The GOP House of Representatives, Shutting Down the Government

1. 86

   peoplepower73posted 2 years ago

   The new House of Representatives is ready to shut down the government because they don’t want to pay for the countries bills that were accrued in the last fiscal year. So they want to hold the country hostage until they get what they want, which is to lower spending for the next fiscal year. 
   
   However, that debt has to be paid sooner or later and the debt ceiling has to be raised in order to fund the next fiscal year. The National Debt is different.  When a president takes office, they assume the national debt that was created by the previous president.
   
   After watching Marjory Taylor Green, Lauren Boebert, George Santos, Kevin McCarthy, and the entire crew of the GOP Freshman House of Representatives, I can now understand their motives and behavior   It’s all about the Dunning-Kruger Effect. 
   
   The Dunning-Kruger effect is: "People with low skill levels draw wrong conclusions and make wrong decisions, but they are unable to make mistakes because of their low skill levels."
   
   Let's decipher: the lack of understanding of the mistakes committed leads to the conviction of one's own correctness and, as a result, an increased confidence in one's own decisions and in oneself, as well as the awareness of one's superiority.
   
   Thus, the Dunning-Kruger effect is a psychological paradox that we all often face in life: less competent people see themselves as professionals, while more competent people tend to doubt themselves and their own abilities fade. The lower the skill level, the greater the confidence in oneself.
   
   The starting point of their research Dunning and Kruger called Charles Darwin's famous claims: "Ignorance breeds confidence more often than knowledge" and Bertrand Russell: "It is one of the unfortunate things of our time that those who are confident are stupid, and those who have imagination or understanding are full of doubt and indecision."
   
   This explains a lot about why people who are not qualified to be in government positions were elected and are now in positions of influence, especially the GOP House.

   replyreport
   1. 75

      wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      "The new House of Representatives is ready to shut down the government because they don’t want to pay for the countries bills that were accrued in the last fiscal year."
      
      As always the truth is the loser.  The House is ready to shut down in order to begin the end of the massive deficit spending that is killing our country...while opponents refuse to agree to anything but more spending.  The demands of the Republicans have nothing to do with past bills, but only with future spending habits.  On the other hand Democrats refuse to address the spending, demanding that bills be paid without any agreement to address a known, ruinous problem.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Willowarborposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

         "As always the truth is the loser.  The House is ready to shut down in order to begin the end of the massive deficit spending that is killing our country...while opponents refuse to agree to anything but more spending.  The demands of the Republicans have nothing to do with past bills, but only with future spending habits. "
         
         And the ugly bill that just passed "massive deficit spending".  How do you feel about the passage of a hefty increase to our deficit in order to fund the spending on a tax break for the wealthy?  You still feel that deficit spending is killing the country?

         replyreport
         1. 82

            Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            I think proof is in the end product--- seems this has been proven over and over again regarding the true cost of legislation. Think, you could wait on that?
            
            Obama Stimulus Package (ARRA, 2009)
            Estimated Cost: $787 billion
            
            Final Cost: Over $830 billion
            
            Impact Debate: Some economists say it helped stave off deeper recession; others argue much of it was poorly targeted or wasteful
            
            Why It Was Off: Difficulty modeling stimulus multipliers, and shifting economic conditions.
            
            Obamacare / Affordable Care Act (2010)
            Original CBO Estimate (2010): $938 billion over 10 years
            
            Later Projections (2015): Exceeded $1.2 trillion
            
            Why It Changed: Enrollment was lower than expected at first, but subsidies and Medicaid expansion drove up federal costs. Employer behavior also shifted in unexpected ways.
            
            Medicare (1965)
            Original Estimate: $9 billion/year by 1990
            
            Actual Cost in 1990: Over $110 billion
            
            Why It Was Wrong: Underestimated the growth in healthcare costs, increased life expectancy, and expanded services.
            
            Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit (Part D, 2003)
            Initial Estimate (by Bush Administration): $400 billion over 10 years
            
            Revised Estimate (soon after): $534 billion over 10 years
            
            Actual Cost (by 2013): Closer to $150 billion lower than the original projection
            
            Why It Was Off (Both Ways): Initial underestimate of uptake and price; later, generic drugs and competitive bidding helped lower costs.
            
            You seem to put trust in predictions, when our very history shows that the very majority of the time, they are wrong. I could write a very long book on this issue. Do some research, perhaps it will give you a better picture of the predictors and their predictions.
            
            At this point, we have no idea if or how much Trump's bill may or may not add to the deficit.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Willowarborposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

               Why was there "proof". Of harm in all things Biden did or proposed fiscally? .  One only needs to look back at all the posts on this forum citing the examples... But now none of that should be applied to trump?
               
               I am only asking Maga folks to use the same principles that they previously applied to Biden and use them on Trump... I'm asking for some consistency of thought

               replyreport
   2. 82

      Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I would think that the Government debt is getting very much out of control. We may be entering a situation that is unique, and dangerous to not only America but the world.
      
