View Full Version : Would a government shutdown affect you personally?
gimmethesimplelife
4-7-11, 12:01am
I ask this question as for me personally, the answer is a big fat yes!!!!! (possibly) I start a job at the North Rim of the Grand Canyon on 5/9 - if a shutdown did take place and were to last that long, which to me does not seem impossible with the egos and the gridlock in Washington - I would not have a job as the park would not open. Anyone else affected if the government shuts down? Rob
I'm not sure. Would the post office still be operating? That is the only thing that comes to mind.
What really gripes me about this budget battle is that revenue side of the equation is decoupled from the spending side. The deficient is so big we need to raise taxes AND cut spending. This is not even discussed.
Mrs. Hermit
4-7-11, 9:59am
Yup, I volunteer with the National Park Service, and head up some NPS-related activities. Any shut down shuts me down. Our county's industrial base is defense contractors, so a shutdown (if prolonged enough) could cause a world of hurt.
Not this time around, but last time (95?) we had traveled to St Louis and really wanted to go up in the arch but it was closed. I find it odd that military pay is suspended but not that of the legislators.
I'm not sure. I get a military disability pension from the VA monthly but I think that money, and the VA hospitals, are already fully funded for the year so don't know if that will stop or not. It's a tiny amount of money so I'm not dependant on that, but would hate to se the VA hospitals close even for a short time. I did hear that the post offices were staying open but pretty much everything else - including things like the FBI - will be shut down. Passport and visa won't be issued either and neither will tax refund checks.
Maybe. I work on the import side of international freight forwarding (the big ocean container). We're being told that customs will be operating with a skeleton staff, only officers, not the "peons." An increasing amount of containers are flagged for X-ray exam by customs, and sometimes for inspection by USDA (for possible bugs in solid wood packaging materials) or FDA. It often takes a week for containers to be X-rayed at the US west coast ports. If CBP sees something funny on the X-ray, they call for an intensive exam - everything is taken off the container. Time consuming AND expensive for the importer. Same thing if USDA or FDA call for an exam.
So, in other words, if you've usually got a week's delay due to exam at the port, add another couple of weeks if the feds go on shutdown.
The additional delays for exam would be even more expensive for the importers, since the ocean terminals charge a certain amount per day (usually $100/day) a container is at the port, past the 4-5 days "free time." The terminals don't care what the reason for the delay is. The container is taking up space that could be used by a newly arrived container, and so they charge.
About the pay for the military, I thought I heard that a bill was proposed that would at least make sure active duty troops would be paid, but not sure.
Maybe. I work on the import side of international freight forwarding (the big ocean container). We're being told that customs will be operating with a skeleton staff, only officers, not the "peons." An increasing amount of containers are flagged for X-ray exam by customs, and sometimes for inspection by USDA (for possible bugs in solid wood packaging materials) or FDA. It often takes a week for containers to be X-rayed at the US west coast ports. If CBP sees something funny on the X-ray, they call for an intensive exam - everything is taken off the container. Time consuming AND expensive for the importer. Same thing if USDA or FDA call for an exam.
So, in other words, if you've usually got a week's delay due to exam at the port, add another couple of weeks if the feds go on shutdown.
The additional delays for exam would be even more expensive for the importers, since the ocean terminals charge a certain amount per day (usually $100/day) a container is at the port, past the 4-5 days "free time." The terminals don't care what the reason for the delay is. The container is taking up space that could be used by a newly arrived container, and so they charge.
Ex-hubby is in charge of all vessel inspections by the Coast Guard for the ports of LA and Long beach and I guess they won't even be letting the big container ship or oil tankers into the port since they can't inspect them. I guess since west coast vessel traffic is probably at a major slowdown because of Japan anyways it might not be a big deal. But oil prices may go up much higher.
Vessels are not really slowed down due to Japanese situation.
YES ! the post office would shut down and my Bollywood/mexican movie habit would come to grinding halt.
Well, if the lights are out and nobody is home, I'm not going to be in any big hurry to finish up my income taxes on time...
Post office will not be shut down.
FBI, DEA, ATF , Homeland Security and the US Marshals will not be shut down. They have already gotten word that they will still be working. They might not get paid until afterword. Law enforcement never shuts down. People on Social Security may not get checks. Medicare and Medicaid payments will be delayed more than likely.
FBI, DEA, ATF , Homeland Security and the US Marshals will not be shut down. They have already gotten word that they will still be working. They might not get paid until afterword. Law enforcement never shuts down. People on Social Security may not get checks. Medicare and Medicaid payments will be delayed more than likely.
