Forums / Discussion / General

170,257 total conversations in 5,455 threads

+ New Thread


Government Shutdown.

Last posted Apr 10, 2011 at 07:53PM EDT. Added Apr 08, 2011 at 10:52AM EDT
39 posts from 13 users




So, any one else looking at this like. “wat”?

I mean, the government is suffering from massive corruption, visible as day.

The reason this is happening, is not because the government can’t pay things, its more a matter of deciding how much to spend they can spend in a a budget.

But sadly cops are not affected by this.

Last edited Apr 08, 2011 at 10:58AM EDT
Apr 08, 2011 at 10:52AM EDT

I suggest that we cut every congressman/woman’s pay by at least 50%. That’ll fix the budget real fast.

in b4 obama hate.

Apr 08, 2011 at 03:08PM EDT
Quote


Red Ed.
And here’s something else that’s quite interesting:
Here

Apr 08, 2011 at 04:01PM EDT
Quote

It’s Obama’s fault. Just kidding, yeah but srsly, I really couldn’t give a fuck about government.

Apr 08, 2011 at 05:51PM EDT
Quote

GLaDOS wrote:

I suggest that we cut every congressman/woman’s pay by at least 50%. That’ll fix the budget real fast.

in b4 obama hate.

They aren’t shutting down the government to fix the budget. It’s happening because the two parties are un-able to resolve how much of the budget to cut therefor they can’t get out their fiscal plan by the deadline. As a result, there is no fiscal plan, thus they cant spend money.
On a side note; why do people always suggest we the salary of politicians rather than raising taxes on the super rich? We’d get more money from them anyway. Also, its not like the congressmen don’t deserve their pay, its a highly stressful ‘round the clock job. I’m going to stop before I go on a rant.

Last edited Apr 08, 2011 at 06:39PM EDT
Apr 08, 2011 at 06:36PM EDT
Quote

@Crunch:
You know, as a pretty strong tax-and-spend liberal myself, I’m usually all for taxing the rich (and this is no exception), but I read a very interesting analysis of this the other day that I wish I still had a link to.

The point that was made by the article was that if the government depends on taxing the rich to make up the bulk of its revenue, its revenue streams are going to be far more volatile in troubled times, since the income of the rich is far more tied to the health of the economy overall. It sort of like…suppose some hypothetical rich CEO is making a million dollars a year, and we take a chunk of that in taxes. Next year, the economy tanks, and while he’s still stinking rich, his income is only half a million dollars, so we only take in half as much taxes.

While this article failed to convince me that we shouldn’t be taxing the rich, I don’t know that that was the point. I think the point was that taxing the rich is no substitute for fiscal responsibility. Not that any of this is a solution to anything, but I found it thought-provoking, and thought I’d share.

Apr 08, 2011 at 06:54PM EDT
Quote

Well to be honest, if you know anything about politics, its more about corruption than anything, president Truman was actually sponsor by a drug dealing pimp named Pendergast in Kansas when he was running for senate.

Apr 08, 2011 at 07:24PM EDT

Brucker wrote:

@Crunch:
You know, as a pretty strong tax-and-spend liberal myself, I’m usually all for taxing the rich (and this is no exception), but I read a very interesting analysis of this the other day that I wish I still had a link to.

The point that was made by the article was that if the government depends on taxing the rich to make up the bulk of its revenue, its revenue streams are going to be far more volatile in troubled times, since the income of the rich is far more tied to the health of the economy overall. It sort of like…suppose some hypothetical rich CEO is making a million dollars a year, and we take a chunk of that in taxes. Next year, the economy tanks, and while he’s still stinking rich, his income is only half a million dollars, so we only take in half as much taxes.

While this article failed to convince me that we shouldn’t be taxing the rich, I don’t know that that was the point. I think the point was that taxing the rich is no substitute for fiscal responsibility. Not that any of this is a solution to anything, but I found it thought-provoking, and thought I’d share.

I don’t think we should rely on them either. General taxes should be raised, along with cutting government spending. I was simply pointing out that people instantly turn to cutting politicians salaries.

Apr 08, 2011 at 07:26PM EDT
Quote

Sweatie Killer wrote:

Well to be honest, if you know anything about politics, its more about corruption than anything, president Truman was actually sponsor by a drug dealing pimp named Pendergast in Kansas when he was running for senate.

Oh pshaw your just trying to be in the out group so you feel smart. Truman also Won WWII and made executive orders that help structure most future civil rights movements, the corrupt bastard >.>

Apr 08, 2011 at 07:45PM EDT
Quote

Admiral Crunch wrote:

Oh pshaw your just trying to be in the out group so you feel smart. Truman also Won WWII and made executive orders that help structure most future civil rights movements, the corrupt bastard >.>

I’m not saying he was a bad president, I am just sayian, thats what you gotta do to be a politician.

Last edited Apr 08, 2011 at 07:49PM EDT
Apr 08, 2011 at 07:49PM EDT

Sweatie Killer wrote:

I’m not saying he was a bad president, I am just sayian, thats what you gotta do to be a politician.

Although, its unfair to say politics is ALL about corruption. If it was, no good policy would exist.