      Please consider, what could happen if the US debt keeps rising.
      The higher the national debt becomes, the more the U.S. is seen as a global credit risk.   This could impact the U.S.'s ability to borrow money in times of increased global pressure and put us at risk for not being able to meet our obligations to our allies—especially in wartime. At this point, we are supporting a proxy war. We are spending billions on the Ukraine war.
      
      So, let's consider where the US borrows cash to support our budget spending. Because this is very important and deserves consideration.
      
      Many people are under the impression that much of the U.S. national debt is owed to foreign countries. And that we have no real problems securing loans.  Yes, we do borrow lots of money from countries such as  China and Japan. https://www.statista.com/statistics/246 … sury-debt/
      
      However, the truth is that most of what the US owed is to Social Security and pension funds right here in the U.S. This means that U.S. citizens own most of the national debt.
      
      So, do you feel we should keep an open debt ceiling? Do you feel we actually can continue to spend and borrow? 
      
      Yes, we have followed this path for years --- But can we continue to follow this path?
      
      The higher the national debt becomes, the more the U.S. is seen as a global credit risk  What if it becomes a problem to borrow? What if we are charged a higher percentage to borrow?
      
      Perhaps it is not so irresponsible for the Republicans to say, we need to become more responsible with our spending, and not be on board with lifting the debt ceiling.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         Well they had no qualms about lifting the debt ceiling three times under Mr Trump's administration after his tax cut ballooned the deficit by 7 trillion under that administration.  So now is the time to act? More performative politics.  They need to stop playing a game of chicken with the economy.

         replyreport
         1. 86

            peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Faye;  This is to backup your comment about Trump and his Tax Cut.
            
            https://www.propublica.org/article/national-debt-trump

            replyreport
      2. 86

         peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

         Sharlee: 
         
         We do have a proxy war with Russia.  Would you rather have us cut off funding to Ukraine?  The alternative is we go to war with Russia.
         
         We have to pay the debt we incurred in the previous fiscal year.  I don't care how long they shutdown the government.  The government was shutdown in the past and it reduced our credit rating on the world market.
         
         The debt ceiling has to be raised in order to fund our needs for the next fiscal year.  Social Security is on both sides of the equation.  It is revenue when people pay into it, but also an expense when the treasury pays it out.  Privatizing it presents opportunity to those who take advantage of people who are not savvy about investing..
         
         The current shutdown mantra is a powerplay by the GOP house and is an exercise in futility.  Do you think Biden and the senate will approve such a bill. Each president inherits the national debt of the previous president when they take office. Trump inherited Obama's national debt and whoever becomes the next president will inherit Biden's national debt.
         
         Here is the conclusion I wrote in hub pages about the national debt in June of 2022
         
         Each president and congress talk about reducing the deficit and/or balancing the budget. There are really only two variables that have to be dealt with: income (taxes) and spending (expenses). But there is one sub-variable on the spending side of the equation and that is interest on the debt. The country is so far in debt that it can't even pay the interest on the debt. It has to take on more debt by issuing different types of bonds to various public, private, and foreign entities.
         
         Various scenarios have been put forth to reduce the deficit. They include the following:
         
         Lowering taxes and cutting spending
         Raising taxes and cutting spending
         Lowering taxes and raising spending
         Raising taxes and raising spending
         
         Conclusion
         
         All of these scenarios will have an impact on the economy and job creation. But given the amount of debt that has been created, I don't see any of these being able to reduce the deficit by any great degree. It begs many questions:
         
         Have we come to a way of life, where we will live with debt for the foreseeable future?
         
         Does it really matter that we have a debt and deficit if the government can issues bonds that create more debt?
         
         Are we in a vicious cycle of debt creation?
         
         When a person or organization cannot pay their bills, they are bankrupt. Is this country bankrupt, but the government won't tell us?
         
         Should the government be compared to a business if it can create money by issuing bonds?
         
         Here is the current national debt clock in real time.
         
         https://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html

         replyreport
         1. 82

            Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            "We do have a proxy war with Russia.  Would you rather have us cut off funding to Ukraine?  The alternative is we go to war with Russia."
            
            You miss reading the context of my mention of the war. My point --- we are spending a lot of money at this point on many things that are to be considered.
            
            My comment was to point out, the buck must stop somewhere or we as a Nation will be in trouble, and could literally take down the world's economy with us.
            
            All your points are valid and make wonderful sense.   My response was just pointing out another side of raising the debt ceiling.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Willowarborposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

               So where does the buck stop? Maga just raised the debt ceiling, I Believe by 5 trillion?

               replyreport
               1. 75

                  wildernessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Biden increased our debt load by 6T in 4 years.  If Trump holds it to 5T over the next 10 years I would be pretty pleased.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Willowarborposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                     Nah.  The point is, Maga folks felt so strongly that these issues of debt ,  deficit and spending were  so crucially important during the Biden Administration but looks as if those beliefs have conveniently been tossed aside currently.... Because dear leader says those things don't matter.

                     replyreport
                     1. 75

                        wildernessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                        And you say that because...Trump is projecting a budget that will go from increasing debt 1.5T per year to 0.5T per year? 
                        
                        Doesn't sound like very good reasoning to me.

