Slashdot Mirror
No U.S. Government Shutdown This Week
A Reader writes "If you were hoping for a government shutdown today, you are going to be disappointed. In a last-hour cliffhanger, Democrats and Republicans managed to agree with each other enough to keep the government funded for the rest of the current fiscal year. Since the budget bill that finally passed was a compromise, no one is happy with it. So it goes. That's how things work in a representative government."
anymore.
I seriously doubt any of us have much in common with any of them.
anymore
Without a government shutdown how will the media try to frighten the general public with predictions and assumptions? I'll tell you what the 'almost' shutdown did for the economy - it gave a whole lot of 'journalists' and people who blog something to blather about. It's all about ads and page views, people.
However, it will be very equally applied. Congress doesn't get paid either--especially being that they're not doing their jobs anyway.
And when we shut it down, it gets shut down. That means no more bombs dropping in countries that don't need to be receiving our expensive military tech. It means no more funding for anything people depend on.
You know why this is important? So people revolt and get rid of Obama, all of the Democrats, and all of the Republicans, and all of the rest of the people who sit in Washington and twiddle their thumbs arguing over absolutely ridiculous crap all day.
It's time for change and since one man, who promised to bring it, couldn't. It's time for 300+ million of us to.
I am employed by the Federal Gov't.
The last e-mail I got on Friday was explaining how and where to file for unemployment.
That is, the gov't was telling me how to get the gov't to pay me for NOT working because the gov't couldn't afford to pay me FOR working.
Is this a great country or what!
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
This image says it all really - http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/2011-spending-trillion-cartoon.jpg. As an outsider looking in, it's obvious to me the government really needs to cut military funding. Our UK government has done. Apart from a cool info graphic on the NYT a few months back where you could pretend to make the necessary cuts yourself I've never see this mentioned anywhere else in the US media.
Jonathanjk.com
Congress has to continue being paid according to the 27th Amendment, which prevents any law that varies the pay of members from taking effect until an election takes place. This is to keep them from engaging in any shenanigans with their own pay. If you allow them to suspend their pay between elections, you can bet that they're going to use that logic to increase their pay at some point in the future.
Social Engineering Expert: Because there is no patch for stupidity.
Medicate Part D was never funded. That is $64B and growing, or probably close to a trillion dollars of deficiet spending over the next 10 years. Repeal it or fund it. Could save $30B in the current budget process.
The department of education has grown widely since 2000. End NCLB and other unfunded mandates that infringe on the states right to educate it's population. DOE in an advisory roll is fine and history tells us it can be funded without deficit spending. So cut it's budget, maybe $10b in the current budget process.
Department of homeland security has also always been funded by deficiet spending. Cut it. Return the decision making to the civil servants that actually work. The last thing we need is another administrative layer. If the Tea Party wants small governement, this is the place to start. If we want screeners and the like, put it under the other agencies and shift administrators from other less important projects. Saving in the current budget cycle may $10B.
That is our $50 in deficit spending. We could do $100B but that would require a cut to the military, which they have already said they can do because they admit they waste massive amounts of money, and a tax increase to cover war operations around the world. Ultimately Obama is going to have to do what Bush I did with Reagan tax cuts, which is to end the Bush II tax cuts. Can't do it untile 2012 budget cycle, but much of the projected deficit comes from them.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
If this isn't a strong case for term-limits, I don't know what is. The FY2011 budget took SO LONG to pass because IT WAS AN ELECTION YEAR and Americans were starting to worry about defaulting on their national debt. Are we really so stupid to believe that in a nation of 300 million people, it takes the same small group of elite warmongers to pass our laws year after year? Many congressmen have been there so long, they are rolling in their own shit. With term limits at least, there is the fresh flow of ideas every election cycle. There is also incentive to do well...with a 6x2 cycle for representatives (6 2-year terms, max) and a 2x6 cycle for senators with the requirement that they first served in the House, there is more incentive for aspiring first-time Representatives to appease their constituents (geographic, not party) so that they can "upgrade" to a Senate seat (and later, the presidency).
It's okay though. Looks like we are going to default on our debt sometime within my lifetime. There's no way out at this point. In the meantime, continue to spend, spend, spend. Let's get that new infrastructure (new bridges, roads, high-speed internet) built for the NEXT government. Maybe then we'll get it right with Term Limits.
The World is Yours.
No its not operational folks, its been broken, spending far more than they had for 40+ years now. This 37 billion they brag about cutting is equ to your cutting your weekly grocery budget of $100, by about .025 cents. That's 2.5 hundredths of a cent folks. What is really needed is to cut it by 20 or 30 bucks so there is something left to pay on the principle of our national debt. And even if they do manage that, the next 3 generations of working folks will never see the day where they don't owe 6 months worth of a years income just to pay the interest on this debt. That's pure BS folks, and even my great-grandchildren are old enough they can tell you that.
