Slashdot Mirror
Debt Reduction Super Committee Fails To Agree
Hugh Pickens writes "VOA reports that the latest effort to cut the U.S. government's debt apparently has ended in failure as leaders of the special 12-member debt reduction committee plan to announce that they failed in their mandate from lawmakers to trim the federal debt by $1.2 trillion over the next decade. Democrats and Republicans blame each other for the collapse of the effort. 'Our Democratic friends were never able to do the entitlement reforms,' said Republican Senator Jon Kyl. 'They weren't going to do anything without raising taxes.' Democratic Senator Patty Murray, one of the committee's co-chairs, says that the Republicans' position on taxes was the sticking point. 'The wealthiest Americans who earn over a million a year have to share too. And that line in the sand, we haven't seen Republicans willing to cross yet,' Now in the absence of an agreement, $1.2 trillion in across-the-board spending cuts to domestic and defense programs are set to take effect starting in January, 2013, and the lack of a deal will deprive President Barack Obama of a vehicle for extending a payroll tax cut and insurance benefits for unemployed Americans, which expire at the end of the year." (Though the official deadline for the committee's hoped-for plan is tomorrow — the 23d — they were to have provided it for review 48 hours prior.)
Line their pockets with gaff and offer them the opportunity to screw over the public.
The committee was like having a deer convince a wolf not to eat him and the wolf trying to convince the deer that it should be eaten.
Take two polarizing political topics, put them in a room and you will get a stand still, especially when elections are just around the corner....
Previewing comments are for sissies!
Jesus really?
These aholes should just compromise. Raise taxes and cut spending. Do both. You can't agree? Well then why not fix the problem quickly by agreeing to these two points that would solve the problem in a hurry? Sure, I am not an economist, but I bet my understanding of solving the debt problem is just about as good as a senator or congressman who spends his time raising money all day, rather than trying to figure out this country's problems.
(yes I could be very wrong, and i look forward to more intelligent replies below, but at least i have proposed a solution right there! much better than 90% of our leaders....)
Until the ones making the law agree to a way to cut debts, and make it a law, they are the ones getting their pay cut to make up for it.
I give it 1 day before we have an agreement.
They can't compromise. Its like watching children argue. They only unite to give themselves a raise.
Completely taking tax increases off the table is stupid and shortsighted.
the 12 members of congress trying to make decision for 311 million Americans.
Understand that most of what they are talking about is reductions in spending INCREASES, not cuts, ala Military. In the current lingo: You spend $100 in 2011, you planned to spend $125 in 2012. If you only spend $100 in 2012, it's called a 25% cut in the military... In most cases (by default), government spending goes up by 8% per year. If it only increase 4%, every screams "cut my program by 4%". Again, all of this rests on the ASSUMPTION that we have a budget, which we do not. The United States has not passed a budget in about 3 years...
As long as the "what's that over there!" works, the US of A have nothing to worry about. The struggling European economies may have much lower debt compared to their GDP, but they don't get to print free money like the US does to keep the interest on its bonds low. Look over there! Nothing to see here.
The reason they're not getting anywhere with spending cuts is the game has been rigged in favor of spending increases in the first place.
They have generous rates of increase built into the budgeting process. All of the so-called "cuts" are actually (slight) decreases to the rate of increase.
They could plug up the deficit merely by having slightly greater increase rate decreases.
Anyways, they can cut now, or they can have the universe cut for them. There's a limit to how much you can just keep spending pretend money.
A related rant is how Congress has gotten around the 27th amendment. That was supposed to say there should be an election in between Congressional pay raises. But they came up with a process whereby they get automatic cost of living increases without voting on it. Flagrantly unconstitutional. It's the same sort of thing.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
I say we all get together and agree to not re-elect a single member of Congress. We could clear the entire House next year and a decent chunk of the Senate. I don't care if the new members are democrats, republicans, blue, green, red, or purple, it just seems like the entrenched politics is completely broken.
It's too bad we can't figure out a way to just throw them into jail.
----- obSig
What gets me is that if it's not important enough to either of them to compromise and reduce spending, it seems to me that the 1.2 trillion cut is perfectly ok, or at least better than any alternatives either side could see. I would suspect that they already knew they could make these cuts and just haven't been willing to. It also makes Barry look bad of course.
