|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 12 2013 01:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2013 23:45 paralleluniverse wrote:On January 11 2013 23:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:But aren't we trying to get rid of the 2011 BCA (Budget Control Act) as part of the fiscal cliff deal? The BCA has more than just the sequester. If you follow the link to the report. It says: In calculating that another $1.4 trillion in deficit savings will stabilize the debt, we start with a budget baseline that assumes that the tax policy now in place (after the fiscal cliff deal) will remain so (except as described in this paragraph); that policymakers will cancel “sequestration” (without offsetting the $1.1 trillion cost over ten years, which includes interest costs); So it's an additional $1.2 trillion needed after avoiding sequestration. This would seem to imply that if the sequester goes through, we're mostly done. i.e. the budget is stabilized over 10 years. Note that it says 1.4 in that paragraph instead of 1.2 because it's 1.4 that's needed in total, and 1.2 plus the associated saving in interest repayments will equal 1.4. Ahh, ok. I have my doubts that we'll get that full 1.2T and that Congress will actually stick to those limits (we've already increased spending this year)... but we'll see.
Well the disaster relief was going to offset the savings from the cliff deal this year but we knew that ahead of time.
|
So it seems the House today finally voted for the additional 50 billion dollars in aid for Sandy relief 241-180 with 49 Republicans joining 192 Democrats to pass it. I dont really understand why you would want to be on record voting against hurricane relief efforts but I guess some districts are really really conservative but even then you would think relief effort would be something everyone supports.
|
On January 16 2013 11:11 Adreme wrote:
So it seems the House today finally voted for the additional 50 billion dollars in aid for Sandy relief 241-180 with 49 Republicans joining 192 Democrats to pass it. I dont really understand why you would want to be on record voting against hurricane relief efforts but I guess some districts are really really conservative but even then you would think relief effort would be something everyone supports.
And you wonder why we're so far in debt...
|
On January 16 2013 11:32 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 11:11 Adreme wrote:
So it seems the House today finally voted for the additional 50 billion dollars in aid for Sandy relief 241-180 with 49 Republicans joining 192 Democrats to pass it. I dont really understand why you would want to be on record voting against hurricane relief efforts but I guess some districts are really really conservative but even then you would think relief effort would be something everyone supports. And you wonder why we're so far in debt...
Some things are basic government functions that dont typically deserve opposition. Disaster relief is one of those things. Its the reason Katrina funding was approved within 2 weeks because disater relief isnt something that typically something you play games with.
Also we are in debt due to a mixture of taxes being too low and spending being too high and the actual causes of that spending being too unpopular to touch so everyone just postures a lot and doesnt actually do anything.
|
On January 16 2013 11:35 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 11:32 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 11:11 Adreme wrote:
So it seems the House today finally voted for the additional 50 billion dollars in aid for Sandy relief 241-180 with 49 Republicans joining 192 Democrats to pass it. I dont really understand why you would want to be on record voting against hurricane relief efforts but I guess some districts are really really conservative but even then you would think relief effort would be something everyone supports. And you wonder why we're so far in debt... Some things are basic government functions that dont typically deserve opposition. Disaster relief is one of those things. Its the reason Katrina funding was approved within 2 weeks because disater relief isnt something that typically something you play games with. Also we are in debt due to a mixture of taxes being too low and spending being too high and the actual causes of that spending being too unpopular to touch so everyone just postures a lot and doesnt actually do anything.
That's what someone says about everything.
Shocker. You mean unpopular like disaster relief? YOU DONT SAY?
|
On January 16 2013 11:52 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 11:35 Adreme wrote:On January 16 2013 11:32 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 11:11 Adreme wrote:
So it seems the House today finally voted for the additional 50 billion dollars in aid for Sandy relief 241-180 with 49 Republicans joining 192 Democrats to pass it. I dont really understand why you would want to be on record voting against hurricane relief efforts but I guess some districts are really really conservative but even then you would think relief effort would be something everyone supports. And you wonder why we're so far in debt... Some things are basic government functions that dont typically deserve opposition. Disaster relief is one of those things. Its the reason Katrina funding was approved within 2 weeks because disater relief isnt something that typically something you play games with. Also we are in debt due to a mixture of taxes being too low and spending being too high and the actual causes of that spending being too unpopular to touch so everyone just postures a lot and doesnt actually do anything. That's what someone says about everything. Shocker. You mean unpopular like disaster relief? YOU DONT SAY?
Saying we shouldnt fund disaster relief is like saying we shouldnt have a military or we shouldnt build roads. Its one of the basic things that you have governements to do. If they refuse to do something like that they have no reason to exist because they arent doing there basic core job.
