Slashdot Mirror
What a Government Shutdown Will Mean For NASA and SpaceX (theverge.com)
Ars Technica reports of how the government shutdown affects federal agencies like NASA, as well as commercial companies like SpaceX: So far, NASA has been keeping quiet about this particular shutdown and has been directing all questions to the White House Office of Management and Budget, which did not respond to a request for comment. But NASA's acting administrator, Robert Lightfoot, told employees in an email obtained by The Verge to be on alert for directions over the next couple of days. "If there is a lapse in funding for the federal government Friday night, report to work the same way you normally would until further notice, and you will receive guidance on how best to closeout your activities on Monday," he wrote in the email. The most recent guidance from NASA, released in 2017, indicates that all nonessential employees should stay home during a shutdown, while a small contingent of staff continue to work on "excepted" projects. The heads of each NASA center decide which employees need to stay, but they're typically the people who operate important or hazardous programs, including employees working on upcoming launches or those who operate satellites and the International Space Station.
NASA's next big mission is the launch of its exoplanet-hunting satellite, TESS, which is going up on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket from Florida in March. So it shouldn't be affected by a shutdown (unless it takes a while to find a resolution). However, it's possible that preparations on another big spacecraft, the James Webb Space Telescope, may come to a halt, according to Nature. The space telescope is currently at NASA's Johnson Space Center for testing, but NASA's guidelines say that only spacecraft preparations that are "necessary to prevent harm to life or property" should continue during a shutdown. More immediately, an Atlas V rocket from the United Launch Alliance is launching a missile-detecting satellite tonight out of the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida, while SpaceX is slated to launch a communications satellite on January 30th. The timing of both launches may mean they avoid the shutdown. But if they did occur during the shutdown, it's unclear if they would suffer delays.
NASA's next big mission is the launch of its exoplanet-hunting satellite, TESS, which is going up on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket from Florida in March. So it shouldn't be affected by a shutdown (unless it takes a while to find a resolution). However, it's possible that preparations on another big spacecraft, the James Webb Space Telescope, may come to a halt, according to Nature. The space telescope is currently at NASA's Johnson Space Center for testing, but NASA's guidelines say that only spacecraft preparations that are "necessary to prevent harm to life or property" should continue during a shutdown. More immediately, an Atlas V rocket from the United Launch Alliance is launching a missile-detecting satellite tonight out of the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida, while SpaceX is slated to launch a communications satellite on January 30th. The timing of both launches may mean they avoid the shutdown. But if they did occur during the shutdown, it's unclear if they would suffer delays.
It seems to me that private company launches are more important than ever. Once they're funded, the petty politics can't shut down or delay a launch. Space exploration could move on without D.C.
A) The economy is up under Trump more than any president since FDR. B) Even Apple is bringing back jobs. C) The Democrats and RiNO (McCain) caused the shutdown, the Republicans passed the budget. D) Figure out what's going on before speaking, you might come off as less of a moron.
First shutdown of the United States government for the sake of Mexicans, Hondurans, and El Salvadorans! Glad to know we can count on the Democrats to put their needs first before those of American citizens! I'll be sure to remember at the polls and vote accordingly! Good job, Schumer!
That whooshing sound is the point passing way over your head. Let me explain the post you're replying to: The Republican Party controls both houses and the executive branch. How in the name of holy fuck is this the fault of Democrats?
Trump can't avoid a shutdown even when his own side controls everything.
Mind posting the name of your dealer, because they have some fiiiiiiiiiiine shit by the sounds of it...
Trump claims he wants Congress to pass a DACA deal. If funding the government is so important, then why let that stop you? Cut the deal, pass the budget, and move on.
They want to be able to pass the budget without a deal, just have the Dems roll over (which frankly they are pretty good at). Now that they're taking a page from the Rep's playbook, suddenly it's unfair.
Cry me a river, and then dump pollution in it.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
1.4 trillion in 10 years doesn't seem like that much given that Obama added 4 trillion in only 8 years.
It's not great, but it's definitely an improvement.
Trump can't avoid a shutdown even when his own side barely controls everything.