This morning the news reported that ALL of the Justice Dept, Homeland Sec, etc. will be having "enforced absences". Several online papers like cnn said the same. I think basic law enforcement (i.e. non federal police, etc..) will go on but since most of the Fed law enforcement doesn't - to a certain extent - respond to as many emergency type of situations some of their functions may be shut down.
And Bae, you better pay your taxes on time! Even though they will delay refunds, you are still expected to get your return in on time. You don't want any trouble with the feds with that (legal ;)) stash of "Canadian Curling Fiend Repellant" you have at your place :laff:!!
No worries there, I pay quarterly, and won't owe them anything but a mountain of paperwork. I am late filing because I haven't received a 1099 from, hilariously, the US Post Office, for a Post Office facility I lease to them. They called me on the phone yesterday, and explained that the problem was that they had an incorrect address, which is funny, as my address is at the very Post Office I lease, and the Postmaster for that facility lives within walking distance of my house :-)
The postoffice would NOT shut down. Any self-funding entities would remain open, (No discussions about the USPS' budget shortfalls, please!) as would any that are vital to national security, like the Coast Guard, air traffic control, etc. The gov't says that automatic disbursements, like social security checks, IRS refunds etc. would not stop, only things that are managed by real human beings in offices would be halted.
winterberry
4-7-11, 6:49pm
My daughter and son in law work for the Park Service (Arches, Canyonlands). DD would not be working but DSIL would because he is a law enforcement ranger. DD would get to stay home with her twins for a while, which would will be nice.
I sent out a message to my grantees this afternoon that included a bit about what will happen with Embassy staff if the gvt. shuts down. Colleagues have told me that they will have a meeting on Monday and learn then what positions are considered essential services and will stay staffed -- might be a pretty large portion considering where we are and the strategic importance of the upcoming dialogue on people-to-people exchanges. But many of the Foreign Service staff are expecting to be fuloughed. We are under contract and have been paid in advance for this year's services, so I will be working and have told grantees I am first point of contact in the event of an emergency. We've got finalists for the next year's cycles of grants breathing down our necks to know their status. Final notifications won't go out if the gvt. is shut down. So we'll be having to deal with that. The main program I'm working on is supposed to be looking at an across-the-board 20% cut, but I think the parts I work on are mostly safe.
Things may get sticky this summer with trying to get visa appointments for our Chinese grantees if there is a huge backlog due to visa processing shutting down for some time. But we have been assured that we can use the referral system to schedule appointments again, as our grantees are USG-funded, so hopefully that won't be a major problem.
The only other major issue I might have to deal with is a delayed tax refund. But that is not a huge problem for us. I hope my mom's social security checks don't get delayed, but if they do we can front her cash if she needs it.
lhamo
My sister works for the VA in mental health services. She knows her colleagues in medical will still be working, but they haven't heard whether mental health caregivers are on the essential list. I hope so--I hate to think of her patients without access to care for a couple of weeks...
Not realistic, I know, but its still tempting to just let it all shut down for a while. Take a breather, save some money, see how much anarchy really breaks out or if (heaven forbid) a lot of people just continue on with their lives in a pretty normal fashion.
Apparently the locks in Seattle may be closed by the Army Corps. The lost revenue to the region would be a disaster. If this happens, if I were the Governor, I'd call out the Guard to seize and operate them.
Apparently the locks in Seattle may be closed by the Army Corps. The lost revenue to the region would be a disaster. If this happens, if I were the Governor, I'd call out the Guard to seize and operate them.
I hear the NPS may be closing Fort Sumter...
On the news this morning they said that a shutdown would also effect non government workers who work for companies with government contracts. My sister is armed security for a huge govmint defense contractor and she said that all work that hasn't been fully funded already will halt except for security personnel. That goes for govmint supported programs in the private sector, vendors, etc... thru out the country - not just defense contractors.
I just got this email. It's the beginning of nice boating weather here, so much for our plans to be out in force to keep the tourists alive, and to keep a watch for smugglers and Canadian pro-curling terrorists:
From: "USCGAuxAIMS@cgaux.org" <conf-1873804601@everbridge.net>
Date: April 8, 2011 6:14:04 PM PDT
To: bae@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: URGENT MESSAGE - All Auxiliary Activitiy is to Stand Down Immediately.
