No more government - boo hoo!

[Undertoad]

Opposite of slippery, I am the one insisting in this thread that we put the discussion on the firmest ground.

I mostly agree with you Ib. The Republican budget is largely ideological.

The point where we disagree is on the Democratic budget. Your position is that the D plan "cuts less from programs that directly benefit the poorer members of our society, cuts slightly more from Pentagon spending, and actually still KEEPS the bush-era tax cuts in effect, and still cuts the same amount of money from the overall budget".

My position is that there is no D plan, because they haven't offered one.

They say they will craft a plan "in the coming days" and we shall take a look at it to see what it offers.

[Trilby]

Throw the Bums OUT!

There.

Maybe we can all agree on that.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Opposite of slippery, I am the one insisting in this thread that we put the discussion on the firmest ground.

I mostly agree with you Ib. The Republican budget is largely ideological.

The point where we disagree is on the Democratic budget. Your position is that the D plan "cuts less from programs that directly benefit the poorer members of our society, cuts slightly more from Pentagon spending, and actually still KEEPS the bush-era tax cuts in effect, and still cuts the same amount of money from the overall budget".

My position is that there is no D plan, because they haven't offered one.

They say they will craft a plan "in the coming days" and we shall take a look at it to see what it offers.

I think you are confusing the current budget battle which is the subject of the potential govt shutdown, versus an FY 12 and beyond budget proposal.

The Republicans offered their FY 12 plan last week, but it has nothing to do with the current debate. Nor will any Democratic plan offered next week.

The issues is the current budget for the rest of FY 11 and the Senate Democrats offered a counter proposal last month.

But even beyond that, there appears to be agreement on the budget components for the rest of the year. What remains at odds are the political riders, most notably abortion and EPA regulations

[Spexxvet]

Here's the fair plan:

For every dollar that the repubicans cut for a program that conflicts with their philosophy, there must be a dollar cut for something that they endorse. Want to cut planned parenthood and NPR? Ok, then cut the funding for faith-based services and defense. Additionally, taxes on those making over %250k will be increased by the same dollar amount as was cut. These additional tax dollars go directly to pay down the national debt.

For all of you nitwits who will ask for specifics: I'm a vision, big picture guy. I'll leave the implementation to people like you.

[glatt]

We keep getting notices and updates from various Federal courts. In the event of a shutdown, many of them are going to stay open for a week or so. I'm not sure how that works. I guess they still have unspent funds in their bank accounts?

[SamIam]

~We interrupt your regularly scheduled programming in order to bring you the following important message~

I'm sure there's some snappy term for giving facts a pejorative label instead of dealing with them. Oh yeah - denial.

Two hot button issues are always headlined in the current legislative debate - Planned Parenthood and the Environment - also known as "abortion" and "global warming". Everybody loves to debate these two subjects. They are the shiny objects that both the legislature and the media use to distract the public from consideration of far more grave issues.

Here are some FACTS in regard to a single funding issue now under debate (or deadlock as the case may be) - HOUSING.

Housing, health care, education, food, community legal services, and programs for low income children, seniors, and people with disabilities are under attack. The Republican side of the Legislature is proposing:

5.5 billion in HUD (Housing and Urban Development) cuts.

43% or $1.072 billion cut to Public Housing Capital Fund.

71% or $551 million cut to Section 202 housing for seniors.

70% or $210 million cut to Section 811 housing for disabled people.

$149 million cut to Public Housing operating Fund.

$104 million cut to Section 8 Voucher Program.

These cuts will put thousands of low income seniors, disabled, and children out on the streets. These are the most vulnerable members of our population and the ones least able to defend themselves.

What do you think is going to happen to a frail elderly gentlemen who suddenly has his housing taken out from under his feet? What is going to happen to the 4-year old child who must live in an overcrowded shelter by night and on the streets by day? What is going to happen to the schizophrenic who has been barely holding on, but compliant with her meds who must suddenly navigate the urban streets alone and loses her meds when someone at the shelter steals her back pack?

I'll give it to you straight - two out of three of these people will die. I am not being overly dramatic here. Even with the current levels of support, and with medical issues factored in, a low income person with disabilities will die 25 YEARS sooner than the average American man or woman. You put the three people above out of their homes and they are going to be exhausted, bewildered, and subject to predators and opportunistic diseases - just to name a few. THEY WILL NOT MAKE IT.

Your very own SamIam will not make it. I will be sixty in September and suffer from a disability. I am spunky and I am a fighter. Despite my age, I am attempting to go through voc-rehab and be eligible to perform more productive work than what I now do as a motel clerk, part time for $5.00/hr. But I cannot overcome the triple whammy of age, disability, and homelessness.

Yes, the well has been poisoned and the legislature would have me and thousands of others of your fellow Americans drink from it.

