News Will the U.S. Economy Collapse Without Government Debt?

[turbo]

But I'm pretty sure you knew that. Abortion, not breast cancer screening, is the reason the GOP opposes their funding, despite absurd claims to the contrary by the left.

Despite the "absurd claims" Federal funds are not used to provide abortions, nor have they been for decades. Ever hear of Henry Hyde?

The Hyde Amendment
After Roe v. Wade decriminalized abortion in 1973, Medicaid covered abortion care without restriction. In 1976, Representative Henry Hyde (R-IL) introduced an amendment that later passed to limit federal funding for abortion care. Effective in 1977, this provision, known as the Hyde Amendment, specifies what abortion services are covered under Medicaid.

Over the past two decades, Congress has debated the limited circumstances under which federal funding for abortion should be allowed. For a brief period of time, coverage included cases of rape, incest, life endangerment, and physical health damage to the woman. However, beginning in 1979, the physical health exception was excluded, and in 1981 rape and incest exceptions were also excluded.

In September 1993, Congress rewrote the provision to include Medicaid funding for abortions in cases where the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. The present version of the Hyde Amendment requires coverage of abortion in cases of rape, incest, and life endangerment.

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/public_funding.html

 

[fss]

What matters is if the the money for the work was obligated prior to the shutdown or not.

"This is not exactly correct either." Even if funds are obligated beforehand, it the contract officer representative for the agency is designated as non-excepted and cannot provide adequate oversight, contractor furlough is authorized.

 

[Al68]

Despite the "absurd claims" Federal funds are not used to provide abortions, nor have they been for decades.

Did you misinterpret my post as claiming otherwise?

But in reality, if I give a drug addict $5 to buy a meal, the drug addict buys the meal with it, then uses another $5 he got somewhere else to buy drugs, I can't claim I didn't support his drug habit because "my" $5 paid for the meal, not the drugs. Dollars, being a fungible commodity, cannot logically be separated that way.

That being said, even if we "assign" the tax dollars to the breast screenings and private donations to the abortions, possibly under the assumption that Planned Parenthood would prioritize abortion funding if all they have is private funding, the fact still remains that abortion, not breast cancer screening, is the reason GOP opposes their funding.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

A: Give us money for breast cancer screenings or we won't be able to do them.
B: No. You'll just spend it on abortions.
A: There's no fear of that. We already have money for abortions.

 

[WhoWee]

I kind of like the idea of all non-essential gov't services shut-down... permanently. Being they aren't "essential" we could live without them and save... trillions?

Carefueful drankin - you might be recruited by the Tea Party to run for office.

This entire debate of $33bn or $38bn or even $100,000,000,000 is absurd when the annual deficit is over $1,500,000,000,000 - DRASTIC action is required ASAP (IMO).

 

[Al68]

A: Give us money for breast cancer screenings or we won't be able to do them.
B: No. You'll just spend it on abortions.
A: There's no fear of that. We already have money for abortions.

How about the drug addict asking for money:

A: Give me money for food, or I'll go hungry.
B: No. You'll just spend it on drugs.
A: There's no fear of that. I already have money for drugs.

 

[drankin]

Carefueful drankin - you might be recruited by the Tea Party to run for office.

This entire debate of $33bn or $38bn or even $100,000,000,000 is absurd when the annual deficit is over $1,500,000,000,000 - DRASTIC action is required ASAP (IMO).

Do I have to be a Tea Partier to think we shouldn't be spending money we don't have on non-essentials? Or does that make me a fanatic? :)

We need to take the Feds credit card away.

I heard a funny analogy today on the radio, "Their fighting over the bar tab while on the Titanic".

 

[WhoWee]

Planned Parenthood isn't all about abortion. They serve poor people (especially women) who need access to pap screening, breast cancer screening, rape counseling, general health issues, contraceptives, diagnosis and treatment of STDs, and yes, family planning. Having children is expensive to the parents, and to society at large (all of us taxpayers) if the parents can't properly provide for them.

"Planned Parenthood=abortion" is a dangerous game for the GOP to play. It plays to the religious right and to the Tea Party, but it doesn't conform to reality, including all the good that PP does, especially in poorer communities.

Disclaimer: My sister is a health-educator for a regional health center in rural Maine. She spends a great deal of her time educating young women and helping them establish a mind-set that avoids unwanted pregnancies. She also works on community outreach, and teaches prenatal health and Lamaze, as well as helping single mothers get in contact with agencies that can help with nutrition, etc.

IMO - you made several good points turbo. First, Planned Parenthood does provide a valuable "planning" and "educational" service to many young women and families. You've also pointed out that alternative health care facilities - such as the one your sister is affiliated with also provide essential services.

The problem I see is with your assertion that Planned Parenthood serves "poorer communities" - Medicaid helps with pregnancy. One example:
http://www.ncdhhs.gov/dma/medicaid/families.htm

Accordingly, Planned Parenthood also goes a little further:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/pregnancy/standard-21507.htm

http://www.ippfwhr.org/en/node/566

Their 2009 Annual Report:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/PPFA_Annual_Report_08-09-FINAL-12-10-10.pdf
Pages 28 and 29 specify they had nearly $1.2 billion in assets and roughly $1.1 billion in revenues for the year ending June 2009. These revenues included $363 million in Government funds, $404.9 million in "Health Center Income" and the rest from private contributors, affiliates and other (?) operating income. Please note, these numbers are nearly 2 years aged.

