Somebody explain to me the purpose of a government shutdown

gimmesometruth27

Better Dan wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

they would have had a deal days ago but the gop is throwing amendments to the bill in there relating to abortion and the epa. the abortion issue is a fight that has been going on for 40 years and has no business having a social issue being tacked on to a budget bill.

this pandering to their base in this situation is disgraceful.

the gop is demanding 100 billion be cut. the dems have agreed to 76 billion. what is wrong with meeting 3/4 of the way? if we would tax corporations and raise taxes on the rich so that they pay their fair share we would not have to cut so much.

I read an article that just removing the tax cuts for the wealthy would give us as much as they want to cut from medicare. Of course, the rich have to keep their money so they can donate to the T baggers and republicans. As much as I dislike the republicans, their riders, and their refusal to compromise, blame must also be placed on the democrats. They were in control of the house and senate last year and did not pass a 2011 budget when they should have. Had they done that we wouldn't be in this mess.

are you forgetting the gop's unprecedented use of the filibuster in the last senate session? everything that was brought up was filibustered. so the blame can not squarely be put on the dems when the gop shut down debate on everything that the dems proposed. i am not making excuses, but it is statements like the one you just made that pisses me off because the majority of the american people do not remember things like that.

Better Dan

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Better Dan wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

they would have had a deal days ago but the gop is throwing amendments to the bill in there relating to abortion and the epa. the abortion issue is a fight that has been going on for 40 years and has no business having a social issue being tacked on to a budget bill.

this pandering to their base in this situation is disgraceful.

the gop is demanding 100 billion be cut. the dems have agreed to 76 billion. what is wrong with meeting 3/4 of the way? if we would tax corporations and raise taxes on the rich so that they pay their fair share we would not have to cut so much.

I read an article that just removing the tax cuts for the wealthy would give us as much as they want to cut from medicare. Of course, the rich have to keep their money so they can donate to the T baggers and republicans. As much as I dislike the republicans, their riders, and their refusal to compromise, blame must also be placed on the democrats. They were in control of the house and senate last year and did not pass a 2011 budget when they should have. Had they done that we wouldn't be in this mess.

are you forgetting the gop's unprecedented use of the filibuster in the last senate session? everything that was brought up was filibustered. so the blame can not squarely be put on the dems when the gop shut down debate on everything that the dems proposed. i am not making excuses, but it is statements like the one you just made that pisses me off because the majority of the american people do not remember things like that.

Thanks for mentioning that. Didn't mean to piss you off and I'm pretty sure I do remember reading that last year. My intention wasn't to just blame the dems but I think both parties are to blame for our country's problems. In this current round of budget negotiations, I think the republicans, and especially the t party express, are to blame! I think that due to our country's fiscal situation we do need to have program cuts but we also need to get rid of the tax breaks for the wealthy! If the republicans were really serious about fixing our budget that option would be on the table.

_

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

they would have had a deal days ago but the gop is throwing amendments to the bill in there relating to abortion and the epa. the abortion issue is a fight that has been going on for 40 years and has no business having a social issue being tacked on to a budget bill.

this pandering to their base in this situation is disgraceful.

the gop is demanding 100 billion be cut. the dems have agreed to 76 billion. what is wrong with meeting 3/4 of the way? if we would tax corporations and raise taxes on the rich so that they pay their fair share we would not have to cut so much.

I completely agree. Regardless of anyone's personal ideology on social issues, it's completely, outrageously inappropriate to hold the federal government hostage in order to force the enactment of your ideological agenda. I swear, at this point I feel like they are terrorists and we are in a hostage situation.

And even if it were appropriate to use the federal budget to wage war on a legal medical procedure, NOTHING THEY ARE DOING WILL HAVE ANY IMPACT ON ABORTION SPENDING!! For the love of logic, what they're doing doesn't make any sense - IF their goal is to spend less money or even to decrease abortion.

But I think you have an excellent point that it's really all about pandering. They are trying to enact laws that aren't really about abortion, but they are telling the public they do - and the public actually believes them! It's amazing! They can just totally make shit up and tell people they did it, and then people will think they're great and vote them back into office. Unfuckingbelievable.