FTFY. The republicans hold 52 seats, and the democrats hold 46. The fact that this measure failed to pass is, I think, a good sign. It shows that both parties are willing to cross ranks when they feel that a given measure violates their personal convictions. That's far better than political flunkies just blindly following whatever their party decides.
For the record, the measure failed 50-49, with 5 republicans opposing it, and 5 democrats supporting it.
This outcome has done more to restore my faith in US politics than anything else has in a long time.
I don't think that's correct. There were 5 partial shutdowns (where employees weren't furloughed) between 1977 and 1979 where the democrats had full control under Carter.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
This truly is a FUD piece against Donald Trump. Tired of it. Who really owns Bizx, LLC.? Is it a PAC? Hey Beau, you missed the piece about RUSSIANS being behind the government shutdown.
Imbecile.
The Russians? Looks to me like Mexicans caused it not Russians.
Posting AC.
A: The economy was just as good under Obama, when he left. In fact, Obama presided over the worst economic time since the Great Depression and left with the Dow setting record highs.
B: The jobs are few and far between. For example, Apple's data center is run by a skeleton crew of maybe 15-20 people at most. Lets be real here. These jobs may benefit a few in California, but for 95% of the nation, it does not help them in the slightest. In fact, revenue just gets sucked off and stashed overseas, never to be seen in the US economy again. The people in Georgia, Alabama, Kentucky, and other places are still left high, dry, and unemployed.
C: Nope. The issue is more than that, mainly because the Republicans, with the majority they have, are unable to keep the government afloat. The Dems are a minority, and the (R)s and the (L)s masquerading as (R)s are in the driver's seat right now.
As for the economy, it has signs of faltering. The bond market is shaky with bear market predictions. Europe is on the cusp of a trade war, with Merkel denouncing the US, with damage to relations that has not been seen since the aftermath of WWII. The tax "cuts" that are supposedly coming will not be, because the IRS cannot recalculate W4 amounts right now.
Then, there are things like the "shithole" mess. This is one of the first times that a head of state called a sovereign country and its people such names, insulting them. This really fucks up years to decades of diplomacy.
Right now, the country is in free fall. The effects of Trump's idiocy are not felt yet, but when it does, it will be disastrous. The US cannot go at it alone, and Europe is already starting to look at new trade relationships with Russia and China.
tl;dr, the Dow is great now, but 1929 started out as a damn booming year as well.
All that happens is that give everyone a week off then give everyone a bonus later.
If you look at the amount of money that given departments got over a year with or without a shutdown... and it works out to about the same.
Its all political bullshit.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
We may disagree on whether or not he's a loser, but I'm glad that we can agree that him fixing America - intentionally or otherwise - would be a good thing. Far too many democrats seem like they would much prefer to have him destroy America so that their own biases can be shown to be right.
The Australian government can't shut down in practice, because in a "loss of supply" situation, the Prime Minister must resign or Parliament is dismissed and a fresh election is called for everyone, half term or not. (Or, if the PM chooses to do neither, be sacked as happened in 1975.)
Learn, guys. Politicians aren't so quick to block supply if they are the ones who are going to be stood down.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
lol. Whatever universe you are living in, I want to be there.
Other than it takes 60 votes for cloture in the Senate and so the Dems just vote against it like they just did tonight? What kind of math are you using?
Entitlement payments aren't part of this "shutdown", which is basically they close the officially non-essential parts of the government and everyone else keeps on working and they pay some of them later once funding is authorized to make it up.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
And yet, Schumer found a way, by refusing to negotiate and using parliamentary shenanigans to prevent a vote from passing, despite it breezing through the House and having a clear majority of the Senate. Which means we're now entering the Schumer Shutdown.
Democrats own this shutdown. Republicans did absolutely everything they could to prevent it, but Democrats insisted on allowing criminals to illegally remain in the country.
I was going to refrain from relying just so I didn't ruin your response, but I decided to comment just to let you to know I agree 100%. Cheers.
1.4 trillion in 10 years doesn't seem like that much given that Obama added 4 trillion in only 8 years.
Apples and oranges ... $1.5 trillion is the *additional increase* in the debt over the next ten years. Deficits were already projected to grow by $10 trillion over the next decade, now the projection is $11.5 trillion.
http://www.nationalreview.com/...
