Republicans put cutting spending over aiding tornado victims

A part of me kind of hopes that some of the more sensible Republicans (all 5 of them) are mentally strangling this guy right now.

I identify more with the conservative paty than the liberal one, and I'm face-palming here, yes.

I'm looking forward to the '12 election cycle (already seeing posters for local stuff) with a sense of morbid curiosity.

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.

It's only the amount of money we have because Republicans aren't willing to generate more. So basically, rather than cutting defense, they decide to go after the programs that Americans actually like-that is, education, infrastructure, and so on.

It's totally assbackwards to suggest that in order to fund DISASTER RELIEF you need to eliminate funding for poor kids to go to college. That's not how a FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S BUDGET is supposed to work.

People tend to think that the government needs to work like a private individual-"Oh, I'll have to take it from somewhere else." But that kind of thinking doesn't work at the macro scale. You borrow money and pay it back in times of growth, not starve yourself because of a paranoid fear of the debt. Invisible Bond Vigilantes not withstanding.

That's a (probably valid) argument about where we should get the money from. It still has to come from somewhere, or we will continue to spiral deeper and deeper into debt.

I agree that we could also save plenty of money on the military. I'm certainly not here to defend republican fiscal policy. But I don't think it's unreasonable for them to hold the line as much as possible, and I'll support even suboptimal cuts to federal spending.

edited 25th May '11 12:53:47 PM by EdwardsGrizzly

<><

The money DOES have to come from somewhere. As a first step why not have everyone in congress take a pay cut of 100 dollars a month for their entire careers to help out? Obviously this may not be enough, but it'd be nice for people in the capitol to help.

That would be a nice guesture. Congressmen aren't actually paid that much for what they do, but they get loads of benefits and every little bit helps.

<><

A problem lies in what is cut, if anything. Given that it is the Republicans "ransom"ing the tornado victims, it is unlikely to be in something which has plenty of superfluous fluff that does not need as much money as it does. It's going to be in something which is already ailing, such as education.

A lack of money is the least of education's problems. Throwing more money into a broken system won't fix it.

Sorry about that. More on-topic: It can be ok to cut programs even if they aren't working well, if the lack of funds is not the main source of their trouble.

edited 25th May '11 1:44:18 PM by EdwardsGrizzly

<><

The best thing for the government to do, if you're leery of deficit spending, is appropriate revenues to a Disaster Relief Fund, paying out of it when stuff like this happens. Like insurance but near-zero overhead because you aren't making a profit for some guys in a suit. Heck, if you use the money to buy bonds or something it could actually generate a return.

In fact, isn't that what we already do? Seems kind of obvious.

Off-topic.

edited 25th May '11 1:37:43 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

A more accurate paraphrasing would be “Absolutely not, until you concede in this largely unrelated argument we were already having before the tornado even struck.”

The problem isn't that they want cuts in return for the money, it's that they aren't sending the money first and seeing how to pay for it later. It's like if the first thing a paramedic did to somebody collapsed bleeding on the floor was reach in their pocket to check their credit card, rather than reflexively staunching the wound before they bled to death.

Eric,

^ Problem is, if we send money first and don't assure it comes from somewhere else, the Democrats will see to it that it just goes straight to the deficit. Problem is about the deficit, we legally cannot run any more. The country is at its literal credit limit and if we go any higher we default and the effect of this country defaulting is far worse for the US than simply not responding well to a tornado.

edited 26th May '11 6:18:33 AM by MajorTom

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."

Oh, Tom. Dear Tom, I love you for these statements. You do know who's holding up raising the debt limit, right? Hint: it's not Democrats. And disaster relief spending is a drop in the bucket compared to the deficit, yet one that's absolutely pertinent because without it, those disasters will take longer to recover from and cost the economy a great deal more in the long term.

Seriously, did you ever hear of goodwill? It's like Republicans want to be hated by everyone who's not a Tea Partier.

edited 26th May '11 6:24:14 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

When I spoke about people should have insurance I was not referring to temporary shelter, blankets, food, medicine... These services are always provided to the victims of natural disasters. Holding the victims hostage is unconscionable.

I was referring to rebuilding the houses and paying claims for their contents, that's insurance's job .

edited 26th May '11 6:41:13 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

^^ You do realize just continually raising the debt limit not only sets bad precedence for both Democrats (as they'll be perceived as fiscally incompetent even more) and Republicans (they'll be perceived as hypocrites if they raise it without cuts) but it sends us further along the same road as Greece aka our bonds become worthless and we become dependent on the IMF. Economically, that's the same result as a default.

This whole situation is made worse by the fact that this country would be completely prepared for any crisis if we didn't have a welfare state constantly draining the Treasury. We could afford wars, major natural disasters like hurricanes, repair roads and bridges in massive projects we could do frequently, stuff like that. We've had 45 years of a literal welfare state and it does nothing with every recession. Literally nothing comes out of the welfare state during said recessions, they don't drag us back up, they don't lead to prosperity, they don't even really help the people on it since you can make more money on a minimum wage job than being on welfare.

