It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Congress Passes Continued Funding -- Lots of No Votes

page: 2
27
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2017 @ 09:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: projectvxn

So you're the authority on everything economic? There were multiple polls from outlets with both Right and Left biases. I don't think a single one was in favor of the bill. But feel free to keep acting like the majority are in favor of it.


At my job is a large quantity of tree hugging liberal Trump haters, but all everyone was talking about at breaks was how the tax cuts were going to help the company and their jobs with higher pay and good things happening because of the tax cuts. Which means the polls are political nonsense unless everyone is polled, otherwise how can they be accurate? because someone represents the poll as accurate? It can't be accurate.




posted on Dec, 21 2017 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Just because they voted no on a bill certainly doesn’t mean they don’t want to fund CHIP. In the GOP bill maybe there are tricks or help the rich pork they always sneak in a bill



posted on Dec, 21 2017 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: fltcui

fisa reauthorization might explain why some of the republicans voted no, but I really don't believe it's the reason why many dems did...
although, I have no idea why they voted no. kind of makes me wonder if maybe something else was slipped into the bill.



posted on Dec, 21 2017 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

I think most of the "No" votes had that in mind.

No pork today that I can see.




posted on Dec, 21 2017 @ 09:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: JinMI

The reality is, congress and the president are going to have to come up with cuts. Cuts that make sense, cuts that are deep, and in some cases cuts that will be wildly unpopular, yet necessary.

The continuing resolution to raise the debt ceiling is, as we all know, a stopgap measure. Without a comprehensive budget that calls for cuts the tax breaks we get now will simply turn into debt tomorrow.

If I don’t start hearing about cuts come January, preferably during the state of the union address, then I’ll just have to assume that President Trump has no intention of changing the disastrous course of our fiscal house, and congress will once again shirk their duty.







I have a prediction, these cuts will affect people in the middle class and lower, the spending cuts will come in the form of services that benefit people in that area ,and most likely rely on. Any saving in tax will be far outweighsed by other increased costs.



posted on Dec, 21 2017 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

They over sample democrats to push their narrative. However, anyone that listens to polls after the 2016 election is permanently out to lunch! Just like Clinton would win hands down....yea right!



posted on Dec, 21 2017 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

and state budget, when it comes to medicaid, schools and such, the federal gov't has alot of mandates the states have to meet.
the mandates won't change, people will still be eligible for the same services, ect, but with the federal paying less, the states will be responsible for more... and will have to increase state income taxes and sales taxes.

to be honest, I think the republicans have lost all sense of sincerity if they start whining about how there is a crisis in the budget and the deficit that requires drastic cuts now, after they have passed this nice huge tax cut that aims mostly at the upper classes and corps. they wouldn't be able to cut enough out of the budget to make up for the money that they've just gave up, let alone do anything to improve our deficit. any sacrifices they require the common folk to make now, will only be made to benefit those who got the greatest tax cuts, has nothing to do with cutting the budget or being more fiscally responsible as a nation......
I think that the first thing they all should cut is their own danged salaries, in half, since their actions are the reason we are all gonna be hurting in the long run!



posted on Dec, 21 2017 @ 10:29 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

I agree wholeheartedly.



posted on Dec, 22 2017 @ 12:52 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Why does congress need to make cuts?



posted on Dec, 22 2017 @ 12:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: projectvxn

Why does congress need to make cuts?


Because we're 20 trillion in debt.

We may need to start cutting down the size of agencies or eliminating entire departments.



posted on Dec, 22 2017 @ 01:11 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Debt and deficits don’t matter. We found that out yesterday. You cutters are lying to the American people and have been for 30 yrs. They are beginning to see. Even the gods guns and girls people are lifting the veil and see.



posted on Dec, 22 2017 @ 01:15 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

You are unbelievably dramatic, accusatory, and economically illiterate.



posted on Dec, 22 2017 @ 01:25 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

At what trillion will the deficit be too high and the wheels will stop turning? It hasn’t hurt the US at 20 trillion.

I like these new republicans that like to spend. Hell I might even vote for one.



posted on Dec, 22 2017 @ 01:48 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

If debt doesn't matter then stop paying any credit cards, bills of any kind really.

Who cares right?

Hell, you might as well take out another line of credit and go blow it on bull# because...Debt doesn't matter, right? So why not?

Why not overextend? Why not spend to excess.

Hell, let's raise taxes on everyone by 90% and then spend that away too. It doesn't matter, right?

I love your so-called arguments. They're entertaining for the childishness.
edit on 22 12 17 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2017 @ 02:06 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Then you must not have liked the new tax plan and it’s cost.

You are the economic expert. At what trillion or gazillion will bring us down. When we hit that number, I’ll care about the deficit.



posted on Dec, 22 2017 @ 05:52 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

We don't know what that amount will be. It will likely cover a range... at some point, the economy weakens, and continues to weaken as the debt increases, until it finally collapses. Just like if you started borrowing more than you could pay, each month would get harder and harder until you were finally forced into bankruptcy.

