Will the US default?

[Riceball]

There's an awful lot of red on that board (red denoting spending increases) from both sides.

[j]

That chart is interesting (except the last point lol), but nothing really surprising.

Not that I think any currently sitting politicians fit this paradigm, but I hate that any desire to cut spending in a broad area will be met with the opposition spinning it to "that guy doesn't care about this issue or think it is important".  For example, I think our public education system (largely) and most of our social welfare programs suck large sums of dick.  They're ineffective, inefficient, and abused to hell.  I wouldn't pour more money into those period without the imminent prospect of implementing serious reform.  But I'm FOR such programs on principle.

Same goes for defense, I'd cut the fuck out of that, but that doesn't mean I hate America and want to expose it to terror attacks.  We're just hemorrhaging a ton of funds in the name of "security" that's actually a gigantic waste.

But you won't see a Democrat do the former or a Republican the latter in normal times, it'd be political suicide.  They'll barely budge NOW, on the brink of a default.  Yeah, reform costs money too, but you never reach that point of consideration with everybody harping on the flat dollar amount.

Flying in the face of the point of the rest of my post--so that we can judge each other based on our preferences for budget cuts--if you had to pick 5 programs from that list to cut significantly, what would they be (excluding the last one obviously)?  I'd probably go with defense, space exploration, drug addiction, foreign aid, and either welfare or "environment", depending upon what that last one entails.  Keep in mind I'm not sure what "child care" or "problems of big cities" entail either, but I'd probably cut them instead of one of the others if i did.

I'd INCREASE spending (carefully and properly allocated of course) on alternative energy, even now.  Biggest failure of this country's government over the last 30+ years is inadequate investment in alternate energy sources.

-J

[Super Dude]

Actually my priorities line up pretty well with Democrats on the chart (the top 4), and then begrudingly conceding drug addiction (in favor of my pro-environment programs).

[MasterShakezula]

If I had my way, all those categories (Except for Alt. energy, highways, and scientific research)  in that chart would get their fair share of cuts.

With defense, foreign aid, welfare, space, Social Security, and health care getting particularly massive cuts.

The fact that the gov. has spent so much of its money over the years to the point of being in trillions of dollars of debt is rather shameful. 

[Riceball]

I find it quite interesting also that both parties have a high propensity to cut foreign aid.

My final snippet observation is that the Welfare index is quite high for the Democrats to be honest; based on a ranking its their fourth-lowest spending priority (or fouth-highest cutting priority). That amazes me.

[Super Dude]

I find it quite interesting also that both parties have a high propensity to cut foreign aid.

My final snippet observation is that the Welfare index is quite high for the Democrats to be honest; based on a ranking its their fourth-lowest spending priority (or fouth-highest cutting priority). That amazes me.

While I can't explain that second one except to say prioritizing sometimes sacrifices even pet projects, the first one may have more to do with the long and hard road Bosnia and Kosovo have met going towards stability (note I didn't mention Iraq or Afghanistan).  Nation-building requires a lot of money, which we don't have atm.

[eric42434224]

Afghanistan).  Nation-building requires a lot of money, which we don't have atm.

atm   

[antigoon]

Looks like this game is coming to a close. I'm sure Obama's top donors are quite pleased with the deal.

[ReaPsTA]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-i-voted-against-the-debt-deal/2011/08/02/gIQArHlopI_story.html

So assuming Tom Coburn is right, which I'm willing to do (for better or worse, his actions reflect his beliefs), then nothing happened.  What a surprise?

[Progmetty]

Nation-building requires a lot of money, which we don't have atm.

Super Dude I just gotta ask cause I've been confused for a long ass time; where are you from?!?

[Super Dude]

Murrca.  Fuck yeah.

[Scheavo]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-i-voted-against-the-debt-deal/2011/08/02/gIQArHlopI_story.html

So assuming Tom Coburn is right, which I'm willing to do (for better or worse, his actions reflect his beliefs), then nothing happened.  What a surprise?

I still wonder if this wasn't all known theatrics. Both sides laughing, trying to play up their base, and all along knowing, hey, at the last minute here's the deal we put forward.

[ReaPsTA]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-i-voted-against-the-debt-deal/2011/08/02/gIQArHlopI_story.html

So assuming Tom Coburn is right, which I'm willing to do (for better or worse, his actions reflect his beliefs), then nothing happened.  What a surprise?

I still wonder if this wasn't all known theatrics. Both sides laughing, trying to play up their base, and all along knowing, hey, at the last minute here's the deal we put forward.

Sorta.  Obviously all the stuff about helping people is meaningless and silly.  But both sides were making the other look politically stupid, and a default would obviously be horrible for them.  So the stakes were legitimate.

But this whole thing where Obama gets angry about the Republicans hurting the future of America while Boehner acts like they're trying to protect the underrepresented part of America?  All bullshit.

[Super Dude]

In the starkest, bluntest sense, political posturing has a single goal: the party not in power wants to make sure the party in power has the hardest time possible getting things done during their "term" and that the least possible progress is achieved; if they manage to make it look like the party in power hurt the nation in their time as the dominant party, all the better.  That translates into a switcheroo the next time presidential, congressional, and other elections roll around.  Then the ousted party will do the same.

[j]

In the starkest, bluntest sense, political posturing has a single goal: the party not in power wants to make sure the party in power has the hardest time possible getting things done during their "term" and that the least possible progress is achieved; if they manage to make it look like the party in power hurt the nation in their time as the dominant party, all the better.  That translates into a switcheroo the next time presidential, congressional, and other elections roll around.  Then the ousted party will do the same.

I'm so proud of you SD. *wipes away a tear*  You're really coming around!

-J

[Super Dude]

I've espoused that theory since I began really getting involved in these debates. Just I'd rather have the party in power be the one with good, sound policies that have the future in mind (i.e. Dems) than those set on eating the seed corn. If they have to play said game to enact such policies, well so be it.

[Riceball]

Thats the beauty and frustration of democratic politics; the incentive is always there to wreck and ruin the plans of the other guy to further your own chances of being elected.

[Super Dude]

So parliamentary democracy is about the same?  Because I'd think the coalition element would foster cooperation, not rivalry.

[Riceball]

Well, I think within coalitions, particularly in the instance Australia finds itself in at the moment (a 'hung' parliament, where neither major party won an outright majority and government was determined by a couple of independent MPs), there is certainly co-operation as the major party in the coalition has to keep the minor parties in the coalition happy, otherwise they lose government. But, at the same time, within the coalition there is no doubt tension as these independents who helped the major party form government hold a massive amount of power, and so can bargain for things in their favour. This has definately been whats happened in Australia: we've had poker machine reform that was unnecessary, are holding a tax forum which won't achieve anything, have developed a carbon pricing mechanism, are spending AU$43 billion on a broadband network thats (mainly) for rural areas; all which were demanded by independent MPs in the "bargaining phase" after our last election.

That situation also means that the opposition has alot more power than usual, as all it takes is for one of the independent MPs to side with them and they can do all kinds of stuff to wreck the Government. While it may be parliamentary democracy in its purest form; it sucks, it makes things 10 times more difficult, and at the end of the day pretty much nothing of substance has been achieved over the past 12 months.

I've probably not answered your question, reading that back it seems like  a bit of a rant. Maybe politics has invaded my prose now too 

[Super Dude]

Believe me, coming from our country's system, I can totally understand your frustration.