Budget Show Down. Tea Party Demands Government Shut Down

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
I'm not seeing any links or sources showing the Hoover dam to be a profitable venture. We'll just assume you're correct. That's one example out of ???? The Hoover dam project (actually building it) was a joint venture between private construction companies and the government. Generating wealth and profits are not what governments were designed or intended to do. If SOME government projects turn out to be profitable, GREAT! Most of them don't.:-(
The Hoover dam was an energy infrastructure project. These types of things not only create jobs but long term save the people and businesses money. That's the type of spending we should be doing. Infrastructure modernization. They temporarily create unemployment relief, stimulate the economy while doing so, and long term are good for business and people.
 

doc111

Well-Known Member
The Hoover dam was an energy infrastructure project. These types of things not only create jobs but long term save the people and businesses money. That's the type of spending we should be doing. Infrastructure modernization. They temporarily create unemployment relief, stimulate the economy while doing so, and long term are good for business and people.
Ok? but that's not really what we're talking about here. Someone implied that the Hoover dam was an example of a profitable government venture. I'm not arguing it didn't help back then or that it hasn't had a long term impact. Some may argue it has caused irreperable environmental damage, but I digress. The implication was that it was actually profitable, but I've seen nothing to suggest that here. I may do some digging at a later time to see what I can come across. It would be interesting to get some numbers on it. :joint:
 

mame

Well-Known Member
The argument that the government can't and shouldn't turn a profit is fairly weak (even ignoring all the money made off of selling U.S. arms the last 70+ years). I'll even take the argument away from just infrastructure...

The Fed made a profit of $82 BILLION last year off of emergency loans (that they were giving at low low rates at that, for comparison.. Goldman Sachs made a $12 billion profit last year). These emergency loans literally propped up the U.S. economy and by extension - the world economy.

So, the government can and does make profit when it is in the interest of the nation.
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
Ok? but that's not really what we're talking about here. Someone implied that the Hoover dam was an example of a profitable government venture. I'm not arguing it didn't help back then or that it hasn't had a long term impact. Some may argue it has caused irreperable environmental damage, but I digress. The implication was that it was actually profitable, but I've seen nothing to suggest that here. I may do some digging at a later time to see what I can come across. It would be interesting to get some numbers on it. :joint:
If it makes the area more profitable for businesses, creating wealth in the area for the tax payers, isn't that the same thing as being profitable?

The national highway system can be seen as profitable in that way too. It allows American businesses to operate more efficiently, creating jobs, wealth and all that good stuff. It may not make a direct profit for the government but it has paid for itself possibly hundreds of times over for the people who pay for the government. Why is that not a consideration? The government itself isn't a business. If it's actions save the people money or create wealth for the people, it's doing what it's supposed to IMO.
 

mihjaro

Active Member
Please explain how the Government is making profit off of the hoover dam. You do know that the sale of power is still being used to pay off the loan it took to build the thing right? The loan for the dam won't be paid off until 2037. Besides power generation was only a secondary reason for building the dam in the first place.
Profit and wealth are two different things. How much profit did you make off your house last year? (Ooops, I forget it's a grow website; you don't have to answer that)

On the other hand, the existence of the dam has created enormous amounts of wealth. Real estate around Lake Mead alone is a crazy amount of wealth created out of something worthless.
 

undertheice

Well-Known Member
My experience with private sector is that when they are done with you they fire you and say it isn't their problem that you go hungry and homeless.
why would you expect business to be any different than the rest of us? the goods and services we purchase must prove their worth to us every day or we simply refuse to buy them. why should your labor be held to any lesser standard? if it is no longer needed or the demands of the employer have changed, why should he continue to support you? there was once a thriving buggy industry in this country. everyone needed wagons and buggies to hitch up to their horses and travel about. with the advent of the automobile age, all those buggy manufacturers either changed the nature of their business or simply ceased to exist. if you insist on being a buggy in the automotive age you will be cast out along with the rest of the rubbish.

in order to succeed in the world we must all constantly prove our worth every day. we must improve and alter our abilities or we become worthless meat, taking up space and sucking up resources. you may not like it, you may consider it unfair that what was good enough yesterday is inferior today, but that's life. in this respect, the difference between the public and private sectors is that your worth to the political elite never changes. your opinion and your vote today is always worth exactly what it was yesterday. you need never change or grow to be of the same minimal worth to the state. it is only in blocs, easily managed groups of voters, that your needs are ever considered. our unresponsive representatives needn't trouble themselves over the rights and needs of the individual, he is only important en masse.