Apples and oranges ... $1.5 trillion is the *additional increase* in the debt over the next ten years. Deficits were already projected to grow by $10 trillion over the next decade, now the projection is $11.5 trillion.
I was responding to the original comment which claimed the debt world grow by 1.5 trillion. If, as you say, that's on top of the projected growth, it changes things but not that much. The "projected growth" is an accumulation of programs built by every president before Trump. So how close did Obama come?
Well, depending on how you measure it, he added anywhere between 0.983 trillion and 9 trillion. Let's go with the smallest number. 0.983 in 8 years is 1.22 in 10 years.
In other words, under the best possible circumstances, your glorious Saviour of The United States added just slightly less debt than The Cheeto will. And yet I didn't hear a single democrat whining about Obama's fiscal irresponsibility.
Of course, at this point the "projections" are hypothetical, and Obama's record is set in stone. Nobody knows what the actual result of trump's tax policies will be; they can only guess. But their worst estimates are still in line with the most generous assessments of the previous president.
That should tell you something.
And yet somehow your department spends the same amount.
Look at the funding. The money flowing into these departments is the same whether they have a shut down or not on a year over year basis.
As to you losing a week of pay, I'll accept your anger at me, if you accept my anger at you for a long long list of things that can easily be thrown at over paid lazy as shit federal employees.
Want to play that game? Shall I list the median federal salary and compare that to the average US worker?
Should we list your benefits package which dramatically exceeds what most people in the private sector get?
Should I point out that the 5 most prosperous neighborhoods in the US are all suburbs of Washington DC...
Cry more.
Everyone not working for the government suffers through a lot worse all the time. Get on the media and cry about it. See how many of your fellow Americans will listen to you.
We won't because you've got it better than most people already. And now you want to piss and moan when despite all your blessings you have to deal with some hiccup here or there?
And again, the departments have the same footprint on the federal budget regardless of the shutdown. So if you're not getting the money where is it going? Its going somewhere.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
https://www.fool.com/investing...
Who the hell do you think you're kidding?
Worst case you're going to get a bunch of overtime when it starts back up again which will level your pay back up.
I almost felt bad for a minute... I looked into it... maybe there is something going on with "you" but from what I can tell... the vast majority of workers that stay home during a shut down get paid back one way or another.
That you're telling me not to talk when you're wrong and I'm apparently right. Maybe you shouldn't talk if all you're going to do with the privilege is lie?
Just an idea.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
GOP House approved continuing resolution: 230–197 In the Senate, the GOP had 51, needed 60. Got 52. Almost all 49 Democrats voted against CR. Go on how this is a GOP shutdown.
Houston, we're shutting down; will get back to you in a few
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
Animal dung has been a source of fuel in wood-scarce regions for the whole history of human civilization.
Yeah - it tells me you are an idiot. He did that during one of the worst economic downturns in history - as a result - the US largely weathered the storm.
Trump did it while removing regulations that ensure you, and the rest of the world will suffer the consequences of the biggest economic crashes in a century. Right now you are in an âoeeverythingâ bubble - and Trump is doing his best to make sure wallstreet can maximize the damage inflicted should a crash occur.
And to the original point - most of those companies that have come out spruking their bonuses have also laid off hundreds of people at the same time (see Comcast and Verizon to name a few).
There was budget surpluses each year between 1998 and 2001, 2001 being the last year of Clinton's budgets. In 2002, the first year of Bush's budgets, we once again had a deficit.
In 2001, the projected 10 year surplus was ~5.6 trillion, with the national debt standing at ~5.7 trillion. That means, if the projection held true, we stood within 11 years of eliminating the national debt. And, of course, we remember what republicans did: a tax cut, a give away to big pharm, and two wars put straight onto the debt. Given the choice, republicans exploded the debt instead of paying it off. They actively chose to fuck over everyone except the 1%. And lets put this in perspective... that tax cut was supposed to cost 1.6 trillion over 10 years, but over just 8 years our debt exploded to 10.6 trillion... a 5 trillion dollar increase... BECAUSE republicans chose to say "the debt doesn't matter," right Dick.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/...
