GOP losers in government shutdown & budget fracas?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
I can't help but notice.... the GOP is the party that has put forth a budget... yet somehow to you it is they that are responsible for the shut down?

whether you LIKE their budget proposal or not is a different topic. The fact of the matter is, Obama has done little and the Dems in Congress have not put forth a viable budget. Instead they just want to out spend revenue by $1.7 Trillion.

Tell us Epic.... WHY can't they go back to the budget levels of 2006? Overall inflation hasn't increased much (though items like food, energy, clothing are spiking now). Why do they think we need to keep adding insane levels of debt onto the backs of future generations?

We can't keep pushing the problems into the future just because the solutions involve decisions we may not like.
 
The budget and the shutdown are not related. The shutdown has to do with funding the government this year while the budget debate has to do with funding the government next year and beyond. And Obama put out a budget several weeks ago. The Republicans passed a bill that calls for roughly $60 billion in cuts, all from the non-defense discretionary budget. The Democrats proposed a spending freeze. Then they started negotiating and the Democrats agreed to $32 billion in cuts, some from mandatory programs and some from discretionary programs, and the Republicans said $60 billion and it all had to come from the non-defense (I think) discretionary budget. Where do you go from there?

As for pushing problems into the future, that's pretty much what the Ryan proposal does. Instead of making the debt problem the government's problem, it makes just makes it the problem of the poor, disabled and elderly.
 
I can't help but notice.... the GOP is the party that has put forth a budget... yet somehow to you it is they that are responsible for the shut down?

whether you LIKE their budget proposal or not is a different topic. The fact of the matter is, Obama has done little and the Dems in Congress have not put forth a viable budget. Instead they just want to out spend revenue by $1.7 Trillion.

Tell us Epic.... WHY can't they go back to the budget levels of 2006? Overall inflation hasn't increased much (though items like food, energy, clothing are spiking now). Why do they think we need to keep adding insane levels of debt onto the backs of future generations?

We can't keep pushing the problems into the future just because the solutions involve decisions we may not like.

"The current political climate mirrors that of the 1995 budget crisis and subsequent government shutdown, when President Bill Clinton faced off against the Republican Revolution led by Newt Gingrich. Like Boehner, Gingrich refused to compromise, and his inability to compromise turned his greatest strength, tenacity, into a weakness.

Gingrich looked like a man who put politics ahead of the nation’s interest, and, even more damaging, like a brat, especially when he famously griped that the shutdown came after Clinton sat him at the back of Air Force One. Boehner’s well on his way to following in the former speaker’s footsteps.

Boehner enraged federal workers and their allies this week by replying “So be it,” when asked about whether his party’s plans will cost public employees their jobs. Obviously aware that he faced a public relations nightmare, Boehner attempted to walk back that statement yesterday.

“Listen, I don’t want anyone to lose their job, whether they’re a federal employee or not,” explained Boehner, before going on to say that he remains prepared to make “tough choices,” because, “Come on, we’re broke.” Boehner’s going to have to do better than that.

If Boehner wants to come out of a potential shutdown unscathed, the Speaker will have to take an actual leadership role, proving he wants to prevent a shutdown while also articulating why a shutdown would be bad. The 1995 shutdown, a six-day ordeal, cost an estimated $700-800 million. That’s about $133 million dollars in squandered money every day.

Certainly Boehner doesn’t want to look like the impetus behind such a waste, particularly since his party’s trying to look tough on spending. And it wouldn’t hurt if the increasingly prickly politico at least feigned contrition over the lamentable state of our country’s economic affairs."

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/54647/the-real-loser-in-government-shutdown-john-boehner/
 
I can't help but notice.... the GOP is the party that has put forth a budget... yet somehow to you it is they that are responsible for the shut down?

whether you LIKE their budget proposal or not is a different topic. The fact of the matter is, Obama has done little and the Dems in Congress have not put forth a viable budget. Instead they just want to out spend revenue by $1.7 Trillion.

Tell us Epic.... WHY can't they go back to the budget levels of 2006? Overall inflation hasn't increased much (though items like food, energy, clothing are spiking now). Why do they think we need to keep adding insane levels of debt onto the backs of future generations?

We can't keep pushing the problems into the future just because the solutions involve decisions we may not like.

Nope, no inflation here. Of course energy costs and food are not factored into the Gov. inflation statistics. Odd that, seeing how energy and food costs are easily the vast majority of expense for the poor, and a large percentage of income for the lower middle class.

Yep, we better cut those food stamps 1 in 8 americans are counting on to eat this month.

Might as well lower the minimum wage too. That way more of them can have part time jobs with no benefits.
 
Nope, no inflation here. Of course energy costs and food are not factored into the Gov. inflation statistics. Odd that, seeing how energy and food costs are easily the vast majority of expense for the poor, and a large percentage of income for the lower middle class.

Yep, we better cut those food stamps 1 in 8 americans are counting on to eat this month.