Reply-To: "USCGAuxAIMS@cgaux.org" <conf-1873804601@everbridge.net>
The following is a message from USCG Auxiliary - 130:
Message Type: URGENT
From: District 13 Leadership
To: District 13 Members
Date: 08 April 2011
Shipmates,
All Auxiliary activity is to stand down immediately. This includes but not limited to the following activities:
Vessel Exams
Program Visits
Operations
Meetings
Public Education
Member Training
Etc.
Why for the cancellation:
Once the Government is shutdown, no funding for Auxiliary events will be paid. This includes but is not limited to the following: damage claims and liability coverage from the Coast Guard. With the lacking of liability coverage members could be put at risk if they would become injured going, during, or returning from an event and would not be covered. Thus, the Auxiliary has been asked to shutdown and to suspend its activities until this problem is fixed.
We will send a notice when you can stand up activities again. Also stand by for future information from your leadership. Every effort will be made to keep this event transparent to all members.
Thank you for your patience as we navigate this issue.
END OF MESSAGE.
So, more free time for me this week, I guess.
There are news reports that a deal is very close at hand.
38-39 billion cut with fewer riders. Details are not currently clear, but they are said to have agreement on the framework.
First a temporary stop gap through next thurs to put pen to paper and work out the final details. Deal for 6 months.
loosechickens
4-9-11, 12:08am
Well, it looks as though a shutdown has been averted, for the moment at least, although it's only a matter of weeks until they must vote on raising the debt limit and then we will be deep into the deeply partisan divide as they attempt to negotiate the 2012 budget.
The thing that seemed incredibly sad to me was that our elected representatives seemed willing to play Russian Roulette with the lives of literally millions of U.S. citizens, including our military, and brought our government to the brink of shutdown, over really trivial (in the larger picture) amounts of money and social issues that almost didn't even belong in the discussion.
The sticking points.........A billion dollars in spending cuts, which is certainly a lot of money, but literally pennies when the whole picture is considered, and wishes by Republicans to eliminate all funding for Planned Parenthood, and all the family planning, cancer screenings, testing and education for STDs and a host of other womens' health care issues that they provide, because they provide abortion services (not using ANY government money for that), was worth risking our government grinding to a halt.
It makes no sense to me. And it doesn't bode well for the future. That is for sure. We've apparently dodged the bullet for the moment, but it's only a short while until it starts all over again.
I think the "circus act" that we all witnessed in Washington is disgusting. The reality show of our US Congress would be considered worse than a "B" grade movie in my opinion, or maybe just another example why reality TV is so popular.
Is this type of Representative government is the best we can do? One hour before deadline - give me a break.
Peace
We could still have people die out on the water here this weekend because of this, yay.
We need to throw all these bums out.
Congress will still get their paychecks!! That is such a crime!! I saw a congressman on TV saying how difficult it was getting by on $175K/year; afterall, he had mortgage payments and was still paying off college loans! WTK?
I think the "circus act" that we all witnessed in Washington is disgusting. The reality show of our US Congress would be considered worse than a "B" grade movie in my opinion, or maybe just another example why reality TV is so popular.
Is this type of Representative government is the best we can do? One hour before deadline - give me a break.
Peace
I could not have said it better, Zig.
gimmethesimplelife
4-9-11, 1:15pm
Well, it looks as though a shutdown has been averted, for the moment at least, although it's only a matter of weeks until they must vote on raising the debt limit and then we will be deep into the deeply partisan divide as they attempt to negotiate the 2012 budget.
The thing that seemed incredibly sad to me was that our elected representatives seemed willing to play Russian Roulette with the lives of literally millions of U.S. citizens, including our military, and brought our government to the brink of shutdown, over really trivial (in the larger picture) amounts of money and social issues that almost didn't even belong in the discussion.
The sticking points.........A billion dollars in spending cuts, which is certainly a lot of money, but literally pennies when the whole picture is considered, and wishes by Republicans to eliminate all funding for Planned Parenthood, and all the family planning, cancer screenings, testing and education for STDs and a host of other womens' health care issues that they provide, because they provide abortion services (not using ANY government money for that), was worth risking our government grinding to a halt.