The Bush tax cuts are responsible for a full 1/3rd of our current national debt. You know, those tax cuts that republicans swore wer going to pay for themselves, increase growth, and increase revenue. And just as they did when Reagan passed his tax cut.... they didn't do anything the republicans swore they'd do. revenue fell (duh), growth was anemic at best (much slower job growth and slightly slower GDP growth than when Clinton was in office), and the national debt exploded.
And lets face it, this tax cut bullshit is ll based on Dick "the dick" Cheney's Laffer Curve which was never anything more than a line on a napkin...with no numbers attached. It was the basis for the supply-side economics bullshit that has driven this country into massive debt. Even the guy who developed it for Reagan says it doesn't work. But, true believes always have brown eyes.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Quite simply put... there are no fiscally conservative republicans. All there is is a bunch of anti-federal government, anti-American politicians that are leeching everything they can out of this countries coffers for themselves and their wealthy benefactors.
Because, of course, while you have have republicans screaming about spending less, they're pushing through tax cuts for businesses and the wealthy: https://www.politico.com/story...
Reagan enacted two tax cuts, one in 1981, one in 1983. 11 tax increases later Bush Sr. was elected and he... raised taxes more.... then Clinton raised taxes a record with a record breaking increase. Net results after all those tax INCREASES.... longest period of growth in US history, and a budget surplus for 4 years. Took republicans less than 2 years to fuck it all up.
I've got a great idea... if this tax cut doesn't do what republicans say it is going to (which it wont, because they NEVER have), then every single congress person that voted for it, and every single citizen who voted in those congress people... every one of them should forfeit every single penny they have to pay for their fuckup. Reagan cut taxes, the debt exploded; Bush Jr cut taxes, the debt exploded; Who wants to bet on a 30 trillion national debt in 5 years?
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Trump did it while removing regulations that ensure you, and the rest of the world will suffer the consequences of the biggest economic crashes in a century.
Well that's awesome; I don't want to suffer the consequences of the biggest crash in centuries, so I'm glad to hear that Trump removed the regulations which guarantee I will. Nice to meet another Trump fan on here!
"The only thing keeping the US afloat apart from Chinese loans ..."
And the stable genius is just now picking a fight with them.
Genius move.
"He's going to die in prison."
Hardly. His LDL is 140 _with_ statin drugs, a few more months of 'winning' and 'fake news' and his heart will explode.
You seem inanely focused on cutting taxes, without bothering to look at expenditures. Why is that?
It's pretty obvious that, if you cut taxes and keep expenditures the same, then the dwpt is going to go up for a number of years. Eventually, of the tax cuts stimulate the economy, they might pay for themselves or even turn a profit. But you're not leaving any room for that effect, and you're not considering expenditures which have been mandated by past governments. Why is that?
Does this mean the James Webb Space Telescope is going back into the freezer?
#DeleteChrome
There is a better way to prevent shutdowns:
A) Fed no longer allowed to borrow any money
B) Fed adjusts taxes to match spending
Yep, it is just that simple. Spend only what you make. Chose your poison- either raise taxes or cut spending or both. And when they find that is really, really hard, then they should re-read the Constitution about what the Fed is supposed to doing (hint: probably 90% of the spending isn't really Constitutional).
The US had a month-long "shutdown", I believe, in the late 90's. Most of the federal government stopped working, except the military, FBI and federal hospitals. The vast majority of US citizens didn't notice a difference.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
In the Senate, it takes 60% (60 votes) to pass a bill, if any "one* Senator decides to stop the bill by filibuster.
The Democrats chose to filibuster and shut down the government unless DACA (immigration amnesty) was attached to the funding resolution.
It's a Parliamentary system, so things are a little different. The government goes into what is known as caretaker mode.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Clearly you haven't been following this in detail.
The reason the Republicans need a supermajority is that they have not been able to keep enough of their own party together to get a regular appropriations bill passed. So they turned to a stop-gap parliamentary procedure called a "continuing resolution" in which both sides (a supermajority) agree to allow spending to continue while they work out their differences.
So this is all about making a deal with Democrats because they can't keep their own party together. In your system that would trigger an election.
Now as for immigration, a deal on the DACA program, which literally nine out of ten Americans favor, would bring enough Democrats over to pass the continuing resolution. But the Republicans added another condition to that: funding for the President's border wall, which if you recall Mexico was supposed to pay for.
