Federal Gov't shut down includes Black Rock Desert?

[unjonharley]

?

The Tea Party is having a ball with this ""shut down""

WE need specifics DAMMIT! moth BALL? golf BALL? tennis BALL? base BALL? soft BALL? volley BALL? foot BALL? basket BALL? beach BALL?

Curious minds need DETAILS!!!

Dancing in the street ball.. The Tea Partyers are the one demanding most of the cut.. The longer this go's on the more pree they get..

[jkisha]

Well I should hope so! Since his administration has borrowed more money in 2 years than the previous administration did in 8!

Certainly not a fair argument when you consider the state of the economy when Obama took over and the amount of money that was spent by that previous administration in their eight years of control. Not only did they spend like there was no tomorrow, the also managed to cut the revenue stream by giving tax cuts to the wealthy putting the country into deeper debt. Do I really need to remind you that the previous administration inherited a huge budget surplus?

[Trishntek]

Well I should hope so! Since his administration has borrowed more money in 2 years than the previous administration did in 8!

Certainly not a fair argument when you consider the state of the economy when Obama took over and the amount of money that was spent by that previous administration in their eight years of control. Not only did they spend like there was no tomorrow, the also managed to cut the revenue stream by giving tax cuts to the wealthy putting the country into deeper debt. Do I really need to remind you that the previous administration inherited a huge budget surplus?

Memory loss JK? The greatest natural disaster in American history AND the greatest act of violence on American soil during GWB's presidency and you seem to think that had absolutely nothing to do with deficit spending? That is disingenuous and does not even approach the real problem.

The tax revenues of the U.S. Government DOUBLED in the 1980's and the U.S. Government grew proportionally. The problem is NOT with revenue,,,, the problem IS with SPENDING!

Edit to ask: Please provide proof of DECREASED tax revenues after the Bush tax cuts.

[Ugly Dougly]

Hey, how much of the defense budget goes towards paychecks for "ground pounders" and how much goes towards overbudget weapon systems that we no longer need?

Trying to find a pie chart to dramatize this.

And, yeah, I was in the USN as well as the CARNG, before you start asking....

[Trishntek]

?

The Tea Party is having a ball with this ""shut down""

WE need specifics DAMMIT! moth BALL? golf BALL? tennis BALL? base BALL? soft BALL? volley BALL? foot BALL? basket BALL? beach BALL?

Curious minds need DETAILS!!!

Dancing in the street ball.. The Tea Partyers are the one demanding most of the cut.. The longer this go's on the more pree they get..

I hope you realize the amount of money they are debating is $30-$60Billion. Out of the $1.3TRILLION budget deficit BHO proposed for 2012, they are arguing over FIVE-PERCENT of borrowed money! They are not even near discussing spending cuts,,,, they are talking about BORROWING CUTS!!!

edit: It should also be pointed out that this year's budget was supposed to be in place before OCTOBER 2010 and there was never a budget passed by last year's congress. I'll restrain myself from pointing out who had absolute power in both houses of congress at that time.

[Ugly Dougly]

I seem to remember something about delaying certain things until after the election. I doubt it was the dem's choice.

[Bay Bridge Sue]

There is another issue going on here... the devaluation of the US dollar.

The almighty buck is worth a fraction of what it was even a few years ago. Look at against the one benchmark we've always used. A few years ago, Gold was $750 an ounce. Now it's twice that much.

Did gold somehow become worth intrinsicly more? Or did the dollar lose half its value?

I'm watching other currencies slowly creep up on the dollar - look at the Lowly Ruble. It was running at, what 32 to the dollar, now it's 28. Means either the Ruble is becomeing more and more valuable, or the dollar less and less. And that's only one example.

The debt? If you look at the debt 8 years ago (2 years into GWB's presidency, in 2011 dollars VS today's debt - how does it stack up?

That's like saying Carnegie was a poor man in his day because he was merely a millionaire. Never mind he was one of the wealthiest - it's because the dollar is coming apart.

If we set the value of the dollar at a fixed amount against a metal - say Gold in Ft. Knox, so a dollar was always worth, say, 1/1000th of an ounce of gold, then HELD IT at that, instead of printing labor and goods promissary notes backed by the Roman Dinarius (eg air), then maybe the dollar would stabilize.