It makes no sense to me. And it doesn't bode well for the future. That is for sure. We've apparently dodged the bullet for the moment, but it's only a short while until it starts all over again.Dead on, I was thinking the exact same thing. Turns out I have a job now starting 5/9 and this is a good thing - turns out I can take my mini-vacation, too. BUT, as Loosechickens points out, this may be all touch and go for me working in a National Park as I do, as the debt ceiling has to be dealt with and so does next year's budget.....Who knows if I will have the whole season to work? It's all up in the air and I take nothing for granted....If ever there were a good time to save money, it would be now.....Rob
gimmethesimplelife
4-9-11, 1:17pm
I could not have said it better, Zig.For me, with an upcoming job at a National Park, it was very much a cliffhanger. Rob
Rob,
The budget they passed was for the next six months, so you should be ok for this season. In terms of future planning, could you look into working at a resort or something rather than a National Park?
lhamo
For me, with an upcoming job at a National Park, it was very much a cliffhanger. Rob
I'm hoping that we eliminate a few hundred WMD's from our military budget and that would easily fund the National Park Service and probably many other "social programs" that are targeted for cuts.
Strangely, I wonder why we love to kill people abroad instead of helping people in this country.
I don't really think "they" hate us for our lifestyle - "they" hate us because we are occupying their country.
Peace
gimmethesimplelife
4-9-11, 10:40pm
Rob,
The budget they passed was for the next six months, so you should be ok for this season. In terms of future planning, could you look into working at a resort or something rather than a National Park?
lhamoThis may be another thread entirely (?), but I am of the opinion that this may be my last season in the National Parks for a number of reasons, chief among them being I am thinking there will be less tourism down the road. I see the cost of gas rising and hear various economists saying that we should not expect it to go back down again, I see the cost of food rising and have heard economists saying we should not expect food prices to decline again anytime soon, I see non-existent or microscopic raises for the masses in general, and I wonder, how much longer are National Parks viable employment for me? I seriously think unless some basic costs decline this may be the last year.....This budget cliffhanger just only solidified that for me. But I think you are right, Llamo, I am probably OK for the season now. Interetingly enough, I know you live in China, I have been toying with the idea of teaching English in China but have not done much research yet - I have a degree but no certificate to teach English as a second language. Rob
flowerseverywhere
4-10-11, 7:14am
"wishes by Republicans to eliminate all funding for Planned Parenthood, and all the family planning, cancer screenings, testing and education for STDs and a host of other womens' health care issues that they provide, because they provide abortion services (not using ANY government money for that), was worth risking our government grinding to a halt.
I don't understand the assault on women. Of course I can understand abortion funding and I do agree it is very reasonable to not use tax dollars for abortion. They are so out of touch with the average woman in the US. If anything we need to make healthcare and birth control easier to obtain for women. Especially poor women as services continue to be cut. I know more women who have been burdened with the total care of their children, and some of the child support they get is laughable. They end up as poor old women.
Here is some despicable news that happened in this fight. They should be ashamed of themselves for putting more stress on these poor families.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/GovernmentShutdown-MilitaryPay-Troops-Afghanistan/2011/04/08/id/392325
"Some 1.4 million active-duty military personnel and their families got a rude awakening Friday, as the federal government notified them that their next paycheck will be cut in half due to the possible government shutdown."
I don't understand the assault on women. Of course I can understand abortion funding and I do agree it is very reasonable to not use tax dollars for abortion. They are so out of touch with the average woman in the US. If anything we need to make healthcare and birth control easier to obtain for women. Especially poor women as services continue to be cut. I know more women who have been burdened with the total care of their children, and some of the child support they get is laughable. They end up as poor old women.
Here is some despicable news that happened in this fight. They should be ashamed of themselves for putting more stress on these poor families.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/GovernmentShutdown-MilitaryPay-Troops-Afghanistan/2011/04/08/id/392325
"Some 1.4 million active-duty military personnel and their families got a rude awakening Friday, as the federal government notified them that their next paycheck will be cut in half due to the possible government shutdown."
It seems to me that trying to allocate funds for the remainder of this fiscal year is a very difficult process given the explosion of spending by the federal government. Especially if the White House and the Senate refuses to even consider slowing down.
Identifying specific areas as negotiation points seems to be the only way to get their attention. Of course, this round would have been un-necessary if the last Congress had actually created and passed a budget rather than handing the problem down to the new Congress.
If you think this round of budget talks is divisive, just wait until it becomes necessary to raise the debt ceiling again. Even with the agreed to cuts, it won't take long to get to that point again. I believe that one more increase in the debt ceiling will put us to about 100% of our GDP. In what world could that be considered sustainable?
At what point will we, as a people, realize that expecting the government to take care of us will destroy the country? Do we have to completely implode before we get a clue, or will the FY '12 budget open our eyes?
loosechickens
4-10-11, 12:11pm
yep, Alan, and when our elected representatives stop giving huge tax cuts to the richest people in the U.S., subsidies and bailouts to large corporations, and spending hundreds of billions of dollars in ill advised wars, as opposed to making their spending cuts on the backs of women, children, the elderly and the poor, I'll be happy to see it, and will support cuts in our spending.