I would say that the debt is already responsible for the painfully slow recovery from the last recession. Our GDP growth during the past several years has been far below what it used to be and middle-class income, in terms of purchasing power, has fallen. Charitable contributions have nose-dived. Food stamp recipients, meaning those who could not afford to eat, hit new records. Fuel prices ballooned. Real inflation on inferior goods skyrocketed. Unemployment was rampant.

Today, 11 months after Trump was elected, food stamp use is down, inferior goods inflation has slowed, employment is recovering, and fuel cost has dropped. The reason is simple: businessmen understand the economy and a businessman is in charge. The new tax plan will work, and those who run the country's businesses know that. The increase in GDP, which we have already seen exceed expectations, means there is more income to tax and thus there is more tax revenue to take in. That will lower the rate of debt increase (aka the deficit), and might later even reverse it (a surplus).

This is not pie-in-the-sky. It's a science called economics. If you had a choice between 10% of $100,000 or 5% of $500,000, which one would be worth more? Hint: it's not the 10%. 10% would net you $10,000, while 5% would net you $25,000.

There will likely be cutbacks, but the government is chock full of places where that can happen without hurting anyone. For instance, all government agencies operate on a budget that is adjusted each year. An agency which saves money is punished by having their budget cut the following year, while an agency that wastes more than their budget allows gets rewarded with a budget increase. That's backwards. Simply hold budgets to their original levels unless there is a serious and real monetary issue, and reward those in the agency with a portion of the money saved in the form of a bonus.

As an example, if agency A has a budget of $1,000,000 and does their job with $800,000, put $100,000 back into the treasury and pay out $100,000 in bonuses, then give them a $1,000,000 budget the following year. If Agency B has the same budget and spends it all, nothing goes to bonuses. If they use $1,100,000 then the manager(s) need to be called on the carpet to either explain why they went over budget or be fired. This way, efficiency is rewarded, wastefulness is discouraged, and money is saved. Do this for a few hundred agencies, and a lot of money is saved.

Businesses have been doing this for centuries, and have prospered because of it.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 22 2017 @ 06:08 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Too bad i can't applaud this post, man. Because it is exactly correct, especially in how the budgets are not executed properly in the planning.

Ill add: the deficit "doesn't matter" is a misnomer. That is said because the deficit is in US dollars, payed in US dollars. The inflation of the US dollar (we get about 3% rot annually) makes the debt less. Or, to put it another way....we print the everloving hell out of money, and there are more dollars to pay the same debt with.

The rub to this is that the dollar is then devalued. Which isn't necessarily terrible if you are trying to manage your economy. Whats terrible is allowing it to continue now for a decade. I mean, its not like the dollar had held its value up through 2008. Since 2008 its been quite a bit worse, and we all feel it when we use that dollar to buy groceries that are packaged in smaller quantities. I'd be interested to see how beef consumption has changed in the US over the last 10 years, as its been priced pretty high for awhile now.



posted on Dec, 22 2017 @ 06:20 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

We need a budget and know more kicking the can down the road. We also need both parties to get their heads out of their arses and speak to the people and tell them how much this budget is going to hurt. If we are going to get out of this mess we all are going to have to make sacrifices. I say our first step should be taking all the perks away from our so called representatives that got us in this mess. We should also cut their pay in half. Its a start.



posted on Dec, 22 2017 @ 07:00 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

It's rare that we can afford beef. We do get it when we can, on sale, but not at full price.

In a completely failing economy, the prices would be falling by now. That's what happened during the Great Depression: people lost all they had, and suddenly the prices were driving the demand to zero. Producers of goods reluctantly were forced to lower prices or cease to operate. But today, the main driving force behind the recession is the lack of jobs. We are living in a time when there are two distinct classes of people: those who have decent income and those who don't. Mobility from those who don't to those who do is difficult, but the opposite direction is a regular concern because it can happen overnight as businesses close or move overseas.

Those with decent income can still manage to buy the things we all need, like beef, so the prices stay up for the most part. That puts those without a decent income at a more severe disadvantage. Even worse, is the fact that the demand for inferior goods has risen sharply; too many people can't afford the superior goods (aka name brands) any more. Inflation is calculated using superior goods, so the inflation resulting from this increased demand for inferior goods is not reported. Sure, the store brand of beans costs double what it did a few years ago, but that doesn't matter because Green Giant beans are about the same price as before.

Fuel is not considered... neither is electricity. The result is we hear how inflation is under control, but we see the cost of living rising. This hits those on fixed income even worse than others, because the COLA raises each year are based on reported inflation, not true inflation.

We are entering an uncharted territory of trickle-down poverty. If nothing is done, everyone will eventually be thrust into poverty, one by one, while the rest sit there with scorn in their eyes because they are still doing good. In some cases, they are doing better than before, because businesses are loathe to hire new employees, preferring to work their existing employees overtime when there is a demand increase. It's just safer in the long term than taking on a new expense.

Thankfully, this is starting to change under Trump.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 22 2017 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

In any given month I complete 5 times the amount of work that I did 10 years ago. I know this to be true because 5 people no longer work for us, and I have absorbed their workload.

I make a little more than I used to, but not due to the tasks I perform. Its because of the knowledge I have being leveraged for incremental increases (im not a jerk, and won't hold my employer hostage when I might be able to)




top topics



 
27
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join