                        replyreport
                     2. 82

                        Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                        I don;t think anyone here has pointed out what Biden added to the National debt other than me --- I showed he came out better than the other presidents that held office. Your diverting.  Biden got the gold star. LOL
                        
                        How did you feel about the two major bills Obama offered up and the results of the true factual costs of both?
                        
                        As of early July 2025, the U.S. national debt stands at approximately $36.2 trillion
                        
                        You seem to ignore facts when they are presented to prove a point.
                        
                        Our long history shows that we really don't see the results of what any bill costs for many years after we have lived with the results.

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           Willowarborposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                           My point is, maga constantly  used the talking points during the Biden administration  that excessive government spending, enlarging  the deficit, raising the debt were absolutely wrong.... One only needs to look back on these forums to see the concerns by maga folks posted over and over again.... Yet now? Those grave concerns have disappeared.  I suppose I need to highlight more of them to make my point?

                           replyreport
               2. 82

                  Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                  No, they did not--- keep in mind, this is a prediction. Please check out all the failed predictions I offer up to you. 
                  
                  Today --- As of early July 2025, the U.S. national debt stands at approximately $36.2 trillion 
                  
                  Maybe we have a look at the day Trump moves out of the White House.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Willowarborposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                     Maga folks on this forum relied on analysis, continually used references to analysis as it related to anything Biden did or attempted to do but now I'm supposed to question analysis? 
                     
                     It's odd that the success rate of these analysis was never pointed out when used by maga previously.  It's very hard to consider an individual's an argument of today when it is the opposite of the one they had a few months ago.
                     
                     And yes, The final legislation lifts the nation's debt limit by $5 trillion.

                     replyreport
      3. 60

         Willowarborposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

         Still the same concern today?

         replyreport
         1. 82

            Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            I've had this concern for over 30 years, and it's certainly not going away today. That said, I'm not going to predict exactly how much this bill will add to the deficit. Historically, though, nearly every major spending bill of this scale has increased the national debt, and I’ve given examples to illustrate that point. I do believe Trump’s plan has the potential to perform better than expected, and it’s possible it won’t add as much to the deficit as critics predict.
            
            President Donald Trump has outlined several strategies he believes will offset the costs of his comprehensive tax and spending bill, known as the "One Big Beautiful Bill." He asserts that the tax reductions included in the bill will stimulate economic growth, which, in turn, will increase federal revenues. Trump argues that the anticipated economic expansion will help offset the initial revenue losses resulting from the tax cuts.
            
            To manage federal spending, the bill proposes reevaluating the costs of social welfare programs such as Medicaid aiming to find more efficient solutions rather than outright cuts.
            
            The bill includes provisions designed to prevent migrants, including asylees and those here illegally, from receiving federal government services such as emergency medical care and public education for their children, regardless of status. It also elimination limited health programs, like prenatal care and vaccinations, that have been available to pregnant women and children, with the intent that these benefits “will no longer be a drain on taxpayers.”
            
            The legislation also allocates approximately $350 billion for border security and immigration enforcement, including funding for a border wall and increased detention facilities. Trump suggests that these measures will reduce illegal immigration, potentially decreasing the need for certain public assistance programs and thus saving federal funds.  Additionally, the bill would strip asylees of access to temporary cash assistance, medical aid, food support, and housing help, and would make undocumented migrants ineligible for most federal public benefits, such as Medicaid (aside from emergency services), SNAP, TANF, and housing subsidies. In essence, while the legislation seeks to restrict access to these services for many migrants, basic emergency care and education would still be reserved largely for citizens, lawful residents, refugees, and asylees.
            
            In addition, Trump announced the reciprocal" tariffs plans on countries with significant trade deficits with the U.S. He claims these tariffs will boost domestic production, create jobs, and generate revenue, which could help offset the costs of the bill. Furthermore, Trump has directed the establishment of a U.S. sovereign wealth fund, aiming to invest in profitable ventures and generate returns that could contribute to reducing the national debt. While the fund’s success is yet to be seen, it represents another avenue through which the administration hopes to alleviate fiscal pressures.
            
            Overall, Trump’s plan relies on a combination of economic growth, spending efficiency, tariffs, and strategic investments to help offset the costs of the legislation. All of these factors, and possibly more, could significantly influence the final cost of the “Big Beautiful Bill.” Projecting its full financial impact is difficult, especially under a president who continuously reevaluates policies and responds to evolving economic conditions. Frankly, it baffles me that any agency or economist would confidently make predictions, given that we’ve never seen an agenda quite like this, or a leader quite like the one driving it.
            
            This is the same guy they all laughed at when he came down that elevator, but I doubt they’re still laughing now. In many ways, he’s ended up shaping a whole new movement under the banner of the "Grand Old Party." What they’ll end up calling it, who knows—wink, wink.

            replyreport
2. 84

   Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

   uh, many politicians on the left, in front of cameras, read from their notes as though they have never seen them before. They apparently are given the words to read out loud and they read them very obediently. After all, they can read. They are that smart, after all!
   
   However, if they understood what they read and the ramifications of what they read, they wouldn't read them. So, they are not that smart!
   Am I very smart for noticing this phenomenon?
   Not really. It is very obvious to anyone who watches these politicians.

   replyreport