House votes for $60 billion in cuts

[Criseyde]

House approves dramatic cuts in federal spending in 235-189 vote


What do y'all think? Is the government going to shut down on March 5? What's the prognosis, here?

[garentee]

This is very reminiscent of 1994 when Newt Gingrich and his conservative House swept into power.. granted we are in far more precarious times economically and realistically some things definitely need to be cut.. Generally the house tends to be a bit more extreme and the senate brings things back in line... (hopefully) Problem is we as a nation are verging on bankruptcy... and if we were to really be honest about it we would first stop wasting so much and also maybe cut back on our military bases around the world.. Just why do we still have bases in Germany and Japan?

[Brutha]

Could someone link to a good description of what they actually want to cut?

[Cochonette]

Republicans have always made me feel smart.

I also hope there is not a government shut down because I live in D.C. and work downtown near all the government agencies where my customers come from. Then again, it could be worth it in the end. I think D.C. could use this as an opportunity to protest its colonization by Congress.

D.C. license plates all say "Taxation Without Representation."

[Criseyde]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Could someone link to a good description of what they actually want to cut?

I don't think there are any line by line analyses yet since this just happened this morning, but this NYT article enumerates some of it. There's widespread outrage already over the fact that they've voted to cut funding for Planned Parenthood; they also want to block other health care spending (who's surprised), funding for environmental regulations, defense spending...

Interestingly they have not touched entitlement programs, which really need to be overhauled. (ETA: Er, wait -- I think I need to verify this.)

Originally Posted by Cochonette

Republicans have always made me feel smart.

I think they are cutting off their nose to spite their face right now. I also think that any talk about reducing the deficit without seriously considering raising taxes is ludicrous. Paul Krugman has a good analysis.

We do need to cut spending. We have unsustainable debt. But what's going on right now... geeeeezzzzzz.

[scorpio1980]

60 billion is nothing. In 2010 we added 3.5 billion to our debt everyday. That means 60 billion will save us 17 days in debt. At least the republicans are keeping promises on this, but it's not enough. I like Rand Pauls idea to cut 500 billion. We need to cut everything. Our 900 military basis around the world has got to go, but even that's not enough. We have to get rid of the welfare state. Our government was never meant to be this big. Let the government shut down. If they don't want to cut spending then let them stay shut down until they actually gain some intelligence, and realize we are screwed if they don't cut spending.

[Brutha]

I think D.C. could use this as an opportunity to protest its colonization by Congress.

In practice the whole US gets ruled by the popular thought of Washington. Depending on how you look at it the colonization also goes the other way.
If you have contact with a lot of people inside government agencies you have probably more political power than some guy in Texas who votes every two years.

I don't think there are any line by line analyses yet since this just happened this morning,

The problem is more that the press finds it more interesting to speculate whether this is due to the new Republicans that entered congress than to focus on the actual policies.

[Criseyde]

Originally Posted by Brutha

The problem is more that the press finds it more interesting to speculate whether this is due to the new Republicans that entered congress than to focus on the actual policies.

Good point. I would really like to see a clear breakdown of it, as well. I'll be keeping an eye out.

[Savage]

I can't see how the current mode of operation isn't going to lead to bankruptcy. I don't see how businesses are supposed to create enough jobs in this environment to generate nearly enough tax revenue to make back what's being spent before the debt reaches crushing levels.

The current fiscal year ends in September, and they're still debating the budget for it. How intelligent is it to define a budget when you're almost halfway through the year?

The expected deficit for this year is supposedly $1.65 trillion, and they're presently proposing to cut $0.06 trillion. That may still be a lot of money, but it's largely meaningless relative to the total mounting debt. You only need basic math skills to see that $1.65 trillion - $0.06 trillion = $1.59 trillion, which equals more massive debt pilled upon an already massive debt. How is that ever going to be paid back?

Seems like most Congress people are more concerned about re-election than about doing the dirty work that needs to be done. To make deep enough cuts, they'll have to dig into Social Security, Medicare, and Defense.

Of course those who support such cuts will see themselves painted as friends of Osama bin Laden who kick old ladies to the curb, but if they don't act boldly now, there will be a lot more homeless old ladies down the road.

The will to avoid a bankruptcy doesn't seem to be present.

[1by1]

The USA is pratically the only western economy that isn't cutting back. Here in the UK the government is cutting large proportion of the budget and aiming to get it balanced by 2015. I suspect that is because a lot of European countries have already reached crisises in the bond markets (ie no one would lend them any money any more)

The dollar is still seen as trustworthy so the USA can get away with spending beyond its means, though probably not for much longer. The only solution is large scale cuts, and that is generally unpopular. American politics is so partisan that is pratically impossible for large cuts to occur. There might be more hope if Obama gets a second term and doesn't have to worry about re-election, but I still think it's doubtful...