When I am faced with struggle people tell me to get up and get going rather than sit around and bitch.
Time for us to get up and pay our tab!
that's just it, you don't want to pay that tab. you want someone else to foot the bill. you are asking that others be brought down to your level to pay for the errors of our society.
 

doc111

Well-Known Member
The argument that the government can't and shouldn't turn a profit is fairly weak (even ignoring all the money made off of selling U.S. arms the last 70+ years). I'll even take the argument away from just infrastructure...

The Fed made a profit of $82 BILLION last year off of emergency loans (that they were giving at low low rates at that, for comparison.. Goldman Sachs made a $12 billion profit last year). These emergency loans literally propped up the U.S. economy and by extension - the world economy.

So, the government can and does make profit when it is in the interest of the nation.
Fairly weak? I guess it depends what your priorities are. My priorities include limiting government, not expanding it even further (which we can ill afford). So, when the government gets into, let's say healthcare, what's to prevent them from "regulating" the competition away? Oh, that's right! The progressive vision! The Fed is a private organization, which gets the protections and blessings of the government to manipulate and fuck with the markets (among other things). I'm not a fan, so you're preaching to the choir there. Those companies like Golman's Sack and AID, er G, are only able to get away with what they do because the government allows it. To Big to fail! I'm a big fan of doing away with that too! Where are the regulations preventing these giants from getting away with nearly destroying the world economy? I see the need for some regulation and I would think this would be a priority of the Obama administration. Why haven't we seen more action on this? :evil:
 

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
The argument that the government can't and shouldn't turn a profit is fairly weak (even ignoring all the money made off of selling U.S. arms the last 70+ years). I'll even take the argument away from just infrastructure...

The Fed made a profit of $82 BILLION last year off of emergency loans (that they were giving at low low rates at that, for comparison.. Goldman Sachs made a $12 billion profit last year). These emergency loans literally propped up the U.S. economy and by extension - the world economy.

So, the government can and does make profit when it is in the interest of the nation.
I don't think the government sells any arms, they may grease the wheels so their favorite arms manufacturer can get a big sale. Besides, if the government DID sell arms, you can be sure, they would not do it for a profit.
The Federal Reserve is not part of the government. It is a privately owned bank.
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
why would you expect business to be any different than the rest of us? the goods and services we purchase must prove their worth to us every day or we simply refuse to buy them. why should your labor be held to any lesser standard? if it is no longer needed or the demands of the employer have changed, why should he continue to support you? there was once a thriving buggy industry in this country. everyone needed wagons and buggies to hitch up to their horses and travel about. with the advent of the automobile age, all those buggy manufacturers either changed the nature of their business or simply ceased to exist. if you insist on being a buggy in the automotive age you will be cast out along with the rest of the rubbish.

in order to succeed in the world we must all constantly prove our worth every day. we must improve and alter our abilities or we become worthless meat, taking up space and sucking up resources. you may not like it, you may consider it unfair that what was good enough yesterday is inferior today, but that's life. in this respect, the difference between the public and private sectors is that your worth to the political elite never changes. your opinion and your vote today is always worth exactly what it was yesterday. you need never change or grow to be of the same minimal worth to the state. it is only in blocs, easily managed groups of voters, that your needs are ever considered. our unresponsive representatives needn't trouble themselves over the rights and needs of the individual, he is only important en masse.

that's just it, you don't want to pay that tab. you want someone else to foot the bill. you are asking that others be brought down to your level to pay for the errors of our society.
You mean that exploiters should be held accountable?

That's bad M'kay?

I'm distracted with code work so it;s a simple reply..
 

mihjaro

Active Member
if you insist on being a buggy in the automotive age you will be cast out along with the rest of the rubbish.
This has always made me wonder how we will be able to insist on being human in the face of our coming robotic overlords. Whom I welcome.
 

undertheice

Well-Known Member
You mean that exploiters should be held accountable?

That's bad M'kay?
that everyone should be held accountable for their abuses would seem rather obvious, but the very term "abuse" appears to be a matter of opinion in the modern liberal/progressive community. is there some reason an employer should continue to support any portion of its workforce that is either under-performing by its standards or simply no longer necessary?

i realize it sounds real cool to claim you are being exploited, but you should probably take a good look at the terms you use:
ex·ploit–verb (used with object)
1. to utilize, especially for profit; turn to practical account: to exploit a business opportunity.
so here you are, whining about your talents being utilized in exchange for agreed upon compensation and then having that agreement terminated when those talents are no longer required. do you continue to use services that you no longer need? do you consider yourself responsible for the fate of those businesses whose services you abandon?
 

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Obama made a really good point when he said this is last years business. He's right.

If the Democrat-majority Congress had passed a budget like they were supposed to do, there would be no need for these silly continuing resolutions. There would be no talk of an imminent shutdown now.

All you Donks should remember that if it does happen.