So the Republican leadership has reached an impasse in which they can neither muster enough votes from their own party to pass a regular appropriations bill, nor enough votes from the opposition party to pass a continuing resolution.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Once upon a time in 2017 the GOP wanted to pack the Supreme Court with their extremist anti-abortion candidate, and made it happen by cancelling the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. If the GOP really wanted to avoid a shutdown they had the votes to cancel the filibuster and pass whatever spending bill they wanted and there would be nothing the Democrats could do about it.
Besides, the GOP wanted this shutdown as much as the Democrats did. Each party believes beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Other party will take the blame, and that's really the point. It's all about talking points and attack ads for upcoming elections.
"+1 Hopeful"
Trump claims he wants Congress to pass a DACA deal. If funding the government is so important, then why let that stop you? Cut the deal, pass the budget, and move on.
Because then he'd be seen as backing down on the border wall. That's the real sticking point. DACA isn't really politically controversial -- the overwhelming majority of Americans want a deal for the Dreamers, including a majority of Republican voters. But the Freedom Caucus wants to couple that with funding Trump's border wall.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
FOUR trillion? You're off by a factor of 2.5... $10 trillion to $20 trillion in 8 short years...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Federal Government says you are wrong.
Total debt on Jan 21, 2009 (first day of the Obama presidency): $10,625,053,544,309.79.
Total debt on Jan 20, 2017 (last day of the Obama presidency):$19,947,304,555,212.49.
Total increase in debt during the Obama presidency: $9,322,251,010,902.70.
That's a pretty stiff increase, just about doubling the debt. Quite a bit different than a reduction, eh?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
There was budget surpluses each year between 1998 and 2001, 2001 being the last year of Clinton's budgets. In 2002, the first year of Bush's budgets, we once again had a deficit.
False. Please see the facts at the Federal Government itself. The national debt increased every single year since 1957. How does a debt increase if you have a surplus? Answer: it doesn't. The "surplus" was for a subsection of the entire national budget only. When you look at the entire, actual budget, we spent more than we brought in every single year since 1957. Proof? The national debt has increased every single year since then.
What Clinton did, was essentially ignore some of the spending. It would be like a person spending $7,000 per month, making $6,000 per month, and claiming they are actually cash-flow positive because they ignore the $2,000 per month in rent they pay. Hey, they only spent $5,000 per month on $6,000 revenue - if you ignore that $2,000 per month payment over there...
Smoke and mirrors. Completely false.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I love the smell of compounding interest in the morning.
Smells like .... Victory!
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Because filibusters don't exist, right? It takes 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster. And now we see that the Democrats prefer illegal aliens (Dreamers) to US Citizens (Deplorables).
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I thought that bills in Congress were to address a single item only. Attaching DACA reform to a budget seems a bit like hitching a donkey to a cable modem.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
All that happens is that give everyone a week off then give everyone a bonus later.
Complete bullshit.
As a GS9, I will simply lose a week of pay. I can't even use my leave to fill in the gap. Like the rest of the GS folks and most of the WG folks i - * WE * will lose a week of pay.
The exception are "mission essential" personnel - and that's not a whole lot of folks.
Kindly don't talk about things you know nothing about.
Yes, as a former state worker, I had to suffer through furloughs, there wasn't any free personal leave, you simply went home for a few days, i.e. LWOP (leave without pay).
The GOP tends to use reasons WHY they are cutting budgets or shifting money - but then vote on that money independent of everything else. The Democrats are showing us that unless we give them everything they want, they will not approve any budgets at all. The current CR under consideration does nothing to the funding of DACA, so it's not a GOP thing. It's the Democrats demanding that DACA be part of a CR, even though the two share nothing in common.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I thought that bills in Congress were to address a single item only.
Lol, let me know the last time that happened.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
I'd say you're mostly right, except there are three factional poles: establishment conservatives, tea party conservatives, and libertarians. While they freely borrow from each others rhetoric they have substantive policy differences, and with the slim advantage Republicans have in the Senate they need all hands on deck.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
First, and let me say this bluntly... if you don't understand the difference between the national debt and the budget deficit , you probably shouldn't try talking about the subject. What part of "budget surplus" do you not understand?