Fuck Congress. I won't support any legislative body that wants to kill me.

~You are now returned to your standard name-calling and abortion debate.~

[SamIam]

PS Here's some more FACTS: The total US budget is about $3.4 trillion (2010 est). HUD's share of that is a mere 48.5 billion. Most of HUD spending goes toward big ticket programs like the FHA and Ginnie Mae. Within the sub-category of HUD spending, $865 million (proposed cuts to senior housing + disabled housing + section 8 housing vouchers) is a minor expenditure at best. Within the over-all budget, $865 million vs $3.4 trillion is a trivial drop in the bucket. I would give you percentages, but my mind baulks at dealing with all those zero's.

The proposed funding cuts will do almost nothing toward balancing the budget. However, the cost in human suffering will be vast. Don't tell me that this is about anything other than idealogy.

[Ibby]

My senator speaks for me.
Does your senator speak for you, or for your bosses, for those with millions, for the lobbyists who pad their pockets?

[Griff]

Originally Posted by glatt

We keep getting notices and updates from various Federal courts. In the event of a shutdown, many of them are going to stay open for a week or so. I'm not sure how that works. I guess they still have unspent funds in their bank accounts?

Don't they run partially on filing fees?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Opposite of slippery, I am the one insisting in this thread that we put the discussion on the firmest ground.

I mostly agree with you Ib. The Republican budget is largely ideological.

The point where we disagree is on the Democratic budget. Your position is that the D plan "cuts less from programs that directly benefit the poorer members of our society, cuts slightly more from Pentagon spending, and actually still KEEPS the bush-era tax cuts in effect, and still cuts the same amount of money from the overall budget".

My position is that there is no D plan, because they haven't offered one.

They say they will craft a plan "in the coming days" and we shall take a look at it to see what it offers.

They haven't passed one since 2009, suddenly they acted like the one Obama put forward had substance. It did not.

The Demoncrats have conveniently ignored the responsibility this party’s deficit-spending binge has had in bringing this great country to the verge of insolvency. Nice try at Kabuki Theater.

[TheMercenary]

or all this heady talk, however, the deal-making has been far from edifying. The Democrats brought events to this pass by neglecting to pass a budget last year, when they had control of both the House and the Senate. The Republicans, for their part, refused to accept a Democratic offer to cut the very amount their own leaders had originally proposed back in February, $75 billion, and instead held out for $100 billion. Moreover, in a naked display of opportunism, they seemed willing to bring the government to a standstill over riders that had nothing to do with the budget.

And the worst is almost certainly yet to come. Within the next five weeks, Congress will have to raise the ceiling it imposes on the federal government’s debt. Many Republicans have indicated that they will not do so unless the Democrats agree to much more sweeping spending cuts than the ones that have proved so difficult to square away this week. As one senator put it while waiting to vote on the budget deal, “The debt ceiling is going to be Armageddon.” One hopes she did not mean it literally.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...2011/04/budget

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

They haven't passed one since 2009, suddenly they acted like the one Obama put forward had substance. It did not.

The Demoncrats have conveniently ignored the responsibility this party’s deficit-spending binge has had in bringing this great country to the verge of insolvency. Nice try at Kabuki Theater.

Lets not rewrite history here.

Both parties have been deficit spenders. In the last 50 years, the worst were (in order) Reagan, GW Bush and GHW Bush. Obama will be right up there will these guys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...s_federal_debt

What both Reagan and GHW Bush recognized was that tax increases were necessary to offset the impact of their deficit spending, at least to some degree.

IMO, its unfortunate that the current Republican majority in the House is so unwilling to recognize that and spread the sacrifice.

Personally, I think they are misreading the mandate they got last year, primarily as a result of Independent voters swinging their way.

But those same Independents want compromise and shared sacrifice, not purely ideological cuts like many in the current budget resolution and their proposal for the future, including gutting Medicare completely.

I guess we'll see as the battle heats up over the FY 12 budget and beyond.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

But those same Independents want compromise and shared sacrifice, not purely ideological cuts like many in the current budget resolution and their proposal for the future, including gutting Medicare completely.

Word. If you are putting the ax to Head Start, you'd better make it sting in bankerland as well.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Griff

Word. If you are putting the ax to Head Start, you'd better make it sting in bankerland as well.

This! This is what is also wrong with the British coalition Government cuts agenda. It's totally ideologuically driven. Right down to a disparity in the real scale of cuts being expected of council budgets in deprived areas and the significantly less painful cuts applied to councils in affluent, conservative areas.

[Fair&Balanced]

Ideologues, at either extreme, are very good at misrepresenting the facts and pointing fingers in order to rationalize policy positions that they cant rationalize or justify based on the merits of those positions alone.

What they are not very good at is compromise for the greater good.