Like this business with Planned Parenthood and elimination of the Title X funding it gets:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/08/title-x-headline_n_846852.html
excerpt, although I urge everyone to read the whole link to see just WHERE the Republicans were determined to cut, and see if this seems like a good thing to do, given the hundreds of billions of dollars that bailed out Wall Street, subsidize our big oil companies and reduce the taxes of the weathiest to less than half of what they were thirty years ago.:
"The Title X family planning program was enacted by President Nixon in 1970 to fund a range of preventive health care services free of charge to patients at or below the poverty level. For low- to moderate-income patients, there is a sliding fee scale for access to Title X services, which include breast and pelvic exams, Pap smears and other cancer screenings, HIV testing, pregnancy testing and counseling, and affordable birth control.
Title X funds can be allocated to any clinic that provides family planning services to poor and low-income patients, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reports that there is at least one Title X funded clinic in around three quarters of all U.S. counties.
"Title X is a longstanding, highly successful program," said Helen Burstin, a volunteer physician at La Clinica del Pueblo, a Title X-funded community health center in Washington, D.C. "It does not cover abortions. I find it extraordinary that they're commingling this with abortion in such a bizarre way."
Republicans are targeting Title X because roughly a quarter of its funds are allocated to Planned Parenthood, which provides abortions in addition to its preventative care services. Although Planned Parenthood has long been banned from using federal money for abortions, conservatives argue that the money it receives from Title X frees up other money that can indirectly be used for abortions."
Incidentally, abortion services (which are, after all, legal, in case we need reminding of that) constitute 3% of Planned Parenthood's services, and NO government money has been used for abortions now for a number of years.
bah humbug........the whole thing makes me sick to my stomach.
ApatheticNoMore
4-10-11, 2:37pm
Planned parenthood and title X are bones they throw to the cultural conservatives (hey well at least they throw bones to their voting base, the Dems ignore their voting base nearly entirely). And yes, they do make some sense if you are anti-abortion.
Planned parenthood and title X are VERY FAR from the entire of the agenda though. The bones they throw to industry (the financial base) are less talked about. But look at the riders to the bill (especially under the Environmental section - the biggest section), could you have more riders against funding all possible environmental or climate change implementation?
http://tinyurl.com/3qktzcm
There's a lot more interesting things going on here than just Planned Parenthood, although curiously they don't get much attention. And the cultural base wasn't the only ones thrown a bone in this budget (cough polluting industries, cough).
yep, Alan, and when our elected representatives stop giving huge tax cuts to the richest people in the U.S., subsidies and bailouts to large corporations, and spending hundreds of billions of dollars in ill advised wars, as opposed to making their spending cuts on the backs of women, children, the elderly and the poor, I'll be happy to see it, and will support cuts in our spending.
Loosie, I know we'll never agree on this but just what makes you think that the richest people in the U.S. deserve to pay more than the 90% or so of total taxes paid. Why set your top marginal tax rate at the 94% of 1944 rather than the 31% of 1992? We didn't have $14T of debt at those 1992 rates did we? Perhaps our problems have much more to do with spending too much rather than taxing too little.
And while we're discussing this, why is it necessary to engage in identity politics to the extent we've been doing lately. Many Democrat officials were accusing the Republicans of wanting to kill women and starve the elderly just a few days ago, and I'm sure they'll start that again before the week is out. Why can't we have adult discussions without misrepresenting actions and exaggerating things? What do you guys hope to gain from that?
loosechickens
4-11-11, 1:38am
what misrepresentation is being made when the Republicans are trying to eliminate Title X funding? That literally WILL kill women, by eliminating access for poor and lower middle class women (remember we have fifty million or more people in this country with no health insurance) for pap smears for cervical cancer, breast cancer screenings, etc. How many women will die from cancers not caught until advanced stages because of lack of preventative care if these rabidly anti-abortion Republicans get their way, to the point where they will eliminate cancer screenings for poor women, family planning and contraceptive access, etc., because the health providers, by using government money for THESE purposes, will then be able to use OTHER monies to help provide abortions?