Again if you want to deal with debt there are actual causes to it and no disaster relief is not one of them. There is money to be cut that can be cut without giving up on basic governemnt nessecities.
|
On January 16 2013 11:52 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 11:35 Adreme wrote:On January 16 2013 11:32 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 11:11 Adreme wrote:
So it seems the House today finally voted for the additional 50 billion dollars in aid for Sandy relief 241-180 with 49 Republicans joining 192 Democrats to pass it. I dont really understand why you would want to be on record voting against hurricane relief efforts but I guess some districts are really really conservative but even then you would think relief effort would be something everyone supports. And you wonder why we're so far in debt... Some things are basic government functions that dont typically deserve opposition. Disaster relief is one of those things. Its the reason Katrina funding was approved within 2 weeks because disater relief isnt something that typically something you play games with. Also we are in debt due to a mixture of taxes being too low and spending being too high and the actual causes of that spending being too unpopular to touch so everyone just postures a lot and doesnt actually do anything. That's what someone says about everything. Shocker. You mean unpopular like disaster relief? YOU DONT SAY?
Disaster relief promotes growth vis a vis the alternative, which is what we're truly concerned with here. There's a reason why debt/GDP is the consensus best simple measurement of the health of government spending, because it weighs spending against the long-term growth that it causes.
A budget deficit is efficient economics as long as it's reasonably calculated to spark future growth. Is it out of balance now? Perhaps, but that is probably better addressed by creating policy to trim our ridiculous medical spending as a percentage of GDP, to correct housing market that is still well out of whack with stable property values, and to bring down levels of defense spending that probably hurt our national security more than help it, rather than nickel and diming disaster relief that is growth-per-dollar, money well spent.
|
On January 16 2013 11:11 Adreme wrote:
So it seems the House today finally voted for the additional 50 billion dollars in aid for Sandy relief 241-180 with 49 Republicans joining 192 Democrats to pass it. I dont really understand why you would want to be on record voting against hurricane relief efforts but I guess some districts are really really conservative but even then you would think relief effort would be something everyone supports.
There's issues with the bill. Some items are questionable - they look pretty pork-ish - I have no idea if any or how many of those items have been removed or modified. Last I checked the bill also wasn't paid for. A lot of people voted against it for those issues - not because they don't support disaster relief.
|
On January 16 2013 11:32 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 11:11 Adreme wrote:
So it seems the House today finally voted for the additional 50 billion dollars in aid for Sandy relief 241-180 with 49 Republicans joining 192 Democrats to pass it. I dont really understand why you would want to be on record voting against hurricane relief efforts but I guess some districts are really really conservative but even then you would think relief effort would be something everyone supports. And you wonder why we're so far in debt...
Do you really think we are so far in debt because of natural disasters? Most of the debt right now is a result of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the economic downturn. None of those were caused by natural disasters, and all of them have created far, far more debt than any combination of natural disasters in the U.S. ever has.
|
On January 16 2013 13:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 11:11 Adreme wrote:
So it seems the House today finally voted for the additional 50 billion dollars in aid for Sandy relief 241-180 with 49 Republicans joining 192 Democrats to pass it. I dont really understand why you would want to be on record voting against hurricane relief efforts but I guess some districts are really really conservative but even then you would think relief effort would be something everyone supports. There's issues with the bill. Some items are questionable - they look pretty pork-ish - I have no idea if any or how many of those items have been removed or modified. Last I checked the bill also wasn't paid for. A lot of people voted against it for those issues - not because they don't support disaster relief.
Wasn't it just one page?
And besides, I think it's fine to be opposed to pork, but there are a plenty people who voted against Sandy relief bills but will and were die hard begging the government for relief for their own states (Katrina is an example) during crises.
|
On January 16 2013 14:02 Zergneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 13:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 16 2013 11:11 Adreme wrote:
So it seems the House today finally voted for the additional 50 billion dollars in aid for Sandy relief 241-180 with 49 Republicans joining 192 Democrats to pass it. I dont really understand why you would want to be on record voting against hurricane relief efforts but I guess some districts are really really conservative but even then you would think relief effort would be something everyone supports. There's issues with the bill. Some items are questionable - they look pretty pork-ish - I have no idea if any or how many of those items have been removed or modified. Last I checked the bill also wasn't paid for. A lot of people voted against it for those issues - not because they don't support disaster relief. Wasn't it just one page? And besides, I think it's fine to be opposed to pork, but there are a plenty people who voted against Sandy relief bills but will and were die hard begging the government for relief for their own states (Katrina is an example) during crises.
Wasn't what just one page?
