The U.S. Government shutdown...

[nursebenjamin]

If there is a government shutdown in the United States, who's to blame: the Republications, Democrats, or do both parties share equal blame? The question for debate is who should be blamed and why.

I blame the Democrats for a failure to stand up for their core principles, and the complete failure to articulate a loud and clear message.

However, the Republicans more responsible for the budget impasse. Senate Democrats have agreed to cut 33 billion dollars for the budget; the Tea Party faction of the Republican Party wants 40 billion. The difference is only 7 billion dollars, which is about how much we spend in Iraq each day. The Republicans don’t really care about a balanced budget, as evidence on their insistence late last year to extend the Bush-era tax cut to the wealthy. It’s estimated that the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy will cost the Government $700 billion dollars over the next ten years.

The real issue at hand is ideology, not the budget. The Republicans are trying to create a crisis for the purpose of manipulating the public to turn against popular programs that are pet projects of the Democratic Party. Programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, community heath centers, EPA, Department of Education, etc… The Republican leadership also seek to slow the economic recovery, which they feel will hurt Obama at the polls in 2012.

[Goat]

I blame both sides, but mostly the two party system.

Members of either party are forced to align themselves with the middle ground of the party (which in both cases are extreme compared to the moderate ground we should always be aiming for) or else suffer the party's wrath (and their possibilities of re-election).

In the end, we always end up with a particularly liberal or conservative government as opposed to the moderate one a majority of us would agree upon (or the least of us would disagree with).

In this case, however, I am particularly disgusted with the rhetoric coming from the Democrats. If I hear one of them say, even one more time, that the whole thing is about how Republicans only want to destroy women and children, get old people to die faster (or eat dog food), and re-institute slavery, I may just break something.

It's the hypocrisy that gets to me the most here, y'know?

Funny, and I am particularly disgusted by the Rhetoric from the republicans. Who would have thunk that?

Really?

Please indicate to me ANYTHING coming from the Republican side of the aisle that is as remotely uncivil as Jessie Jackson saying that the budget battle is the civil war all over again, or Rep. Louise Slaughter claiming that Republicans came to Washington to 'kill women," or Nancy Pelosi saying that the Republican budget will 'starve the elderly," or Eleanor Holmes Norton claiming that a government shutdown is the 'functional equivalent of bombing innocent civilians."

There simply is no equivalent language on the part of Republican leaders. Nothing even close.

So....when we get THIS stuff from the party that had the unutterable gall to blame the Tucson shootings on 'violent rhetoric' from the right, I call it hypocrisy.

[youtube][/youtube]

Then, let's look at some of the bills that Republicans have tried to put through.

When it comes to funding abortions, they want to change the definition of Rape to 'forcible rape' (hey , underage kids, drugged and drunk don't count anymore).

They said they would drop that language, but guess what, it hasn't happened yet.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01 ... e-abortion

And they want to have the IRS audit rape victims

http://scienceblogs.com/mikethemadbiolo ... _wants.php

Or, how aobu this ranting from Limbaugh

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201002030032

Or, how bout this rant??

[youtube][/youtube]

[dianaiad]

I agree, the rhetoric on the part of some on the left is hyperbolic to say the least.

Gee, y'think?

However, I find it ironic that the Republicans are complaining. Don't I recall something about some of them saying Obama wanted to kill your grandma?

(timidly raising hand here...) Excuse me, but I've read the health care bill. Have you? The proposals in there for rationing care to the elderly are, well....sorry, but 'killing your grandma' really isn't much of a stretch.

Let's put it this way: my father is 86. He only has one kidney...he lost the other one in World War II. RIGHT NOW, under his insurance and mine, if his last kidney went blooie he is healthy enough otherwise to handle a transplant, and he could very well GET one; he's covered for it.

Under Obama care, there isn't a chance in the world that an 86 year old would get an kidney transplant, even if the reason he DID need one is because he got nailed by the shrapnel coming off of the ship he was defending from a kamikaze pilot.