And if we're talking about misrepresenting, I don't think anyone wants to see income taxes on the very wealthiest raised to the levels of 75-90% where they used to be. But when there was an attempt to raise the maximum rate on the wealthiest among us on taxable incomes of over $250,000 per year (actually mostly gross incomes of $350,000 to $400,000, to end up with a taxable income of $250,000, and half of the people affected had incomes over a MILLION dollars per year), back up to 39% from the 36% the Bush tax cuts dropped them to, the screaming and whining that made it sound as though food was being taken from their children's mouths was almost beyond belief. "Highway robbery".
And, I think we just posted figures as to what percentage of taxes the top few percent pay, and it was nowhere NEAR 90%, Alan, more like fifty something. AND their incomes have climbed at a great rate in recent years, while others have stagnated or even dropped, so it's hard to feel all that sorry for them.
And ApatheticNoMore is right......all the attention has been paid to the Planned Parenthood debacle (which IS backfiring very big on the Republicans, since lots and lots of Republican women get care through PP), but that is a drop in the bucket to the giveaways to the big polluters on the environmental stuff. The many, many millions that the Koch brothers and other big polluters have spent on lobbyists and campaign donations have paid off big time for them, and as we see things like the Clean Air Act made powerless, and more and more opportunities for large polluters to continue to pollute, in the long term, those almost unnoticed things attempting to be jammed through are even more terrible.
Even for anti-abortionists, surely even they can see that hundreds of thousands more unplanned pregnancies will result in MORE abortions, not fewer abortions.
I think we need a balanced plan. We need to cut spending, although I think our bloated military offers far more opportunities for big savings than poor women and children and the elderly. And we need to raise taxes, so that we can sustain the spending that is necessary to maintain a decent level of government, roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, access to medical care, etc. that a wealthy country like the U.S. should be able to provide.
It is a national disgrace that fifty million people or more in this country have no health insurance or cannot afford or even gain access to health insurance. It is a national disgrace that nearly three quarters of a million families in the U.S. go bankrupt every year from medical bills. Every other western democracy in the world has managed to solve this problem, yet we seem unable to do so.
You're right, we are not going to agree. Because you are pretty much "every man for himself" and I am a "we are all in this together, so how can we help each other?", and you want government pretty much to be "drowned in the bathtub" as Grover Norquist has so notoriously said, and I think that we can have good government, well run and responsive to the needs of its citizens, so the twain shall never meet.
Face it, at this point in time, the Republicans seem far more interested in throwing sand into the gears of government than they are in actually "fixing" anything.
I don't see how it can HELP be politicized. The Democrats compromised and compromised, and the Republicans were willing to take the country to the brink of disaster over what amounted to peanuts in money, and issues that really weren't even really budget issues, but were attempts to drive an extreme social agenda and/or to make sure that big polluters had an ever more tilted field in their favor to continue despoiling our air, water and resources.
Nope, we're not going to agree......it's why it no longer seems a complete impossibility to me that this country could end up in another Civil War. We are as polarized today as we were in the period just before the American Civil War, and I'm sure at that time no one really thought that would happen, but it did, and it can.
All JMHO........and I'm not arguing with you specifically. we just have completely different ideas of how this country should be, how our government should work, etc. And I don't know the answer to that, because those views are so diametrically opposed that I honestly fear for this country being torn apart over the extreme polarity.
Because the moderate people of relatively centrist views have almost no voice anymore. the way the primaries work, the bases of each party, which usually are the more extreme ends of each party, end up deciding who the candidates will be, which assures more and more polarized candidates, when then, when they get to Washington, create gridlock. And I don't have any idea how we will manage to extricate ourselves from the mess. I really don't.
loosechickens
4-11-11, 1:59am
darned if just after I posted the above post, I came on this article on CNN regarding the parallels and similarities, not to mention the still unresolved conflicts of the Civil War, present in our discourse today. Doesn't bode well, not at all. Anything in here sound familiar, folks ???????
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/04/08/civ...ex.html?hpt=C1
I think that we are suffering a bit from recency bias in believing this to be a uniquely polarized era. Where today are the riots, the lynchings, the duels, calumnies, strikes, bombings, blacklists and massacres that make our history so colorful? We have always been a rude and argumentative people, swaggering obnoxiously through the centuries and insolently refusing deference to class, credential, office, tradition or ideology. Imagine how tepid our current bickering would appear to Alexander Hamilton, Andrew Jackson, John Brown, Lincoln Steffens, Huey Long or Malcom X. New forms of media allow us to hear from more, often more strident perspectives, but the underlying dark passions have always been there.