Also as usual, we're clearly not hearing any truth about what's been going on in these talks. If it was this simple, they could have just looked at each other and said after 5 minutes "Fuck it, we're not gettin' anywhere. Let's go back to the bar..." instead of all this rigamaroll.
-
I don't know why everyone tries to be "fair" and blame the Republicans and Democrats equally for not "compromising." Any rational person knows that it makes no sense trying to close a budget deficit without raising taxes and undoing some of the damage of the Bush years (when he cut taxes for the wealthy, estate taxes, capital gains taxes, etc.) The Republicans were never going to agree to anything, but they get to play the blame game as usual.
It is, of course, the same picture in Europe. Governments aren't capable of delivering pain to their core supporters and therefore can't deliver rational solutions to the most serious problems they face.
The answer is to swap governments - the Dutch elect the Greek government and the Greeks elect the Dutch government, for example. The electorate is sufficiently detached to evaluate the choices more dispassionately, but have sufficient incentive to be diligent as they know if they really cock it up they'll be shafted in turn.
Anyone want to draw lots?
He would've approved those cuts even if they weren't triggered by the committee failure.
Obama, Boehner and McConnell all must have known there was a signficant chance that the talks would fail, so presumably they each crafted a Plan B that took the automatic cuts into account.
Consequences, shmonsequences...as long as I'm rich.
What's the loss to them with a disagreement? NOTHING, because they can just blame the other side, and the people have no way to directly hold them personally accountable. No recalls, no real challenges, and most of them are in gerrymandered districts. If anything, they have a disincentive to try, since if they did betray their base, they'd probably get a more hardcore challenger.
They should have picked 100 or so, random American citizens (2 from every state, maybe some from the territories and district), and let them decide on a proposal.
I wouldn't have even mandated they be adults, or sane, or non-criminals(Not like Congress can complain), just not politicians or lawyers.
Radical idea I know, but I would just have it a proposal, which Congress would vote on. No law says where Congress gets their ideas. Which is why the ALEC exists.
You got peanut butter in my chocolate!
The Democrats appear to have located their spines.
The game that's been going on for over a year is simple:
1. Make demands in exchange for continuing to have a functioning government after some deadline.
2. "negotiate" with the Democrats until several hours before the deadline.
3. Democrats blink, make an 11th-hour deal with Republicans to give them about 95% of their original demands.
4. Democrats declare victory and tell their constituents that the 5% that they got is worth it. Their constituents, apparently not as stupid as the Democratic politicians, don't believe them.
5. Republicans declare victory, and tell their constituents that the 5% cost was worth it, because they'll get rid of it soon enough. They then locate the next deadline they can use.
I am officially gone from
What pisses me off the most about discussing the debt with most of the people I know is that they won't discuss the numbers. Why? Because they don't want to see what even Wikipedia will show them about how we spend money. The federal government spends the vast majority of its money on domestic spending, not military. The combined total spent every year on the Department of Defense and both the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are still a few billion shy of all we spend on Social Security per year.
Just Social Security. Think about that for a moment. We spend as much on that as we do on the military, which is one of the only functions of the federal government which no one disputes is a constitutionally-defined function of the federal government.
There is no getting around the fact that first and foremost, we need domestic spending cuts. As a Millennial, I don't give a rat's ass if you "paid into Social Security all of your life." I am paying into it now and it's a fact that I won't receive it. I don't mind paying for the elderly, but the program needs to be cut off at its knees now because it is the height of injustice to expect us and Generation X to fund such a horribly mismanaged program now that the Boomers want to retire. They had 1994-2008 to right the ship of state, to try to rebuild the trust fund (which was destroyed on their parents' watch) and ran one of the most irresponsible periods of American government in our history. Arguably, the worst.
As a practical matter, means test the heck out of Social Security and Medicare while cutting our military's responsibilities. We could shave hundreds of billions per year with neither a loss in our national defense nor creating any genuine inequity by cutting of access to the former for people with private retirement or other government pensions and by bring our troops home. The reason our budget is so out of control is first and foremost our inability to say "no" to anyone, be it the middle age people who want to collect a fat benefit check they don't really need or a foreign government expecting us to police the world.
