Liberal Forum

Sumela » 26 Sep 2023, 2:52 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Sep 2023, 2:52 pm

Fire the military.

50% of them - and it wouldn't affect our military capability in the least.  There are far too many military non-combatants.  They need to be eliminated.
 

Skans » 26 Sep 2023, 2:49 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Sep 2023, 2:49 pm

It can be.  But, it means releasing a lot of worthless people who work government jobs that we do not need.  Notwithstanding this, it is what our Government owes, WE THE PEOPLE.

I live in the real world.  And, in the real world, we can shut the government down until it at least balances the budget. Running continued deficits is wrong.  It's time to stop.

The country will do just fine.  And, with just a few agencies and half the military coming back on line, it could function that way indefinitely. No one would know the difference.

No.  I've heard what you are saying all of my adult life.  Nothing ever gets done.  The deficit widens every year and the debt just gets bigger and bigger. I want politicians who stand their ground against this.  I want government shrunk by at least 50%.  That's what I want, and I purposely support and elect people who carry my same vision.
 

I challenge you to have a serious and realistic discussion.  That means dropping your "talking points", thinking about the real ramifications of what you just proposed and answering these;

1) Given the current uncertainty in the economy, what is the total tax revenue Congress has to use as the top number in the balance budget calculation?

2) Given the current political climate, how long would you estimate a shut down would need to happen before both parties agree to balance the budget?

3) Where do you place debt service on your list of priorities?

4) What will be the impact on the economy, and government entities at every level, when all those "worthless people who work government jobs we do not need" are suddenly unemployed and how do the states cope with those additional expenses at their level?

While you come up with your actual answers (I don't need any more rhetoric), have you ever wondered why the things you want to see happen never happen?  Maybe your wants are unrealistic given your NOW timeline.  The biggest problem you are facing is, you don't get to pick everyone who works in government.  People who think differently from you get to vote.  The people they elect to represent THEIR positions get to vote on legislation just like the people you vote for (assuming those people win). It's about time you accept those realities.

 

Skans » 26 Sep 2023, 8:22 am » wrote: ↑

26 Sep 2023, 8:22 am

With a government shutdown only a couple days away, McCarthy faces a real insurgency from conservative Republicans who are demanding that governemnt be SHUT DOWN, until real deep budget cuts and agency eliminations are made to balance the budget. 

People like me will see this as a glorious victory for conservatives as long as the Democrats can find no clear path ahead apart from making deep, deep cuts.

.
Come on Skans...it is a game they play...where everybody is on the same team.

They hash the details out in the back room while drinking the most expensive Scotch you can buy; all sent by billionaires.
 

ConsRule » 26 Sep 2023, 3:05 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Sep 2023, 3:05 pm

I challenge you to have a serious and realistic discussion.

I have been having a serious and realistic discussion with you.  Before you say otherwise, notice that I have addressed each of your points, thus far. I have not used insults or expletives to make my points either.  So, you can consider this exchange between us a serious debate.

That means dropping your "talking points"

Talking points.  First, I will just flatly state I have no talking points.  My writing is my own.  And, I am not using "talking points" written by others.  If you think otherwise, then you go and find the sources here that I am plagiarizing.

1) Given the current uncertainty in the economy, what is the total tax revenue Congress has to use as the top number in the balance budget calculation?

Total annual tax revenue is roughly 4.8 Trillion dollars.

2) Given the current political climate, how long would you estimate a shut down would need to happen before both parties agree to balance the budget?

Given that total spending is at about 6.3 Trillion Dollars, based on historical data, leaving a deficit of 1.5 Trillion Dollars, the shutdown (with no re-payment when government re-opens) would need to last just over 11 weeks.

3) Where do you place debt service on your list of priorities?

Same as everything else. Debt service will be caught up, but after the shutdown. Yes, this will be a painful experience.  Hopefully one that WE THE PEOPLE never allow our elected assholes to forget.

4) What will be the impact on the economy,

Initially, not good, but over-all, offsetting.  It would be 3 months of de-regulation.  So, there could be an upside to this.

and government entities at every level,

Oh, I hope it decimates them. 

There will be a bunch of unemployed government workers.  I suggest we start deporting Indians and Mexicans so that these newly unemployed have jobs to go to.
 