Gives Fiat a bad name... :lol:

[jkisha]

Memory loss JK? The greatest natural disaster in American history AND the greatest act of violence on American soil during GWB's presidency and you seem to think that had absolutely nothing to do with deficit spending? That is disingenuous and does not even approach the real problem.

I'll remind you that ALL of the spending for the wars during the reign of GWB was NOT INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET. They were all supplementals that didn't show up in the budget. it was Obama that that didn't think this was right nor fair to the American people and is now including the cost of the war in the budget.

[ygmir]

The thing I see, in a shutdown, is, maybe, people will get pissed enough, to act.
when it's all this bickering and posturing, and, it all gets worked out, and, congress gets to spend on a limitless credit card......we all watch the evening news, eat frozen spaghetti, and, are thankful we don't live in (fill in the blank).

but, when it really starts to hurt, people may take action.
The unfortunate part, is, it usually hurts those who can least afford, or deal, with it.
But, also, they are voters......and, if others take note and it pisses them off..........well, maybe, they'll do some active voting and learning.

or, not...........

But, I so agree........it's a spending issue.
Congress spends more than it gets. And, it gets "plenty" to do what needs doing. They just want more, more to curry favor, to feather their contributors nests, and thereby, their own.
more spending, more power, better chance of re-election.
All they think of is spending, and, more, and more.


Crimeny!! why can't they just not get to spend more than they have?

you can blame the prez's all you want, but, it's congress that has the final say.
Congress spends the money, the prez just asks/tells them to on some thing.
But, if they had the balls to say "no", no more, we're not mortgaging any more of the future, we gotta take care of what's here, now.
They'd have more of my respect...........


eta: so, does foolish spending by any, or all, past administrations, make it ok now? If it's not ok, how do you justify overspending, by pointing at others and saying "but he did it, and, he did it worse".
Jeeze, congress, prez, et al........."do the right thing" without care for how it makes you look.


*climbs off soapbox*

[hookahdude]

Why are you antagonizing Ygmir.. he has an axe... and a boat.. do the math...

[jkisha]

Why are you antagonizing Ygmir.. he has an axe... and a boat.. do the math...

Huh?

[ygmir]

Why are you antagonizing Ygmir.. he has an axe... and a boat.. do the math...

Huh?

*spits gin and tonic on screen* hahaha HD.......

he's referring to the "hippies on the increase", thread, JK.....

[jkisha]

eta: so, does foolish spending by any, or all, past administrations, make it ok now? If it's not ok, how do you justify overspending, by pointing at others and saying "but he did it, and, he did it worse".
Jeeze, congress, prez, et al........."do the right thing" without care for how it makes you look.


*climbs off soapbox*

I can't take exception to anything in your previous post. I do want to comment on the above excerpt. First, I will agree that foolish spending by one administration is never justification for foolish spending by another administration. I would comment further except for not knowing what spending by the current administration you consider foolish. This administration had a lot to deal with and much of the initial spending to boost and help the economy recover was considered by a majority of economists as being necessary.

[ygmir]

eta: so, does foolish spending by any, or all, past administrations, make it ok now? If it's not ok, how do you justify overspending, by pointing at others and saying "but he did it, and, he did it worse".
Jeeze, congress, prez, et al........."do the right thing" without care for how it makes you look.


*climbs off soapbox*

I can't take exception to anything in your previous post. I do want to comment on the above excerpt. First, I will agree that foolish spending by one administration is never justification for foolish spending by another administration. I would comment further except for not knowing what spending by the current administration you consider foolish. This administration had a lot to deal with and much of the initial spending to boost and help the economy recover was considered by a majority of economists as being necessary.

I was being rhetorical.......we all don't agree with what's "foolish spending", I was more just going with the " just because they did it, does not make it ok" logic.

[jkisha]

eta: so, does foolish spending by any, or all, past administrations, make it ok now? If it's not ok, how do you justify overspending, by pointing at others and saying "but he did it, and, he did it worse".
Jeeze, congress, prez, et al........."do the right thing" without care for how it makes you look.


*climbs off soapbox*

I can't take exception to anything in your previous post. I do want to comment on the above excerpt. First, I will agree that foolish spending by one administration is never justification for foolish spending by another administration. I would comment further except for not knowing what spending by the current administration you consider foolish. This administration had a lot to deal with and much of the initial spending to boost and help the economy recover was considered by a majority of economists as being necessary.