But its not going to get fixed without good people running for office, and a revolution in truth telling in the MSM so the sheeple are well enough informed that they will vote the good people into office. That's asking a lot, but its the only way it will get fixed without a lot of bloodshed.
Every time you catch the MSM in a lie, hold their supporting advertisers feet to the fire, it works, see the current Glenn Beck situation playing out as we watch.
Cheers, Almost-Retired out.
"That's how things work in a representative government." No, that's how things work in a schizophrenic government. Nowhere in the constitution is power over the government given to political parties. They were invented solely for overcoming slow communications and lack of education during elections. We have significantly improved both. Yet our "representatives" do not represent us at all; they vote according to who they party with rather than in the interests of their constituencies. You've heard the phrase "across the aisle." What it refers to is the fact that senators and representatives do not sit with others from their own state - they sit in two big camps of Democrats vs. Republicans. They should be forced to sit by state and to completely deny any party affiliation once they are elected. Right now most of a politician's time is spent trying to thwart the efforts of half the government. It's a wonder we get anything done at all the way this beast keeps tearing at itself.
On the one hand you take life too seriously, and on the other, you do not take playful existence seriously enough. Seth
The military industrial complex. As they are still way over funded.
US spends 47% of all world defense spending. Over 60% if you include allies spending, leaving less than 40% divided among many small and or poor countries. So what do we really need this abusive defense spending really for? Defense against what and who?
Are the personal domestic economies really such a national threat?
Or are they just a threat to the military delusions of power elitism?
Start with "Defense" spending....
"According to figures Wheeler compiled for The Pentagon Labyrinth, the military’s base budget of $549 billion in 2011 is just the starting point for calculating military dollars. Adding in war spending ($159 billion), homeland defense ($44 billion), Veterans Affairs ($122 billion), interest on defense-related debt ($48 billion) and other items pushes the total to more than $1 trillion a year. In constant dollars, adjusted for inflation, the regular military budget, not including the add-ons, has doubled from a low of about $360 billion in 1998 to more than $739 billion in 2011. It’s so much money that, as the Bipartisan Policy report points out, by 2009 US spending on military research and development alone, about $80 billion, surpassed China’s entire military budget by more than $10 billion. The budget for the US Special Forces alone is greater than the total military spending of nearly 100 countries; overall, the United States spends about as much on defense as the rest of the world combined."
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
With over a $1.5 trillion deficit, congrats, you've just reduced the deficit by .025%. The coming forced austerity is going to be a lot worse than if Congress got it's head out of its ass and worked to cut the deficit.
Fixing our budget problems is easy.
1) Take a sheet of paper and divide it into two columns. Title the sheet "Budget"
2) Under the left column list all absolutely necessary for government as spelled out by the Constitution (see 10th Amendment)
3) STOP
#3 is the most important part.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
That's sort of the point. From what was being said, it was primarily the GOP trying to abuse the budgeting process that was causing the trouble. Nearly all of the actual budget related negotiations had been completed, it was just ideological amendments which were holding it up. Things like preventing access to Planned Parenthood, cutting funds to regulate banks, cutting funds to enact the healthcare reform and reducing funds to NOAA and the EPA which were sticking points.
The actual amount of money there was paltry and the only reason why those things were being targeted was because they're politically unpopular with conservatives.
For all the obsession about balanced budgets you rarely, if ever, hear the GOP pushing plans which would actually do it. It's all about tax cuts for billionaires, increased government spending on programs they like, and cuts to programs that help low and middle class citizens survive.
As a Kurt Vonnegut fan, my first question was "Who died?"
Then I saw what programs were getting cut drastically, and the answer is abundantly clear: poor people and old people.
I am officially gone from
You wouldn't need taxes anywhere near 100% to fully fund all those programs and have plenty left over to pay down the debt. Currently the US pays around 25% of GDP to taxes (of all kinds). So, raise that to 50% and you double the total tax taken, at all levels. Well, last year federal tax income was about $2.16 trillion, and expenditures were about $3.46 trillion. Double $2.16 trillion and you get $4.32 trillion. That means you can fund everything and have $860 billion left over to pay down the debt.
In actuality, it could even be more because we are talking about doubling total tax liability, which includes non-federal taxes. So less federal funding would need to be given to states since they'd be taking in more.
This is not impossible, by the way, Sweden pays about 50% in GDP in taxes.
For that matter, you wouldn't even need to go that far. In 2010 SS and Medicare taxes amounted to about $860 billion. The two programs cost about $1.5 trillion. So, double the SS and Medicare tax and you have $1.7 trillion in income, enough to fund it and extra, you don't even need to mess with income tax or anything else.