Democrats want to give the working class a 1% tax cut, cut taxes on businesses by 50%, and let the tax rates for the 1% go back to where they were?!? OMFG no way! It is good that the Republicans are working so hard for "us". [/SNARK]
Obama wants to cut the payroll tax by another percentage point for workers, at a total cost of $179 billion, and cut the employer share of the tax in half as well for most companies, which carries a $69 billion price tag.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA?SITE=PAREA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Democrats, including Obama, want to extend the Bush tax cuts only to individuals making less than $200,000 a year and married couples making less than $250,000.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPERCOMMITTEE_BUSH_TAX_CUTS?SITE=PAREA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
"After months of hard work and intense deliberations, we have come to the conclusion today that it will not be possible to make any bipartisan agreement available to the public before the committee's deadline," said a joint statement by the co-chairs, Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Government is a business and the people who control it are there to make money. This is precisely why government MUST be strictly limited in both revenue and power over the people. Without limits, this is exactly what we end up with: corruption, debt, injustice, and runaway spending.
The need to limit government power and revenue is so critical that even voting should take a back seat to it. Yes, you heard right. Without strict limits on the scope of government, voting is a fool's game -- and we are proving it right before our eyes.
It's not about debt reduction, but about the budget deficit.
national debt 15 trillion
budget 2012 3.7 trillion
income 2012 2.6 trillion
deficit 2012 1.1 trillion
The problem is: there *are* no cuts. The so-called cuts are reductions in planned increases. Government spending continues to go up - just less than it otherwise might have. This is not success.
Anyway, the amount they were supposed to cut was a joke. They were supposed to trim 1.2 trillion over 10 years. That's 120 billion per year. But again - not off the current spending, but off of planned increases. The result would still have been a net increase.
Idiots re-arranging the deck furniture on the Titanic. It would be entertaining if it weren't so frustrating.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
I surprised everyone is fooled by this. The solution to the problem at hand is obvious... Cuts in both military spending as well as social programs, and ending the Bush tax cuts... in fact, we probably need even more than that. But how can the republicans raise taxes and cut military spending and then go home and get re-elected? How can democrats cut social spending and not invent some new "screw the rich" tax? It would require a diabolical plan... pass a law that says if a special committee cant agree on a plan, all these things happen... Then find people to be on the committee that are all as far left and right as possible so that, not only will they not agree, but their respective electorate will praise them for not making a deal with those evil republicans/democrats. Taxes go up, spending goes down, everyone can blame everyone else... It's perfect! The only problem? Even this wasn't enough. We're still doomed.
Completely taking tax increases off the table is stupid and shortsighted.
I'm not sure if you can lay it all on Norquist, but he's clearly the most powerful proponent of the stupidest, most obstructive Republicans in the budget mess. Norquist, the 96.5% of the Republicans in congress (238 of 242 House, 41 of 47 Senate) who signed his pledge, and every single Republican candidate won't do anything that raises taxes by a single dollar.
And check out this:
In a debate in August, Republican presidential candidates were asked whether they would support a budget deal that bundled $10 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases. All said no. They rejected any deal that involved raising taxes.
So they hate raising taxes. We get it. These assholes still can't accept a proposal that goes in their favor 11 to 1? They reject it out of hand before even talking about what the spending cuts would be? Are they joking?!??!?
Who the fuck supports a platform, for a major party in a democratic republic, that says: "We get every single thing we want and you get nothing you want. If you don't comply, we'll watch it all burn until you give it."
That's not debate. That's not governing. It's fucking economic terrorism; it's taking hostage of 295 million people to satisfy your ideological hard-on.
Wow! I predicted the complete and utter stalemate of the Super Committee months ago, when it was first proposed.
Now for some new predictions
The Kennedys will be in the news
A plane will crash and many people will die
An NFL Team will win the Super Bowl
Congress will spare the military from any budget cuts
From what I'm seeing it's the Republicans that are going to suffer the wrath of We The People for this failure. The sooner the stubborn idiots that are unwilling to compromise are removed from office the better.
Seeing the Department of War budget cut automatically makes me a little less disgusted with our Congress. Seeing the Bush tax cuts expire gives me the warm fuzzies. I shouldn't get too pleased, they will somehow save both from the automatic budget axe...
THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
...seriously people?
F*** what I wouldn't give for the Clinton years again. Smart president, likes a little scandal, smart Republican congress, keeping each other in balance with COMPROMISE and working together. Ignoring that whole ridiculous impeachment thing (personally, I'm happier when the President is known to be getting some.)
