The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: Pizzabrewer on January 14, 2019, 10:04:13 PM
-
This is actually the most logical explanation for what’s going on with the shutdown. Keep everyone arguing about the “wall” when the real objective is to blow up government agencies. It's been the Republicans wet dream since Reagan/Gingrich/et al to shrink the government to the point they can drown it in a bath tub.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/senior-trump-official-anonymous-daily-caller-op-ed-shutdown-federal-workers?fbclid=IwAR3FmVrHo2ChwjnYnPWqFChM0AhtSaBEJHFEGekhzWfhsCiw09VQMAOtPFk
(https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/senior-trump-official-anonymous-daily-caller-op-ed-shutdown-federal-workers?fbclid=IwAR3FmVrHo2ChwjnYnPWqFChM0AhtSaBEJHFEGekhzWfhsCiw09VQMAOtPFk)
-
This is actually the most logical explanation for what’s going on with the shutdown. Keep everyone arguing about the “wall” when the real objective is to blow up government agencies.
I agree that the shutdown isn't just about border security. Trump is a reality tv star first and foremost, and he needs to command the narrative.
As long as the entire news cycle is focused on his decision to shut down the government unless he gets a border wall, then they're not talking about...
1. The Russia investigation.
2. The midterm election he just lost.
3. The botched Syria withdrawal.
4. The democratic House majority issuing subpoenas for his tax returns or investigating ethical lapses.
5. The upcoming census and gerrymandering issues.
6. More criminal convictions of his senior staff.
7. Stock market declines.
8. His marital infidelities.
9. Anyone's announcement of their 2020 candidacy.
10. The bipartisan proposals to reform US immigration.
11. His inability to find or retain cabinet secretaries.
12. The failure of his tax reform bill and his ballooning deficit spending.
...
I could go go, but you get the point. Basically, there is basically no good news for Trump out there right now, so he minimizes the damages by keeping everyone as focused as possible on one specific issue, which he can at least try to blame on someone else.
I'm not so worried about the possibility raised in that article you linked, that furloughed federal workers will not be called back. They will absolutely called back, most of them within a month, whether they are getting paid or not. Employees are deemed "essential" and forced to work without pay whenever their work is necessary to protect life or property. No matter what your jobs is, it probably can't go more than a few weeks before your absence starts costing your employer some serious financial losses. Short term absences are recoverable. Indefinite absences will cause billions of dollars in damages in pretty short order.
-
Reduce the size of our federal government? Yes please!
-
Reduce the size of our federal government? Yes please!
Just curious, what was your career? Wasn't it federal? Are you vouching that your previous department was too big and should've been reduced earlier?
-
Reduce the size of our federal government? Yes please!
Start with the military, please.
-
Reduce the size of our federal government? Yes please!
Just curious, what was your career? Wasn't it federal? Are you vouching that your previous department was too big and should've been reduced earlier?
I know this wasn't directed at me, but I would argue that at least half of all federal government programs should be operated no higher than at the state level. If this shutdown has proved anything to me, it's that most people's lives (excluding those who work for the government) aren't really that affected by the shutdown of the federal government.
-
Reduce the size of our federal government? Yes please!
Just curious, what was your career? Wasn't it federal? Are you vouching that your previous department was too big and should've been reduced earlier?
I know this wasn't directed at me, but I would argue that at least half of all federal government programs should be operated no higher than at the state level. If this shutdown has proved anything to me, it's that most people's lives (excluding those who work for the government) aren't really that affected by the shutdown of the federal government.
Perhaps this is too early to claim? Some of the effects are going to be delayed.
-
It doesn't sound like you're a small business trying to hire people without having access to E-Verify.
-
Reduce the size of our federal government? Yes please!
Just curious, what was your career? Wasn't it federal? Are you vouching that your previous department was too big and should've been reduced earlier?
I know this wasn't directed at me, but I would argue that at least half of all federal government programs should be operated no higher than at the state level. If this shutdown has proved anything to me, it's that most people's lives (excluding those who work for the government) aren't really that affected by the shutdown of the federal government.
Perhaps this is too early to claim? Some of the effects are going to be delayed.
What were the long-term effects of the 2013 or 1995-1996 shutdowns?
-
Reduce the size of our federal government? Yes please!
Just curious, what was your career? Wasn't it federal? Are you vouching that your previous department was too big and should've been reduced earlier?
I know this wasn't directed at me, but I would argue that at least half of all federal government programs should be operated no higher than at the state level. If this shutdown has proved anything to me, it's that most people's lives (excluding those who work for the government) aren't really that affected by the shutdown of the federal government.
Perhaps this is too early to claim? Some of the effects are going to be delayed.
What were the long-term effects of the 2013 or 1995-1996 shutdowns?
Well, in the short-term it apparently cost $24 billion:
http://swampland.time.com/2013/10/17/heres-what-the-government-shutdown-cost-the-economy/
I work for a private company but we have substantial interaction with federal agencies and need them to sign off if we want to make significant changes in operations. I recall during the last shutdown we basically weren't able to make some changes that would have benefited us and the result was a financial loss.
I'm sure also that at least some of the shutdown impacts are not being felt by the general public because there are still furloughed workers working but not being paid. Imagine what the economic impact would be if all commercial flights had to be grounded because there were no TSA employees available to do security screenings, for example. From what I have read, there are also plenty of potential impacts that would be felt beyond the federal workforce if the shutdown extended into February. SNAP benefits being unfunded is one I keep hearing tossed around.
-
Reduce the size of our federal government? Yes please!
Just curious, what was your career? Wasn't it federal? Are you vouching that your previous department was too big and should've been reduced earlier?
No, my career was in the military, national defense. One of the actual constitutionally proscribed roles of the federal government. And yes, DoD is far too big and should have been reduced earlier.
-
I know this wasn't directed at me, but I would argue that at least half of all federal government programs should be operated no higher than at the state level. If this shutdown has proved anything to me, it's that most people's lives (excluding those who work for the government) aren't really that affected by the shutdown of the federal government.
Perhaps this is too early to claim? Some of the effects are going to be delayed.
What were the long-term effects of the 2013 or 1995-1996 shutdowns?
For the current shutdown, and for past shutdowns, there weren't many long-term effects on the US as a whole.
If it continues, we'll start to see more and more problems. As cats mentioned, TSA is a huge problem. Miami already closed a (small) terminal and lines are getting very long in Atlanta and Houston. That'll start to hurt business profits and will make flying that much more of a PITA.
Unpaid workers, whether exempted or furloughed, will have a ripple effect throughout the economy as banks and landlords and utilities don't get paid. It could take a chunk out of the GDP growth if the shutdown continues.
-
Reduce the size of our federal government? Yes please!
Just curious, what was your career? Wasn't it federal? Are you vouching that your previous department was too big and should've been reduced earlier?
No, my career was in the military, national defense. One of the actual constitutionally proscribed roles of the federal government. And yes, DoD is far too big and should have been reduced earlier.
I'm military and I agree. I can both accept my great pay and benefits but also see that the way we live and how our government is operating is unsustainable and hugely wasteful. Just like I can invest in index funds that grow because of consumerism and still think of most people as consumerist suckas (I was one too, and sometimes still am).
-
I know this wasn't directed at me, but I would argue that at least half of all federal government programs should be operated no higher than at the state level. If this shutdown has proved anything to me, it's that most people's lives (excluding those who work for the government) aren't really that affected by the shutdown of the federal government.