Not saying that this is what should be done, that the programs should be reexamined and modified, but this bullshit of "Oh we can't fund them no matter how much we tax!" is just that: bullshit. It is completely false. It is true they are quite underfunded, but they could be fixed by raising taxes. Right now the combined tax rate is 7.65% to you and to your employer so 15.3% total. Increase that to 15.3% each, 30.6% and both programs are fully funded with money to spare at current levels.
The issue is that we'd have to slash the defense budget by about $300bn in order to get anywhere near there. And we'd have to raise taxes on the rich as well. There's a lot of fixation on the spending, but the problem hasn't been relegated to just spending, there's also been dumb tax cuts to leeches which have further skewed the figures.
The GOP is responsible for at least $200bn of debt that they won't cut and won't allow to be taken from the rich to pay for. And that doesn't include the money that's been lost due to tax cuts either.
You forget part #4: "Defending against roving bands of marauders"
And part #5: "Disposal of bodies of dead seniors"
The only problem with your analysis is that it doesn't match the facts. Did inflation adjusted tax revenue go up or down during the Reagan and Bush years?
Since the answer is up, then how can you blame tax cuts for a larger deficit? Any chance the larger deficit was caused by Congress increasing spending ever more?
Your story leaves a LOT out....
Congress has been spending WAY too much for years. It gets worse when the Republicans control both houses. It gets even worse when Democrats control both houses.
When Republicans spend too much, their party members (not all, but a decent majority) make them lose primaries and general elections. When Democrats spend too much, they've just paid of their core constituency as expected.
Hence the cycle of Republicans always becoming the party of lower spending once they lose elections.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
The US isn't in the world to "bring peace" or to "help someone". Look around the globe and realize just where the US invade and why. Hint: It's not for human rights. It's for mining rights. And to protect the USD's position as the world's leading currency. If the world switched lead currencies tomorrow, the US would go bankrupt near instantly.
That's the whole deal and that's also the reason why that army is necessary. You have to keep countries in reign that even as much as consider creating a oil exchange based on another currency (little secret: That's the reason behind the Iraq war, Hussein dared to think of a Euro based oil trade hub. Also the reason why the UK were so eager to join the US in that fight while the rest of the EU was quite reluctant, but I ramble). This way, the US can easily "tax" every country in the world. How? By doing what they're doing currently, running the printing press like mad. Everyone's owing them money, but they control the amount of that money in circulation. If I get to print as much money as I want to, it doesn't really matter whether I owe you a thousand or a million bucks, does it?
Quite the opposite. Since everyone traded in that currency, everyone also has quite a bit of interest in keeping it stable since their debtors, too, owe them USDs. It's the money you trade in. Now would you want that money to lose value if you're supposed to get some from someone?
And now let's imagine for a moment that some countries decide, which would be in their best interest btw, to forgo the USD and trade in something else. Euros are a nice idea, mostly because the economies backing it are so diverse and prone to infighting that a sudden change in policy is near impossible. How'd you want to keep them in line and trading in USD if you can't put some gentle pressure on them?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Systems of governance are ultimately a reflection of their society. In this particular case - that of budgetary issues & massive debt - we're talking about a society with masses of people unable to keep balanced personal budgets; generally at the forefront when it comes to rates of living on a debt, consumptionism, etc.
And revolutions tend to not promote the "best" people, but the most ruthless ones.
One that hath name thou can not otter
Your military spending numbers don't include all the wars, veterans benefits, military portion of debt interest, or the other expenses that cost over a $TRILLION in 2010. And then there's the "intelligence" expenses, which are secret but probably well over $100B.
Entirely whacking the military is not anyone's proposal. But cutting it to $300B and intel to $20B would save $780B+. Taxing banks and other corporations that don't pay taxes but consume lots of public expense would raise most of the remaining $520B. And taxing the of the richest people more of their excess income would pay the rest. While reducing much of what the government spends so much on managing with the legal system and various investigations, and too often bailing out.
The social programs are expensive, but they are mostly investments in a peaceful and productive society. The rest is mostly waste or worse.
--
make install -not war
For all this talk of "budget savings" no politician has the guts to tackle REAL savings by cutting the stuff that will actually make a difference in the long run.
How about stopping payments to farmers to grow crops on land that is otherwise un-viable to grow those crops on?
How about spending less money on buying fancy new scanners for airports that do nothing to make airplanes safer from bad guys?
How about giving less money to the coal industry?
How about removing tax cuts and subsidies for the big end of town and making them pay their fair share?
How about spending less money on IP enforcement on behalf of the big content companies?
Oh wait, this is America where big corporations and special interests rule the day and where saying bad things about corn can get you sued for everything you own and then some.