Frankly, my friend, I'm not stupid...and I didn't take the word of anybody at all when it came to that bill. I READ it. every version...and it disturbs me greatly, because, m'dear, I'm the 'grandma' that's gonna get it when it is fully implemented.

Or rather, NOT get it, if you know what I mean.

I wish this were NOT true, but it is.

It is a game of chicken. The Reps are trying to use the leverage of a shut down to push their agenda. I do think most of them sincerely want to reduce spending. I also think they are being somewhat disingenuous, though, in that they are also trying to accomplish some of their other, non-budget related ends by using the shutdown threat tactic.

Yeah. They put everything on the table.

Everything has to BE on the table; whether the Dems like this or not, it's going to take some draconian cuts to get us out of trouble: cuts we are going to have to make.

THe dems do deserve some blame for not having gotten a budget done last year, and for allowing the Republicans to put them in this position.

"allowing?" EXCUSE me, but the House has been in charge of the budget since the constitution was written. Would you care to look back and see just how long the House of Representatives has been DEMOCRATIC? The last two years of Bush's administration had Democrats in charge of the budget, and the first two years of Obama's administration had the Democrats in total control of all aspects of the government....and for crying out loud, they couldn't pass a budget at all, never mind address any of the problems.

Not , mind you, that I think the Republicans are lily innocent in this. They aren't, but great googly moogly, guys!

They both deserve blame, going back over a decade, for the large debt.


I do think it is absolutely appropriate to point out, however, that those in government during the Bush Administration are to blame for most of this problem.

Oh, I agree. The Democratically controlled House of Representatives.....

The following are all reasons we now have a large debt and large deficits and none of them are the responsibility of Obama.

1) Not putting war expenditures for Iraq and Afghanistan in the budget.

2) The huge recession, which resulted in substantially reduced tax revenue.

3) The Bush tax cuts. However, Obama does deserve blame for letting these be extended for everyone. We should not have extended the tax cuts on the high end earners. It is ludicrous to suggest that letting the tax cuts expire on those making over 250K would be hurting the "job creators."

obs in this nation are created by small business owners who make more than $250,000...but who are not the 'filthy rich.." and they ARE the ones who are hurt. When they hurt, they don't hire.

I'm not good at math, but I have been around awhile, and I have seen what happens when taxes get cut on everybody, including the wealthy. When that happens, people feel better about the economy. Businesses hire people. They lower prices on products. They invest in manufacturing. Good things happen. This results in more people doing better, earning more, BUYing more, making more. The end result is, and has always been, more total tax revenue for the government. After all, as dumb as I am with math, even I understand that 5% of 20 pies is going to get you more pie than if you grab 20% of three and leave the rest of the pies untouched...and THAT is what happens when you lower taxes.

Everybody eats more pie.

So what happens when you get all excited about punishing the greedy rich people who don't deserve a penny that they have, and raise taxes on them 'because they can afford it?"

They stop making money. They stash the cash in tax shelters. They go with the old yacht rather than upgrading to the new one this year. More importantly, they PASS THE TAXES DOWN. They raise prices. They don't hire. They retrench and refuse to invest. After all, they don't see a reason to give their money to the government if they don't have to, and why should they? I wouldn't. So...the rich don't pay taxes after all. They can afford to sit and wait for things to get better, and they will.

They always have; it's a very well known pattern.

Why the liberals can't SEE that is a wonder I'll never figure out.

4) The prescription drug benefit passed by Bush, and it is worth noting, with tactics much more heavy-handed than what occurred during the process which passed the Obama health care plan.

I do wish you didn't have a point with that one. (sigh)

Now, Obama is responsible for the auto bailout, and the stimulus bill. However, the auto bailout arguably worked wonderfully, and will not likely have any long term effect on the debt. The stimulus bill was temporary, and again, arguably worked at least reasonably well in preventing and even worse recession. Most ecnonomists say it had the effect of increasing employment by 1.8 to 3 million jobs over what would have happened without it, and reduced the unemployment rate by 1 to 1.5%.