Perhaps this is too early to claim? Some of the effects are going to be delayed.
What were the long-term effects of the 2013 or 1995-1996 shutdowns?
For the current shutdown, and for past shutdowns, there weren't many long-term effects on the US as a whole.
If it continues, we'll start to see more and more problems. As cats mentioned, TSA is a huge problem. Miami already closed a (small) terminal and lines are getting very long in Atlanta and Houston. That'll start to hurt business profits and will make flying that much more of a PITA.
Unpaid workers, whether exempted or furloughed, will have a ripple effect throughout the economy as banks and landlords and utilities don't get paid. It could take a chunk out of the GDP growth if the shutdown continues.
Given the shittacular way the TSA does business, maybe we should just shitcan the whole program instead of forcing them to reduce manning and then stomp all over our dicks while we try to travel.
-
I work for a private company but we have substantial interaction with federal agencies and need them to sign off if we want to make significant changes in operations. I recall during the last shutdown we basically weren't able to make some changes that would have benefited us and the result was a financial loss.
Perhaps instead of making them go back to work, we should explore whether or not we really need the government's sign off on your operations.
I mean, hard to say without knowing your field; if you design nuclear powerplants maybe their signoff is necessary, if it's, I dunno, you want to open a third lemonade stand, maybe you don't need them standing in your way.
-
Reduce the size of our federal government? Yes please!
Just curious, what was your career? Wasn't it federal? Are you vouching that your previous department was too big and should've been reduced earlier?
No, my career was in the military, national defense. One of the actual constitutionally proscribed roles of the federal government. And yes, DoD is far too big and should have been reduced earlier.
Sorry to confuse, wasn't your past position funded with federal dollars is what I meant to ask, which of course the military is funded with federal dollars.
Would you have been okay if you were laid off well prior to approaching FIRE? If your opinion would be the exact same as it is now, I respect that somewhat though would be slightly dubious that you would be jumping for joy at the efficiency gain as you walk out the door with all your office junk thrown together in a box (then again, this is the Internet and I don't know you). If you had landed a job with DoD before FIRE and were disgusted right away by the bloat and resigned of your own accord then I would have mad props for that. If different from being RIFd or resigning (like if you retired only when you were FIRE), then that is hypocritical, no? - assuming you receive some type of payout beyond S.S. from Uncle Sam or will in the future as a result of your career.
I'm sorry you feel that way about DoD. I hear that sentiment quite often but it is a large agency. It sucks when you feel your work isn't useful and is redundant or a waste of taxpayer dollars. I mean, one thing for an ignorant outsider to have that opinion but quite another for someone that was inside to feel that way.
-
Reduce the size of our federal government? Yes please!
Start with the military, please.
Yes, please! It is ironic to have been part of the waste and inefficiency, and still benefitting from government funds and then complaining about waste and inefficiency.
-
Want to reduce the size of government? Fine! You need to examine individual government programs. Can they be reduced/streamlined/merged/eliminated? Then do so.
Ending budget support for entire agencies that administer numerous programs is not the way to reduce government spending.
This article is just another instance of Trump's people trying to find scapegoats for their failures. Blame the victim is Trumpism 101.
-
Reduce the size of our federal government? Yes please!
Start with the military, please.
Yes, please! It is ironic to have been part of the waste and inefficiency, and still benefitting from government funds and then complaining about waste and inefficiency.
There were so many occasions when I was in the army where I just thought about the amount of waste around me. We could cut the military budget by 30%+ without any drop in functionality if it was just more efficient.
-
Given the shittacular way the TSA does business, maybe we should just shitcan the whole program instead of forcing them to reduce manning and then stomp all over our dicks while we try to travel.
A lot of what the TSA does is definitely theater and, by many accounts, they fail at security.
However, airports don't have to use TSA. They can hire their own security.
-
Reduce the size of our federal government? Yes please!
Start with the military, please.
Yes, please! It is ironic to have been part of the waste and inefficiency, and still benefitting from government funds and then complaining about waste and inefficiency.
You noticed that too?
I mean, I realize there is waste and inefficiency. I was in the Navy, after all. I benefited greatly (thank you for most of my BS and all of my master's). But I didn't stay for any kind of pension either.
-
Reduce the size of our federal government? Yes please!
Start with the military, please.
Yes, please! It is ironic to have been part of the waste and inefficiency, and still benefitting from government funds and then complaining about waste and inefficiency.
There were so many occasions when I was in the army where I just thought about the amount of waste around me. We could cut the military budget by 30%+ without any drop in functionality if it was just more efficient.
Chiming in to agree with this sentiment. I'm Army as well and on occasion, the amount of waste in equipment, supply procurement and manpower was staggering. You would not believe what I have seen thrown away just to justify new equipment coming in.
-
I work for a private company but we have substantial interaction with federal agencies and need them to sign off if we want to make significant changes in operations. I recall during the last shutdown we basically weren't able to make some changes that would have benefited us and the result was a financial loss.
Perhaps instead of making them go back to work, we should explore whether or not we really need the government's sign off on your operations.
I mean, hard to say without knowing your field; if you design nuclear powerplants maybe their signoff is necessary, if it's, I dunno, you want to open a third lemonade stand, maybe you don't need them standing in your way.
It is fine and proper to explore those questions, but we don't need a government shut down to do so. For example, many businesses and academic institutions rely on CORS data provided by NOAA:
https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/CORS/
For example: surveying, navigation, GPS farming, etc. Except those data aren't available during the shut down. If we collectively decide we don't want the government to provide those data, then we should give businesses and institutions time to make an orderly transition to other providers. Just shutting it down willy-nilly is a fool thing to do.
-
Reduce the size of our federal government? Yes please!
Start with the military, please.
Yes, please! It is ironic to have been part of the waste and inefficiency, and still benefitting from government funds and then complaining about waste and inefficiency.
There were so many occasions when I was in the army where I just thought about the amount of waste around me. We could cut the military budget by 30%+ without any drop in functionality if it was just more efficient.
Chiming in to agree with this sentiment. I'm Army as well and on occasion, the amount of waste in equipment, supply procurement and manpower was staggering. You would not believe what I have seen thrown away just to justify new equipment coming in.
Don't forget the containers full of old equipment that is either still good or obsolete, but can't be sold because it's on a commander's hand receipt. And it all has to be inventoried a few times a year.
-
Want to reduce the size of government? Fine! You need to examine individual government programs. Can they be reduced/streamlined/merged/eliminated? Then do so.
And we have several active programs that seek to do so, even going so far as to give financial awards to individual federal employees who can identify examples of waste, fraud, and abuse, or suggest alternative procedures that would save the government money. I suspect these programs are underutilized, because a lot of employees (everywhere, not just feds) are reluctant to rock the boat.
If our elected representatives want to reduce the size of the government, then Congress 100% has the authority to do that. They're supposed to address these questions every single year, when they pass a new budget. The President is not supposed to be part of that conversation, though. His only power is to veto whatever compromise Congress comes up with, which is the situation we have right now. Congress agreed on a compromise budget and the president killed it by threatening a veto, causing the Senate majority leader to refuse to send it to the president's desk despite having unanimous support, from literally every single senator.
So this whole idea that the shutdown is designed to shrink government is woefully misguided. The shutdown is going to cost the government billions, not save it any money. It's going to increase the deficit. It's going to hurt the economy. And it still doesn't do a damn thing to shrink (or expand) the size of government because that's entirely up to Congress in the compromise budget they come up with, but it isn't even being considered right now. The current shutdown isn't at all about the size of government (or immigration, for that matter), it's just about a symbolic border wall.