Might as well lower the minimum wage too. That way more of them can have part time jobs with no benefits.

"In 1995, a standoff between President Clinton and Republicans led by House Speaker Newt Gingrich brought federal operations to a partial halt. Back then, a public opinion poll taken just before the shutdown shows more Americans blaming Republicans (46 percent) than the president (27 percent). Clinton handily won reelection in 1996."

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...wn-How-might-this-time-be-different-from-1995

Boehner_ADP.jpg
 
As far as public opinion is concerned, liberals are on the losing side of this argument.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mon...cans-ok-with-shutdown-if-it-means-bigger-cuts

"Twin partial closures in the mid-1990s boomeranged on Republicans when Newt Gingrich was speaker, helping President Bill Clinton win re-election in 1996.

This time, it's Obama who is exuding confidence as Boehner seems hemmed in by his hard-charging class of 87 freshmen, many of whom won office with backing from tea party purists. "

http://www.publicopiniononline.com/news/ci_17781836

John%20Boehner%20Thumbs%20Up.jpg
 
Nope, no inflation here. Of course energy costs and food are not factored into the Gov. inflation statistics. Odd that, seeing how energy and food costs are easily the vast majority of expense for the poor, and a large percentage of income for the lower middle class.

Yep, we better cut those food stamps 1 in 8 americans are counting on to eat this month.

Might as well lower the minimum wage too. That way more of them can have part time jobs with no benefits.

You are quite incorrect in stating food and energy aren't included in the governments inflation numbers. They are. The problem lies in how the government calculates inflation. Currently housing accounts for about a 40% weighting. This is why the government numbers are so tame, despite the fact that inflation on items like food, energy and clothing (which I mentioned before) are spiking to the tune of 6-8% over the past year. As consumers, we feel the effects of food, clothing and energy on a monthly (if not daily) basis.

Your comments on food stamps and minimum wage are irrelevant to my comments.
 
You are quite incorrect in stating food and energy aren't included in the governments inflation numbers. They are. The problem lies in how the government calculates inflation. Currently housing accounts for about a 40% weighting. This is why the government numbers are so tame, despite the fact that inflation on items like food, energy and clothing (which I mentioned before) are spiking to the tune of 6-8% over the past year. As consumers, we feel the effects of food, clothing and energy on a monthly (if not daily) basis.

Your comments on food stamps and minimum wage are irrelevant to my comments.

Thankyou for the corrections.

You are of course also correct about my other comment, they are not relative to YOUR point. They are certainly relative to mine though.
 
i don't see how comparing the 90's to now is relevant....the economy was beginning to boom last time this happened...we are in a very different situation with the economy and views on spending are nothing like they were in the mid 90's....
 
Who's comparing the two?

I simply pointed out the net political effects of the last shutdown; Clinton got a boost when people blamed the GOP. It's possible the same thing may happen this time.

100511_john_boehner.jpg
 
I fully support them, if you can't find 60 Billion to cut in a bit over half a trillion in overspending then you are absolutely fiscally retarded and it is way too easy to explain just using the numbers.
 
Absolutely different circumstances, HillBillary Clinton was never outspending revenue by nearly a Trillion.
 
Absolutely different circumstances, HillBillary Clinton was never outspending revenue by nearly a Trillion.

"In fiscal year 2001, which ended in September 2001 but was mostly set in place before President Bush took office, the federal government spent $1,863 billion. After seven years of Bush and a Republican Congress, spending was more than a trillion dollars higher -- $2,983 billion in FY2008. Then the financial crisis, TARP, the stimulus, and the omnibus spending bill came along, and FY2011 spending is estimated at $3,819 billion -- $836 billion more than just three years earlier, and $1,956 billion more than when Bush took office a decade ago."

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/extreme-budget-cuts/
 
"In fiscal year 2001, which ended in September 2001 but was mostly set in place before President Bush took office, the federal government spent $1,863 billion. After seven years of Bush and a Republican Congress, spending was more than a trillion dollars higher -- $2,983 billion in FY2008. Then the financial crisis, TARP, the stimulus, and the omnibus spending bill came along, and FY2011 spending is estimated at $3,819 billion -- $836 billion more than just three years earlier, and $1,956 billion more than when Bush took office a decade ago."

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/extreme-budget-cuts/

Yup. Americans want some fiscal responsibility, Obama absolutely cannot continue to blame Bush as his only operational Budget Policy, he must do what he said and reign in this fiscal insanity, and right now he's playing right into the hands of the Republicans who were swept into office specifically to deal with the looming fiscal burden Obama is placing at the feet of our children. It doesn't matter which Democrat pretends that this won't matter to people, if the Republicans caved it would be political suicide for them.
 
You are correct.

I have to ask, though:

Where was the demand for fiscal responsibility whn Bush was cutting taxes and signing the spending bills from a GOP-controlled Congress that ran up the debt?
 
Back
Top