Yes, the national debt kept increasing because there are several things that don't go through the budget. THAT has happened since the country has had a budget, but Clinton didn't add things to that off-budget group just to hide spending... Bush Jr. actually did intentionally hide spending with virtually all of the spending for both wars using spending resolutions. If you look at an aggregate yearly spending chart, there is always a number in the off-budget column. These are expenditures typically that they can't forecast, or are emergency spending resolutions... costs that come up unexpectedly after the budget has been adopted.
So, again, the budget deficit and the national debt are TWO SEPARATE THINGS. "There was budget surpluses each year between 1998 and 2001, 2001 being the last year of Clinton's budgets. In 2002, the first year of Bush's budgets, we once again had a deficit." And that statement is correct. Learn about what you are trying to talk about before doing so.
In the end, the first step to paying down the national debt is to have a control on the spending for the budget, and then run a budget surplus to pay down the debt. The problem is, republicans keep pushing up the budget deficit based on fantasy and outright lies.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
The poster you're responding to doesn't have a basic understanding of how it works. He doesn't understand there is a difference between the national debt and the budget deficit. I remember watching that speech from Bush where he was saying the only important number was the 5.6 trillion projected 10 year surplus, and that we needed to give it back to the people.... what he didn't say was "fucking over everyone in the future who will have to deal with the national debt."
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Eventually, of the tax cuts stimulate the economy, they might pay for themselves or even turn a profit.
No, they don't. https://www.washingtonpost.com... and while each big tax cut has made those rosy predictions/promises, they've NEVER happened.
https://www.gq.com/story/repub...
The University of Chicago polled 38 economists, and 37 said it would blow up the country's debt. The one guy who responded that it wouldn't later said he misread the question, and, yeah, those other 37 are right.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
If i knew you were simply a lying little shill, i wouldn't even try to educate you. Pull your head out of your ass.... even wikipeadia knows you're just being a lying bitch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Certain spending called "supplemental appropriations" is outside the budget process entirely but adds to the national debt. Funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars was accounted for this way prior to the Obama administration.
Bush's tax cuts:
https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/the-legacy-of-the-2001-and-2003-bush-tax-cuts
In 2013 CBPP estimated that, when the associated interest costs are taken into account, the Bush tax cuts (including those that policymakers made permanent) would add $5.6 trillion to deficits from 2001 to 2018.[8] This means that the Bush tax cuts will be responsible for roughly one-third of the federal debt owed by 2018
Bush's wars:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War
According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money.
Is it too much to ask for you to have just a hint of honesty or integrity?
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Please explain how you can have debt increase without borrowing more money. And please explain how having a surplus of funds means you have to borrow money to pay off expenses.
Your point is that if you ignore some mandatory spending (off budget expenditures), you can claim you actually have less spending! So, if you have $10,000 monthly income, and $12,000 of monthly expenses, by moving your $1500 rental payment and $1000 credit card debt payment to "off budget" expenditures, you now have a surplus of $500! Hurray! Your debt won't increase, right? Same kind of BS lying that was attempted back in the 1990s, and the same result happened - debt continued to increase.
Please learn basic budgeting and accounting before you end up sounding like a politician. We just need to spend it out of the deficit, and we'll all be good!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Because it was bogus. Can you explain how you can have a budget surplus, but you ended up borrowing even more money and increased your debt? You can't. If you had to borrow money - increasing your debt - then you cannot have a surplus. Unless you choose to "ignore" some spending. But that's not really ethical, is it?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Hey, I'm a deplorable. The folks on the Left are the ones that are acting like Nazis with brownshirt actions and stifling of free speech, and fought like crazy so two men can both be cocksuckers together in marital bliss...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
If bills in congress had to address a single item only then so much bad crap wouldn't get passed because someone managed to get it into a bill that no-one can say no to.
Because you don't have a basic knowledge about anything, apparently, doesn't mean myself and the AC is wrong. Your continuing to dismiss it as wrong simply indicates you're ignorant, and proud of it. By the way... that means "stupid" to most people.