_

Given tonight's supposedly "historic" budget agreement, I'm going to do something historic as well and post an article from Fox News. Despite its obvious lack of proofreading, it seems to take a relatively neutral position - and it's the first one I found on the subject. (Of course, I can't help but wonder exactly how much the Associate Press "contributed" to the report, but whatever.)

Congress Strikes a Budget Deal to Avert Shutdown, Cutting $38.5B

Published April 08, 2011
FoxNews.com

Congressional leaders, with barely an hour to go before a federal government, announced late Friday night they had reached a deal to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year.

The deal includes $38.5 billion in spending cuts while leaving the more contention policy matters, such as blocking funding for Planned Parenthood, for a later debate.

"This agreement between Democrats and Republicans on behalf of all Americas is a budget that invests in our future while making the largest spending cut in our history," President Obama said in a short speech to the nation after the deal had been announced.

House Speaker John Boehner, speaking to reporters just before Obama's remarks, said lawmakers would pass one last short-term spending resolution Friday night to buy lawmakers the time needed to prepare and pass the final budget bill next week.

"We fought to keep government spending down because it really will be a jobs creator for our country," Boehner said.

Of the $38.5 billion in spending cuts to Obama's original 2011 budget proposal, the short-term stopgap measure contains the first $2 billion and the final budget bill will cut the other $36.5 billion.

It was a remarkable end to a roller-coaster week of negotiations, in which the government several times seemed headed for a shutdown because the two sides couldn't agree on a full-year deal.

Obama has already signed two temporary spending bills, which included a total of $10 billion in spending cuts, but he said this week he wasn't interested in any more short-term fixes.

As late as hours before the agreement, a government shutdown seemed quite possible -- if not inevitable -- as both sides couldn't even agree, at least in public, on what was holding up a deal.

Democrats said Republicans were pushing for social policy measure, while Republicans said the Democrats hadn't agreed to enough spending cuts.

But in the end, neither side wanted a shutdown that would risk the economic recovery and their political future.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called the agreement "historic."

"Both sides have made tough choices, but tough choices is what this job is all about," Reid said.

The Senate passed the short-term spending measure Friday night by a voice vote.

The government's current fiscal year began back in October, but Democrats last year, facing stiff opposition from Republicans, put off a vote on a full-year budget as both parties geared up for the midterm elections.

The standoff began in earnest several weeks ago, when the new Republican majority in the House passed legislation that would fund the government for the rest of the year, but with $61 billion in cuts and numerous curbs on the government that Democrats objected to.

In the weeks since, the two sides have alternately negotiated on a budget for the rest of the year and taken time out to pass interim measures to buy themselves more time.

Republicans originally wanted to ban federal funds for Planned Parenthood, a health care services provider that is also the nation's largest provider of abortions.

Federal funds may not be used to pay for abortions except in strictly regulated cases, but supporters of the ban said cutting off government funds for the organization -- currently about $330 million a year -- would make it harder for it to use its own money for the same purpose.

Democrats rejected the proposal in private talks. Officials in both parties said Republicans returned earlier in the week with a proposal to distribute federal funds for family planning and related health services to the states, rather than directly to Planned Parenthood and other organizations.

Democrats said they rejected that proposal as well, and Obama had vowed to veto a bill that the House passed Tuesday to fund then refused to agree to allow a separate Senate vote on the issue as part of debate over any compromise bill.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04 ... z1J01OBqG6

know1

Sounds like the Republican's caved.

gimmesometruth27

know1 wrote:

Sounds like the Republican's caved.

this is unprecedented. republicans have never caved on anything since obama took office. although if they didn't they would have certainly lost control of the house next election. now they can claim that they averted the government shutdown that THEY THEMSELVES had been threatening all along...in this case less is more for the gop and it is a win/win for the gop in this situation.

the people are angry and frustrated, and the more level headed republicans realized that. hats off to those republicans who refused to go down with the tea party ship.

unsung

I'm with Paul Ryan, these cuts were more like a scratch. We need to get a chainsaw in there.