Really? Tell you what; unemployment right now, if one counted it the way it was counted in the 1930's is depression level. The fancy bailouts didn't do didly.

My biggest disappointment is that the current "crisis" is just a circus, and that if we do shut down the government, it will cost us a lot of money, perhaps even more than the 7 billion they are currently fighting over. As I understand it, even something as "small" as closing the National Parks will lose us $32 million dollars per day just in entrance fees.

Then perhaps the Democrats should park their really stupid rhetoric and come to the table. It's not like the Republicans have any really substantive (numberwise) cuts here.

Bottom line: The Dems have gone way more than half-way in compromising. Thus, the Reps get the lions share of the blame if there is a shut down.

The dems haven't compromised one whit. Not one iota, zip, bupkis, nada. They should have passed a budget LAST YEAR. Since they did not, they have only themselves to blame. After all, there is a reason this last election changed the face of congress so drastically; the new Representatives are doing exactly what they were elected TO do. If the Democrats had done their job when they were supposed to, they wouldn't be in this fix.

[Goat]

I agree, the rhetoric on the part of some on the left is hyperbolic to say the least.

Gee, y'think?

However, I find it ironic that the Republicans are complaining. Don't I recall something about some of them saying Obama wanted to kill your grandma?

(timidly raising hand here...) Excuse me, but I've read the health care bill. Have you? The proposals in there for rationing care to the elderly are, well....sorry, but 'killing your grandma' really isn't much of a stretch.

Let's put it this way: my father is 86. He only has one kidney...he lost the other one in World War II. RIGHT NOW, under his insurance and mine, if his last kidney went blooie he is healthy enough otherwise to handle a transplant, and he could very well GET one; he's covered for it.

Nonsense.. that is pure and adulterated nonsense. As if the private health insurance is not doing that now. The places I see that are cutting the public health benefits to be death panels are where the republicans have control (see arizonia))
and that has nothing to do with the Obama health package

[dianaiad]

I agree, the rhetoric on the part of some on the left is hyperbolic to say the least.

Gee, y'think?

However, I find it ironic that the Republicans are complaining. Don't I recall something about some of them saying Obama wanted to kill your grandma?

(timidly raising hand here...) Excuse me, but I've read the health care bill. Have you? The proposals in there for rationing care to the elderly are, well....sorry, but 'killing your grandma' really isn't much of a stretch.

Let's put it this way: my father is 86. He only has one kidney...he lost the other one in World War II. RIGHT NOW, under his insurance and mine, if his last kidney went blooie he is healthy enough otherwise to handle a transplant, and he could very well GET one; he's covered for it.

Nonsense.. that is pure and adulterated nonsense. As if the private health insurance is not doing that now. The places I see that are cutting the public health benefits to be death panels are where the republicans have control (see arizonia))
and that has nothing to do with the Obama health package

HAVE YOU READ THE BILL???

[Goat]

I agree, the rhetoric on the part of some on the left is hyperbolic to say the least.

Gee, y'think?

However, I find it ironic that the Republicans are complaining. Don't I recall something about some of them saying Obama wanted to kill your grandma?

(timidly raising hand here...) Excuse me, but I've read the health care bill. Have you? The proposals in there for rationing care to the elderly are, well....sorry, but 'killing your grandma' really isn't much of a stretch.

Let's put it this way: my father is 86. He only has one kidney...he lost the other one in World War II. RIGHT NOW, under his insurance and mine, if his last kidney went blooie he is healthy enough otherwise to handle a transplant, and he could very well GET one; he's covered for it.

Nonsense.. that is pure and adulterated nonsense. As if the private health insurance is not doing that now. The places I see that are cutting the public health benefits to be death panels are where the republicans have control (see arizonia))
and that has nothing to do with the Obama health package

HAVE YOU READ THE BILL???

I know you are repeating the rhetoric of Palin, but that was long proved to be false a long long time ago.

[dianaiad]

I agree, the rhetoric on the part of some on the left is hyperbolic to say the least.

Gee, y'think?

