spending that doesn't seem to follow the pattern that is indicated by the data in the chart.

There's a note near the top of the chart that states there's only projections after 2009, so 1robin's "proof" is really quite a joke.

 

[Falvlun]

What a bucket of dung the above is, and one can determine as such by just using sheer logic alone. In 2002, the Republicans controlled both houses and the presidency, and yet the Democrats somehow miraculously not only caused the bubble but then somehow miraculously stopped the Republicans from doing anything about it? Wow, you really do believe in miracles, don't you?

Well, to be fair, the Republican minority during Pres Obama's administration has caused a lot of crap, as well as blocked a lot of the stuff the Dem's have tried to do.

 

[metis]

Well, to be fair, the Republican minority during Pres Obama's administration has caused a lot of crap, as well as blocked a lot of the stuff the Dem's have tried to do.

Absolutely, and many economists felt that their holding back on the stimulus limited its effectiveness. As you well remember, McConnell said that the main concern of his party was to make sure Obama didn't get reelected, and some in his party publicly stated they wanted Obama to fail.

But if Obama fails, the country fails, but that seemed to quite alright with the Republicans. It's still hard for me to believe that we're dealing with a group that actually wanted the country to fail, and they have taken actions to try and undermine it in so many different ways. It's one thing to differ on what's best for the country, but I thought I'd never see the day when one party put their interests well above what's good for the country.

 

[metis]

That is not how most accounting in the Government has been done. Obama has never used an honest number in his presidency. For example he dropped of those who had given up looking for work in his economy so the unemployment numbers would be lower. He was saying 7% when the actual numbers were computed to be 15% - 18%.

Complete drivel. Obama has literally no control over those figures as the figures are compiled from multiple sources and merged together by one woman in the IRS who has autonomy even within the IRS itself. Secondly, all presidents have used the official figure, and it's a pretty well-known fact that the real rate is always higher.

A thousand billion is a trillion. Just think of that number. We take in 2000 billion plus a year. We only have 300 million people to take care of and all he can do is yell more more more. This is insanity. Bush fought two wars for 8 years and spent less than a trillion.

Bush also threw his massive tax cuts and also Medicare Plan D on the budget, lest you forgot.

Obama chickened out of both (and could not even protect our embassy or ambassador) and is still demanding more.

More drivel. This has been investigated by two official committees, and it's pretty much a well-known fact amongst those that really do listen to those results that the military wasn't in the position to respond that quickly, plus the fact that there was a provision for mutual protection in Benghazi but that unfortunately failed to prevent the attack. And the Fox Propaganda Channel is not a real source of news.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Bush also threw his massive tax cuts and also Medicare Plan D on the budget, lest you forgot.

Don't forget the 2 Unfunded Wars that we now have to pay for......

Most people like Robin and the rest of the Republican crowd have a hard time understanding how cuts work.

If you cut taxes that the government receives then you need to also have a sound economic plan to cut spending in a way that has minimal disruption on the economy. You can't give massive tax cuts to anyone then keep up your level of spending. Tax cuts have to be paid for. This is why many of them were willing to shut the government down because they have no idea what services the government does. This is why Paul Ryan's budget is a joke. It's so bad that many of his fellow Republicans can't endorse it. It's austerity but he'd like to kick the military spending up a notch.

They're goal is to keep sequestration in place. Many on the right months ago put up this talking point about how this was the "Obama Sequester"...but every time you attempt to do away with it Republicans argue in favor for it. They love this sequester. Boondoggle McConnell was on the Senate floor during the shutdown expressing how he wants to keep it in place. In fact...the CR budget number Republicans sent to the Senate and that was just passed is based on sequestration level spending.

They also fail to understand what are the biggest drivers to our debt. It's Medicare, Defense spending and interest. I think bulk solutions need to be considered such as Universal Healthcare to drive cost down, consolidating agencies that perform similar functions and eliminating completely redundant and/or agencies and programs. I really think Defense spending should be cut some more. I also believe agency and departmental budgets need to scrutinized with better oversight and subject to periodic and random audits. And no more bills with pork spending. It should be against the law. I believe all funding bills should be clean and if amended it should be germane to the overall bill.

I found this bit of info interesting in lie of Robin's post....

Why the US Debt Limit Agreement is Only a Temporary Solution | Our Finite World


I'm sure there even more or better breakdowns out there.

 

[metis]

You can't give massive tax cuts to anyone then keep up your level of spending. Tax cuts have to be paid for.

In the long run, yes. In the short run, not necessarily. Keynesian economics, contrary to those on the right, does work quite well, and what the right doesn't understand is that deficit spending is only a short-term solution and in the long run the deficit created must not only be made up but also a rainy-day fund is in order.

BTW, it cracks me up that some many Republicans love supply-side economics, not realizing that this is one of the tools in Keynesian economics that can work, depending on the circumstances. Don't tell them that, OK-- it's our little secret.

They also fail to understand what are the biggest drivers to our debt. It's Medicare, Defense spending and interest.

The four largest legs of the economic stool are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. However, as you're stating above, interest on the deficit is increasing whereas this issue will need serious attention in the not too distant future.

I think bulk solutions need to be considered such as Universal Healthcare to drive cost down, consolidating agencies that perform similar functions and eliminating completely redundant and/or agencies and programs.

