Government Shutdown

DILYSI Dave wrote:

93EXCivic wrote: Why is defunding Planned Parenthood such a big deal? I mean a program actually helping people. Let's cut it right away. That is too much like socialism.

1. Because we are berkeleying broke. Even if the entire focus of Planned Parenthood was to give puppydogs and lollipops to orphans, we still can't afford it. 2. "Planned parenthood helping people" depends on if you're the one in the stirrups or in the stainless shop vac.

Last time I checked, Planned Parenthood doesn't do that. They supply pills to keep people out of the stirrups.

DILYSI Dave wrote:

93EXCivic wrote: Why is defunding Planned Parenthood such a big deal? I mean a program actually helping people. Let's cut it right away. That is too much like socialism.

1. Because we are berkeleying broke. Even if the entire focus of Planned Parenthood was to give puppydogs and lollipops to orphans, we still can't afford it. 2. "Planned parenthood helping people" depends on if you're the one in the stirrups or in the stainless shop vac.

Flounder... HA...

Gotta love it when those without children and also without the ability to bear children want to dictate what others can do with their bodies..

Come on.. dude.. Don't be that old guy with the toppered s10 plastered with anti gay marriage/anti choice/anti obama stickers.. Its too sterotypical.

I don't like abortion. I really don't.

But here's the thing. It's legal. If people want to work to change that, great. But right now it's legal. Not only that, but there is a law to prevent taxpayer dollars from being spent on abortion. And the Federal funds that go to Planned Parenthood is such an infinitesimal percentage of the budget it would probably be difficult to find a way to accurately describe it.

Abortion as a social issue is important and the national debate should continue. Planned Parenthood as a budget issue is a red hearing. This is exactly what I've talked about many times. The Republicans thought they could inject something into this that would take it to an emotional level. They thought if they stood their ground on an issue that resonates with their base they could "take control" of the budget debate. This round it kiinda backfired on them.

If you let the Republicans or Democrats make this about Abortion, or NPR or whatever other nonsense they'll try to make it about instead of the real issues then they win. The real issue is we have programs we want but no taxes to pay for them. We either have to cut the big programs or raise taxes. The ONLY debate they should be talking about is Medicade, Medicare, Social Security and the Military. 80% of the budget sitting there. Please don't be sucked in by some emotionally compelling debate about some .001% nonsense issue. If we spend a month, shoot, a week or even a couple of days fighting about every .001% issue we'll never get the budget balanced.

I just can't believe how easily the divert our attention after doing it so many times. Somehow this budget fight will end up being about gay marriage, or prayer in schools or some other nonsense that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual budget.

I said this before, but it's worth repeating. If you eliminated EVERY social program. 100% of them, gone. Eliminated anything any illegal can benefit from. Eliminate NASA. Eliminate NPR and Planned Parenthood. Eliminate every line in the budget that isn't Medicade, Medicare, Social Security or the Military, we still have a massive budget deficit. Keep that in mind when you hear them waste time talking about cowboy poetry. Just be aware of what they're trying to do. None of that crap matters. It's just a trick to try to get you to take your eye on the ball. They throw that crap out there hoping people on internet forums will talk about them instead of the big issues. If you agree with them on one of those distractions, they hope that you'll keep voting for them even though they're doing nothing about the actual problem.