However, I find it ironic that the Republicans are complaining. Don't I recall something about some of them saying Obama wanted to kill your grandma?

(timidly raising hand here...) Excuse me, but I've read the health care bill. Have you? The proposals in there for rationing care to the elderly are, well....sorry, but 'killing your grandma' really isn't much of a stretch.

Let's put it this way: my father is 86. He only has one kidney...he lost the other one in World War II. RIGHT NOW, under his insurance and mine, if his last kidney went blooie he is healthy enough otherwise to handle a transplant, and he could very well GET one; he's covered for it.

Nonsense.. that is pure and adulterated nonsense. As if the private health insurance is not doing that now. The places I see that are cutting the public health benefits to be death panels are where the republicans have control (see arizonia))
and that has nothing to do with the Obama health package

HAVE YOU READ THE BILL???

I know you are repeating the rhetoric of Palin, but that was long proved to be false a long long time ago.

I don't repeat anybody. I do repeat this; I read the bill. My conclusions regarding it come from having read the bill.
Have YOU read the bill?

[Goat]

I know you are repeating the rhetoric of Palin, but that was long proved to be false a long long time ago.

Prove it.. show where there are these said 'death panels' in context.

[micatala]

I agree, the rhetoric on the part of some on the left is hyperbolic to say the least.

Gee, y'think?

However, I find it ironic that the Republicans are complaining. Don't I recall something about some of them saying Obama wanted to kill your grandma?

(timidly raising hand here...) Excuse me, but I've read the health care bill. Have you? The proposals in there for rationing care to the elderly are, well....sorry, but 'killing your grandma' really isn't much of a stretch.

If you are of this opinion, then the democrats accusations that the Reps want to kill old people and women is even more justified.

Rationing happens right now. It has been happening for years, only it is done based on the profit motive.

Let's put it this way: my father is 86. He only has one kidney...he lost the other one in World War II. RIGHT NOW, under his insurance and mine, if his last kidney went blooie he is healthy enough otherwise to handle a transplant, and he could very well GET one; he's covered for it.

Under Obama care, there isn't a chance in the world that an 86 year old would get an kidney transplant, even if the reason he DID need one is because he got nailed by the shrapnel coming off of the ship he was defending from a kamikaze pilot.

I question the validity of your conclusion about the health care plan. On what is your claim here based? Is not your grandpa getting care through the VA? How has the affordable care act changed that?

It is a game of chicken. The Reps are trying to use the leverage of a shut down to push their agenda. I do think most of them sincerely want to reduce spending. I also think they are being somewhat disingenuous, though, in that they are also trying to accomplish some of their other, non-budget related ends by using the shutdown threat tactic.

Yeah. They put everything on the table.

Everything has to BE on the table; whether the Dems like this or not, it's going to take some draconian cuts to get us out of trouble: cuts we are going to have to make.

I agree, everything should be on the table. However, we need to take into account the effect of cuts, and we need to put taxes on the table. Also, we need to understand that historically, the best way to get out of a deficit is to have good economic growth. As I said above, one large contributing factor to recent deficits has been the economic downturn and the resulting diminisment of tax revenue.

THe dems do deserve some blame for not having gotten a budget done last year, and for allowing the Republicans to put them in this position.

"allowing?" EXCUSE me, but the House has been in charge of the budget since the constitution was written. Would you care to look back and see just how long the House of Representatives has been DEMOCRATIC? The last two years of Bush's administration had Democrats in charge of the budget, and the first two years of Obama's administration had the Democrats in total control of all aspects of the government....and for crying out loud, they couldn't pass a budget at all, never mind address any of the problems.

You misunderstood my point. By "allowing the reps to put them in this position" I meant that the dems, in not getting a budget passed, set the stage for this battle. I also am referring to them giving way more than they have gotten back in negotiations, and this includes on the tax cut compromise that occurred over Christimas. Extending the tax cuts on those making over 250K would, I believe, easily cover the $6 billion they have recently been arguing over.

They both deserve blame, going back over a decade, for the large debt.


