BF2S Forums Where's the motivation? [Debt Ceiling]

Jaekus wrote:

Again, I know it's sounds ridiculously oversimplified, but surely the solution is to simultaneously cut spending AND raise taxes? And be intelligent about it too.

Which is exactly what the Obama is trying to do, the Republicans are blocking the tax rises at a time the US is enjoying historically low taxation.

FEOS wrote:

Voters are 2-1 against raising the debt limit, with 1/3 unsure. That would be 2-1 in favor of the Republicans' position.

Then 2/3 don't understand the situation. Presumably they are the same people who believed

NASA’s allocation, on average, was estimated to be approximately 24% of the national budget

No doubt 10/10 are in favour of not making further payments on their mortgages, but 9/10 continue paying because the alternative is unpleasant.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-07-18 05:42:51)

Jay wrote:

Historically low post FDR maybe. I see that as progress.

And how do you the deficit ballooning in parallel?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Historically low post FDR maybe. I see that as progress.

And how do you the deficit ballooning in parallel?

I don't want deficits, I want cuts.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Cut what?
Who do you want to see on the dole?

So the government has to provide jobs so people aren't on the dole? Lol. That's how Greece happened.

Jaekus wrote:

Wouldn't reducing the overseas military save a lot of money? I'd imagine having troops stationed in a warzone costs a lot more than having them at home.

Not really. I guess COLA and combat pay add up though.

Jay wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Wouldn't reducing the overseas military save a lot of money? I'd imagine having troops stationed in a warzone costs a lot more than having them at home.

Not really. I guess COLA and combat pay add up though.

I was also thinking mobilising troops overseas would be pretty costly too.
I dunno, I was just asking the question. I'm sure it's been analysed indetail by a myriad of people already.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Cut what?
Who do you want to see on the dole?

So the government has to provide jobs so people aren't on the dole? Lol. That's how Greece happened.

Govt spending currently supports, what, 30% of jobs already? - and not just govt jobs, theres the whole service industry to think about - that famous 'trickle-down-effect' everyone thinks is so great.

In the 10-20 years it'll take for the economy to readjust who would you like to see fired first?

If you cut one million jobs out of the military that puts about 0.33% of the population out of work. If you privatize social security you lose government jobs but increase investment. Y = C + I + G, subtract from G, increase I, zero net change, just increased efficiency. Same for privatizing Medicare.

Dilbert_X wrote:

So you want to see govt employees who manage social security and Medicare fired, but not the military.

'Increased efficiency' invariably means fewer people for the same amount of work.

Your reading comprehension skills are subpar. I'm not lowing. My opinions don't come out of the Republican playbook so you can't parrot Maddow and come across as coherent. Think for yourself, I know it's difficult.

Only John is thinking for himself. Everyone else is a parrot.

lowing wrote:

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

So you want to see govt employees who manage social security and Medicare fired, but not the military.

'Increased efficiency' invariably means fewer people for the same amount of work.

Your reading comprehension skills are subpar. I'm not lowing. My opinions don't come out of the Republican playbook so you can't parrot Maddow and come across as coherent. Think for yourself, I know it's difficult.

hmmm, lets see, I am pro-choice, pro same sex marriage, pro-drug legalization, pro-prostitution legalization. Hardly straight from the "republican playbook".

I do appreciate that you are just as condescending and insulting to everyone else though.

"It's not a slam at you when people are rude, it's a slam at the people they've met before."
F. Scott Fitzgerald

Jay wrote:

Yes, because having even narrower viewpoints is what we need. Who is unrepresented under the current system?

not necessarily unrepresented, but misrepresented. I mean, a Republican majority would paint the image of a population being, for example, socially conservative, even though most people may well be socially liberal and voting Republican for completely different reasons. Wouldn't several smaller parties better represent the country's populace?

Jay wrote:

Parroting other peoples talking points is always easier than doing your own research and coming to your own conclusions. I despise the Republicans as much as I do the Democrats but I'm objective enough to like some stances from either. I just happen to view economics as supremely important in national politics so I tend to lean Republican because of it. I despise their social stances however (outside of gun control).

..so that in your case, you'd be able to vote for a socially & economically liberal party, and thus not risk having the party you voted for push through those social stances you despise? And then you'd avoid stuff like this:

Jay wrote:

I'm probably just not going to vote at all.

But meh, if it's what American wants it's what America wants. I'm just sayin', I guess. Besides, changing this would require a complete restructuring of the voting system.

Also, I believe Dilbert's point was that two-party states are more inclined to do policy along a four-year time-line as the electoral pressure is a lot greater. Which is why you get situations like this.

Jenspm wrote:

Jay wrote:

I'm probably just not going to vote at all.

But meh, if it's what American wants it's what America wants. I'm just sayin', I guess. Besides, changing this would require a complete restructuring of the voting system.

I wouldn't require a restructuring of the voting system at all. What non-Americans seem to misunderstand is that the US system isn't a "two party system." It's a n-party system where two parties dominate. Just like nearly everywhere else. No restructuring of anything would be required for any other party(ies) to emerge...except for them to emerge. The thing that prevents them from emerging is that they are generally one or two-issue parties, so those issues--if they are large enough to attract national attention--get absorbed into the platforms of the Democrat and Republican parties, thus making those smaller parties essentially moot.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

So you want to see govt employees who manage social security and Medicare fired, but not the military.

'Increased efficiency' invariably means fewer people for the same amount of work.

Your reading comprehension skills are subpar. I'm not lowing. My opinions don't come out of the Republican playbook so you can't parrot Maddow and come across as coherent. Think for yourself, I know it's difficult.

I asked who you wanted fired and you gave a vague, rambling answer filled with buzzwords and theories which don't work.
That and accusing Greece of being socialised when the US has the largest socialised spending budget in the world.
Now you're just being insulting.

GG

You want cuts, put your money where your mouth is and say what should be cut and who should lose their jobs.
Applies to spending too, cancelling the F22 would mean taxes wouldn't have to rise so much. Would that be a cut which cost no jobs?

Wrong. US is 9/175. Remove military, and we're 12/175. That would mean that military (for those who've been arguing it) isn't the biggest driver of government expenditures.
Total govt expenditures:

From OECD, focused on "social expenditures":

Still not the highest.

Weird. Once again, the data don't match your hyperbole, Dilbert.