And that is that.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: I don't like abortion. I really don't. But here's the thing. It's legal. If people want to work to change that, great. But right now it's legal. Not only that, but there is a law to prevent taxpayer dollars from being spent on abortion. And the Federal funds that go to Planned Parenthood is such an infinitesimal percentage of the budget it would probably be difficult to find a way to accurately describe it. Abortion as a social issue is important and the national debate should continue. Planned Parenthood as a budget issue is a red hearing. This is exactly what I've talked about many times. The Republicans thought they could inject something into this that would take it to an emotional level. They thought if they stood their ground on an issue that resonates with their base they could "take control" of the budget debate. This round it kiinda backfired on them. If you let the Republicans or Democrats make this about Abortion, or NPR or whatever other nonsense they'll try to make it about instead of the real issues then they win. The real issue is we have programs we want but no taxes to pay for them. We either have to cut the big programs or raise taxes. The ONLY debate they should be talking about is Medicade, Medicare, Social Security and the Military. 80% of the budget sitting there. Please don't be sucked in by some emotionally compelling debate about some .001% nonsense issue. If we spend a month, shoot, a week or even a couple of days fighting about every .001% issue we'll never get the budget balanced. I just can't believe how easily the divert our attention after doing it so many times. Somehow this budget fight will end up being about gay marriage, or prayer in schools or some other nonsense that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual budget. I said this before, but it's worth repeating. If you eliminated EVERY social program. 100% of them, gone. Eliminated anything any illegal can benefit from. Eliminate NASA. Eliminate NPR and Planned Parenthood. Eliminate every line in the budget that isn't Medicade, Medicare, Social Security or the Military, we still have a massive budget deficit. Keep that in mind when you hear them waste time talking about cowboy poetry. Just be aware of what they're trying to do. None of that crap matters. It's just a trick to try to get you to take your eye on the ball. They throw that crap out there hoping people on internet forums will talk about them instead of the big issues. If you agree with them on one of those distractions, they hope that you'll keep voting for them even though they're doing nothing about the actual problem. And that is that.

I agree with everything in this post.

Wasn't trying to flounder - that was the point of my #1 - we can't afford it regardless of what it is. That #2 makes it an emotional issue is somewhat tertiary IMO. I'm not the guy in the S10 with the bumper stickers. I recognize it's legal, and I recognize that the legality or lack thereof of a behavior does little to affect that behavior (see also, war on drugs). I just think it is callous to pretend that abortion is the moral equivalent to having a tooth pulled. I recognize the legality, it would be nice if others recognized the moral tightrope.

It is retarded that it was a major issue in a budget debate, but it's also retarded that it is receiving any money at all at a time when we are up to our eyeballs in debt (again, point #1).

I agree also that any budget discussion that doesn't focus on defense and entitlements is nothing but the crooks in DC putting on a show.

huge-O-chavez wrote: Gotta love it when those without children and also without the ability to bear children want to dictate what others can do with their bodies..

Without the ability to bear children - Yep, I was born with an outie, not an innie, so no bearing children for me (thank God!)

Without children - This is part of what pisses me off about abortion. I want a kid. But it's not in the cards. Ain't happening for us, for whatever reason. So yes, it's a bit heartbreaking to see a bunch of kids discarded as medical waste when my wife and I would love nothing more than to have one of them.

Their bodies - Yeah, If I thought it was simply something people did to their own body, I wouldn't give a damn.

DILYSI Dave wrote: Because we are berkeleying broke.

This is misleading rhetoric. We are not broke. I went to an autocross yesterday. Hundreds of people spending money to drive to an event, burn expensive rubber and a little gas in cars that cost thousands, and in some cases tens of thousands of dolars, just for fun. Everywhere you turn you see people in America doing just fine. We may not want to pay for things, but we are a long, long, long way from broke. The people in Egypt who live on $2 a day would find it hard to understand how someone in America could say that, especially on a computer that they own themselves, sipping a cup of coffee that cost more than they will make today.

Don't let the guys in Washington tell you things like this. The situation is a lot more simple than they make out. We want a lot of expensive programs and we don't like to pay taxes. We have failed to balance those two things and we believed people who told us we could have both. They lied. That's it, plain and simple.

In reply to DILYSI Dave:

Amen. Perhaps the Good Lord allows some women not to be able to have children because He knows many will be given up for adoption and they will need parents. It's just a thought and I hope you and your wife will be blessed with a child whether by your own seed or adoption. It makes me sick seeing the murder innocent life whether by abortion or by war.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote: Because we are berkeleying broke.

This is misleading rhetoric. We are not broke. I went to an autocross yesterday. Hundreds of people spending money to drive to an event, burn expensive rubber and a little gas in cars that cost thousands, and in some cases tens of thousands of dolars, just for fun. Everywhere you turn you see people in America doing just fine. We may not want to pay for things, but we are a long, long, long way from broke. The people in Egypt who live on $2 a day would find it hard to understand how someone in America could say that, especially on a computer that they own themselves, sipping a cup of coffee that cost more than they will make today. Don't let the guys in Washington tell you things like this. The situation is a lot more simple than they make out. We want a lot of expensive programs and we don't like to pay taxes. We have failed to balance those two things and we believed people who told us we could have both. They lied. That's it, plain and simple.