Also the hypocrisy argument doesn't fly - it's a different bill and a different situation.
|
On January 16 2013 14:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 14:02 Zergneedsfood wrote:On January 16 2013 13:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 16 2013 11:11 Adreme wrote:
So it seems the House today finally voted for the additional 50 billion dollars in aid for Sandy relief 241-180 with 49 Republicans joining 192 Democrats to pass it. I dont really understand why you would want to be on record voting against hurricane relief efforts but I guess some districts are really really conservative but even then you would think relief effort would be something everyone supports. There's issues with the bill. Some items are questionable - they look pretty pork-ish - I have no idea if any or how many of those items have been removed or modified. Last I checked the bill also wasn't paid for. A lot of people voted against it for those issues - not because they don't support disaster relief. Wasn't it just one page? And besides, I think it's fine to be opposed to pork, but there are a plenty people who voted against Sandy relief bills but will and were die hard begging the government for relief for their own states (Katrina is an example) during crises. Wasn't what just one page? Also the hypocrisy argument doesn't fly - it's a different bill and a different situation.
The proposed bill for relief, as in here.
Also, how is it different? Both examples are a case of people getting devastated by a natural disaster (in this case, the same kind of disaster). Both are people who are citizens of the country. Why should we neglect federal aid to one but give freely to another?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
pork seems like a natural outgrowth from the kind of local, decentralized politics americans are so enamored with. :/
when a congress guy runs for office, his or her ability to get funding for his locality is front and center. this is a longstanding way of government, but yea, it needs some checks for sure. but being an organic political process from the start, and subject to the rise of the lobbying industry, it's hard to preserve both the local politics aspect of pork while putting everything into some kind of orderly system.
|
On January 16 2013 14:18 oneofthem wrote:
pork seems like a natural outgrowth from the kind of local, decentralized politics americans are so enamored with. :/
Never thought about it that way, but that sounds pretty accurate. Though not all of us are in favor of local, decentralized policies. I personally like a mix of both.
|
On January 16 2013 14:08 Zergneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 14:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 16 2013 14:02 Zergneedsfood wrote:On January 16 2013 13:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 16 2013 11:11 Adreme wrote:
So it seems the House today finally voted for the additional 50 billion dollars in aid for Sandy relief 241-180 with 49 Republicans joining 192 Democrats to pass it. I dont really understand why you would want to be on record voting against hurricane relief efforts but I guess some districts are really really conservative but even then you would think relief effort would be something everyone supports. There's issues with the bill. Some items are questionable - they look pretty pork-ish - I have no idea if any or how many of those items have been removed or modified. Last I checked the bill also wasn't paid for. A lot of people voted against it for those issues - not because they don't support disaster relief. Wasn't it just one page? And besides, I think it's fine to be opposed to pork, but there are a plenty people who voted against Sandy relief bills but will and were die hard begging the government for relief for their own states (Katrina is an example) during crises. Wasn't what just one page? Also the hypocrisy argument doesn't fly - it's a different bill and a different situation. The proposed bill for relief, as in here. Also, how is it different? Both examples are a case of people getting devastated by a natural disaster (in this case, the same kind of disaster). Both are people who are citizens of the country. Why should we neglect federal aid to one but give freely to another?
Yeah, there should be an actual budget to go along with that.
As for how its different - the big issue right now at the federal level is how do we lower the deficit. The issue with the bill specifically is not "do we or do we not help disaster areas" - the issue is "are there items in this bill that are excessive" and "how do we pay for this".
|
On January 16 2013 13:56 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 11:32 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 11:11 Adreme wrote:
So it seems the House today finally voted for the additional 50 billion dollars in aid for Sandy relief 241-180 with 49 Republicans joining 192 Democrats to pass it. I dont really understand why you would want to be on record voting against hurricane relief efforts but I guess some districts are really really conservative but even then you would think relief effort would be something everyone supports. And you wonder why we're so far in debt... Do you really think we are so far in debt because of natural disasters? Most of the debt right now is a result of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the economic downturn. None of those were caused by natural disasters, and all of them have created far, far more debt than any combination of natural disasters in the U.S. ever has.