-
This is actually the most logical explanation for what’s going on with the shutdown.
Who says it has to be logical?
At this point it's a pissing contest and ego. Neither side can back down without appearing to be weak, and neither side can afford to appear weak.
-
I'm not so worried about the possibility raised in that article you linked, that furloughed federal workers will not be called back. They will absolutely called back, most of them within a month, whether they are getting paid or not.
I don't know. That's kind of the point and is the reason Mitch shows no sense of urgency to solve the problem. How long will it take for many of those 800k Fed employees to give up, quit, and find other work? 1 month? 3 months? 6 months? Longer?
I have a personal connection to this, our DIL is a (furloughed) Fed employee. Fortunately she and our son have been Mustachian for a while and are in no paycheck-to-paycheck danger. Yet they've been saving up for a house down payment and that's been interrupted. She's certainly not close to jumping ship but I doubt she'd wait around unemployed for more than a half-year.
-
I work for a private company but we have substantial interaction with federal agencies and need them to sign off if we want to make significant changes in operations. I recall during the last shutdown we basically weren't able to make some changes that would have benefited us and the result was a financial loss.
Perhaps instead of making them go back to work, we should explore whether or not we really need the government's sign off on your operations.
I mean, hard to say without knowing your field; if you design nuclear powerplants maybe their signoff is necessary, if it's, I dunno, you want to open a third lemonade stand, maybe you don't need them standing in your way.
Closer to the former than the latter :) While I find the need for federal sign-off something of a hassle, I much prefer it to the alternatives I'm aware of or can dream up on my own. Leaving regulation 100% at the state level (as I believe was suggested upthread) would certainly not reduce hassle on my end and might even make it worse.
I certainly believe there's waste in some parts of the federal government, but a shutdown is like some sort of scrambled version of throwing the baby out with the bathwater where you may throw out the baby and still have half the bathwater left to deal with. It's not an efficient or smart way to do things at all.
-
An orange toddler’s tantrum is just that.
An orange toddler’s tantrum that puts national security and people’s livelihoods at risk is another thing entirely.
A discussion about whether and which agencies need reforms or cuts is a separate issue. Which should, uh, actually happen as an adult conversation, and not as a dimwitted reality star’s power trip.
Every time I see some ridiculous libertarian argument that this shutdown is somehow a good thing, I just shake my head at the idiocy.
FFS.
-
Reduce the size of our federal government? Yes please!
I'll go with that!
-
Reduce the size of our federal government? Yes please!
Just curious, what was your career? Wasn't it federal? Are you vouching that your previous department was too big and should've been reduced earlier?
I know this wasn't directed at me, but I would argue that at least half of all federal government programs should be operated no higher than at the state level. If this shutdown has proved anything to me, it's that most people's lives (excluding those who work for the government) aren't really that affected by the shutdown of the federal government.
Perhaps this is too early to claim? Some of the effects are going to be delayed.
What were the long-term effects of the 2013 or 1995-1996 shutdowns?
1995 - 1996 shutdown
The small company I worked for closed due to contracts not being awarded and not getting paid. All of the employees lost their jobs and as far as I know they never opened again as the location remained empty for years until someone else lease or purchased the building.
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
-
They will absolutely called back, most of them within a month, whether they are getting paid or not.
As expected, federal workers are already being called back from furlough status, and forced to work without pay. The IRS just recalled 36k people to help with tax filing season. Also park rangers, food inspectors, air traffic controllers, etc. Turns out even the Trump administration thinks we need federal workers. It just wants them to work for free.
-
They will absolutely called back, most of them within a month, whether they are getting paid or not.
As expected, federal workers are already being called back from furlough status, and forced to work without pay. The IRS just recalled 36k people to help with tax filing season. Also park rangers, food inspectors, air traffic controllers, etc. Turns out even the Trump administration thinks we need federal workers. It just wants them to work for free.
I cannot imagine these workers are going to be very productive. They've already missed one paycheck and have no promise the next paycheck will come either.
-
This is actually the most logical explanation for what’s going on with the shutdown. Keep everyone arguing about the “wall” when the real objective is to blow up government agencies.
As long as the entire news cycle is focused on his decision to shut down the government unless he gets a border wall, then they're not talking about...
1. The Russia investigation.
2. The midterm election he just lost.
3. The botched Syria withdrawal.
4. The democratic House majority issuing subpoenas for his tax returns or investigating ethical lapses.
5. The upcoming census and gerrymandering issues.
6. More criminal convictions of his senior staff.
7. Stock market declines.
8. His marital infidelities.
9. Anyone's announcement of their 2020 candidacy.
10. The bipartisan proposals to reform US immigration.
11. His inability to find or retain cabinet secretaries.
12. The failure of his tax reform bill and his ballooning deficit spending.
If I can add another...
13. Jerome Powell "Very Worried" about continuing growth of already massive US debt.
-
Reduce the size of our federal government? Yes please!
Just curious, what was your career? Wasn't it federal? Are you vouching that your previous department was too big and should've been reduced earlier?
I know this wasn't directed at me, but I would argue that at least half of all federal government programs should be operated no higher than at the state level. If this shutdown has proved anything to me, it's that most people's lives (excluding those who work for the government) aren't really that affected by the shutdown of the federal government.
Perhaps this is too early to claim? Some of the effects are going to be delayed.
What were the long-term effects of the 2013 or 1995-1996 shutdowns?
1995 - 1996 shutdown
The small company I worked for closed due to contracts not being awarded and not getting paid. All of the employees lost their jobs and as far as I know they never opened again as the location remained empty for years until someone else lease or purchased the building.
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
I don't remember how long that one was. I was still in the Navy, considered essential (um, nuclear and all), and still got paid.
Our admin staff wasn't working though.
-
Reduce the size of our federal government? Yes please!
Just curious, what was your career? Wasn't it federal? Are you vouching that your previous department was too big and should've been reduced earlier?
I know this wasn't directed at me, but I would argue that at least half of all federal government programs should be operated no higher than at the state level. If this shutdown has proved anything to me, it's that most people's lives (excluding those who work for the government) aren't really that affected by the shutdown of the federal government.
Perhaps this is too early to claim? Some of the effects are going to be delayed.
What were the long-term effects of the 2013 or 1995-1996 shutdowns?
1995 - 1996 shutdown
The small company I worked for closed due to contracts not being awarded and not getting paid. All of the employees lost their jobs and as far as I know they never opened again as the location remained empty for years until someone else lease or purchased the building.
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
I don't remember how long that one was. I was still in the Navy, considered essential (um, nuclear and all), and still got paid.
Our admin staff wasn't working though.
November 14 - 19 1995 for 5 days
December 16 1995 - January 6th 1996 for 21 days
It was the longest shutdown prior to this current one.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_government_shutdowns_of_1995–1996
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
-
The small company I worked for closed due to contracts not being awarded and not getting paid. All of the employees lost their jobs and as far as I know they never opened again as the location remained empty for years until someone else lease or purchased the building.
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
The medium company I worked for suffered lasting financial damage because of that shut down. Trump is doing real damage to people's lives.
-
The small company I worked for closed due to contracts not being awarded and not getting paid. All of the employees lost their jobs and as far as I know they never opened again as the location remained empty for years until someone else lease or purchased the building.
