US Gov't budget problem

So, I guess they got a two-week extention to the budget that'll likely pass Senate vote.

Any thoughts on wether or not they'll have a for-real budget hammered out within those two weeks?

That'll put the next drop-dead date at March 18th, I think.

Could somebody please explain to me why constant cutting of beneficial programs is preferable to a temporary shutdown?

apparently it actually ends up costing more money to shut down the government than to keep it running. And services are unavailable. So instead of paying more money than a Fiction 500 member makes, for highly inefficient but benificial services, we pay even more for less.

edited 1st Mar '11 1:15:24 PM by FrodoGoofballCoTV

But under the first scenario, House Republicans could just keep voting no on budgets, and only allowing continuing resolutions so long as they cut programs they don't like.

So the smart thing would be to have a shutdown, which would hurt Republicans far, far more than Democrats.

edited 1st Mar '11 1:18:18 PM by EnglishIvy

Yep.Some believe that is a reasonable strategy, given concerns about the budget deficit and the divided government.

However, it fails to address the problem on a wholistic basis.

the smart thing would be to have a shutdown, which would hurt Republicans far, far more than Democrats

edited 1st Mar '11 1:29:33 PM by FrodoGoofballCoTV

Neither does a never-ending line of continuing resolutions.

I'm actually pretty meh on wether or not a shutdown is better than merely delaying a budget.

Yes, a shutdown would force peopel to go "ZOMG we needs a budgit NAO", but they shouldn've been doing that months ago. But aside from a few very essential programs and services, lots of people on government paychecks (meaning, civil servants and stuff) will suddenly be without a paycheck.

That'll be painful, obviously. It'll also hurt businesses. Do we really need that kind of a hit when our economy is just now starting to bounce back (and even then, it ain't bouncing back very well)?

It's either that, or a lot of them will be laid off outright, because their department is being cut.

^ This is true, also. So - cut a percentage for good or furlough pretty much everyone for a spell?

Rock and a hard place.

But do we need those departments?

Which departments in question are being cut?

Food Inspectors, apparently.

Well, I don't have a source for that but honestly, this is what they come up with? They can do away with pork barrelling, or personal expenses, reduce military spending, revamp healthcare... instead they're going to crackdown on oversight organisations? Are politicians allergic to good government?

reduce military spending,

In case you haven't paid attention, this is the absolute worst thing we can do to fix the budget right now. It's a last resort. The Middle East is on fire, North Korea teeters on the brink of war as China right next door rapidly attempts to expand and modernize their military for the sole reason of countering us either because they have plans for war with us in the future or they are following North Korea's line of paranoid thinking, and the Russians are doing the same thing. To say nothing of needing to finish the job in Afghanistan.

We have few friends and even fewer who have powerful military capabilities. Sift through and kill the worthless R&D programs if you can, but to reduce the size of the military budget and personnel size in a time when we have many enemies and few allies is an exercise in stupidity.

Well if the world really wants to be policed, why not let others share the burden?

Others might not have the means or the will to do it.

Although it may be hard to tell, since we're always stepping up to do it, perhaps others would willingly shoulder the burden if we didn't - or not.

Tom you certainly add flavour to my life.

So I guess Middle East on fire is in reference to the revolutions sweeping the area right now. There is a cost-effective solution for USA; do nothing. All the interventions of the past decade have resulted in nothing but total and miserable failure, while people armed with absolutely nothing but a conviction to right the wrongs facing them overthrew staunch dictatorships.

In reference to Russia, while they may be resurrecting their military, they're nowhere near what a country of their power should have and their projection capabilities are heavily limited. They can't attack USA, so there is no reason to spend money to counter a non-existent threat.

In reference to China, the concept that they are "rapidly expanding and modernising" their military is highly misleading. The GDP ratio percentage has been static from year to year but due to a growing economy their military has increased alongside. Most of the extra government budget has gone into healthcare, education and infrastructure, not the military, so if anybody is paranoid it is you. You talk about "they must be preparing for a future war with USA" or whatever, and it is an expectation that you have of foreign bodies that would hold no water if you turned it around. Why do you expect China to continuing using old weaponry with a functioning government budget? Do you worry that United Kingdom is preparing to destroy the whole world because of their rapid increase in military spending in the past few years? Your comments have no substance because they aren't based on anything substantive. You don't seem to care that Japan has been rapidly building up their military forces in recent years and have already been making aggressive territorial moves against Russia.

So yeah, the only other expense greater than the military is healthcare. Good intentions might be what brought USA to Afghanistan but good intentions don't fix problems, you need real solutions. I think you can cut military spending in half and healthcare will likely stay about the same if you socialised it, except everyone will receive quality healthcare instead.

However, I think America should just install an Auditor General. It'll slowly but surely start cleaning up government spending.