Ha ha!
have to admit that you are right on this one.
 

mame

Well-Known Member
have to admit that you are right on this one.
Except everyone seems to be neglecting that as soon as whats-his-face croaked and the Republicans got 41 seats in the senate - they began fillibustering everything put in front of them in an attempt to bolster their anti- health care reform position - and so since the Democrats couldn't put any budget proposals through they didn't even try because it would've been a waste of time.

It's funny because it isn't a just coincidence... It's strategy. Unfortunately for us, Republicans are masters of this sort of thing.
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
that everyone should be held accountable for their abuses would seem rather obvious, but the very term "abuse" appears to be a matter of opinion in the modern liberal/progressive community. is there some reason an employer should continue to support any portion of its workforce that is either under-performing by its standards or simply no longer necessary?

i realize it sounds real cool to claim you are being exploited, but you should probably take a good look at the terms you use:
so here you are, whining about your talents being utilized in exchange for agreed upon compensation and then having that agreement terminated when those talents are no longer required. do you continue to use services that you no longer need? do you consider yourself responsible for the fate of those businesses whose services you abandon?
It was a reply not and invitation to debate. Get real.
 

beardo

Well-Known Member
both sides are way out of line...we need to be cutting 95% of our spending this year. thats what I would call for a 95% reduction in spending in the first year.
 

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
Except everyone seems to be neglecting that as soon as whats-his-face croaked and the Republicans got 41 seats in the senate - they began fillibustering everything put in front of them in an attempt to bolster their anti- health care reform position - and so since the Democrats couldn't put any budget proposals through they didn't even try because it would've been a waste of time.

It's funny because it isn't a just coincidence... It's strategy. Unfortunately for us, Republicans are masters of this sort of thing.

What you really mean is, they couldn't have put through some ridiculous progressive pipe dream with NO COMPROMISE, so they didn't bother. Freaking sad. That statement is only true if you can prove that no budget was EVER passed by the Congress and the Senate WITHOUT a super majority.

That is so incorrect and absurd I can't believe you took the time to type it. Really? So if they don't have a super majority, they can't pass a budget, you gonna stick with that?

Seems to me there have only been a few times in our brief history that there were super majorities and yet we had budgets almost every year...hmmm.

Seems like that excuse is as hollow as Senator Reid calling the Republicans, procrastinators. What kind of freaking upside down, backwards reality is that bozo living in, that he thinks that comment will hold water. Your party is in a tailspin and they have no idea how to pull out of it.
 

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
Except everyone seems to be neglecting that as soon as whats-his-face croaked and the Republicans got 41 seats in the senate - they began fillibustering everything put in front of them in an attempt to bolster their anti- health care reform position - and so since the Democrats couldn't put any budget proposals through they didn't even try because it would've been a waste of time.

It's funny because it isn't a just coincidence... It's strategy. Unfortunately for us, Republicans are masters of this sort of thing.
That's just another way of saying the Democrats spent a great deal of time and political capital pushing through an enormously unpopular bill.

After that, they did not offer up a budget because 2010 being an election year,they would have had to curtail or even cut spending.

If you recall, many if not most Democrats were putting as much distance as they could between themselves and the unholy trinity: The Community Organizer, Princess Nancy, and Whorehouse Harry.

Cutting spending to look more Moderate might have suppressed the Teabagger surge, but would have been a betrayal to their core supporters.

Submitting a budget which they could live with would show their true colors, and would have resulted in even more Democratic losses on Election Day.

So they punted.

That was strategy, too. And now we are seeing the results of it.
 

mame

Well-Known Member
What you really mean is, they couldn't have put through some ridiculous progressive pipe dream with NO COMPROMISE, so they didn't bother. Freaking sad. That statement is only true if you can prove that no budget was EVER passed by the Congress and the Senate WITHOUT a super majority.

That is so incorrect and absurd I can't believe you took the time to type it. Really? So if they don't have a super majority, they can't pass a budget, you gonna stick with that?

Seems to me there have only been a few times in our brief history that there were super majorities and yet we had budgets almost every year...hmmm.

Seems like that excuse is as hollow as Senator Reid calling the Republicans, procrastinators. What kind of freaking upside down, backwards reality is that bozo living in, that he thinks that comment will hold water. Your party is in a tailspin and they have no idea how to pull out of it.
00000129f64171db8c5f265b007f000000000001.yearly_graph.jpg
The 111th congress saw an unprecedented number of filibusters. It's not surprising that so many bills failed to pass... many of them with voting margins like 57-40... The Republicans were very successful in running an obstructionist platform, and now apparently they have succeeded in blaming the democrats.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/majority-does-not-rule-in-filibuster-filled-111th-congress-20101216
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/research_desk_graphs_more_fili.html
 
Top