MackTheFinger » 26 Sep 2023, 3:11 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Sep 2023, 3:11 pm

.
Come on Skans...it is a game they play...where everybody is on the same team.

They hash the details out in the back room while drinking the most expensive Scotch you can buy; all sent by billionaires.

No.  Not all of them.  And, we need to continue getting more and more "hard-liners" to slash government workers like a bad horror movie.
 

Skans » 26 Sep 2023, 3:26 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Sep 2023, 3:26 pm

No.  Not all of them.  And, we need to continue getting more and more "hard-liners" to slash government workers like a bad horror movie.

.
OK...you're right.

As a card-carrying AA member...I must admit when I am wrong.
 

Skans » 26 Sep 2023, 3:20 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Sep 2023, 3:20 pm

I have been having a serious and realistic discussion with you.  Before you say otherwise, notice that I have addressed each of your points, thus far. I have not used insults or expletives to make my points either.  So, you can consider this exchange between us a serious debate.

Talking points.  First, I will just flatly state I have no talking points.  My writing is my own.  And, I am not using "talking points" written by others.  If you think otherwise, then you go and find the sources here that I am plagiarizing.

Total annual tax revenue is roughly 4.8 Trillion dollars.

Given that total spending is at about 6.3 Trillion Dollars, based on historical data, leaving a deficit of 1.5 Trillion Dollars, the shutdown (with no re-payment when government re-opens) would need to last just over 11 weeks.

Same as everything else. Debt service will be caught up, but after the shutdown. Yes, this will be a painful experience.  Hopefully one that WE THE PEOPLE never allow our elected assholes to forget.

Initially, not good, but over-all, offsetting.  It would be 3 months of de-regulation.  So, there could be an upside to this.

Oh, I hope it decimates them. 

There will be a bunch of unemployed government workers.  I suggest we start deporting Indians and Mexicans so that these newly unemployed have jobs to go to.


 

I didn't say you were using someones talking points, I said (and still feel) you are using your pet talking points.

You didn't answer #3, you said how long a shut down would need to last.  That wasn't the question, but I may have worded it poorly.  How long do you think it would take to get both parties to agree on a balanced budget?  I posed my question with the inclusion of the shut down because YOU said to shut it down until there was a balanced budget.  So, #3 remains an open question.

You place debt service equal with everything else, but interest payments must be made or the debt can be called. That means you need to cut spending (in actual dollars spent) by $1.85 trillion in one budget (roughly 28.5% of total spending).  What are you cutting after you eliminate the things in your previous list (because those things don't get you there)?

By hoping the economic impact decimates government entities at the state and local level, you are saying you don't care about the people.  State and local governments also have to continue to function.  That means police and fire protection must continue, infrastructure must be maintained, buildings must be maintained and utilities are needed.

How are you going to deport all those Indians and Mexicans?  You just laid off most of the people who worked in those jobs and slashed their operating funds. Besides, most of the newly unemployed (in your scenario) don't live where the jobs are that are held by those Indians and Mexicans.  Again...real world factor.

 

ConsRule » 26 Sep 2023, 3:40 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Sep 2023, 3:40 pm

I didn't say you were using someones talking points, I said (and still feel) you are using your pet talking points.

You didn't answer #3, you said how long a shut down would need to last.  That wasn't the question, but I may have worded it poorly.  How long do you think it would take to get both parties to agree on a balanced budget?  I posed my question with the inclusion of the shut down because YOU said to shut it down until there was a balanced budget.  So, #3 remains an open question.

You place debt service equal with everything else, but interest payments must be made or the debt can be called. That means you need to cut spending (in actual dollars spent) by $1.85 trillion in one budget (roughly 28.5% of total spending).  What are you cutting after you eliminate the things in your previous list (because those things don't get you there)?

By hoping the economic impact decimates government entities at the state and local level, you are saying you don't care about the people.  State and local governments also have to continue to function.  That means police and fire protection must continue, infrastructure must be maintained, buildings must be maintained and utilities are needed.

How are you going to deport all those Indians and Mexicans?  You just laid off most of the people who worked in those jobs and slashed their operating funds. Besides, most of the newly unemployed (in your scenario) don't live where the jobs are that are held by those Indians and Mexicans.  Again...real world factor.

With a near complete government shutdown, the budget would be balanced, i.e. money in, money out, in about 11 weeks. 

