Won't get fooled again - The new skeptics archived

These people are correct. The government takes in plenty of money to meet its interest obligations. All it needs to do is spend less.

".
.
.
That’s hogwash, the doubters say, because the government takes in more than enough revenue to cover its obligations. They acknowledge the administration would need to make deep and painful spending cuts but argue that Geithner can avert default if he prioritizes which bills to pay.

It would be more like a partial government shutdown, Toomey said.

.
.
."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55087.html#ixzz1Me4X4nkx

But people don't necessarily want it to spend less. Yes, as an abstract principle, they may say "spend less." But when it comes to any specific program at all, they don't want cuts.

Zoinks, you're treading on the very definition of what it means to be an American: we're big fat pigs (as Morrissey sings). We want big cars, big houses, big waists, etc. Thrift is for losers...burrrp! S'cuse me.

People do want to spend less -- or at least not more -- of their money. I think tom's talking about people who aren't interested in spending less of other people's money.

But they passed a budget that requires that these spends be made.

But if you a'int got money, you a'int got money. If there are insufficient funds to spend then all new spending needs to be stopped.

Posted By: SteveBut they passed a budget that requires that these spends be made.

Exactly. This whole thing is political farce. The time to decide to spend less is when a budget is being passed. Not when some imaginary limit is approached. Did any of the people who voted for the budget not know this wad going to be an issue?

Posted By: ZoinksBut if you a'int got money, you a'int got money. If there are insufficient funds to spend then all new spending needs to be stopped.

that has absolutely nothing to do with the debt limit.

Posted By: cjcI think tom's talking about people who aren't interested in spending less of other people's money.

Actually I'm talking about the vast majority, according to all the polls. The "other people's money" canard is getting tired. As Reingold often points out, all taxation is such that somebody is paying more, and somebody else is getting more. That's life in civil society, we all get to pay to have the bridges fixed even though some use them more than others.

So are you in favor of me having to spend more of my money paying interest on the national debt so BP and Exxon can continue to get their tax breaks? It looks like all the Republicans in Congress are.

Posted By: ZoinksIf there are insufficient funds to spend then all new spending needs to be stopped.

Or revenue needs to increase.

You know, running government like a household. If you don't have enough money to cover your expenses, you can also try to get more income.

What government service is NOT funded by other people's money? That's what taxes are: other people's money. You repeatedly appear, cjc, to oppose taxation categorically.

a lot of "other people's money" goes to blowing s*** up all over the world. I wish we didn't spend so much money on that. but we do, and we don't seem ready to stop, do we? so if we're going to continue spending a fortune on blowing s*** up, the least we can do is continue to spend money on old people's retirements.

Everyone wants the government to spend less. But no one will give up their Medicare (or put in truly effective cost controls, eg single-payer) and few people have the guts to take a meat slicer to the defense and 'homeland security' budgets that have grown to grotesque proportions.

we should certainly have a discussion about how much money is spent on terminally ill elderly people whose quality of life is not expected to ever improve (death panels!! aaahhhh!!). it might make more sense from a humanitarian and fiscal perspective to give people hospice care that allows them death with dignity and keeps them comfortable in their last days.

but otherwise, why should elderly people expect cuts to services that lengthen their healthy life spans? why should they accept cuts when no one with the authority to do anything about it suggests cutting the funds for wars that continue to kill thousands to no apparenet useful end?

Posted By: dave23Everyone wants the government to spend less. But no one will give up their Medicare (or put in truly effective cost controls, eg single-payer) and few people have the guts to take a meat slicer to the defense and 'homeland security' budgets that have grown to grotesque proportions.

Now there's the truth!

Posted By: ml1why should elderly people expect cuts to services that lengthen their healthy life spans? why should they accept cuts when no one with the authority to do anything about it suggests cutting the funds for wars that continue to kill thousands to no apparently useful end?

Amen!

President Ron Paul will cut defense spending.

Posted By: ZoinksPresident Ron Paul will cut defense spending.

Never gonna happen. For all their libertarian bravado, the Tea Party candidates are beholden to the GOP and no politician courting the republican vote will vote to cut defense spending.

Congress would likely restore any cuts to defense or the creepily named Department of Homeland Security proposed by any president.

Posted By: ZoinksPresident Ron Paul will cut defense spending.

How?

By being obstinate with Congress. I can not see him being too upset at shutting the government down for a while.

He should run with Barney Frank. (Unicorns and rainbows.)

hey if we're talking Ron Paul, why not Bernie Sanders? or Bruce Springsteen?

Posted By: ml1hey if we're talking Ron Paul, why not Bernie Sanders? or Bruce Springsteen?

Mr. Springsteen would probably have the same response as he did back in 2003, when he was asked about the effort that some had started to try to get him to run for Senate -

Springsteen: Well, first that’s a real job. And I’ve spent the musician’s life is to avoid real work for as long as you can. You know (laughs). And I’ve been successful in doing so. That’s why they call it playin’.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/3079783/ns/today-toyota_concert_series_on_today/

tom -- when most people don't have enough money to run a household, they try to get more income by improving their existing position or getting a second job. Few are able to tap their neighbors by force of law.

Tom -- it's one thing to ask for increased government spending and be willing to pay more. It's quite another to demand existing unsustainable entitlements be kept whole for yourself, and then pay for it largely by taxing "someone else" which IS the current Democrat position on entitlements. Sure -- other people's money goes to fund vehicles of comfort and service for fellow citizens. That's not the issue.

And it is still another to give vast sums to your favorite charities (like big oil) when you can't pay the bills.

What are you talking about?

I know very, very few people who have no budget sacred cows. how different is someone who's pro-war and pro-defense spending saying "keep your government hands off my defense spending" from a retiree saying "keep your government hands off my Medicare?" is it different just because the person supporting continued defense spending isn't receiving a check directly from the government? nearly *everyone* wants to continue spending "other people's money" on some pet expenditure that they consider untouchable.

Some programs of the government are appropriate and some aren't. Some are even in the nstitution. Of course, what's appropriate is in the eye of the beholder, especially someone who thinks the general welfare and the public good means taxpayer money in their pocket to augment their own personal lives.

...or someone who thinks "the general welfare" is meaningless, and there's no such thing as "the public good."