I didn't even suggest that. I was pointing out how that ATTITUDE is why we are so far in debt. But good thing you got your anti-war plug in. It was totally relevant.
|
On January 16 2013 12:11 upperbound wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 11:52 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 11:35 Adreme wrote:On January 16 2013 11:32 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 11:11 Adreme wrote:
So it seems the House today finally voted for the additional 50 billion dollars in aid for Sandy relief 241-180 with 49 Republicans joining 192 Democrats to pass it. I dont really understand why you would want to be on record voting against hurricane relief efforts but I guess some districts are really really conservative but even then you would think relief effort would be something everyone supports. And you wonder why we're so far in debt... Some things are basic government functions that dont typically deserve opposition. Disaster relief is one of those things. Its the reason Katrina funding was approved within 2 weeks because disater relief isnt something that typically something you play games with. Also we are in debt due to a mixture of taxes being too low and spending being too high and the actual causes of that spending being too unpopular to touch so everyone just postures a lot and doesnt actually do anything. That's what someone says about everything. Shocker. You mean unpopular like disaster relief? YOU DONT SAY? Disaster relief promotes growth vis a vis the alternative, which is what we're truly concerned with here. There's a reason why debt/GDP is the consensus best simple measurement of the health of government spending, because it weighs spending against the long-term growth that it causes. A budget deficit is efficient economics as long as it's reasonably calculated to spark future growth. Is it out of balance now? Perhaps, but that is probably better addressed by creating policy to trim our ridiculous medical spending as a percentage of GDP, to correct housing market that is still well out of whack with stable property values, and to bring down levels of defense spending that probably hurt our national security more than help it, rather than nickel and diming disaster relief that is growth-per-dollar, money well spent.
Who gets to spend the "disaster relief"? Do you even know? And who benefits from said "disaster relief"?
|
On January 16 2013 12:07 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 11:52 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 11:35 Adreme wrote:On January 16 2013 11:32 BluePanther wrote:On January 16 2013 11:11 Adreme wrote:
So it seems the House today finally voted for the additional 50 billion dollars in aid for Sandy relief 241-180 with 49 Republicans joining 192 Democrats to pass it. I dont really understand why you would want to be on record voting against hurricane relief efforts but I guess some districts are really really conservative but even then you would think relief effort would be something everyone supports. And you wonder why we're so far in debt... Some things are basic government functions that dont typically deserve opposition. Disaster relief is one of those things. Its the reason Katrina funding was approved within 2 weeks because disater relief isnt something that typically something you play games with. Also we are in debt due to a mixture of taxes being too low and spending being too high and the actual causes of that spending being too unpopular to touch so everyone just postures a lot and doesnt actually do anything. That's what someone says about everything. Shocker. You mean unpopular like disaster relief? YOU DONT SAY? Saying we shouldnt fund disaster relief is like saying we shouldnt have a military or we shouldnt build roads. Its one of the basic things that you have governements to do. If they refuse to do something like that they have no reason to exist because they arent doing there basic core job. Again if you want to deal with debt there are actual causes to it and no disaster relief is not one of them. There is money to be cut that can be cut without giving up on basic governemnt nessecities.
States have governments too. I don't exactly see the Federal Government rushing to save us from Asian Carp (or any other natural disaster we've suffered). So yeah, I have a problem when I'm paying for these other states' natural disasters. They don't help us when we need it, why should we help them?
It doesn't take a math major to understand that we give them billions while we only receive millions. It irritates me that these people would build homes and businesses in locations where they KNOW they will be subject to hurricanes, and then DON'T GET INSURANCE for it. Then when they lose everything, they think someone ought to pay them for it. It drives me nuts.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
renewing a blue vs red, north vs south civil war...i like it.
|
On January 16 2013 13:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 11:11 Adreme wrote:
So it seems the House today finally voted for the additional 50 billion dollars in aid for Sandy relief 241-180 with 49 Republicans joining 192 Democrats to pass it. I dont really understand why you would want to be on record voting against hurricane relief efforts but I guess some districts are really really conservative but even then you would think relief effort would be something everyone supports. There's issues with the bill. Some items are questionable - they look pretty pork-ish - I have no idea if any or how many of those items have been removed or modified. Last I checked the bill also wasn't paid for. A lot of people voted against it for those issues - not because they don't support disaster relief.
Exactly! If I'm an enterprising politician, I know I can get a million dollars to my state by slipping it in there and OF COURSE nobody's gonna vote no on a disaster relief bill! So a million dollars for me, a million dollars for this thing over here, and everyone smiles and shakes hands. Except, now there's congressmen elected to cut the very kind of pork that people are wont to do in these sort of situations (even the fiscal cliff deal included it).
I swear that a slavery bill could pass Congress so long as it was named the Save America's Children and Starving Infants Compassionate Bill of 2013. You don't just throw money at a problem, you examine at what cost it can be accomplished and compare it to competing plans ("Do Nothing" is a competing plan, but not the only one). Programs should be judged by their effects and not the promises of those that conceive it. The failure to do so has resulted in Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security that are increasingly impoverishing the country (almost 50% of total government expenditures). Defense spending? Ha! If that was even close to being the deficit problem, we'd be in great shape.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