As for negotiating a balanced budget, there are many worthless agencies and programs that could be eliminated.  But, you are right, even after cutting all of the **** programs and agencies, that doesn't get us to a balanced budget.  You would still need to slash about 25% off of the military budget (now we're talking huge money), eliminate most foreign aid, and reduce welfare handouts/social programs by about 20%.  That will get pretty close to balancing the budget.  All without touching social security or even your precious Medicare. 

So, let's add this up:

• You would cut about 191 Billion from Military
• 300 Billion from Income Security (unemployment)
• 200 Billion from worthless government programs and agencies
• 30% from education - States should be paying for this 203 Billion
• Take another 20 Billion from Medicaid and Social Services.
• Medicare 15% reduction = 113 Billion
• Transportation 30% reduction = 40 Billion

This would just about balance the budget.


 
 
 

Skans » 26 Sep 2023, 4:03 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Sep 2023, 4:03 pm

With a near complete government shutdown, the budget would be balanced, i.e. money in, money out, in about 11 weeks. 

As for negotiating a balanced budget, there are many worthless agencies and programs that could be eliminated.  But, you are right, even after cutting all of the **** programs and agencies, that doesn't get us to a balanced budget.  You would still need to slash about 25% off of the military budget (now we're talking huge money), eliminate most foreign aid, and reduce welfare handouts/social programs by about 20%.  That will get pretty close to balancing the budget.  All without touching social security or even your precious Medicare. 

So, let's add this up:

• You would cut about 191 Billion from Military
• 300 Billion from Income Security (unemployment)
• 200 Billion from worthless government programs and agencies
• 30% from education - States should be paying for this 203 Billion
• Take another 20 Billion from Medicaid and Social Services.
• Medicare 15% reduction = 113 Billion
• Transportation 30% reduction = 40 Billion

This would just about balance the budget.

 
 

You do realize that the budget does not change just because funding is stopped for a few weeks.  That money could be spent when things reopen because there is no way your budget from the House passes the Senate OR gets signed by the President.  Besides, much of that "spending" is in payroll and government employees who work during the shut down get back pay so your estimate is incorrect.

How are you going to cut the defense budget almost 10% without impacting readiness? And check the highlighted portions...care to change one of those statements because they are mutually exclusive.

Just about is not balanced.  And you just moved the spending to the state level, meaning they now either have deficits or have to raise taxes...that will help the economy...NOT.  And the assumption that huge budget cuts and massive layoffs won't adversely impact the economy is flawed, so the tax revenue number is probably off...especially since a huge number of people will no longer have jobs and won't be paying taxes.

I understand you don't want to admit it, because you don't like to hear it, but the federal budget cannot be cut just under 30% in one year.  In my opinion, only a fool thinks that is possible.

Skans » 26 Sep 2023, 8:22 am » wrote: ↑

26 Sep 2023, 8:22 am

With a government shutdown only a couple days away, McCarthy faces a real insurgency from conservative Republicans who are demanding that governemnt be SHUT DOWN, until real deep budget cuts and agency eliminations are made to balance the budget. 

People like me will see this as a glorious victory for conservatives as long as the Democrats can find no clear path ahead apart from making deep, deep cuts.

Here come the "millions will die if they don't get food stamps" battle cry.      

ConsRule » 26 Sep 2023, 7:43 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Sep 2023, 7:43 pm

You do realize that the budget does not change just because funding is stopped for a few weeks.  That money could be spent when things reopen because there is no way your budget from the House passes the Senate OR gets signed by the President.  Besides, much of that "spending" is in payroll and government employees who work during the shut down get back pay so your estimate is incorrect.
 

Oh it's worse. Government employees get back pay if they DON'T work during a shutdown. Government employee unions are strong. They will get paid regardless. Civilian contractors might get screwed but the feds will get paid. 
 

Stop sending BILLIONS

to these guys....you **** morons

https://twitter.com/i/status/1706365091107467735

Skans » 26 Sep 2023, 8:22 am » wrote: ↑

26 Sep 2023, 8:22 am

With a government shutdown only a couple days away, McCarthy faces a real insurgency from conservative Republicans who are demanding that governemnt be SHUT DOWN, until real deep budget cuts and agency eliminations are made to balance the budget. 