We the public is not broke. We the nation is.

EDIT - Agreed on we have a lot of programs and we don't want to pay a lot of taxes. I absolutely want to pay taxes for the programs we should have, but we have a lot of programs we shouldn't. IMO, the amount of taxation is already too high. I'd like to cut taxed some and cut spending a LOT.

...see?

We still can't even get everybody on board with just the idea that, yes, we are in fact, spending way too much money in everything, and accumulating too much debt in everything.

So long as people are still susceptible to the idea that just raising taxes on a few rich people will cover the gaps, or cutting from the military to cover other things instead, we'll have people who simply don't "get" how much money is really being spent here.

madmallard wrote: ...see? We still can't even get everybody on board with just the idea that, yes, we are in fact, spending way too much money in everything, and accumulating too much debt in everything. So long as people are still susceptible to the idea that just raising taxes on a few rich people will cover the gaps, or cutting from the military to cover other things instead, we'll have people who simply don't "get" how much money is really being spent here.

But think of the children! You don't hate children... do you?

madmallard wrote: So long as people are still susceptible to the idea that just raising taxes on a few rich people will cover the gaps...

If I hear the words "fat cats" and "fair share" ONE MORE BERKING TIME, I am going Bakersfield Chimp on whoever says them. Bonus gory slaughter if they make reference to "Bush's cronies".

madmallard wrote: ...see? We still can't even get everybody on board with just the idea that, yes, we are in fact, spending way too much money in everything, and accumulating too much debt in everything.

Huh. Guess I don't see. I haven't see anyone say anything but that.

madmallard wrote: So long as people are still susceptible to the idea that just raising taxes on a few rich people will cover the gaps, or cutting from the military to cover other things instead, we'll have people who simply don't "get" how much money is really being spent here.

I can't find anyone in America anywhere, particularly any elected official, who would even breath the words "raise taxes" other than myself. So, no, I'm not at all clear on what you're talking about. I seem to be a minority of one.

But when I look at the situation, and the pain it took to save what doesn't add up to much, I reach one conclusion. It's equally unrealistic to believe that we can fix this through saving alone. I think it will take three things- a good bit of real budget cutting, a good bit of real tax increase, particularly on the group that currently pays zeron federal income tax, not "a few rich people", and some tough decisions to keep our economy moving forward so we can "grow" some of the difference. The facts are simply that none of these alone can do the job. We'll have to do it all.

And with regard to the military, we absolutely have to cut there. No, that alone has no chance of covering the gap. But if we're too "broke" to cover NPR, we're way, way, a hundred fold more too broke to pay for the military we currently have. It's one of the few items that adds up to enough that it can be cut in a way that will matter.

But we're going to have to feel pain all around. Absolutely find reasonable ways to cut the huge programs funded with payroll taxes. But as we're doing that, add federal income tax that will get some of that saving directed toward cutting the deficit and paying the debt. If we can cut $100 in payroll taxes from someone, get $30 of that back for responsable steps forward. I'm not an economist, but the numbers are staggering. Anything less seems to me like we're fooling ourselves.

tuna55 wrote: But think of the children! You don't hate children... do you?

You know, people who oppose abortion get pretty bent out of shape when others make jokes about their beliefs. I count myself among that group, and we are right to do so.

I won't tell a personal story designed to tug at heart strings. I will tell you that children in America growing up in poverty, in conditions that you and I would never consider living in, without enough food to eat is not any funnier. There are a lot of people who have a lot of kids they can't begin to provide for. It's not the kid's fault for being born. And to joke about their lives to make a political point is kind of distasteful if you think about it. I know you don't mean it that way, and the point has been made so poorly by people using it as leverage for a political agenda it's easy to make fun of it. But we should hold our contempt for the people using these issues to divert our attention.