EdsonNascimento

Don't get me wrong. I love pj (or I wouldn't be here). But I can't wait until B Hussein has his hand so far down Eddie's pocket he sees Reagan's point.

Better Dan

unsung wrote:

I'm with Paul Ryan, these cuts were more like a scratch. We need to get a chainsaw in there.

I agree, but what would you cut? Do you think the tax cuts should be removed? I don't know if this is accurate but I heard on the radio that Ryan's budget proposes further tax cuts for the wealthy in the form of a lower tax rate. At the same time, Medicare recipients will be forced to pay in order to continue receiving benefits. Is it right to ask the wealthiest amongst us to pay less while increasing the burden on the elderly and poor?

If the GOP is serious about the deficit why not cut programs, but to a lesser extent AND raise taxes?

know1

Better Dan wrote:

unsung wrote:

If the GOP is serious about the deficit why not cut programs, but to a lesser extent AND raise taxes?

I think they're more serious about the size of government than the deficit. I know I am.

Don't get me wrong, the deficit needs to be reduced...actually make that ELIMINATED, but I am not in favor of raising taxes for anyone. We have far, far, far too much bureaucracy and the government in general is way too big.

There are a lot of things I'd cut. Military spending and the wars would be a big part of it, but so would many social and entitlement programs.

Jason P

Q - The Purpose of a threat of a Government Shutdown is:

A- To allow enough time to create a shell game out of imaginary budget cuts that fools Americans into believing that both sides are cutting spending, when in actuallity the majority of a proposed $38 B budget cuts is just plain B.S.


ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press – Tue Apr 12, 8:49 am ET

WASHINGTON – The historic $38 billion in budget cuts resulting from at-times hostile bargaining between Congress and the Obama White House were accomplished in large part by pruning money left over from previous years, using accounting sleight of hand and going after programs President Barack Obama had targeted anyway.

....

Instead, the cuts that actually will make it into law are far tamer, including cuts to earmarks, unspent census money, leftover federal construction funding, and $2.5 billion from the most recent renewal of highway programs that can't be spent because of restrictions set by other legislation. Another $3.5 billion comes from unused spending authority from a program providing health care to children of lower-income families.

....

About $10 billion of the cuts already have been enacted as the price for keeping the government open as negotiations progressed; lawmakers tipped their hand regarding another $10 billion or so when the House passed a spending bill last week that ran aground in the Senate.

For instance, the spending measure reaps $350 million by cutting a one-year program enacted in 2009 for dairy farmers then suffering from low milk prices. Another $650 million comes by not repeating a one-time infusion into highway programs passed that same year. And just last Friday, Congress approved Obama's $1 billion request for high-speed rail grants — crediting itself with $1.5 billion in savings relative to last year.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110412/ap_on_re_us/us_spending_showdown_details;_ylt=Al8rHSMCwA7iQ03w9hvteutG2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTMzcXVybW03BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTEwNDEyL3VzX3NwZW5kaW5nX3Nob3dkb3duX2RldGFpbHMEcG9zAzEyBHNlYwN5bl9wYWdpbmF0ZV9zdW1tYXJ5X2xpc3QEc2xrA2J1ZGdldHRyaWNrcw--

Jason P

Hey, Johnny Boy! I think that pledge mentions something about $100B in cuts in the first year and three days for congress to review proposals before voting.

What? Oh .... you're reviewing footage of Newt in '95 when he was blamed for the shutdown? Hey, isn't that you standing behind Newt?

So the Pledge .. it's just some B.S. that you used to get votes back in November and you didn't really intend to follow through on anything???

Oh, OK. Just wanted to be clear on that.




Fuck it, dude. Let's go bowling.

fumasan

(I don't want to see people lose their paychecks - other than the politicians - but the point is that the government is so out of control it's almost incomprehensible).

if the government is out of control, and the the government represents us, does that mean we are out of control? or that the government we elected doesn't represent us?