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
The medium company I worked for suffered lasting financial damage because of that shut down. Trump is doing real damage to people's lives.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/01/white-house-just-realized-shutdown-is-hurting-the-economy
-
Want to reduce the size of government? Fine! You need to examine individual government programs. Can they be reduced/streamlined/merged/eliminated? Then do so.
If our elected representatives want to reduce the size of the government, then Congress 100% has the authority to do that. They're supposed to address these questions every single year, when they pass a new budget. The President is not supposed to be part of that conversation, though. His only power is to veto whatever compromise Congress comes up with, which is the situation we have right now.
This isn't an accurate statement. All the departments submit proposed budgets to OMB who consolidates them for the president to submit to congress. The various departments even refer to it as the president's budget (PB). You are correct that Congress gets to modify/wholesale change it, but your comment made it sound like the executive branch has no involvement until the veto pen, which isn't a fair representation of the process.
-
your comment made it sound like the executive branch has no involvement until the veto pen, which isn't a fair representation of the process.
I understand that the President submits his funding priorities prior to Congress making a decision. I used to be a federal employee and I've helped prepare some of the relevant documents.
I just meant that the constitutionally enumerated powers for each branch of government make it very clear that the purse belongs to the legislative branch, not the executive branch. Whether or not Congress decides to cede power to the president is a secondary issue. They can do so voluntarily, but ultimately the authority to allocate funding lies entirely with Congress. They can tell the president to go suck a lemon, and I fear that is about to be our only way out of the current shutdown situation.
-
They will absolutely called back, most of them within a month, whether they are getting paid or not.
As expected, federal workers are already being called back from furlough status, and forced to work without pay. Th
Again, @sol, that is fake news. They are still going to get paid, it will simply be delayed. Delayed pay is not the same as never getting paid. But not only are the government workers going to be paid for the time they work, the ones who have been sitting on their asses at home for the last month are going to be paid for doing that as well. My tax dollars at work, all because of democrat obstructionism.
-
They will absolutely called back, most of them within a month, whether they are getting paid or not.
As expected, federal workers are already being called back from furlough status, and forced to work without pay. Th
Again, @sol, that is fake news. They are still going to get paid, it will simply be delayed. Delayed pay is not the same as never getting paid. But not only are the government workers going to be paid for the time they work, the ones who have been sitting on their asses at home for the last month are going to be paid for doing that as well. My tax dollars at work, all because of democrat obstructionism.
^ That's a bit of revisionism. Last month the Republican-controlled senate unanimously passed a funding bill that did not include monies for a border wall:
The GOP-controlled Congress on Wednesday severely undermined President Trump’s drive for a border wall, embracing a short-term spending bill that would keep the government open but deny any new money for his long-promised wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.
The agreement announced by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would fund the federal government through Feb. 8, averting a partial shutdown scheduled to take effect at the end of Friday absent action by Congress and Trump. But the spending bill would not include any of the $5 billion Trump is demanding for his wall, and it would punt the next round of border wall decisions into the new year, when a new Democratic majority in the House will have the power to stop wall funding from going through Congress.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-signals-it-might-accept-a-short-term-spending-bill-to-avert-shutdown/2018/12/19/63148a02-0395-11e9-9122-82e98f91ee6f_story.html?utm_term=.317504da2c24
So Trump rejects a bill that was passed unanimously by Republicans, and it is the Democrats' fault? That stretches the bounds of credulity.
-
They will absolutely called back, most of them within a month, whether they are getting paid or not.
As expected, federal workers are already being called back from furlough status, and forced to work without pay. Th
Again, @sol, that is fake news. They are still going to get paid, it will simply be delayed. Delayed pay is not the same as never getting paid. But not only are the government workers going to be paid for the time they work, the ones who have been sitting on their asses at home for the last month are going to be paid for doing that as well. My tax dollars at work, all because of democrat obstructionism.
“Simply.”
It’s simple, people. Nothing to worry about.
Lol
-
They will absolutely called back, most of them within a month, whether they are getting paid or not.
As expected, federal workers are already being called back from furlough status, and forced to work without pay. Th
Again, @sol, that is fake news. They are still going to get paid, it will simply be delayed. Delayed pay is not the same as never getting paid. But not only are the government workers going to be paid for the time they work, the ones who have been sitting on their asses at home for the last month are going to be paid for doing that as well. My tax dollars at work, all because of democrat obstructionism.
^ That's a bit of revisionism. Last month the Republican-controlled senate unanimously passed a funding bill that did not include monies for a border wall:
So Trump rejects a bill that was passed unanimously by Republicans, and it is the Democrats' fault? That stretches the bounds of credulity.
How about this:
"Hoping to avert a government shutdown, House Republicans on Thursday passed a stopgap spending measure that included $5 billion for a southern border wall, putting it at odds with the Senate and increasing the likelihood of a government shutdown. No Democrats supported the measure. "
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/government-funding-bill-passage-now-uncertain-in-the-house/
-
Again, @sol, that is fake news. They are still going to get paid, it will simply be delayed. Delayed pay is not the same as never getting paid. But not only are the government workers going to be paid for the time they work, the ones who have been sitting on their asses at home for the last month are going to be paid for doing that as well. My tax dollars at work, all because of democrat obstructionism.
Ohhh boy. Let's see here:
* Says "fake news"? check
* Uses exact talking point phrase "democrat obstructionism" Trump uses? check
* Uses "democrat" epithet? check
My friend, I think it's time to take a long hard look at what you're putting out there. This is pure partisan hackery. Be better than that.
House Republicans on Thursday passed a stopgap spending measure that included $5 billion for a southern border wall
This is not how Democracy works. The majority of Americans do not want this wall. Republicans controlled the house, the senate, and the presidency for the past two years. They did not fund the wall. The 2018 election resulted in Democratic control of the House. Republicans must now negotiate. Giving the president exactly what he asks for is not negotiating.
There is a funding bill, the one the last Senate passed unanimously, passed in the House, that Mitch McConnell will not put up for a vote. To somehow place blame with the "democrat obstructionists" for this continued shutdown is beyond absurd.
-
It bears repeating:
The shutdown started with a Republican President, a Republican-controlled House, and a Republican-controlled Senate.
-
Elections have consequences. One of those is not getting your way 100% of the time if you're the losing party. There is no "border crisis." There is no emergency. Trump lost the House, so he shut down the govt. End of story, simple as that.
-
This shit is so hilariously stupid. Trump is running tv ads asking people to call 800-350-6647 and press 1 to DEMAND that Pelosi and Schumer fund the wall. Buried at the end, the announcer says, "press 2 if you do NOT support funding the wall."
FFS...
-
The small company I worked for closed due to contracts not being awarded and not getting paid. All of the employees lost their jobs and as far as I know they never opened again as the location remained empty for years until someone else lease or purchased the building.
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
The medium company I worked for suffered lasting financial damage because of that shut down. Trump is doing real damage to people's lives.
I work for a small company that contracts with pretty diverse gov agencies and had one project screwed up in December. But we have a few other DOD projects where our funding expired two days ago. DOD is funded but apparently some of the contracting agencies aren't so we have customers that need work product but can't authorize us to proceed - it is a mess! A third of our staff is now sitting unbillable while our customers are falling behind on their projects.
We are scrambling to find small private sector jobs to fill the hole, but they also have to be small enough that we can drop/finish projects with 24 hours notice.