the libertarian model of "less government" was noble in theory- but the govt took that as "look the other way, free markets regulate themselves" positions. fuhrer bush made sure of that in all his policies. the real torpedo to america that started the catastrophic sinking is greenspan, a libertarian [federal reserve chairman, 1987 -2006] who admitted his policies are wrong and he had no idea what he was doing. this allowed every major bank to bundle sh tty mortgages together as derivatives and sell them, through a pyramid of fractional banking and lovely compound interest, to our grandmothers, to the tune of 700 trillion$. that is the black hole that the bailouts are chasing down the drain. it is unrecoverable. add peak oil to the mix, and we're back in medievel times by 2018. if you doubt peak oil, ask yourself why everyone is drilling offshore now, at 30x the cost. farming will carry the day- get a horse for the plowing. stockup on organic seeds. see collapsethemovie.com for starters--down the rabbit hole with ya http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/new_world_buckboarder/

The fact that Greenspan was a Libertarian has exactly what to do with his abilities regarding running the federal reserve? o_0

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Huh. Guess I don't see. I haven't see anyone say anything but that. ... I can't find anyone in America anywhere, particularly any elected official, who would even breath the words "raise taxes" other than myself. So, no, I'm not at all clear on what you're talking about. I seem to be a minority of one. But when I look at the situation, and the pain it took to save what doesn't add up to much, I reach one conclusion. It's equally unrealistic to believe that we can fix this through saving alone. I think it will take three things- a good bit of real budget cutting, a good bit of real tax increase, particularly on the group that currently pays zeron federal income tax, not "a few rich people", and some tough decisions to keep our economy moving forward so we can "grow" some of the difference. The facts are simply that none of these alone can do the job. We'll have to do it all. And with regard to the military, we absolutely have to cut there. No, that alone has no chance of covering the gap. But if we're too "broke" to cover NPR, we're way, way, a hundred fold more too broke to pay for the military we currently have. It's one of the few items that adds up to enough that it can be cut in a way that will matter....

You don't seem to grasp the scale of spending that is debt unaccounted for versus how much taxes would need to be raised. Lets put a little perspective on it...

Lets say for example the Bush tax cuts expired and went back to Clinton/ hw Bush era.

Lets also say we destroyed the military. Completely eradicated it and its budget. In 2010 the military budget, projects, troop pay, everything totals up to about $685 billion. Lets say we don't have that department expense any more.

--Even with those things in place, we would still be accumulating debt and falling into the hole on entitlement spending.--

To cover the remaining difference in this example would still require an across-the-board level of tax hikes to widen the tax base that would make even a democrat's stomach turn.

I'd like to point out that the federal government only has 3 ways to accumulate revenue. 1: taxes collected. 2: bonds sold (which have to be paid back and are debt), and 3: borrowing against -projected- taxes collected in the future (also debt).

When you hear the right-wing machine talking about spending our children in debt, thats not sycophancy to its base constituants. It means that the federal government has borrowed against taxes so far out ahead of today, its borrowing projected income taxes of people who haven't been born yet.

madmallard wrote: You don't seem to grasp the scale of spending that is debt unaccounted for versus how much taxes would need to be raised. Lets put a little perspective on it...

I absolutely do! And I absolutely agree we need to make some damn big cuts. We're saying the same thing, kinda. Actually, I'm saying the scale is SO big I don't believe we can fix it through cuts alone. I'm not sure why you're focusing only on the military. Maybe there are some that think cuts in that area alone will fix things. If there are, I'm not one of them. But I certainly don't think we can get there without cutting a line that makes up such a huge percentage of our total budget.

Let's say we cut budgets enough to completely wipe out the deficit, which is the only reasonable goal. Now, that's amazingly unlikely to happen, but let's say they do it. When the next group comes in (because they'll all get voted out of office if they actually do it) they will STILL face an unimaginably huge debt. If all goes well, the martyr congress that balanced the budget will be followed by a second that raises taxes enough to pay the debt off. If that happens, maybe we can stop playing games that will result in more of this boom/bust game that is great for rich guys and screws the rest of us. That might create an actual economy that can sustain itself long term.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: The ONLY debate they should be talking about is Medicade, Medicare, Social Security and the Military. 80% of the budget sitting there.

That's exactly what I was saying here. We have to get serious about how we're going to address all this moving forward. It simply can't go on the way it has been, which I think is your point. We're 100% on the same page there. I just hope they come up with some reasonable ideas instead of the "get rid of it" idea they're proposing now.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

tuna55 wrote: But think of the children! You don't hate children... do you?