People like me will see this as a glorious victory for conservatives as long as the Democrats can find no clear path ahead apart from making deep, deep cuts.

Liberals want mob rule for Presidental elections, so why not for government funding?
DATA: Most Don’t Mind a Shutdown, Want Border Security in Any Deal.

New polling shows that a plurality of Americans are supportive of at least a ‘partial government shutdown’ until Congressional Republicans and Democrats can either agree to cut spending or at least keep it at its currently level. 

The Rasmussen Reports poll of 1,020 Likely Voters found that only 40 percent of respondents opposed a government shutdown, while 48 percent were supportive. In addition, 63 percent of voters believe that any new spending bill should include provisions to increase border security.
 

Shut

Down

AIPAC

!!!

ConsRule » 26 Sep 2023, 7:43 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Sep 2023, 7:43 pm

How are you going to cut the defense budget almost 10% without impacting readiness?
 

The defense budget could be cut 70% without impacting readiness.  The bottom line is that we need to focus on protecting our country and our territories. We need to bring manufacturing back within our borders.  Being able to make stuff is far more a part of our "readiness" than having troops and equipment deployed all over the world.

Just about is not balanced. 

Then, cut a little more.  I don't care.  I've gotten within millions of dollars of a balance budget just with what I presented.  I've gone through the drill of actually coming up with a workable, balanced budget without raising taxes.  What do you have?  NOTHING.

I understand you don't want to admit it, because you don't like to hear it, but the federal budget cannot be cut just under 30% in one year.  In my opinion, only a fool thinks that is possible.

Then, I am a fool, because it really can be cut that much in one year.  It merely takes votes. Furthermore, our expenditures have increased so much over the past 20 years, that just bringing it back to pre- 911 levels would suffice.

And, the next year we would cut even more to lower taxes for everyone. 
 

golfboy » 26 Sep 2023, 8:59 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Sep 2023, 8:59 pm

Liberals want mob rule for Presidental elections, so why not for government funding?
DATA: Most Don’t Mind a Shutdown, Want Border Security in Any Deal.

New polling shows that a plurality of Americans are supportive of at least a ‘partial government shutdown’ until Congressional Republicans and Democrats can either agree to cut spending or at least keep it at its currently level. 

The Rasmussen Reports poll of 1,020 Likely Voters found that only 40 percent of respondents opposed a government shutdown, while 48 percent were supportive. In addition, 63 percent of voters believe that any new spending bill should include provisions to increase border security.

I would simply shift some of the military budget and resources to border security.  In fact, that's really the primary thing our military should be doing.
 

Skans » 27 Sep 2023, 7:37 am » wrote: ↑

27 Sep 2023, 7:37 am

I would simply shift some of the military budget and resources to border security.  In fact, that's really the primary thing our military should be doing.

Perhaps the military shouldn't be ready to police the world? Having such surplus readiness seems to lead to adventurism and wars of convenience. Less budget perhaps they would focus on the mission of national defense?
 

Skans » 27 Sep 2023, 7:35 am » wrote: ↑

27 Sep 2023, 7:35 am

 It merely takes votes.
 

That is the part, in my opinion, that makes your entire position nothing but fantasy (and personal talking points).  While I completely agree actual spending needs to be cut, I understand there is not the votes necessary to do so...in either party.  So, back to the REAL WORLD...what can be done?

In my opinion, the best we can realistically hope for, at this time, is incremental slowing in the growth of spending.  Is that really acceptable...NO.  But in the real world, it is probably the best option...and even that will be difficult.  Even the few in Congress that agree with some of your proposed cuts want to use that "saving" elsewhere.  They don't really want to cut, just rearrange the chairs.

And before you say it again, I also agree changes need to be made in who is elected.  That is probably the only way to move from slowing growth to actual cuts.  However, I only get to vote on three of the 538.
 

ConsRule » 27 Sep 2023, 7:58 am » wrote: ↑

27 Sep 2023, 7:58 am

That is the part, in my opinion, that makes your entire position nothing but fantasy (and personal talking points).  While I completely agree actual spending needs to be cut, I understand there is not the votes necessary to do so...in either party.  So, back to the REAL WORLD...what can be done?

 

Incrementally put people in congress who are willing to pass a balanced budget amendment.   And, in the mean time, SHUT IT DOWN, to show them we mean business.