-
This shit is so hilariously stupid. Trump is running tv ads asking people to call 800-350-6647 and press 1 to DEMAND that Pelosi and Schumer fund the wall. Buried at the end, the announcer says, "press 2 if you do NOT support funding the wall."
FFS...
I saw adds on Youtube a week or so ago promoting something similar - text "wall" to this number to show your support! I very badly wanted to text "IMPEACH" instead.
-
This shit is so hilariously stupid. Trump is running tv ads asking people to call 800-350-6647 and press 1 to DEMAND that Pelosi and Schumer fund the wall. Buried at the end, the announcer says, "press 2 if you do NOT support funding the wall."
FFS...
I saw adds on Youtube a week or so ago promoting something similar - text "wall" to this number to show your support! I very badly wanted to text "IMPEACH" instead.
What a weak little a-hole.
Also, I just happened upon a Twitter account called "Rogue Melania." And its tweet about this Fox TV ad is hilarious:
-
To somehow place blame with the "democrat obstructionists" for this continued shutdown is beyond absurd.
I think there should be some compromise on the democrats' part. They voted for a wall in the past, but they're strongly opposed now just because of Trump.
-
I think there should be some compromise on the democrats' part.
Does your idea of compromise involve the democrats getting anything at all, or just totally capitulating to his hostage taking tactics?
Because they've offered to compromise over and over again, and been turned away because Trump is not willing to give them anything in return. They literally passed a bipartisan compromise budget (that got the support of every single republican senator) which Trump threatened to veto. They offered him wall funding in exchange for a DACA fix, and he said no. Republican senators even tried to put together a compromise plan for wall funding of something less $5b, and Trump torpedoed it before they were even finished outlining the plan.
I think the democrats are absolutely willing to compromise. But compromise requires BOTH sides giving something up, and so far every deal they've proposed has been shot down by Trump, because HE'S not willing to compromise. He is making demands and refusing to negotiate. He shut down the government to get his way.
The 100% republican controlled congress couldn't even get him his wall funding, and that was before the blue wave election swept democrats into power. Let's not forget that it was the last congress, not this one, that shut down the government. Republicans in control of both houses couldn't get him his wall funding, so he shut down the government. Now democrats have assumed power in one chamber, and are trying over and over again to find a solution here. So far, Trump has refused all attempts.
Trump could make all of this go away with a single tweet. He just needs to say "I will not veto the republican's budget bill." Done. Government open tomorrow.
-
They will absolutely called back, most of them within a month, whether they are getting paid or not.
As expected, federal workers are already being called back from furlough status, and forced to work without pay. The IRS just recalled 36k people to help with tax filing season. Also park rangers, food inspectors, air traffic controllers, etc. Turns out even the Trump administration thinks we need federal workers. It just wants them to work for free.
The gov't workers won't be the first people to work for Trump who have had a hard time getting paid...
-
Reduce the size of our federal government? Yes please!
+1
-
Do you guys want the "size" of the Federal government reduced because you think certain, specific services are unnecessary? If so, then let's work within Congress to identify those solutions and specifically reduce the resources we commit to those. (note: this was done successfully during the Obama administration via the "Sequester"; we are still waiting for the Trump administration to demonstrate an ability to cut spending and get Congress on board with it)
Or do you want it reduced because you think your taxes are too high? If so, then let's work within Congress to identify places within the tax code where we can reduce the government's impact on you (this was done successfully in Dec. 2017, surely you were posting in favor of TCJA on these discussion boards when it was being passed/signed)
-
@talltexan
1. Do I think certain services are unnecessary? Yes. Do I trust Congress to voluntarily cut their own pet projects? No. I think letting the people compare the value of these services to their cost is a great way to put it in perspective so they can pressure Congress to trim the fat.
Do I think the shutdown over a wall is the best way to do it? Hell no! Do I agree with how Trump has handled anything? Not that I can think of. However, if the Government is already shut down, do I appreciate that voters are paying closer attention to the value and cost of services? YES! I don't agree with this shutdown, but if it results in reducing the size of government then one good thing can come from it.
2. Do I think taxes are too high? Yes, BUT! I'm much more concerned with our debt and deficits than I am the small change in my taxes from the TCJA. I don't agree with the TCJA because it resulted in bigger deficits. They didn't lower taxes, they delayed them. If the Republicans want to lower taxes they should lower spending first. We have a party of spend more and a party of tax less, and when they compromise they both get what they want. The result are ever larger deficits.
-
The federal government is basically an insurance/healthcare company (Social Security, Medicare) with a huge armed forces. If you are really concerned about the size/amount of government spending, you have to spend your time talking mostly about those things, not about national parks or TSA or any of the little stuff that people are talking about because of the shutdown. Non defense discretionary spending was ~15% of the entire budget in 2018.
So I think talking about "shrinking the size" of the government in the context of the shutdown is a little bit dumb, because any meaningful shrinking is going to have to involve cutting way back on some combination of those 3 big things, none of which are affected here. Arguing about discretionary spending is silly when you're spending as much as we do on mandatory stuff.
Now, if you stopped sending out social security checks and shut down the DOD/stopped paying soldiers, you'd see pretty quickly how enthusiastic people are about actually shrinking that darn big government...
-W
-
Non defense discretionary spending was ~15% of the entire budget in 2018.
15% of the entire budget is actually still a very significant amount of billions of dollars in a single year.
Now, if you stopped sending out social security checks and shut down the DOD/stopped paying soldiers, you'd see pretty quickly how enthusiastic people are about actually shrinking that darn big government...
No one suggested shutting down the DOD and not paying soldiers.
-
Sure, 15% isn't nothing. But it's not a big deal in the context of what we spend on SS/Medicare/DOD. Even drastic cuts to discretionary spending wouldn't get us anywhere near a balanced budget - which IMO at least in good economic times should certainly be a goal.
My point was that the shutdown is a crappy way to have an honest conversation about spending less money. If you want less government, you're probably going to have to accept less military and social insurance/healthcare spending, full stop. Because that's what the government really is.
Associating the shutdown with small-government philosophy (which I'm somewhat a fan of myself) is a loser idea, because it makes you look innumerate at best and dishonest at worst.
-W
-
When you compare our defense spending to the rest of the world, it's laughable. It makes up more than half of our federal budget. We could cut our spending in half and still be the most funded military in the world. If you did that and cut out all non-essential spending (and let the states pick up the slack), it still probably wouldn't be enough to balance the budget without increasing revenue. However, it would be a step in the right direction.
-
Our bloated defense budget makes sense in context of our historical geopolitical strategy and relationships. I more or less agree with Trump in the US dialing down its global role (Though like any rational person I find his way of doing this embarrassing and needlessly contentious - bickering with our allies is pointless and harmful).
Trump is blowing these relationships up and yet the defense budget isn't getting smaller. It's getting bigger. He's clearing out hawkish top brass... that he himself hired. He's replacing them with hawkish neocons that seem to be less likely to rebuff his idiocy.
Our economy has been strong for years now. We might not have many opportunities like this to aggressively pay down our debt to give the fed a chance to raise rates.
The fed needs to raise rates if, for no other reason, than to be able to lower them when the next recession hits - but they're hesitant to do so when it means the US govt will have to start paying that much more on their debt servicing.
Neither the left nor the right seems seriously interested in fiscal responsibility. I fear we're a bit of a frog in a near-boiling pot of water, and we'll only be motivated to act when the Fed's hands are tied and they have to choose between accepting inflation or raising rates when the economy really needs stimulus.