EDIT: If you wanted others to help you shoulder the burden, do things through the UN. Unless you can show a real Russian veto, you have no right to state that the UN Security Council doesn't work. Apparently USA has the balls to go into Iraq but not make a Security Council vote.

edited 1st Mar '11 5:25:48 PM by breadloaf

I saw a blurb on the news about how we have loads and loads of oversight, so that a lot of tax dollars are going to check and doublecheck and triplecheck (and we need to go deeper, I'm sure) things. Agencies that act at odds with one another, despite having very similiar jobs and responsibilities.

Plus, Department of Homeland Security. Have they added any appreciable value, aside from the often-mocked color-coded alert system?

So I guess Middle East on fire is in reference to the revolutions sweeping the area right now. There is a cost-effective solution for USA; do nothing. All the interventions of the past decade have resulted in nothing but total and miserable failure, while people armed with absolutely nothing but a conviction to right the wrongs facing them overthrew staunch dictatorships.

Libya is in civil war and we should do nothing about it? The last time we did nothing over similar affairs we earned nothing but consternation and disapproval. Remember the Iranian student protests in summer 2009? Obama did nothing and the student protests were violently crushed by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. We earned no praise by staying out of that. We'll earn no praise by staying out of the Libyan deal.

In reference to Russia, while they may be resurrecting their military, they're nowhere near what a country of their power should have and their projection capabilities are heavily limited. They can't attack USA, so there is no reason to spend money to counter a non-existent threat.

Russia is about 160 miles from US sovereign territory that is undefended and undefendable by the US Navy. It's called the Bering Strait.

They have ways of attacking US cities and military assets. But that's not the issue at hand over their military's resurrection, the issue is the fact that the Cold War ended 20 years ago, yet nothing seems to have changed. The Russians still play the part of our enemies now just as they did back then. You honestly think Medvedev and Putin want to play nice for the long term? They oppose our every move in the UN. They hold our friends in Poland and the Ukraine hostage over missile defense technology that would have helped them.

Then you have the whole invasion of Georgia deal.

In reference to China, the concept that they are "rapidly expanding and modernising" their military is highly misleading. The GDP ratio percentage has been static from year to year but due to a growing economy their military has increased alongside. Most of the extra government budget has gone into healthcare, education and infrastructure, not the military, so if anybody is paranoid it is you. You talk about "they must be preparing for a future war with USA" or whatever, and it is an expectation that you have of foreign bodies that would hold no water if you turned it around. Why do you expect China to continuing using old weaponry with a functioning government budget? Do you worry that United Kingdom is preparing to destroy the whole world because of their rapid increase in military spending in the past few years? Your comments have no substance because they aren't based on anything substantive. You don't seem to care that Japan has been rapidly building up their military forces in recent years and have already been making aggressive territorial moves against Russia.

China's expenditures by percent of GDP is a poor measure owing to their volatile GDP figures. What was 2% of their budget in 1995 is nowhere near the same amount of money as 2% of their budget today.

Also did you not see the new fighter jet they just brought out? The restart of planning to complete the Admiral Kudnetsov's (Russian built aircraft carrier) sister ship or at least plans to build ships like it.

Then you have to couple their military build up with a sad reality. They are not our friends, not in trade, not in politics. There are a not small number of trade disputes between the US and China that China has no intention of even looking at resolving. Things like their currency manipulation and allowance of unsafe goods to leave their ports. (To say nothing of their habit of flooding many markets to drive prices down.)

Those kinds of disputes don't go away unless the party responsible is willing to help make it go away. Since the Chinese have no intention of fixing those disputes, we should have no expectations that we won't resort to a trade war or worse in the future.

The Japanese can do as they damn please. North Korea has proven the folly of forcing somebody to be pacifist in a region loaded with trigger/rhetoric happy militaries.

We don't need praise; we need Libyans to revolt successfully.

If we go in to help, that totally cripples the PR value of the revolution. If we don't, if they do it themselves, we can count on Yemen or Algeria being next.

And what happens if Qaddafi wins the civil war? We'll look awfully silly.

@ Tom: Slightly off-topic, but the Libyans don't want us there.

Just thought I'd mention that.

The article says they wouldn't mind a no-fly zone, but another article I read said that's a much more invasive procedure than most people would probably imagine-so they probably don't know what level of interference that entails.

edited 1st Mar '11 6:33:14 PM by deathjavu

Funny, the news reports this morning said they wanted us to make a no-fly-zone over the country.

Which way is it?

Anyhoo back to topic.

edited 1st Mar '11 6:19:18 PM by MajorTom

On-Topic Conversations

@breadloaf: The USA. Aren't you Canadian? Isn't English your first language? Sorry, but it's starting to really annoy me, because I think I've asked you to work on it before.