It is not clear (to me) that Planned Parenthood would not survive to provide "Health Services" without Government funding for education - something that is also done in schools and other healthcare venues.

 

[turbo]

Planned Parenthood's survival is not at stake. They charge for services depending on the clients' ability to pay. What is at stake is the GOP's credibility, when they use abortion as a dog-whistle for the religious right and the Tea Party, when they intend to block Federal funding for programs that perform essential services. Avoiding unwanted pregnancies and removing the need for abortions is the prime mover behind these reproductive-health programs, including the one that my sister represents. Every unwanted pregnancy brought to term by single mothers or impoverished parents that cannot provide properly for the children costs the state and US taxpayers more than we will ever know, including feeding, educating, and providing health care to those children, at a minimum.

Federal funding for Planned Parenthood is probably a huge net positive for taxpayers. I have no research to back that up, but I see what is happening in my old home town where my sister works, and I see what kind of respect she gets from the kids in high school, I have to believe that her efforts pay off. If her outreach can help sexually active girls get access to free or low-cost contraceptives and prevent at least a few unwanted pregnancies in that little town every year, the pittance that she is paid (much of her after-hours work is volunteer) repays itself by orders of magnitude in the reduction in the demands placed on social-service agencies.

 

[Char. Limit]

All I see are Tea Party Republicans opposing and blocking an entire budget because they disagree with something that's not in the budget. I know who I won't be voting for next year. Here's a hint: it's the guys who are potentially invalidating my federal student loans.

 

[drankin]

All I see are Tea Party Republicans opposing and blocking an entire budget because they disagree with something that's not in the budget. I know who I won't be voting for next year. Here's a hint: it's the guys who are potentially invalidating my federal student loans.

Backed by the bank of USA? The same government that backed all those bad housing loans? Another non-essential IMO.

 

[Char. Limit]

Backed by the bank of USA? The same government that backed all those bad housing loans? Another non-essential IMO.

HA. Non-essential to you, maybe. But I need those loans to continue to go to college. Unlike some people, I don't already have my life and lifestyle set.

 

[drankin]

HA. Non-essential to you, maybe. But I need those loans to continue to go to college. Unlike some people, I don't already have my life and lifestyle set.

What would you do if you didn't have a Federal Student Loan? This is part of the problem, everyone spending money they don't have instead of working and saving for what they want. I'm just as guilty of it. But this mindset is sinking this country. Congress is setting a budget way beyond what we can pay for even if the Repubs got their way.

 

[Char. Limit]

What would you do if you didn't have a Federal Student Loan? This is part of the problem, everyone spending money they don't have instead of working and saving for what they want. I'm just as guilty of it. But this mindset is sinking this country. Congress is setting a budget way beyond what we can pay for even if the Repubs got their way.

All right, I'll just quit college and get a job flipping burgers for the next 20 years. Maybe I'll live in a crappy one-room apartment too! And have no chance of getting up to those jobs that I aspire to that you know, require a college degree. It will be great!

 

[drankin]

All right, I'll just quit college and get a job flipping burgers for the next 20 years. Maybe I'll live in a crappy one-room apartment too! And have no chance of getting up to those jobs that I aspire to that you know, require a college degree. It will be great!

I'm not trying to give you a hard time. You can get loans outside of the Fed. And even if you didn't or couldn't you could work your way through. It takes longer, I know, but it's doable. It's hard to turn down easy money.

 

[drankin]

All right, I'll just quit college and get a job flipping burgers for the next 20 years. Maybe I'll live in a crappy one-room apartment too! And have no chance of getting up to those jobs that I aspire to that you know, require a college degree. It will be great!

But this brings about another point. If our gov't tanks due to overspending, there won't be a lot of jobs when you get out of school. You'll be flipping burgers with a degree on your application.

 

[Char. Limit]

I'm not trying to give you a hard time. You can get loans outside of the Fed. And even if you didn't or couldn't you could work your way through. It takes longer, I know, but it's doable. It's hard to turn down easy money.

The thing is though, I still have to pay those loans back. So it's not easy money at all, really.

EDIT: I just heard that the shutdown is being averted. Good, but I still don't trust those people in government to do a single thing right anymore.

 

[drankin]

The thing is though, I still have to pay those loans back. So it's not easy money at all, really.

EDIT: I just heard that the shutdown is being averted. Good, but I still don't trust those people in government to do a single thing right anymore.

Easy to get, hard to pay back. I hear you. Just like all the folks that bought houses they couldn't afford. IMO, we could scale back a lot of the Feds involvement in our finances and do better as a country.

 

[turbo]

Just in case anybody is not paying attention to the abortion issue threatening to shut down the government.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/08/jon-kyl-is-sorry-if-he-ga_n_846941.html

 

[Char. Limit]

Easy to get, hard to pay back. I hear you. Just like all the folks that bought houses they couldn't afford. IMO, we could scale back a lot of the Feds involvement in our finances and do better as a country.