-
I couldn't find all the necessary data for FY18, so this is for FY17. Source: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53625
Total revenue: $3.3 Trillion.
Total spending: $4 Trillion.
Resulting deficit. $700 Billion, or 17.5%
Of that $4 trillion spent, only $1.2 trillion was discretionary. The mandatory spending was mostly Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, government retirement pensions, income security programs (tax credits, SNAP, unemployment, and the like), and VA benefits. Note that actual military spending is *not* included in mandatory spending.
So what does this mean? Even if congress were to say "cut out all discretionary spending. No military, no parks, no NASA, no FBI, no Justice Department. Nothing." We would still be spending 85% of our budget.
The kicker? Federal debt is at almost $22 Trillion. So even with 0% discretionary spending, spending 85% of our budget would have us paying off our debt in approximately... 44 years, assuming *no* interest. Not necessarily saying we should pay off our debt, but just as a point of how much our debt is in relation to our spending and income.
So yes, let's worry very much about how much we spend on border security. Let's wrangle over a few billion here and there. A millionaire is made ten bucks at a time, right? We might shave a few days off how long it takes the good ol' US of A to reach FI.
-
Our bloated defense budget makes sense in context of our historical geopolitical strategy and relationships. I more or less agree with Trump in the US dialing down its global role (Though like any rational person I find his way of doing this embarrassing and needlessly contentious - bickering with our allies is pointless and harmful).
...
Neither the left nor the right seems seriously interested in fiscal responsibility. I fear we're a bit of a frog in a near-boiling pot of water, and we'll only be motivated to act when the Fed's hands are tied and they have to choose between accepting inflation or raising rates when the economy really needs stimulus.
There are a couple Republicans who seem (or at least did last time I paid attention) to care about fiscal responsibility: Ted Cruz & Rand Paul. However, neither are particularly likable, and they have no chance of getting past the primaries. They do have other flaws, but I would certainly place ending our national debt as my most important issue.
-
They will absolutely called back, most of them within a month, whether they are getting paid or not.
As expected, federal workers are already being called back from furlough status, and forced to work without pay. The IRS just recalled 36k people to help with tax filing season. Also park rangers, food inspectors, air traffic controllers, etc. Turns out even the Trump administration thinks we need federal workers. It just wants them to work for free.
Yep.
IIRC, one of the shutdowns during Obama's time ended partly because people were upset at the national parks closing. By forcing people to work for free, that allows the services to look as though they are not interrupted. Then, people don't notice and say things like, "The government doesn't do anything anyway."
-
This is actually the most logical explanation for what’s going on with the shutdown. Keep everyone arguing about the “wall” when the real objective is to blow up government agencies. It's been the Republicans wet dream since Reagan/Gingrich/et al to shrink the government to the point they can drown it in a bath tub.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/senior-trump-official-anonymous-daily-caller-op-ed-shutdown-federal-workers?fbclid=IwAR3FmVrHo2ChwjnYnPWqFChM0AhtSaBEJHFEGekhzWfhsCiw09VQMAOtPFk
(https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/senior-trump-official-anonymous-daily-caller-op-ed-shutdown-federal-workers?fbclid=IwAR3FmVrHo2ChwjnYnPWqFChM0AhtSaBEJHFEGekhzWfhsCiw09VQMAOtPFk)
The thread became way off topic, so I wanted to get back to the original question.
Did you watch Maddow? The shutdown is a perfect way to stop the FBI.
-
Federal debt is at almost $22 Trillion. So even with 0% discretionary spending, spending 85% of our budget would have us paying off our debt in approximately... 44 years, assuming *no* interest. Not necessarily saying we should pay off our debt, but just as a point of how much our debt is in relation to our spending and income.
I'm not disputing your math, but I think most economists would dispute your interpretation. Every single nation on Earth has debt, and almost every single nation on Earth has external debt owed to foreigners. Debt is a normal and necessary part of economics, and most countries have a higher debt load (as measured relative to the size of their economies) than does the US.
So it's likely that the national debt will never be "paid off". That's just not a goal. No one is seriously suggesting we should become a debt free nation. It would literally ruin our economy to attempt it, and achieving it would not benefit us in any way.
As much as the world has changed in the past 100 years, the underlying forces of economics are largely unchanged. Fiat currency is still a made-up tool, and real national wealth is still built on your country's population, natural resources, and the skills required to convert those two things into global influence. Everything else is just parlor tricks built on top of that fundamental foundation. By this measure, the US is still the wealthiest country in the world precisely because it is still the most powerful and well supported, regardless of how much debt it accrues.
Fearmongering over the debt is a political tactic aimed at voters, and not representative of any politician's actual goals. It's an excuse to influence policy decisions, like punishing poor people or locking up refugees or giving government handouts to corporations. I don't really take it seriously anymore. Virtually everyone who complains about the national debt is pushing an ideologically driven policy agenda unrelated to debt, and the rest are just confused.
-
Federal debt is at almost $22 Trillion. So even with 0% discretionary spending, spending 85% of our budget would have us paying off our debt in approximately... 44 years, assuming *no* interest. Not necessarily saying we should pay off our debt, but just as a point of how much our debt is in relation to our spending and income.
I'm not disputing your math, but I think most economists would dispute your interpretation. Every single nation on Earth has debt, and almost every single nation on Earth has external debt owed to foreigners. Debt is a normal and necessary part of economics, and most countries have a higher debt load (as measured relative to the size of their economies) than does the US.
So it's likely that the national debt will never be "paid off". That's just not a goal. No one is seriously suggesting we should become a debt free nation. It would literally ruin our economy to attempt it, and achieving it would not benefit us in any way.
...
You are absolutely correct. I am not in any way advocating actually paying off all of our debt. I don't think continually increasing our debt is a good thing, but I'm not nearly read up enough on that to make any good argument. Just trying to illustrate that we have very minimal wiggle room in our budget, and I think that is bad.
-
Our bloated defense budget makes sense in context of our historical geopolitical strategy and relationships. I more or less agree with Trump in the US dialing down its global role (Though like any rational person I find his way of doing this embarrassing and needlessly contentious - bickering with our allies is pointless and harmful).
...
Neither the left nor the right seems seriously interested in fiscal responsibility. I fear we're a bit of a frog in a near-boiling pot of water, and we'll only be motivated to act when the Fed's hands are tied and they have to choose between accepting inflation or raising rates when the economy really needs stimulus.
There are a couple Republicans who seem (or at least did last time I paid attention) to care about fiscal responsibility: Ted Cruz & Rand Paul. However, neither are particularly likable, and they have no chance of getting past the primaries. They do have other flaws, but I would certainly place ending our national debt as my most important issue.
Just a reminder that both Ted Cruz and Rand Paul voted for TCJA. Perhaps you are able to make a case that this tax cut will eventually reduce the deficit, but we're seeing MUCH higher deficits for FY 2018 and 2019 than we say for 2017.
They often say they care about reducing the Federal Budget deficit, but they have a strange way of showing it when it comes time to vote.
-
Just a reminder that both Ted Cruz and Rand Paul voted for TCJA. Perhaps you are able to make a case that this tax cut will eventually reduce the deficit, but we're seeing MUCH higher deficits for FY 2018 and 2019 than we say for 2017.
They often say they care about reducing the Federal Budget deficit, but they have a strange way of showing it when it comes time to vote.