Last edited Apr 08, 2011 at 07:56PM EDT
Apr 08, 2011 at 07:56PM EDT
Quote

Admiral Crunch wrote:

I don’t think we should rely on them either. General taxes should be raised, along with cutting government spending. I was simply pointing out that people instantly turn to cutting politicians salaries.

Oh, it’s for the same reason that people think that if the educational system is failing, the solution is to cut its funding. It makes no actual sense, but it sounds vaguely like logical business strategy.

A huge number of people in the world seem to think the answer to any problem is to either throw money at it or take money away from it. In my opinion, money is just an artificial construct that acts as a distraction from the things in the world that are really of consequence.

Apr 08, 2011 at 08:00PM EDT
Quote

Admiral Crunch wrote:

Although, its unfair to say politics is ALL about corruption. If it was, no good policy would exist.

True, a lot of it is about open and honest hunger for money and power.

Apr 08, 2011 at 08:01PM EDT
Quote

Admiral Crunch wrote:

Although, its unfair to say politics is ALL about corruption. If it was, no good policy would exist.

I am not saying all politics is corruption, just a majority.

Apr 08, 2011 at 08:09PM EDT

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13022575

An hour deal, I mean its better than shutting down everything, but generally I am still disappointed it came to this, and not planned out ahead of time in a more responsible matter.

Apr 09, 2011 at 12:15AM EDT

Brucker wrote:

Oh, it’s for the same reason that people think that if the educational system is failing, the solution is to cut its funding. It makes no actual sense, but it sounds vaguely like logical business strategy.

A huge number of people in the world seem to think the answer to any problem is to either throw money at it or take money away from it. In my opinion, money is just an artificial construct that acts as a distraction from the things in the world that are really of consequence.

yes you throw money at a debt to make it go away, its called paying it back. Cutting un-necessary spending (which there is a lot of) will give us more money and so will taxes. Over time, this will eliminate the debt.
EDIT: Your education point is invalid, as it is classified as necessary spending, I’m strictly talking about waste.

Last edited Apr 09, 2011 at 12:40AM EDT
Apr 09, 2011 at 12:32AM EDT
Quote

Dear Congress,
Last year I mismanaged my funds and this year my spouse and I cannot decide on a budget. Until we have come to a unified decision that fits all of our needs and interests, we will have to shut down our checkbook and will no longer be able to pay our taxes. I’m sure you’ll understand. Thank you very much for setting an example we can all follow.

Apr 09, 2011 at 12:40AM EDT
Quote

Derpy Vazquez wrote:

Dear Congress,
Last year I mismanaged my funds and this year my spouse and I cannot decide on a budget. Until we have come to a unified decision that fits all of our needs and interests, we will have to shut down our checkbook and will no longer be able to pay our taxes. I’m sure you’ll understand. Thank you very much for setting an example we can all follow.

they decided last minute for $38 billion in cuts

Apr 09, 2011 at 12:43AM EDT
Quote



2 of the most overlooked speeches of the 20th Century.

Apr 09, 2011 at 04:27AM EDT
Quote

Admiral Crunch wrote:

yes you throw money at a debt to make it go away, its called paying it back. Cutting un-necessary spending (which there is a lot of) will give us more money and so will taxes. Over time, this will eliminate the debt.
EDIT: Your education point is invalid, as it is classified as necessary spending, I’m strictly talking about waste.

Your point about debt is entirely valid; throwing money at debt is really the only way to deal with it (well, there are exceptions, I’m sure, but it’s the most direct method). I’m not sure I follow the rest of what you’re saying, however. One of the biggest problems with the government is that there’s no agreed-upon definition of “un-necessary spending”; everyone agrees there’s a lot, pretty much nobody agrees on where it’s located.

And I’m sure I have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to education. There are plenty of people out there who are more than happy to classify funds spent on education as “waste” in one way or another and push for cuts. And there is apparently a long history of it.

Apr 09, 2011 at 09:44AM EDT
Quote

Blaming Obama for the government shutdown is like blaming a rape victim for being raped.

Also, I love how so many (misinformed) people are panicking about this, when government shutdown happened during Reagan’s era as well, and several times at that.

Apr 09, 2011 at 11:39AM EDT
Quote

Trick Lobo wrote:

Blaming Obama for the government shutdown is like blaming a rape victim for being raped.

Also, I love how so many (misinformed) people are panicking about this, when government shutdown happened during Reagan’s era as well, and several times at that.

I am not panicking since I think we are all doomed anyways.

This ,and this.. Just after wards

Apr 09, 2011 at 11:49AM EDT

Well, it could be worse, we could have a nuclear apocalypse followed by survivors fending off hungry cannibals while at the same time the mole people are planning their takeover of Earth from underground making human/mole people hybrids. That or more Ke$ha being played on the radio

Apr 09, 2011 at 02:25PM EDT
Quote

This is why we should have elected PHIL DAVIDSON!”

Apr 09, 2011 at 04:47PM EDT

Trick Lobo wrote:

Blaming Obama for the government shutdown is like blaming a rape victim for being raped.