You know, people who oppose abortion get pretty bent out of shape when others make jokes about their beliefs. I count myself among that group, and we are right to do so. I won't tell a personal story designed to tug at heart strings. I will tell you that children in America growing up in poverty, in conditions that you and I would never consider living in, without enough food to eat is not any funnier. There are a lot of people who have a lot of kids they can't begin to provide for. It's not the kid's fault for being born. And to joke about their lives to make a political point is kind of distasteful if you think about it. I know you don't mean it that way, and the point has been made so poorly by people using it as leverage for a political agenda it's easy to make fun of it. But we should hold our contempt for the people using these issues to divert our attention.

I am pretty sure you misunderstood me.

I meant the left leaning folks use that phrase for all social programs: welfare, social security, the department of education, food stamps, high speed rail, foreign aid, congressional bar tabs, everything.

I am totally against killing babies (calling it abortion is as stupid as calling 'not hiring any white folks' affirmative action) in any form on any day after conception just the same as any murder.

i think "get rid of it" is perfectly reasonable legislative policy these days.

It certainly hasn't been tried before... and whats the Chinese proverb? "Don't keep doing what doesn't work?"

The 'seriousness' you speak of is the simple realisation that government does too much. You either have to pay for it and quit complaining, or change people's expectation of what government should do, and cut cut cut.

I use the military as a common example because its an easy target for Democrats to drum up their base. "Why buy bombs when we can build roads?" makes for an easy war cry to the intellectually vacant. I also use it because it is a large chunk of change that moves thru it, and still is a smaller problem than any of the entitlements.

I say this from the context of, for those people that DO actually pay income taxes, they're high enough from my ethical view. I work until April every year to pay MY taxes alone, and only from May on is money that I keep. Raising taxes to fix a government/governing shortcoming I find unethical as the only direct contribution the people taxed make is their money and their vote. I equate this to be no different from using taxes to change social behavior. Taxes SHOULD be reduced to their core meaning; funds collection for the affairs of government.

If the affairs of government can't be satisfied with the collected taxes, then the government is too big. That is not the direct fault of the voter, as we are a representative government (not a democracy). It is the fault of the government machine itself. ALL government's natural state of existance is to secure more power for itself to better exert its authority or influence over the governed.

I want to break all thinking that just raising taxes fixes anything.

I know... we can change people's voting effectiveness thusly: You get a vote for every hundred dollars you pay in income tax. The more you pay in April, the more your opinion counts come November. If your money is set up in so many tax shelters that you get more money back than you put in, then you lose your say in how our government is run. (This is mostly tongue-in-cheek, don't hang me, hahaha).

congress is actually setup like that already in the House of Representatives, in a manner of speaking.

madmallard wrote: i think "get rid of it" is perfectly reasonable legislative policy these days. It certainly hasn't been tried before... and whats the Chinese proverb? "Don't keep doing what doesn't work?" ----

I just don't think that's really accurate. We can agree "it's not working" right now, the way we're doing things today. But it worked famously for a very long time. Now, before I move on, let me say again, I absolutely agree we need major changes to Medicade, Medicare and the Military. I don't personally believe we need major changes to Social Security, but we do need to "fix" some of the screwy accounting going on there.

madmallard wrote: The 'seriousness' you speak of is the simple realisation that government does too much. You either have to pay for it and quit complaining, or change people's expectation of what government should do, and cut cut cut.

Okay, now we're getting down to it. That's exactly what I've been saying. You can have the programs, or you can have the low taxes. You can't have both. And right now, you can't have either.

But the way we got here is at least in some large part due to politicians who promised that we could indeed have both. I do think to some degree it was by design. Reagan said "take away their checkbook". I think a lot of folks who don't like those programs sold tax cuts because they're easy to sell. But I think they intentionally misled people to believe that tax cuts would pay for themselves and we could keep all the expesive programs. Now that they're out of money they can say "See? We just can't afford it!" Well, no, we can't anymore! You berkeleyed it all up!

madmallard wrote: I use the military as a common example because its an easy target for Democrats to drum up their base. "Why buy bombs when we can build roads?" makes for an easy war cry to the intellectually vacant. I also use it because it is a large chunk of change that moves thru it, and still is a smaller problem than any of the entitlements.