That said, this tornado is just a sad reminder that the dream of Camelot from the 1960s where the government takes care of folks has fallen apart now that the bill is due.

edited 26th May '11 6:46:34 AM by MajorTom

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."

Or we could have a realistic military budget and stop cutting taxes on millionaires. There's always that.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

This. Tom, the problem isn't spending per se, it's spending unbalanced by revenue. Since Republicans refuse to allow taxes to be raised, we are now indeed in this quandary. Also, you and your buddies continue to perpetuate the misconception that federal debt is a Bad Thing. It's not; it's actually very important. And the U.S. is nowhere near the debt levels of countries that are in serious trouble, like Greece (or even Japan). Did you know we have the lowest corporate tax rates and the lowest top tax bracket rate of any First World nation?

That too. Why do Republicans insist on being perceived as haters of the poor?

edited 26th May '11 7:47:56 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

The extreme disdain for the welfare system amuses me — of course removal of the welfare state would give you money for victims of disaster. One of the problems would be that, of course, there would be a constant, country-wide disaster due to the removal of welfare.

edited 26th May '11 7:35:39 AM by AllanAssiduity

For the last time, debt is not a good thing.

I friggin' hate this illusion. The only time debt has ever gone up in the US is during wartimes. What does this say about debt?!

EDIT: Anyway, thats besides the point. Yes, that aid needs to be sent off immediately. You can figure out how to pay for it all when people aren't dying.

edited 26th May '11 8:10:05 AM by GameChainsaw

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

Debt increases short-term buying power. It's an economic multiplier. It allows people to invest money in a stable institution with guaranteed returns. Government-issued debt is in fact a cornerstone of the global economy. Government debt and individual debt are not the same thing at all, and conflating them is part of the problem we're having getting these ideas across to people.

As just one example of why debt is a powerful economic tool, if you got rid of mortgages and forced people to pay cash for houses, the housing industry would die, completely. Similarly, unsecured debt can be a bad thing if overused, but in the short term it allows people to get things now rather than later, which means more money moving through the economy and a bigger chunk of the pie for everyone. The important thing, of course, is to pay it off rather than let it accumulate, but sustaining manageable amounts of debt is necessary in our society to be considered creditworthy, unless you pay for everything in cash.

Similarly, debt allows one to weather the impact of emergencies and shortfalls. With a forcibly balanced budget — that is, outlays cannot exceed intake ever, under any circumstances — the government would be paralyzed when it comes to emergencies and major expeditures. Unlike a guy who skips his telephone bill for one cycle because he's short, a country can't just decide to welch on its obligations from month to month, and it can't effectively set long term budgets when at any minute it might run out of cash due to economic vagaries.

These are all Economics 101. It's not even difficult to understand!

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Debt isnt necessarily a bad or good thing.

But the debt is essentially other countries investing money into our treasuries. if we had no debt whatsoever, it would do some very interesting and potentially catastrophic things to our economy.

Of course, the problem comes if one to much debt (relative to their income).

Maybe we could use an Economics 101 sticky or something

^^^ However you should also realize (this is Economics 101 too) that debt robs long-term capabilities. Running and keeping a debt is never a good thing for the long term. Eventually your focus on "short term buying power" becomes subject to exponentially diminishing returns. Sadly unlike accountants and good business leaders, politicians never understand that.

Debt can be useful once in a blue moon, constantly running up a deficit with little to show for it is not. We've already in the last 4 years or so reached the point of diminishing returns. The more debt we run, the less effect we're going to see until the debt either defaults or is paid down.

Edit: Ninjas!

edited 26th May '11 8:26:25 AM by MajorTom

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."

Well then, why won't Republicans allow us to raise taxes so we can start reducing the deficit? The deficits we're running are not due to entitlements. Those are the same as they've always been. They're a direct result of two wars and the need for spending to get us out of the recession. And before you even start, you can't save your way out of a recession. That is, again, Economics 101.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

@Tom: the idea is you're supposed to run up debt during deficits, then increase taxes when a boom cycle starts in order to slow it down.

The overall idea is spend your way out of recessions, then tax heavily during growth booms in an attempt to smooth the cycle to the point where booms dont suddenly bust and lead into massive recessions, and busts dont dip super low because you speed up aggregate demand by pouring deficit spending in.

The prob;lem is once we hit a boom cycle,. the republicans would rather die than slow down overspeeding growth.

edited 26th May '11 8:29:43 AM by Midgetsnowman

Ya know, since I know somebody will mention it, does it make me a bad person when somebody pulls the "Rich people have rights to have a lot of money they have earned!" card, I have feeling of "To heck with that kind of equality" even though I don't say it aloud?