The budget is a yearly thing; the national debt is an aggregate total of ALL budget surpluses/deficits since the beginning of the country. Spending in a given year is mostly covered by the budget , however, there has always (at least, since 1937) been certain spending that is "off-budget," like spending resolutions (which Bush Jr used to completely remove spending on Afghanistan and Iraq off the budget).
If spending on the budget items ends up being less than what is budgeted, then you have a surplus. If in that year, that surplus is less than the amount spent on "off-budget" items, then you have a BUDGET SURPLUS , but the national debt still goes up. If, on the other hand, the surplus is more than the "off-budget" spending, then not only do you have a budget surplus , but the national debt will decrease as well.
So it's real simple: if you are too damn stupid to understand that, you should never talk on this subject again because you are just too fucking stupid.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
You are a fucking moron. You are literally too stupid to learn the basics of this, and the basics are actually really fucking simple. You need to pull your head out of your ass.
Clinton had 4 years of budget surpluses. Those surpluses did not cover the off-budget expenditures. That means WE HAD A BUDGET SURPLUS, BUT THE NATIONAL DEBT WENT UP.
Clinton didn't invent off-budget expenditures, they've been happening since 1937. The year with the most off-budget spending while Clinton was president is LESS THAN EVERY YEAR that Bush was president.
Are you too fucking stupid to understand that? If yes, then how do you make it through the day being so fucking stupid?
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Ahh, so basically because the budget doesn't cover all spending, we can have a budget surplus whilst increasing out national debt. Exactly as I stated. And showing it to be a true "smoke and mirrors" thing. Sure - you had a surplus on SOME of your spending, but all your spending? No surplus at all, you still added to your debt. Is that really a surplus, or just a political game you can play to claim a fake victory?
I'll tell you what - you give away ALL your money save $10, but since none of your expenses will be counted towards your normal "budget", that means you will have a surplus of $10 - even if you had to borrow to cover all your expenses. Right? You're $10 up - you have a surplus!
Sorry that most of us see right through the lying shit your type peddles. We're a lot smarter than you think, and understand that planning to spend $20, only spending $19, but only having $15 income is still a loss of $4, not a surplus of $1. But hey - you love those games! Same kind of thinking that applies values of billions to companies that have no profit, nor any plan/way to gain profit...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
So - a SINO? Surplus In Name Only? We ended up spending more than we took in, but because we didn't count ALL our spending in the official total, we had a surplus?
And you call me stupid?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I think he does. So here's a question for you... a nice pointy one. If he reduced the deficit then how come the debt rose so much? Funneling it into his bank account someplace? Maybe he was funding terrorists abroad? Oh, I know he was using the money to build a moon base, right? Whole lot of money and I really don't see where it all went to. I mean a FUCKING BOATLOAD lot of money. I mean like you could fill a container ship with $100 bills lot of money.
Money went someplace. Nobody seems to want to say where. Something smells. Smells to high heaven. We already know the Obama administration lied like hell to us, all the time. From Grubber admitting he lied like hell to us on the ACA (aka Obamacare) to the Iran deal where they admitted they lied like hell to us on that. They even boasted about how stupid we all are. Easy when the press isn't doing their job. He gave billions to terrorists and our enemies. Why some people might even think he should be tried as a Traitor.
The Shumer shutdown caused a black woman to be pulled from the ISS - http://daily.usa.tomato-timer....
All to protect illegal alien "children" up to the age of 36 from being deported. Mean time the Citizens that actually pay the bills are being denied services.
In most of the world, if you're in a country illegally you're shot or put in jail for a long time (often also resulting in death). Why should the US be any different?
Actually, you're a lot stupider than you think. You're just being an obstinate little bitch complaining about the way things have been done for 80 years while refusing to accept that's how it's been done for 80 years.
Think about it, dipshit.... say we're in the middle of a budget year, and some country attacks us. You're way we'd have to wait till the next budget is passed to do anything because there's no money to do anything. Reality says you pass an emergency spending bill and attack back. Are you seriously as fucking stupid as you sound?
