Wonderful World

My sixteen year old nephew has entered the wonderful world of politics. We've been sparring back and forth on Facebook. As his comments are on the web, he won't mind, I'm sure, my posting one of his postings here and my response to it. I think you'll find his thinking rather mature for a sixteen year old.

John, my nephew:

Garrett, I think government could get rid of the defecit pretty easily if it diverted unnecessary spending to paying off the defecit. However, I don't think Obama has any intention of doing that. He's added I don't know how many trillion to it and i think all he's gonna do is say "that's not my problem" and then pass on the defecit to the next guy, and whether or not anything gets done about it will depend on whether the next guy is a republican.

Jay, ultimately it is Obama spending the money, though, right? He's the one who makes the budget.

i apologize for the misinformation (i didn't know the dates cuz i was 13 back then and didn't give a hoot about politics), however i'm pretty sure republicans would not do anything so obviously harmful and unrealistic/idealistic as telling mortgage companies they can't deny anyone.

the way i see it, democrats don't want to cut anything, because they think spending is the purpose of government and that somehow, the economy will be fixed if government spends enough money. also, i think that democrats are more emotional and ideological than republicans. i think more often than not republicans have economical benefit in mind as reasons for there viewpoint, whereas democrats (my friends and family who are participating in this debate seem to be in the smarter portion of democrats when they want to be) try to reason with emotions or divert attention by saying "look at that heartless republican trying to kill grandma!" or whatever.

There is more than enough money to pay the pledged money without raising the debt ceiling if, for example, government cut spending on shrimp treadmills.

we agree on one thing, politics is a very complex game, and its easy to sit on the sideline and yell at the players.

Also, nobody has commented on the fact that there is no recovery like the liberal media is trying to tell everybody, so I'm assuming that you guys agree on that one, right?

My response:

Yes, John, Mr. Obama spends the money, but he does so because Congress passes a law that tells him that he must do it. They tell him sometimes in broad terms how to spend it, and sometimes very specifically. Sometimes the law says that (and this is only an example) the Department of Fish Security (hopefully there is no such thing ) is to spend two million dollars this year. Mr. Obama, or his subordinates, then decide how many employees this department will have, how much office space to rent, how many fish to secure, etc.
Other times the Congress writes into the law specific items, such as nine million dollars to build a new six lane bridge that is 1,200 feet long and 65 feet high over the Missouri River on Interstate 70 in Kansas City, or two million dollars to fund shrimp treadmills. Sometimes the law is permissive…you can spend up to this amount…sometimes it is specific…you have to spend this amount. But it’s the Congress that writes all of that and passes it. The President then either signs the laws or vetoes them.
The point is that ALL spending is authorized and funded in some way (taxes or raising the debt) by the Congress. Mr. Obama’s job is to “faithfully execute” the laws that are passed. He can suggest laws. He can suggest spending or cutting. He can submit a suggested budget to Congress. But he cannot unilaterally make those decisions without the Congress. And if he spends money the Congress has authorized, but now doesn’t like, they can always cut funding for that specific item or items. And they have done that from time to time.
Yes, there is more than enough money to pay the pledges. But the Congress has to pass a law that nullifies previous laws that have been passed to spend money. Mr. Obama cannot just unilaterally cut those things out; otherwise he would be violating the law.
You are correct in your assessment that Democrats are more “touchy-feely” and tend to want to “make investments” in this or that, which in plain English is “spend money.” You are correct also in your assessment that Republicans in general wish to hold the line on spending and taxes. There are all kinds of exceptions, however, and the lines that used to define Republicans and Democrats are becoming more blurred all the time. Both Democrats and Republicans are ideological; however Democrats are generally more willing to compromise, in my view, because of their more liberal leanings.
Yes, Republicans have economical benefit in mind; but their idea of that, in my view, is to allow the wealthy to keep more of their wealth in the prospect that they will spend it and so power our economy. Democrats also have economical benefit in mind, but they tend to want to tax the wealthy and redistribute those funds to the poorer and middle classes. Which is right? It all depends on which class you are in.
Although Mr. Obama seems to want to do so, neither party in the Congress seems to be interested in funding the IRS, CMS, and other agencies with enough money to catch those who cheat on taxes, submit fraudulent billing to Medicare, or otherwise scam the government. It has been said that for every dollar the IRS would spend on finding tax cheats, they could take in an additional ten dollars (source: The Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/01/AR2011030106451.html) Also, Wiki has an article titled “Medicare Fraud”. You might want to read it.
Liberal media, conservative media. Listen to them all, then make up your own mind. Thanks for your reasoned response, John. It is discussions like this that enable all of us to learn more. It’s videos like what were posted a day or two ago that only inflame and divide, in my mind. See you Sunday.