The present dispute between custodial liberalism and unrepentant individualism strikes me as hardly meriting a footnote in our long and tendentious history.
loosechickens
4-11-11, 5:21pm
Well, I guess THAT'S encouraging, LDAHL. ;-) Probably a lot more truthful than the sanitized, mythmaking that is usually presented as our history, hahahaha.........
I think that we are suffering a bit from recency bias in believing this to be a uniquely polarized era. Where today are the riots, the lynchings, the duels, calumnies, strikes, bombings, blacklists and massacres that make our history so colorful? We have always been a rude and argumentative people, swaggering obnoxiously through the centuries and insolently refusing deference to class, credential, office, tradition or ideology. Imagine how tepid our current bickering would appear to Alexander Hamilton, Andrew Jackson, John Brown, Lincoln Steffens, Huey Long or Malcom X. New forms of media allow us to hear from more, often more strident perspectives, but the underlying dark passions have always been there.
The present dispute between custodial liberalism and unrepentant individualism strikes me as hardly meriting a footnote in our long and tendentious history.
Its interesting that Americans seem to maintain a historical view of ourselves. We still generally see ourselves as some kind of personification of John Wayne. We still think we are that rough, tough, never say die, underdog who will get beat up in every fight, but will come out a winner. While we look in the mirror and see the swagger I think much of the world sees us a little differently. In talking with some friends and family in Pakistan they see us more like Lionel Barrymore in "Its a Wonderful Life". Old, fat, invalid, impotent...a bully using our money like a big stick to threaten any opposition. Regardless of which view someone has it should be pretty obvious that the US is NOT the underdog in any fight anymore.
Its interesting that Americans seem to maintain a historical view of ourselves. We still generally see ourselves as some kind of personification of John Wayne. We still think we are that rough, tough, never say die, underdog who will get beat up in every fight, but will come out a winner. While we look in the mirror and see the swagger I think much of the world sees us a little differently. In talking with some friends and family in Pakistan they see us more like Lionel Barrymore in "Its a Wonderful Life". Old, fat, invalid, impotent...a bully using our money like a big stick to threaten any opposition. Regardless of which view someone has it should be pretty obvious that the US is NOT the underdog in any fight anymore.
Like (I suspect) most Americans, I don’t spend much time fretting over what the rest of the world thinks of us. They have their own mythologies to construct, and if they need to cast a villain opposite their hero or victim there’s not much that can or should be done to prevent that.
I always thought Mr. Potter got a bad rap. If we had more guys like him, and fewer George Baileys in government and finance throwing around all that feel-good credit we’d be much better off today. If the current budget debate continues in the same feckless manner, with the Bailey contingent making impassioned speeches while the bills pile up, Mr. Potter in the form of the bond and currency markets will eventually stop taking our IOUs.
“Their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America.”
- President Barack Obama
I have yet to see a politician from either major party who's vision is about reducing the deficit. Mr. Ryan MIGHT have a shot, but can't do it alone even if he did prove to have the vision. Overall the President's speech had about the same effect on me as it had on the Vice President.
I have yet to see a politician from either major party who's vision is about reducing the deficit. Mr. Ryan MIGHT have a shot, but can't do it alone even if he did prove to have the vision. Overall the President's speech had about the same effect on me as it had on the Vice President.
Mr Ryan wants to reduce taxes on the wealthy in his budget. That will not balance the budget. His own numbers show it will not be balanced. The Republicans have always wanted to eliminate Social Security and Medicare they see the budget mess as their opportunity. The Republicans continue to want to use trickle down economics like Regan tried. It does not work and has been proven not to work.
Well free, I don't think Mr. Ryan has the solution locked up. I do like it that he is taking a stand. Even if he is wrong it's refreshing to see someone in Congress stand up. The simple truth(s) are that we have one of the highest, if not THE highest, corporate tax rates in the world. We have, IMO, a high enough personal tax rate. Combined with other revenue sources there should be plenty of income to run a country. It's spending that is out of control. Not telling this crowd anything new, I know, but I'll be dipped if I can figure out why it is so hard for Washington to respond to that information. The President had a few compelling ideas in his speech. We can discuss that in a new thread to avoid completely hijacking this one.
loosechickens
4-14-11, 11:50am
Well, in the 1950s, corporations provided something like 30% of the income taxes, and now they provide 6%, so regardless of the corporate tax rate, the sievelike quality of the loopholes, special circumstances, subsidies, tax credits, etc., is causing corporations to be paying a much smaller share of the taxes than before.
Likewise with the high income folks Their highest tax rates are now about half or less of what they were back then. And their income has risen dizzingly through that period, while every other group's income has stagnated or even been reduced.