I laid out how it works... you want to whine and bitch because you think your opinion is more important than reality, and you don't like (read as: understand) how it works. You ARE the definition of a fucking idiot.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
And now we know you're an idiot and ceding your point. Insults and strawmen! No, if we are attacked by all means spend to defend! However, don't go and claim it was "off budget" and thus you still had a surplus. The fact is that lazy people like you are fine ignoring the real facts - that we are in deficit spending mode and have been since 1957.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
However, the budget surpluses were the only years I can remember when the budget was able to be balanced with smoke and mirrors. In no other years were intake vs. outflow of money that close.
Check out deficits under Republican and Democratic Presidents. You have to go back a long way to find a Republican that reduced the deficit, or a Democrat who increased it.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Fixing what's wrong with the US would be nice, but Trump's not going to do it.
You do realize that Congressional Republicans talked about making sure Obama lost, without regard as to whether the US would win.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Wrong, but it would be nice. I'd support a Constitutional amendment that limited the House and Senate to passing bills without irrelevant riders.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You're baselessly assuming that supporting this particular bill was the right thing to do. If Democrats don't want it, they don't have to vote for it. The Republicans can pass a budget all by themselves, with no Democratic help. They didn't. They couldn't agree on a budget.
However, I also would like the filibuster to be restored to require actual action. I thought that made sense: if a sizable minority really really wanted to block legislation, they could.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I don't know if it was covered in UK news, but the House has a Republican majority, the Senate has a Republican majority, and the President is a Republican. Budget bills can't be filibustered, although continuing resolutions can be. If the Republicans running the US got off their asses, they could pass a budget that would pay for everything, and the Democrats could do nothing about it.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The Rs have everything they need to pass an actual budget. They can't agree on one. They can't come up with a compromise that will get nine Democratic Senators to go along for a continuing resolution, even when the compromise is to allow something most of the country wants.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You are a fucking moron. You asked how something could happen, and i explained it...exactly how it has happened for the last 80 years. Then, you turn into a whiny little bitch because you don't like the way reality has been for the last 80 years, and you think for some reason it's some conspiracy you've just discovered. You ARE the definition of a fucking idiot. If you are too stupid to understand what a single word (budget) means, just don't say anything.... stupidity like yours will never lead to anything useful. Seriously, who failed you... your parents, your siblings, the school system, life in general where you should have gains some experience but you only gained more shit in your head? I'd imagine all of the above because you are the most useless dipshit i've seen in a while. All of the problems in this country can be traced back to fucking idiots like you.. too fucking stupid to learn, and proud of it.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Hey - you've confirmed it's NOT possible, unless you redefine a surplus as something other than having too much. You want to play along with the liars in Congress and DC and claim it's all OK. Well then, if you choose to do so, and claim that losing money is actually making money, and that spending more than you have is actually spending less than you make, then be my guest! But if I were you, I'd reflect on the fact you're essentially supporting double-speak and lying. Enjoy!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I get it. You're a fucking idiot. You don't know what you're talking about, and refuse to learn about it. You are making stupid people embarrassed because they're now associated with you. It's been explained to you why you are wrong. If you continue to intentionally be wrong and lie about it, then you are no long simply wrong.. you're a lying sack of shit. That's probably an upgrade from what you normally are, but you should still strive to be better.
https://www.factcheck.org/2008...
https://www.thebalance.com/us-...
https://www.thoughtco.com/hist...
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10...
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/...
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Update, Feb. 11: Some readers wrote to us saying we should have made clear the difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt. A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased.
Now, go and look at the record of annual debt and tell me when it went down. Oops! You can't - at least after 1957. Even FactCheck fell for the lie, as you did. They define a deficit correctly - it causes the debt to go up. But then they hand-wave and say "well it still went down because we shifted some debt from one account to another". Doesn't work.
Face it - you're wrong. You are trying to find sources to support you - and they even contradict you (and themselves, interestingly enough). I know you WANT to believe that Clinton had a surplus, but the fact is - he didn't. Never happened. Read that quote again, especially the money quote: "the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit". Now check the years for Clinton. Debt went UP every year!
The fact is - if the debt goes up, there was a deficit. Plain and simple. The ONLY way to claim otherwise is to not count some spending, ignoring the debt incurred from that spending. But that's not really honest, is it? That's lying - and it's why you are so upset. You've been caught believing a lie - and now, rather than admit your error, you choose to defend the lie.
Tell me please - why is FactCheck wrong about the definition of a deficit?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!