I was being rhetorical.......we all don't agree with what's "foolish spending", I was more just going with the " just because they did it, does not make it ok" logic.

Oh, well I guess that neatly brings our discussion to a close, as I can't find anything else to disagree with.

And it's looking like the government won't be shutting down as it looks like a compromise has been reached when the republicans took Planned Parenthood off the table. Boehner to speak any time now.

[jkisha]

Why are you antagonizing Ygmir.. he has an axe... and a boat.. do the math...

Huh?

*spits gin and tonic on screen* hahaha HD.......

he's referring to the "hippies on the increase", thread, JK.....

Obviously, I'm easily confused. Thank goodness for fine print.

[BBadger]

There is another issue going on here... the devaluation of the US dollar.

The almighty buck is worth a fraction of what it was even a few years ago. Look at against the one benchmark we've always used.

That benchmark (gold) is a poor choice of benchmark, and does not correlate well with dollar values. The consumer price index (what money purchases) is what determines the value of the dollar and what you could've bought for what you have now.

$100 today is worth about $78.40 in 2000, $8.03 in 1800 (inflation calculator). After the US left the gold standard, inflation has been positive, but so has growth (to a great extent). That's why despite the dollar losing over half its value from 1981 to 2009, we haven't seen real major problems like you'd expect with that kind of currency devaluation.

A few years ago, Gold was $750 an ounce. Now it's twice that much.

Did gold somehow become worth intrinsicly more? Or did the dollar lose half its value?

Gold's value does not track the value of currency; it tracks economic conditions. People buy gold as a hedge against loss, because it doesn't "change" in value. Therefore gold's value is high during economic slowdowns, and low in good times. In good times, gold is a bad investment because gold does not increase in any intrinsic value. You don't gain interest on a lump of metal. At the same time, you don't lose metal when the economy tanks.

I'm watching other currencies slowly creep up on the dollar - look at the Lowly Ruble. It was running at, what 32 to the dollar, now it's 28. Means either the Ruble is becomeing more and more valuable, or the dollar less and less. And that's only one example.

You're tracking very short term and insignificant changes. The ruble has been hovering around 29:1 all throughout the 21st century with small variations like the one you've just described. There's no serious trend.

A currency's value is determined mostly by the country in question (i.e. a fiat currency which (nearly?) all modern currencies are). Most countries do not want to see a major change in their currency's value; certainly not a major increase in value. The higher the value, the more harmful to imports. So countries will seek to dilute the value of their currency in order to stay competitive. Japan is doing that now with the Yen especially after their nuclear disaster. China has been locking their currency to artificially low values to stay artificially competitive in exports, which has included buying US debt to keep the the US dollar high against the yuan.

The debt? If you look at the debt 8 years ago (2 years into GWB's presidency, in 2011 dollars VS today's debt - how does it stack up?

It's far beyond what inflation can account for. The dollar has been devalued about 20% from 2000's value; however, the debt has nearly doubled. It's not really the wars that have caused that either (they didn't help), but the global recession. Remember how times were "good" even after the initial tech bubble burst and 9/11 all up until the housing bubble? I'd say the debt and economic woes facing this country have roots far beyond these past 2.5 presidencies, mostly due to a series of economic bubbles bursting, and the policies that enabled such bubbles.

If we set the value of the dollar at a fixed amount against a metal - say Gold in Ft. Knox, so a dollar was always worth, say, 1/1000th of an ounce of gold, then HELD IT at that, instead of printing labor and goods promissary notes backed by the Roman Dinarius (eg air), then maybe the dollar would stabilize.

But then you'd be paid very little right? It's all relative because the money supply is supposed to increase according to economic "growth." The problem is that growth has been stagnant this past decade, so the effects of inflation hurt. Ironically, deflation reflects poor economic times, and it is better to grow faster than your debt than to pay down the debt at the expense of growth. Nobody was wishing for the gold standard in the mid-nineties, but there was a nice tech bubble growing and times were good. I don't think it would've helped either, because debt can be bought and sold regardless of whether it is backed by gold or not. I don't want to see runs on currency like those in the Great Depression.

[jkisha]

Interesting read BBadger. I think I learned a thing or three.