Friday, June 14, 2013
New budget costs, same stalemate: GOP sees the long term, Democrats see today
For the past three years, representatives from the Democratic and Republican party, also known as the GOP, have been working alongside many White House officials on Capital Hill to determine the budget for the upcoming sequester in October of 2013. During this sequester, many budget cuts will be needed to ensure a thriving economy, more than in the past decade or so. But, the Democratic party and the Republican party have approached this issue in very different ways, which has cause an ongoing battle. The Republican party believes in planning for the next three decades because it will offer "a clearer view of the challenges ahead." But, to look forward at the next thirty years, the Republican party looked at the last thirty, and focused primarily on the "Baby Boom" during the 1950's. They believed that due to the large population growth during that era, these upcoming years will be affected. With a larger elderly population, more federal funding and resources will need to be given for their benefit. Therefore, many other programs will suffer, and many more budget cuts will need to be made. On the other hand, the Democratic party is looking to approach the upcoming sequester by looking at the next decade alone. They strongly oppose the Republican plan, and believe that they are simply looking for another "stall tactic" in dealing with the immediate budget issues. The Democratic party believes that the government needs to focus on the upcoming future, instead of decades ahead, when multiple factors could change. Although these meetings have been taking place for years, neither party has come to a compromise.
Based on the evidence from both the article and in class, "What to do you believe would be the most effective way to approach the upcoming sequester? Please explain your opinion."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/new-budget-talks-same-stalemate-gop-sees-the-long-term-democrats-see-today/2013/06/12/01af6846-d370-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_story.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that we should look at the next 30 years, like the republicans suggested. If we do this we will be able to get a good look at the impending and far future. When looking at the next 30 years there is an advantage, we can make necessary budget cuts to make sure that the proper programs get the funding they need and we can plan for any future problems. If, like the democrats suggest, things change, then we can alter the budget to fit these economic changes. It is better to have a long term plan than a short term plan because it allows people room to change things and prepare for the future. If you continue to just look at the immediate future you are robbing yourself and the country of a plan that can withstand changes.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sydney. Even though one can not correctly predict what is going to happen in the future, I think that the government has the ability to get a pretty good guess on what will happen. I think that just planning where the government's budget should go in the next 10 years is not a long enough period of time. As Sydney said, long term planning is always better. If something happens unexpectedly, the government will be able to fix the problem if that have more time to do so. The more time the government gives itself, the more room they have to prepare and there is more room for error. If they only give themselves 10 years, they wont be able to make any errors because there will be no time to fix them. Also, the longer time the government takes to figure things out, the more time they have to find trends and see how strong they are. As the articles example, the baby boom. Who knows, something as outrageous as that could happen in present day and the government needs as much time as they can to plan accordingly.
ReplyDeleteI can see both the Republican and Democratic views on this issue. I think that there are advantages to looking at the economy just for the next decade. For example, it will probably be easier to predict what will happen in the next ten years than in the next thirty. Also, it is possible that rapid improvement of the economy in the next ten years will benefit the long term economy, even if that is not the democrats' overall goal. I also think that the economy is not in very good shape and that if people do not see it change soon, they will lose faith in government, which will only further hurt the economy. Usually, people prefer to see short term benefits of something rather than long term benefits, so it makes sense that this is what the Democratic party is interested in.
ReplyDeleteHowever,I also see where the Republican party, as well as Sydney and Maxine are coming from. It makes sense that things can change in the future and that a long term economy plan would be more flexible to that change. I still am siding with the Democrats on this issue. Mostly because I am going to college, getting a job, and making major purchases, such as a house, in the next ten years. I want the economy to be as good as it can be when I do these things so I will not have to pay so much money for college, a house, and other such expenses. This might not be what is best for the country, but it is rugged individualism so at least I would make Herbert Hoover proud.
I agree with the Republicans on that it is important to look at the next thirty years versus the next decade. This will most likely be more beneficial in the long run because by planning farther ahead into the future, the economy can be more prepared. This also allows better planning of future budget spending, which is something that is always important to look at. i also agree with the Republicans that the funding for the generation from the "baby boom" is important. There are so many more in this generation, that much more government funding will be needed. Like Sydney said, a long term plan is the best idea because it enables space to change things.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with the Republicans, and what Sydney and Maxine are saying. They would prefer if the government came up with a "long term" solution. I believe that there are just as many, if not more advantages to looking for a solution that is short term. For example, it will be much easier to predict where the economy will be in ten years, as opposed to thirty. Any plan can "withstand changes" and when sticking to a long term plan, people will lose faith a lot sooner than would with a plan that gave rapid short term results that would benefit the economy in the long term.
ReplyDelete