What will probably happen is that the USA will face a bond market crisis and will be forced to rapidly cut its debt. That would be an extremely bad thing to happen, but seems unavoidable at the moment.

[Brutha]

I suspect that is because a lot of European countries have already reached crisises in the bond markets (ie no one would lend them any money any more)

No, the UK doesn't have a problem with getting money via bonds. The UK also is no Eurozone country and therefore does has the obligation of bailing out other European countries.
It's more that they have a more functioning government and lobbyists have less of an influence.

[1by1]

No, the UK doesn't have a problem with getting money via bonds. The UK also is no Eurozone country and therefore does has the obligation of bailing out other European countries.

No it doesn't, but other nearby countries have and it was thought that the UK would have a problem if nothing was done about it.

The UK has been part of the bailout fund, and has contributed to the emergency loan to Greece and Ireland. It also made a separate loan to Ireland since the two nations have closely linked economies.

[scorpio1980]

Originally Posted by Savage

I can't see how the current mode of operation isn't going to lead to bankruptcy. I don't see how businesses are supposed to create enough jobs in this environment to generate nearly enough tax revenue to make back what's being spent before the debt reaches crushing levels.

The current fiscal year ends in September, and they're still debating the budget for it. How intelligent is it to define a budget when you're almost halfway through the year?

The expected deficit for this year is supposedly $1.65 trillion, and they're presently proposing to cut $0.06 trillion. That may still be a lot of money, but it's largely meaningless relative to the total mounting debt. You only need basic math skills to see that $1.65 trillion - $0.06 trillion = $1.59 trillion, which equals more massive debt pilled upon an already massive debt. How is that ever going to be paid back?

Seems like most Congress people are more concerned about re-election than about doing the dirty work that needs to be done. To make deep enough cuts, they'll have to dig into Social Security, Medicare, and Defense.

Of course those who support such cuts will see themselves painted as friends of Osama bin Laden who kick old ladies to the curb, but if they don't act boldly now, there will be a lot more homeless old ladies down the road.

The will to avoid a bankruptcy doesn't seem to be present.

Well said.

[Cochonette]

Originally Posted by Brutha

In practice the whole US gets ruled by the popular thought of Washington. Depending on how you look at it the colonization also goes the other way.
If you have contact with a lot of people inside government agencies you have probably more political power than some guy in Texas who votes every two years.

Yeah, the first part of that is a load of ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. Congress people don't LIVE in Washington, D.C., yet they get not only federal power over D.C., but local power as well. Any law passed by the local D.C. government can be directly overridden by Congress. It's not "depending on how you look at it." It's depending on what you choose to ignore.

As for the second part of what you said, I don't really know what that's supposed to mean. It doesn't change the fact that Congress shouldn't be sticking its nose into local politics half as much as it does and is allowed to. And people who work for government agencies often move here to work for them and are not registered voters here, but continue to vote elsewhere since they won't get representation here.

[Andrew Brunelle]

The government will never pay back its debt, and this cut is so insignificant that it won't even make a difference when it comes to the national debt. But when it comes to social programs, it will make a huge dent. I like the way Steve put it, in that it is only 0.06 trillion out of a 1.65 trillion debt. That's like being in debt for $1.65 and paying $0.06 cents on it. It may help a little, but it's not going to make the huge waves we need.

What I've said for years is they need to cut military spending, but nobody will do it because the military is all-powerful, or at least they think they are, and can demand as much money as they please, not to mention the fact that they don't even have to report their budget or their spending....so let's make them do it through the Freedom of Information Act.

[1by1]

The government will never pay back its debt

No, but then they don't have to either. Debt from governments works in different ways to debt from people. As long as people think the money they lend is safe and they will continue to get interest payments then they will continue to lend.

It's also complicated by the fact that people will lend to china for political and economic reasons. For example, China buys US debt to keep the exchange rate in their favour.

It's not a problem of the money being paid back, it's a problem when people no longer want to lend to the US anymore.

Yeah, the first part of that is a load of ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. Congress people don't LIVE in Washington, D.C., yet they get not only federal power over D.C., but local power as well. Any law passed by the local D.C. government can be directly overridden by Congress. It's not "depending on how you look at it." It's depending on what you choose to ignore.

It's interesting how there are several parts of the US that have no proper representation. The District of Colombia has no representation in congress but vote for the president, but it isn't a state.

Guam is a US territory but can't directly vote for the president or get any representation in congress. Puerto Rico also belongs to the USA but isn't part of the USA... which is quite strange!

[Brutha]

As for the second part of what you said, I don't really know what that's supposed to mean.

The idea that democracy is only about voting mistakes the way the process actually works.
Informal power matters a great deal more than formal power.