Well, again, you're calling the entitlement programs a "problem". Many don't believe they are. They want the programs, and some even want them if that means we have to pay for them. That's a matter of personal opinion. I happen to think all of those programs are great and I want all of them. But I do think at this point the only reasonable thing to do is scale them back dramatically.

I just can't seperate myself from the real world effects of eliminating Medicare, for instance. I'll spare you the personal saga, but I know childred who didn't do a damn thing wrong but pick the wrong woumb to climb out of. One kid born with a hole in his heart. Needs an opperation he'll never get and likely won't live to see 30. But at least he's gotten some care. I just can't see how we can look at that kid as a baby and say "sorry, you just die." How do we square that with the belief that abortion is wrong?

madmallard wrote: I say this from the context of, for those people that DO actually pay income taxes, they're high enough from my ethical view. I work until April every year to pay MY taxes alone, and only from May on is money that I keep. Raising taxes to fix a government/governing shortcoming I find unethical as the only direct contribution the people taxed make is their money and their vote. I equate this to be no different from using taxes to change social behavior. Taxes SHOULD be reduced to their core meaning; funds collection for the affairs of government. If the affairs of government can't be satisfied with the collected taxes, then the government is too big. That is not the direct fault of the voter, as we are a representative government (not a democracy). It is the fault of the government machine itself. ALL government's natural state of existance is to secure more power for itself to better exert its authority or influence over the governed.

Well, you can belive that, but you need to convience everyone else that popular programs need to go. Otherwise, it's just as easy to say taxes are too low. Holding firm on either position isn't likely to move us forward.

madmallard wrote: I want to break all thinking that just raising taxes fixes anything.

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I don't believe that. As I said, though, I don't belive cutting spending can fix it either.

ReverendDexter wrote: I know... we can change people's voting effectiveness thusly: You get a vote for every hundred dollars you pay in income tax. The more you pay in April, the more your opinion counts come November. If your money is set up in so many tax shelters that you get more money back than you put in, then you lose your say in how our government is run. (This is mostly tongue-in-cheek, don't hang me, hahaha).

I know it "mostly" is, but the part that isn't doesn't have much regard for "all men are created equal". What if I have saved a small amount and chose not to work so I can spend my days contemplating the meaning of life? I don't have a lot, but enough to get by with no one's help. Why should my voice count less than someone who will step on anyone they have to for money?

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

ReverendDexter wrote: I know... we can change people's voting effectiveness thusly: You get a vote for every hundred dollars you pay in income tax. The more you pay in April, the more your opinion counts come November. If your money is set up in so many tax shelters that you get more money back than you put in, then you lose your say in how our government is run. (This is mostly tongue-in-cheek, don't hang me, hahaha).

I know it "mostly" is, but the part that isn't doesn't have much regard for "all men are created equal". What if I have saved a small amount and chose not to work so I can spend my days contemplating the meaning of life? I don't have a lot, but enough to get by with no one's help. Why should my voice count less than someone who will step on anyone they have to for money?

Start thinking of it from the reverse direction. Suppose I was a multibillionaire (I am not, my family makes way way way under 100k combined). If my wife was dying of some super rare disease, could I not seek out the absolute best the world had to offer and offer huge amounts of money to work on it? Would that not eventually benefit everyone?

Suppose I wanted the absolute best education for my kids, and had folks from all over the corners of the world teach my kid about whatever I thought was most important, going to send me to jail for not sending my kid to school?

There are people out there who don't have the means to deal with a kid born with a hole in his heart, and that sucks. It really does. I get tearful when I think about things like that, but that doesn't mean that the federal government needs to pay for anything else. Just because a situation sucks doesn't mean the government can or should fix it. It most certainly doesn't mean that we have the right to kill him before he's even born.

It may sound nice and rosy to 'take care of everyone' through medicaid, medicare, social security, overwhelming overseas military presence, unemployment benefits that last years and the like, but the reality is that we cannot pay for it, and the opinion is that the country would be better for it.

DILYSI Dave wrote: We the public is not broke. We the nation is.

We are not broke. We just make a conscious choice to borrow rather than pay off our debt. It's cheaper, quite frankly..

Here's a nugget of truth. If we wanted to pay off our debt tomorrow, we could... We have the largest asset base of any other nation. We don't choose too...