It's always good to remember that in 2000, our country did not HAVE a deficit in spending. It had a SURPLUS. But eight years of the Bush administration, six years of a Republican Congress, at least one very ill advised war started, (I'm giving Afghanistan the benefit of the doubt and considering it perhaps more advised because of 9/11), and completely unfunded "gift to the pharma industry" drug plan for seniors was instituted that even prohibited Medicare from negotiating price with the pharmaceutical industry, together with a big tax cut (the first time in our history that we tried to fight wars while LOWERING taxes), certainly wrote finish to THAT surplus, and plunged us deep into deficit again. Certainly, the attacks of 9/11 did not help, but how they were handled (invading Iraq, when they had nothing to do with the attacks) certainly greatly increased spending, often in very ill advised ways.
You can't make huge increases in spending at the same time you start wars and cut taxes and not expect this result.
And President Obama was handed a country in imminent danger of financial collapse, so was forced to continue spending just to keep us from going under.
We do need to take some hard looks, but it isn't rocket science, and we don't have to look much further back than one decade to see how this country was taken from surplus to huge deficits, almost as though those in power were more interested in "breaking government" than they were in actually governing, and succeeded beyond their wildest imagination.
JMHO
It's always good to remember that in 2000, our country did not HAVE a deficit in spending. It had a SURPLUS. But eight years of the Bush administration, six years of a Republican Congress, at least one very ill advised war started...
Ah yes, the sweet days of riding that bubble higher and higher. Unsustainable, some would even say fictional, but nonetheless sweet if you were in the right place.
Regarding taxes: the rates are high enough LC. High enough to provide income to run this country in a reasonably prudent manner, that is. If we're going to get out of debt they will probably have to go higher because the process will be too drawn out if they don't. I'm with you in the thought that some deductions should probably be eliminated, but the bottom line is still that our government spends more than it takes in. Just like the tech bubble in the heady days of the Clintons the spending bubble is not sustainable and will pop. We can still choose to deflate it slowly or just keep going and burst it all at once.
loosechickens
4-15-11, 12:08pm
I'm out of time this morning and have to go, but.....
I'm not in disagreement with that, Gregg.......just in how we get to a point of getting deficits under control is in question. Where to cut, who to expect to bear a small increase in taxes, etc. Not the general idea of living within our means.
One thing that never seems to be brought into the deficit discussion is the recession and the very high unemployment we have. What is the effect of income and other taxes lost from the unemployed on the deficit. I do not know. But it has to have an impact.
One thing that never seems to be brought into the deficit discussion is the recession and the very high unemployment we have. What is the effect of income and other taxes lost from the unemployed on the deficit. I do not know. But it has to have an impact.
That's primarily why we had an explosion of deficit spending over the past couple years. Reduced revenue from unemployment + further reduced revenue due to the Bush tax cuts hammered the government's ability to do much without massive borrowing.
Reduced revenue due to the recession or tax cuts certainly does contribute to the gain in the deficit. When government spending is completely and totally out of control, like it is now, then even these tiny little slices of the pie need to be accounted for.
I'm not in disagreement with that, Gregg.......just in how we get to a point of getting deficits under control is in question. Where to cut, who to expect to bear a small increase in taxes, etc. Not the general idea of living within our means.
That seems to be where the disconnect is for the whole country, LC. Where to cut? The only answer that will get us out of this mess is...EVERYWHERE. NOTHING can be taken off the table. The Federal government, and most states, overspend in EVERY category. It ALL has to be reduced. Who's taxes should go up? (Betcha could guess this one) EVERYONE'S. Per dmc in the other thread, almost half our country doesn't even pay taxes!!! That is mind boggling. I don't know what that stat is in places like Canada or the European utopias that so often pop up when debating huge expenditures like healthcare, but I bet it is one heck of a lot lower than 45%. Yes, deductions have to be reined in which will result in the higher income classes paying more taxes, but we can't continue to give HALF of the people in this country a free pass. I am 100% in favor of offering that to the people who are truly in need, but there is no way in hell that we have 140,000,000 Americans who can't do anything to join the rest of us and contribute something. Just like in cutting spending, there can be no more sacred cows.
My daughter and son in law work for the Park Service (Arches, Canyonlands). DD would not be working but DSIL would because he is a law enforcement ranger. DD would get to stay home with her twins for a while, which would will be nice.
WOW - I am in Canyonlands too! Needles District. At least for another four days anyway :)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.