Are you familiar with the Laffer Curve? It is the theory showing that reducing taxes may potentially result in greater tax revenue (and vice-versa). There are so many variables involved that it is difficult to establish exactly where we are on the Laffer Curve until after the fact.
I'm not necessarily agreeing that cutting taxes was the best idea, but I'm not going to complain about it, since I can be far more efficient with my own money than the federal government can. And since I am not aware of any politicians that want to drastically cut government spending and increase government revenue, I'm going to lean toward cutting spending.
-
The real problem is that both defense spending and social security/medicare are broadly popular. People like those programs, for better or worse, but they also dislike taxes, so they keep voting for people who won't touch any of the actual spending with a 10 foot pole and will instead rail against funding scientific research or national parks or something else basically irrelevant.
And because people don't generally know what's in the budget/can't do even simple math, that strategy seems to work over and over.
-W
-
Are you familiar with the Laffer Curve? It is the theory showing that reducing taxes may potentially result in greater tax revenue (and vice-versa). There are so many variables involved that it is difficult to establish exactly where we are on the Laffer Curve until after the fact.
I'm not aware of any actual economists who believe the Laffer Curve is realistic. It way oversimplifies a rather complex system. And even when studied retroactively, they've found ~65-70% tax rates are where the maximum revenue is generated. So... none of this bodes well for the traditional supply-side economist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve#Empirical_data
I'm not necessarily agreeing that cutting taxes was the best idea, but I'm not going to complain about it, since I can be far more efficient with my own money than the federal government can.
I'm not sure how the "efficiency" of your spending and the governments' spending are comparable? Medicare, NASA, and the Social Security Administration are all pretty efficiently run organizations, that likely have lower overheads than the corporations you spend your money at. That says nothing about the public nature of government spending. Some things don't lend themselves very well to the private sector (e.g. police, fire fighters, infrastructure, affordable schooling, military service, etc.)
And since I am not aware of any politicians that want to drastically cut government spending and increase government revenue, I'm going to lean toward cutting spending.
What politicians (realistically) make any attempt to cut spending? Republicans tend to pay a lot of lip service to cutting spending, then usually propose inflating the Pentagon's budget—the single largest line item of on discretionary spending budget—regardless of whether the Pentagon wants it or not. And they do this while proposing tax breaks (usually skewed toward the higher brackets).
-
I'm not necessarily agreeing that cutting taxes was the best idea, but I'm not going to complain about it, since I can be far more efficient with my own money than the federal government can. And since I am not aware of any politicians that want to drastically cut government spending and increase government revenue, I'm going to lean toward cutting spending.
But that's the rub. Over the last two years the Republican-controlled Federal government did not enact or even propose any meaningful spending cuts. However, borrowing increased by about 60%. Your argument about spending efficiency goes out the window because the Federal government is spending just as much as ever.
But it gets even worse than that. Interest must be paid on all that borrowed money. That means the government will be even bigger next year (bigger in the sense of more spending) that it would have been without the tax cuts. In fact, paying interest on the debt is one of the single largest expenditures. But unlike say, NASA or the DOT (the budgets of both of which are chump change compared to net interest payments, by the way), we can't have a debate about cutting interest. It has to be paid.
To put it another way, the TCJA was concrete and permanent step to make the Federal government big and expensive. Permanently.
-
Just a reminder that both Ted Cruz and Rand Paul voted for TCJA. Perhaps you are able to make a case that this tax cut will eventually reduce the deficit, but we're seeing MUCH higher deficits for FY 2018 and 2019 than we say for 2017.
They often say they care about reducing the Federal Budget deficit, but they have a strange way of showing it when it comes time to vote.
Are you familiar with the Laffer Curve? It is the theory showing that reducing taxes may potentially result in greater tax revenue (and vice-versa). There are so many variables involved that it is difficult to establish exactly where we are on the Laffer Curve until after the fact.
I'm not necessarily agreeing that cutting taxes was the best idea, but I'm not going to complain about it, since I can be far more efficient with my own money than the federal government can. And since I am not aware of any politicians that want to drastically cut government spending and increase government revenue, I'm going to lean toward cutting spending.
I have studied the Laffer curve in one form or another for two decades. I appreciate the many confounding variables you mention, but I can assure you that Federal income tax rates in 2017 were below the peak revenue point.
I do not object that the economy grows faster when Federal revenue is cut. The evidence that it grows so much faster that revenue declines are offset is very thin.
Many people offer the example of Reagan's top rate cuts in 1981 as a time when we were above that peak. While it is true that the economy grew very rapidly from 1983-1990, Federal revenues did not grow until Regan enacted a tax reform that raised taxes at the start of his second term.
-
Federal debt is at almost $22 Trillion. So even with 0% discretionary spending, spending 85% of our budget would have us paying off our debt in approximately... 44 years, assuming *no* interest. Not necessarily saying we should pay off our debt, but just as a point of how much our debt is in relation to our spending and income.
I'm not disputing your math, but I think most economists would dispute your interpretation. Every single nation on Earth has debt, and almost every single nation on Earth has external debt owed to foreigners. Debt is a normal and necessary part of economics, and most countries have a higher debt load (as measured relative to the size of their economies) than does the US.
So it's likely that the national debt will never be "paid off". That's just not a goal. No one is seriously suggesting we should become a debt free nation. It would literally ruin our economy to attempt it, and achieving it would not benefit us in any way.
As much as the world has changed in the past 100 years, the underlying forces of economics are largely unchanged. Fiat currency is still a made-up tool, and real national wealth is still built on your country's population, natural resources, and the skills required to convert those two things into global influence. Everything else is just parlor tricks built on top of that fundamental foundation. By this measure, the US is still the wealthiest country in the world precisely because it is still the most powerful and well supported, regardless of how much debt it accrues.
Fearmongering over the debt is a political tactic aimed at voters, and not representative of any politician's actual goals. It's an excuse to influence policy decisions, like punishing poor people or locking up refugees or giving government handouts to corporations. I don't really take it seriously anymore. Virtually everyone who complains about the national debt is pushing an ideologically driven policy agenda unrelated to debt, and the rest are just confused.
Would Jerome Powell and Janet Yellen be ideologically driven, or confused?
I'll lend more credence to the experts who understand the intricacies of central banking, not a reactionary oversimplifier who gives the least charitable interpretation possible to those concerned with a growing national debt.
What you regard as parlor tricks are extremely important tools, indicators, and actions that central banks can take that can lead to the success or downfall of a nation's economy. We have many tricks up our sleeve, such as QE and interest rate fixing, but if these aren't dialed back during a period of economic abundance, then we won't be able to play these cards when we really need to. We're in danger of overplaying our hand and soon the only trick up our sleeve will be to print our way out of it. Do you think the US is inflation proof?
-
Just a reminder that both Ted Cruz and Rand Paul voted for TCJA. Perhaps you are able to make a case that this tax cut will eventually reduce the deficit, but we're seeing MUCH higher deficits for FY 2018 and 2019 than we say for 2017.
They often say they care about reducing the Federal Budget deficit, but they have a strange way of showing it when it comes time to vote.
Are you familiar with the Laffer Curve? It is the theory showing that reducing taxes may potentially result in greater tax revenue (and vice-versa). There are so many variables involved that it is difficult to establish exactly where we are on the Laffer Curve until after the fact.
I'm not necessarily agreeing that cutting taxes was the best idea, but I'm not going to complain about it, since I can be far more efficient with my own money than the federal government can. And since I am not aware of any politicians that want to drastically cut government spending and increase government revenue, I'm going to lean toward cutting spending.