We will eventually have to move in the direction of a single-payer system or health care will bankrupt us. Also, by doing as such, we relieve some of the economic pressure on American business to allow them to better compete internationally. The current system we have even with the ACA is a logistics nightmare.

I really think Defense spending should be cut some more.

It will eventually have to.

 

[1robin]

Source for the image please.

And as already stated. The revenue loss was from the depression that we saw back in 2008-current. Hardly Obama's fault. The 2009 spending was set up in 2008 prior to Obama and his administration actually got elected. Then we saw the increase in 2009 (set up in 2008 by the previous congress) and then slightly down in 2010 and then back up in 2011 and then back down in 2012. Then a slight increase in 2013. Everything after that predicts total chaos and rapid spending that doesn't seem to follow the pattern that is indicated by the data in the chart.

Actually I saw where someone said that those numbers after 2009 were projections (despite the fact the government operates exclusive most times on projections even when they invent them) and I wanted an excuse to post more graphs anyway so I will add to this one or replace it (which ever you desire) with more of them and give the sources along the way. I will hold off on what you asked until I do.

 

[1robin]

What a bucket of dung the above is, and one can determine as such by just using sheer logic alone. In 2002, the Republicans controlled both houses and the presidency, and yet the Democrats somehow miraculously not only caused the bubble but then somehow miraculously stopped the Republicans from doing anything about it? Wow, you really do believe in miracles, don't you?

Look if you can't show something is dung , claiming it to be is dishonest. If you can it is redundant. In other words only a failed argument has any need to do so. I have asked you if you wanted the link. Of course you did not. I ask again. I have seen the whole thing. I know what was said during it. Do you want the evidence or would that just get in the way of the narrative?

Instead, reality is quite different. First of all, presidents from Eisenhower on used the housing market to bolster the country economically, but the real problem crept in starting in 1999 with changes to Glass-Steagall that allowed the banks to speculate more than they were able to in the past. This change was proposed by Phil Gramm, a Republican, and was signed on by both Clinton and the Republicans. The single largest group to oppose it were the Keynesian economists, with Krugman and Drogan (D.-ND) just being two of them.

The housing market was not the cause of the bubble. It existed when no bubble did. It was the affordable housing acts by Carter and doubled down on by Clinton that caused it. It basically "unofficially mandated" that loans be given to those who could not pay for them. It was backed up by government money (excuse me our money or those of left that contribute these days) by the billions and billions. It was basically a government bad paper buy up to buy votes and hide the problem. It makes no difference whatever who controlled congress once a law is in effect. Hearings and votes that require both sides are necessary to get rid of laws. Even histories worst ones.

And this was made even more of a problem when the Bush administration through Paulson allowed banks to use their accounts to invest in the shadow-banking system, which eventually killed so many 401K's when the market collapsed.

I have a 401K, nothing collapsed concerning it. Some were gutted to an extent by the housing bubble and not buy what Bush did to any large extent.

According to Alan Greenspan, a Republican appointed conservative economist, he realized that we were in trouble starting in 2005 but was afraid to act, and he also told a congressional investigation carried on C-Span that I watched that he had been operating from a faulty paradigm whereas he believed that investment industry could be trusted to self-regulate. He also testified that the shadow-banking system was so complicated that even he couldn't keep up with it, and that the lack of adequate regulation essentially brought its demise.

Of course he was intimidated. That is what liberals do. He nor republicans created the problem, liberals mandated its continuation and the best you got is a guy who feared them enough to keep up their failed policies going. That is like pointing to that 24 billion supposedly lost during the shutdown which Obama is partially responsible for directly as a distraction from the trillions he is spending without any end in sight. It is smoke and mirrors from liberal creation to when it all finally collapses and no more mirrors can be found (their will still be a lot of smoke left however).

On top of this, Bush in a press conference in the summer of 2008 stated that the banking system was sound, and that we had nothing to worry about, meanwhile proposing nothing to alter a worsening situation.

He was wrong. Obama is wrong, knows it, doesn't care, nor do his gullible supporters. And only one of them is actually the president. In 2535 when we have killed each other, the last liberal left will blame it on Bush.

I didn't quote nor comment on the rest of your post, which is no more "logical" than the part I quoted above, but it's no less bizarre.

I do not expect liberals to acknowledge all data, ever. I am surprised they ever acknowledge data their faulty mathematics does not produce at all. Do you realize there is not enough money in existence to pay off all our liabilities? How is that sustainable? I am against borrowing more no matter who does it, but right now your side is doing so as fast as they can invent falsified math and you let them. My side is doing everything they can to stop this circus and being ridiculed for it by yours.

 

[1robin]

There's a note near the top of the chart that states there's only projections after 2009, so 1robin's "proof" is really quite a joke.

Meaning here that they are not contrived projections like what Obama care was sold under and inconvenient, so what the government uses to establish all future monetary facts is of course not allowed if it makes the messiah look bad.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Meaning here that they are not contrived projections like what Obama care was sold under and inconvenient, so what the government uses to establish all future monetary facts is of course not allowed if it makes the messiah look bad.

Wrong......

New Data Suggests Obamacare Is Actually Bending The Healthcare Cost Curve - Forbes

Repealing the Affordable Care Act Would Drive Up Federal Deficit, CBO Says - California Healthline