I do think it is absolutely appropriate to point out, however, that those in government during the Bush Administration are to blame for most of this problem.

Oh, I agree. The Democratically controlled House of Representatives.....

I agree, the dems deserve their share of the blame. Bush deserves a lot too for, as I noted, not putting the wars on budget, not paying for his tax cuts, and not paying for the prescription drug benefit, among other things.

The following are all reasons we now have a large debt and large deficits and none of them are the responsibility of Obama.

1) Not putting war expenditures for Iraq and Afghanistan in the budget.

2) The huge recession, which resulted in substantially reduced tax revenue.

3) The Bush tax cuts. However, Obama does deserve blame for letting these be extended for everyone. We should not have extended the tax cuts on the high end earners. It is ludicrous to suggest that letting the tax cuts expire on those making over 250K would be hurting the "job creators."[\quote]

jobs in this nation are created by small business owners who make more than $250,000...but who are not the 'filthy rich.." and they ARE the ones who are hurt. When they hurt, they don't hire.

The vast majority of small business owners do not make $250K.

The republicans repeatedly make the claim that allowing the tax cuts to expire on the over 250K would hurt job creators. The problem is this claim is largely at odds with the actual facts.

Let's focus on this diverse world of folks declaring "small business income." How many would pay higher rates under Obama's plan?

2.5 percent. That's from TPC's Howard Gleckman, and he's looking here, at TPC's tax projections for 2011.

2.5 percent. That means 97.5% of those the Republicans refer to as "job creators" would not have seen a tax increase, and in fact, under Obama's original plan, many would have gotten tax cuts. In fact, my understanding is many of them DID get tax cuts over the last two years.


HEre is another article that cuts through the obfuscation, some of which does occur on the democratic side as well.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/co ... 541676.htm

Still, the point is the accusation that allowing the 3% rate reduction on those making over 250K would result in significant job losses is absolutely without merit. IT is nothing more than an unsubstantiated, ideologically based, assertion. I challenge anyone who supports it to actually show that job losses would occur, and keep in mind this requires more than simply calculating how many businesses would see tax increases. It requires showing the additional taxes would result in measurably lower hiring.

I'm not good at math, but I have been around awhile, and I have seen what happens when taxes get cut on everybody, including the wealthy. When that happens, people feel better about the economy. Businesses hire people. They lower prices on products. They invest in manufacturing. Good things happen. This results in more people doing better, earning more, BUYing more, making more. The end result is, and has always been, more total tax revenue for the government. After all, as dumb as I am with math, even I understand that 5% of 20 pies is going to get you more pie than if you grab 20% of three and leave the rest of the pies untouched...and THAT is what happens when you lower taxes.

Everybody eats more pie.

This is the standard argument that gets made. However, does it really square with reality? Do you have any data to support this?

I will point out that the boom economic years during the CLinton administration did not occur after a tax cut, they occurred after a tax HIKE.

And in fact, one can even provide some explanation for why a tax hike, or higher rates of taxes, promote economic activity and job growth. One argument I have seen makes the case that when business taxes are higher, businesses tend to reinvest in the business rather than take profits. Thus the business expands and hires more workers.

Secondly, your argument somewhat ignores the amount of tax cuts or tax hikes, and the overall rate of taxation. It also ignores how different populations and business sectors respond to changes in tax policy.

Economists largely agree that the best people to give a tax cut or other forms additional revenue are middle and lower class families, because they tend to immediately spend it, providing a quick stimulative effect to the economy. This case was made, for example, when the debate over extending unemployment benefits was being made a few months ago. It would have been short-sighted not to extend these, not only because of the effect it would have on those losing benefits, but also because of the effect on the economy.

So what happens when you get all excited about punishing the greedy rich people who don't deserve a penny that they have, and raise taxes on them 'because they can afford it?"

They stop making money. They stash the cash in tax shelters. They go with the old yacht rather than upgrading to the new one this year. More importantly, they PASS THE TAXES DOWN. They raise prices. They don't hire. They retrench and refuse to invest. After all, they don't see a reason to give their money to the government if they don't have to, and why should they? I wouldn't. So...the rich don't pay taxes after all. They can afford to sit and wait for things to get better, and they will.