Also, I love how so many (misinformed) people are panicking about this, when government shutdown happened during Reagan’s era as well, and several times at that.

Besides, the shutdown has nothing to do with Obama, he isn’t part of Congress.

It’s all about this guy.

He is Speaker of the House, and the most powerful Republican right now. He’s the one that caused the gridlock by focusing on all the harmful cuts. As we’ve seen historically, make too many cuts, and you’re fucked.

Now here’s the guy that stopped the cuts from happening.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Yeah, this guy means business. He finally got Boehner to cave in and accept a budget compromise. Unfortunately, the compromise sucks, but it’s better than Boehneromics.

But why has all this happened? It’s because of these guys.

The Koch brothers pitched in millions to elect tea partiers and Republicans to office, including Scott Walker and Paul LePage. It’s all about money. Heck, Walker was trying to make illegal deals with these guys and got caught by a reporter.

Btw, it’s appropriate that I first read Koch and Boehner as “cock” and “boner”

Apr 09, 2011 at 04:49PM EDT
Quote
Btw, it’s appropriate that I first read Koch and Boehner as “cock” and “boner”

I seem to recall George Carlin had a routine reflecting on the first Gulf War in which he remarked the war was being run by two guys named “Dick” and “Colin”; “obviously, somebody’s getting fucked in the ass…”

Apr 10, 2011 at 12:27AM EDT
Quote

Brucker wrote:

Sounds like awesome to me.

Its not so much the show, but rather how much it cost, 20 million is a tad bit steep for a sock puppet show.

Apr 10, 2011 at 02:35AM EDT
This post has been hidden due to low karma.
Click here to show this post.




Apr 10, 2011 at 10:39AM EDT

Dinner wrote:


Yeah. Suck on that.

Big shot, huh?

Apr 10, 2011 at 12:32PM EDT
Quote

Brucker wrote:

Your point about debt is entirely valid; throwing money at debt is really the only way to deal with it (well, there are exceptions, I’m sure, but it’s the most direct method). I’m not sure I follow the rest of what you’re saying, however. One of the biggest problems with the government is that there’s no agreed-upon definition of “un-necessary spending”; everyone agrees there’s a lot, pretty much nobody agrees on where it’s located.

And I’m sure I have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to education. There are plenty of people out there who are more than happy to classify funds spent on education as “waste” in one way or another and push for cuts. And there is apparently a long history of it.

I know we can agree on it thats why we almost had the government shut down. You’re arguing against nothing. I’m saying cutting government spending and raising taxes is the only way to pay back the deficit, its simple economics. I’m not arguing where the spending is or even what we should cut. However, we need to make cuts wherever the government agree’s we can. For the most part your arguments have been based on assumptions about me, that I think we should rely on the rich and that i think we should cut education.
So in conclusion, sit down!

Last edited Apr 10, 2011 at 02:07PM EDT
Apr 10, 2011 at 02:06PM EDT
Quote

Admiral Crunch wrote:

I know we can agree on it thats why we almost had the government shut down. You’re arguing against nothing. I’m saying cutting government spending and raising taxes is the only way to pay back the deficit, its simple economics. I’m not arguing where the spending is or even what we should cut. However, we need to make cuts wherever the government agree’s we can. For the most part your arguments have been based on assumptions about me, that I think we should rely on the rich and that i think we should cut education.
So in conclusion, sit down!

Make cuts to essential things, support 3 wars, and have military bases in every country in the world, don’t pay the soldiers, what could possibly go wrong?

Apr 10, 2011 at 02:13PM EDT

Admiral Crunch wrote:

I know we can agree on it thats why we almost had the government shut down. You’re arguing against nothing. I’m saying cutting government spending and raising taxes is the only way to pay back the deficit, its simple economics. I’m not arguing where the spending is or even what we should cut. However, we need to make cuts wherever the government agree’s we can. For the most part your arguments have been based on assumptions about me, that I think we should rely on the rich and that i think we should cut education.
So in conclusion, sit down!

Um, I don’t know what assumptions you think I was making, especially since I was intending to say (it may not have been clear) that I didn’t know what you were trying to say with your previous post and I was asking for clarification. In specific, I was completely lacking in understanding as to what you were saying about education, so I was just sharing my own views, not even on education, but on how politicians tend to deal with education.

Liberal politicians tend to say, “Education isn’t working, let’s pump more money into the system!” Conservatives tend to say, “Education isn’t working, let’s cut funding for public education and make everyone get a private education!” I don’t think either one is a good solution, but I have to admit I don’t have a better one that approaches practicality. I don’t know what your position is on this or any other thing in particular, as the little you have shared on you positions doesn’t seem to fit into any mold I’m familiar with, which only suggests you’re a type to think for yourself rather than toe a party position, which I highly respect.

If by “sit down” you mean “shut up”, it’s not likely I will do so unless I get bored of the topic, but please know that I’m not trying to cut you down.

Apr 10, 2011 at 07:53PM EDT
Quote
Skeletor-sm

This thread is closed to new posts.

Old threads normally auto-close after 30 days of inactivity.

Why don't you start a new thread instead?

'lo! You must login or signup first!