I have studied the Laffer curve in one form or another for two decades. I appreciate the many confounding variables you mention, but I can assure you that Federal income tax rates in 2017 were below the peak revenue point.
I do not object that the economy grows faster when Federal revenue is cut. The evidence that it grows so much faster that revenue declines are offset is very thin.
Many people offer the example of Reagan's top rate cuts in 1981 as a time when we were above that peak. While it is true that the economy grew very rapidly from 1983-1990, Federal revenues did not grow until Regan enacted a tax reform that raised taxes at the start of his second term.
I love how when I mention one thing but say something else later on in my post (trying to fairly state both sides), people gravitate to the first item that I said I basically disagree with.
Yes, I know that raising taxes would probably increase government revenue. I also know that, just like every middle class household in America, the government would just use that money to increase spending even more. When the government shows that it can efficiently use the revenue it currently gets, I will be more supportive of giving it more.
And to @the_gastropod - I know damn well the government is inefficient with money - I spent enough time in the military to see that.
-
Yes, I know that raising taxes would probably increase government revenue. I also know that, just like every middle class household in America, the government would just use that money to increase spending even more.
I don't see any evidence that's true, except maybe in very general ways, and certainly not with the current bunch in Washington. For example, at the end of 2017 Congress passed the TCJA, which was projected to increase deficits by about $2 trillion dollars over the next ten years.
Then just two months later Congress approved $140 billion of new spending out of a $1.3 trillion budget. You can see that's not a small increase. The lack of revenue didn't constrain the President or Congress at all.
I think everyone would like lower taxes. And I think everyone would agree the Federal government wastes lots of money. So from a fiscal responsibility standpoint, cutting taxes and increasing spending is the worst of both worlds. We should hold our government leaders responsible. If we don't, no one else will.
-
Just a reminder that both Ted Cruz and Rand Paul voted for TCJA. Perhaps you are able to make a case that this tax cut will eventually reduce the deficit, but we're seeing MUCH higher deficits for FY 2018 and 2019 than we say for 2017.
They often say they care about reducing the Federal Budget deficit, but they have a strange way of showing it when it comes time to vote.
Are you familiar with the Laffer Curve? It is the theory showing that reducing taxes may potentially result in greater tax revenue (and vice-versa). There are so many variables involved that it is difficult to establish exactly where we are on the Laffer Curve until after the fact.
I'm not necessarily agreeing that cutting taxes was the best idea, but I'm not going to complain about it, since I can be far more efficient with my own money than the federal government can. And since I am not aware of any politicians that want to drastically cut government spending and increase government revenue, I'm going to lean toward cutting spending.
I have studied the Laffer curve in one form or another for two decades. I appreciate the many confounding variables you mention, but I can assure you that Federal income tax rates in 2017 were below the peak revenue point.
I do not object that the economy grows faster when Federal revenue is cut. The evidence that it grows so much faster that revenue declines are offset is very thin.
Many people offer the example of Reagan's top rate cuts in 1981 as a time when we were above that peak. While it is true that the economy grew very rapidly from 1983-1990, Federal revenues did not grow until Regan enacted a tax reform that raised taxes at the start of his second term.
Yes, I know that raising taxes would probably increase government revenue. I also know that, just like every middle class household in America, the government would just use that money to increase spending even more. When the government shows that it can efficiently use the revenue it currently gets, I will be more supportive of giving it more.
And to @the_gastropod - I know damn well the government is inefficient with money - I spent enough time in the military to see that.
If government spending was limited by revenue we wouldn't be $22 trillion in the hole. What evidence do you have that increased revenue would lead to increased spending?
I love how when I mention one thing but say something else later on in my post (trying to fairly state both sides), people gravitate to the first item that I said I basically disagree with.
Your first post did not suggest that you disagree with... actually I'm not even sure what you're referring to here. Laffer's theory? Where we currently fall on the curve?
To me it sounded like you were suggesting we might be to the right of the peak, might not. talltexan refuted the idea that we were anywhere near the peak of the Laffer curve prior to the tax cuts. I would agree.
-
And to @the_gastropod - I know damn well the government is inefficient with money - I spent enough time in the military to see that.
Again: what are you comparing that to? In college, I interned at a publicly traded chemical corporation you have absolutely heard of. It was not uncommon to walk by people's desks, as they were sound asleep. The government hardly has a monopoly on inefficiency.
-
In other shutdown-related news, my former federal agency is considering whether or not they can recall people to work using non-appropriated funds. Like the post office, people who are not paid by funds from Congress can technically continue to work even with a lapse of appropriations.
But there are complications. Almost nobody is 100% funded by reimbursable work, because the congressional appropriations pay for agency overhead like facilities rent and laboratories and IT support. Many of the people who ARE fully reimbursable still can't get much done all by themselves, if they work as part of a team that relies on people who are appropriated. And then here's the real kicker; any employee who does return to work, even part time, would be issued a paycheck that would be assessed with ALL of their backpay deductions for things like health and life insurance, oasdi, tsp, etc, meaning that folks could theoretically work full time for one week of a biweekly pay period and then still be issued a negative paycheck.
I think it's a hard sell. Can you imagine being furloughed at home when your boss calls you up and says "Good news! We can pay you with reimbursable funds, please report tomorrow morning. Oh btw, your first paycheck after you start working won't arrive for three more weeks, and then it will still be zero."
-
Just a reminder that both Ted Cruz and Rand Paul voted for TCJA. Perhaps you are able to make a case that this tax cut will eventually reduce the deficit, but we're seeing MUCH higher deficits for FY 2018 and 2019 than we say for 2017.
They often say they care about reducing the Federal Budget deficit, but they have a strange way of showing it when it comes time to vote.
Are you familiar with the Laffer Curve? It is the theory showing that reducing taxes may potentially result in greater tax revenue (and vice-versa). There are so many variables involved that it is difficult to establish exactly where we are on the Laffer Curve until after the fact.
I'm not necessarily agreeing that cutting taxes was the best idea, but I'm not going to complain about it, since I can be far more efficient with my own money than the federal government can. And since I am not aware of any politicians that want to drastically cut government spending and increase government revenue, I'm going to lean toward cutting spending.
I have studied the Laffer curve in one form or another for two decades. I appreciate the many confounding variables you mention, but I can assure you that Federal income tax rates in 2017 were below the peak revenue point.
I do not object that the economy grows faster when Federal revenue is cut. The evidence that it grows so much faster that revenue declines are offset is very thin.
Many people offer the example of Reagan's top rate cuts in 1981 as a time when we were above that peak. While it is true that the economy grew very rapidly from 1983-1990, Federal revenues did not grow until Regan enacted a tax reform that raised taxes at the start of his second term.
I love how when I mention one thing but say something else later on in my post (trying to fairly state both sides), people gravitate to the first item that I said I basically disagree with.
Yes, I know that raising taxes would probably increase government revenue. I also know that, just like every middle class household in America, the government would just use that money to increase spending even more. When the government shows that it can efficiently use the revenue it currently gets, I will be more supportive of giving it more.
And to @the_gastropod - I know damn well the government is inefficient with money - I spent enough time in the military to see that.
Isn't it fair to break Dadjokes' criticism down into two separate critiques:
1. The government has program objectives to which I fundamentally object (ex. "I do not believe we should invade Venezuela to bring about regime change")
2. The government did a bad job of invading another country--Iraq--to bring about regime change