Of course, the difference between me and those people is that I fully understand the quagmire that I'm getting into, but I feel it's worth it. And yeah, my political views and my personal views are totally separate...

 

[ParticleGrl]

But this brings about another point. If our gov't tanks due to overspending, there won't be a lot of jobs when you get out of school. You'll be flipping burgers with a degree on your application.

Why? If the government collapses, we will have dramatically less government, so won't that fix all our problems?

Easy to get, hard to pay back. I hear you. Just like all the folks that bought houses they couldn't afford. IMO, we could scale back a lot of the Feds involvement in our finances and do better as a country.

The difference being that this is a federal loan, whereas the overwhelming majority of the bad housing loans were private.

 

[drankin]

Why? If the government collapses, we will have dramatically less government, so won't that fix all our problems?



The difference being that this is a federal loan, whereas the overwhelming majority of the bad housing loans were private.

If the gov't collapses, our currency will go to dirt. Everything imported will be too expensive. Then were screwed.

The way I understand it, the government doesn't provide the loan money, they just back it. Just like the housing loans.

 

[Char. Limit]

We can all calm down now:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/pl_nm/us_usa_budget

 

[lisab]

We can all calm down now:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/pl_nm/us_usa_budget

...but I was already pretty darn calm...

 

[Char. Limit]

...but I was already pretty darn calm...

Now you can be more calm! :D

 

[ParticleGrl]

The way I understand it, the government doesn't provide the loan money, they just back it. Just like the housing loans.

Most of the sub-prime housing loans that went bad were NOT backed by the government. The bubble was NOT a government subsidized issue, it was private securitization of privately issue non-standard loans. See this, for instance: http://modeledbehavior.com/2010/08/27/fannie-freddie-acquitted/

If the gov't collapses, our currency will go to dirt. Everything imported will be too expensive. Then were screwed.

So exports will go up and we'll have to manufacture our own stuff again.

 

[warwick23]

So exports will go up and we'll have to manufacture our own stuff again.

If the currency collapses it's true our exports will be in greater demand, but it's not clear that exporting goods can simply be turned on again. If the Chinese continue to peg their currency to ours, that market will continue to be a difficult export market.

The real potential time bomb is municipal default: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703409904576174933066991472.html

 

[BobG]

All I see are Tea Party Republicans opposing and blocking an entire budget because they disagree with something that's not in the budget.

This is a problem for Republicans since most Americans are a little ambivalent about their attitudes regarding abortion. You have a few that are ardently against it and reducing or eliminating abortions is more important than one annual budget. You have a few that are ardently for it and making it freely available is more important than one annual budget.

Most Americans generally frown on the idea of abortion, but don't care enough to generate much momentum either way. Attaching the abortion issue to something most Americans feel is important is the only way to push pro or anti abortion laws through Congress. It's a common tactic and even a smart tactic in most situations.

There's some blowback for both sides if that becomes the issue that holds things up, though. In this case, while most Americans may not have strong opinions on abortion, they do lean toward the idea of making federal money available to planned parenthood. So, even if both sides are responsible for letting the issue hold up the budget, the side most Americans disagree with would take the brunt of the blame.

Polling report on abortion

Personally opposed to abortion: Morally wrong - 50%; Morally acceptable - 38%; depends or unsure - 12%
Legality of abortion: Legal in all or most cases - 54%; illegal in all or most cases - 42%; unsure - 4%
Cutting off federal funding for planned parenthood: Support - 43%; Oppose - 53%; unsure - 5%

 

[jtbell]

We can all calm down now:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/pl_nm/us_usa_budget

Now I can put away the popcorn until the end of next week.

 

[JDStupi]

All right, I'll just quit college and get a job flipping burgers for the next 20 years. Maybe I'll live in a crappy one-room apartment too! And have no chance of getting up to those jobs that I aspire to that you know, require a college degree. It will be great!

I think that this gets to the heart of one of our most potentially pressing modern economic issues. The very peculiar modern situation that is characterized by racking up a massive debt being nearly a pre-requisite for economic mobility.

First, our contemporary society is suffering massively from educational-inflation, x amount of years ago you could get a *decent* job without a college degree, and not necessarily have to worry about a glass-ceiling limiting you to a crawl-space.
And no, it is not because "the modern world demands more education", many jobs do not require college education, including newly created-jobs that didn't exist "x amount of years ago".

In order to properly enter the workforce, you nearly MUST put yourself in a situation where you are massively in debt before you can ever begin to get a decent paying job.
This is a problem with the structure of our economy and social situation.

It seems to work fine now, but what if there is a long-term crisis? The very structure of the economy must change, not just "cut government funding to students" that could be disasterous to our advantage in the global market, nor just "fund everything with government". Something has to be thought up, and the problem with politics is political inertia. Nobody wants to radically re-conceptualize the way we conduct our economy and, in turn, its ramifications for social structure.

That should be the first on our list. Not abortion, not drugs, or a slew of other banal crap that gets passed off for politics.