First, I reject the notion that allowing the marginal rates at the top to go up from 36% to 39%, rates that worked perfectly well under previous administrations, is punishing anyone.

It is also ludicrous to suggest this small marginal tax rate change would mean "they stop making money." I would agree people will pursue tax savings as they can. However, some of what you say here is actually counter to my previous argument, for which we have some empirical evidence.

I would agree with current calls to reform the tax system to make it simpler and reduce the phenomenon of people trying to play the system, especially corporations.

They always have; it's a very well known pattern.

Why the liberals can't SEE that is a wonder I'll never figure out.

Again, I am open to seeing actual data which supports this alleged "well-known" pattern. As far as I can see this "well-known pattern" does not work in general, as experience during the CLinton administration suggests.

4) The prescription drug benefit passed by Bush, and it is worth noting, with tactics much more heavy-handed than what occurred during the process which passed the Obama health care plan.

I do wish you didn't have a point with that one. (sigh)

IT was an expensive program. They also left the vote open for hours while they "bribed" some people to go along with the vote.

Now, Obama is responsible for the auto bailout, and the stimulus bill. However, the auto bailout arguably worked wonderfully, and will not likely have any long term effect on the debt. The stimulus bill was temporary, and again, arguably worked at least reasonably well in preventing and even worse recession. Most ecnonomists say it had the effect of increasing employment by 1.8 to 3 million jobs over what would have happened without it, and reduced the unemployment rate by 1 to 1.5%.

Really? Tell you what; unemployment right now, if one counted it the way it was counted in the 1930's is depression level. The fancy bailouts didn't do didly.

How they counted unemployment in the 1930's is a red herring.

The fact is, most economists agree that the stimulus helped prevent significantly higher job losses. The auto bailout also prevented perhaps 500,000 or more job losses, and we are likely to get all that money back and possibly more.

Bottom line: The Dems have gone way more than half-way in compromising. Thus, the Reps get the lions share of the blame if there is a shut down.

The dems haven't compromised one whit. Not one iota, zip, bupkis, nada.

Really. They have come down $78 billion from Obama's original budget, $58 billion from another bi-partisan budget compromise that nearly passed several months ago. They met Boehner's original requested number of $33 billion from yet another base line. They went along with extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone.

Your statement here is simply false, or the result of such extreme partisan spin that it bears not even a passing semblance to reality.

They should have passed a budget LAST YEAR. Since they did not, they have only themselves to blame. After all, there is a reason this last election changed the face of congress so drastically; the new Representatives are doing exactly what they were elected TO do. If the Democrats had done their job when they were supposed to, they wouldn't be in this fix.

I agree, they should have passed a budget last year. However, this does not mean they have not been compromising.

And let's keep in mind that the Republicans in the Senate have increased the number of filibusters to insanely unprecedented levels, making 60 votes the new normal for action in the Senate.


I think if you honestly look, by any reasonably objective measure, over the behavior of the parties and the President over the last 2 years, there is no question the Democrats have compromised far more, and behaved far more adult-like than the Republicans. The current shutdown circus illustrates this in spades.

[East of Eden]

Both parties' proposals are not nearly enough to fix the annual deficit, let alone the $14 trillion one. You have to wonder what planet the democrats are on to want to keep spending. More spending didn't reduce unemployment, but to them cutting spending will increase unemployment. Huh? They better come to their senses, or normal America will throw a bunch more out next election, including Obama. The last election was just phase one.

I predict the dollar will continue to sink. You better have your money in gold instead.

[dianaiad]

I know you are repeating the rhetoric of Palin, but that was long proved to be false a long long time ago.

Prove it.. show where there are these said 'death panels' in context.

"Death panels?" NOW who is repeating the political rhetoric?

But I"ll make you a deal; I have asked several times now. Have you read the bill? When you have, so that we are both on the same page and have the same background, I will be more than happy to show you the problematic parts.