Now? Well meaning, if weak (first term-itis), President, diametrically opposed Republican Congress who are caught between a rock and a hard place trying to embrace the Tea Party while ignoring its ridiculous 'no compromise' policies.
I remember when I first heard about the tea-party, it sounded good. People wanting common sense and a return to 'founding father' kinds of ways. Then it became popular and got hijacked by the whack jobs. The founding fathers espoused compromise and working together - the tea party? Hell no, "My way or the highway" is more their tune.
Government meant to operate in balance cannot operate when one part of the government simply will not work with the others.
Do I want my taxes to go up? F*** no. Should they go up to solve debt problems in addition to cutting spending? Of course. Make corporations making over 10 million dollars actually pay taxes? What a crazy idea...
Loading...
...to vote out the 1%.
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
Democrats will cut spending, but only if Republican's raise taxes on the rich.
It's not "both sides being inflexible", it's "both sides blaming each other".
The Democrats blame Republicans for not being flexible, Republicans blame Democrats for not giving in to their demands not to raise taxes on the rich.
Which is funny, because one of the first things Republicans did when they got back in in 2012, was raise taxes on the low and middle income, while extending tax cuts for the super rich.
(They removed the "Making Work Pay credit" and changed the rate of workers' FICA contributions to make - hitting almost exclusively poor and middle income families).
Did you read about that tax hike on Fox News??? I thought not.
That's the thing, Republicans always like to pretend the other guy is just as bad, but no they're not. Even in their private lobbying they admit they're a bought and paid for party of the rich:
http://upwithchrishayes.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/19/8896362-exclusive-lobbying-firms-memo-spells-out-plan-to-undermine-occupy-wall-street-video
The fact that this group was needed simply tells the American people that we not only have a dysfunctional government right now but these so-called elected "leaders" can't get the job done and it is one they are paid to do....Congress failed the minute they appointed this smaller group. In essence, they punted on the hard decision so they could wash their hands of it--plain & simple. This government is a disaster right now and while the previous administration may have caused some things leading up to Obama's term, the fact is this administration does not take ownership of anything, blames other people/events for their problems and is dividing this country by the hour and setting us back decades both on the federal level as well as personal levels. I've never seen or heard of a President causing so much hatred and divisiveness among groups within the country. I hope all the black voters out there don't simply vote this guy back in simply because he is black--he has to be the most racist and divisive President this country has had in a long time. The only difference between him and people who are outwardly racist is the fact that he practices it through policies, speaking out of both sides of his mouth and puts things in motion behind closed doors out of public eye. To me, that's more dangerous than hate groups in the streets...at least you can deal with those idiots in public and in the open. How can you fight racism and hypocrisy on this level when you don't know until it is too late? Very disappointed in our government and we may need another Declaration Of Independence to free ourselves of this current government. It is in the Constitution and DOI--when the government ceases to be in place for the people and begins to usurp too much power it is time to disband it and create a new government---that's really what we need now as this cancer has been growing for decades long before Bush was in office. We've got a do-nothing Congress, divisive President and a court system that is out of control with a "Statist" agenda. We need to turn this country around and right this ship once and for all....America was NOT built to have government interfere in our lives and tax us ad infinitum--that's why we broke with England in case anyone forgot. The government believe it can dole our rights to citizens...they forget...WE, the people, give the government its power and WE the people can take it away. Otherwise, we might as well be Socialist or worse, Communist at our core and we know how well those systems works don't we. I find it hypocritical that WE, as a nation, are supporting revolutions around the world so people can opt in to Democracy YET our government is killing our democratic way of life and taking away the very freedoms other countries are dying for....
Thank You America for letting us in Europe feel that we are not alone in being governed by a bunch of self-serving idiots
Increase spending.
Oh, it may not be in this year's budget in order to get the votes for budget balancing, but next year any money raised from higher taxes will be more than blown with increased spending. The politicians cannot help themselves, it's a compulsion.
Invite in 10 or 12 random Senators/Representatives, give them 2 weeks.
Their mission:
Save 120 billion from the deficit, or 120 billion a year is cut from the federal support for states the members of the Committee are from.
You should be able to do this a bunch of times. No downside at all.
These politicians need to put their heads down and work out how to get all that money back that's been lining the panties of the 1% for the last 30 years. What do they think the end-game is here? Do they plan on just relocating to with a big fat wallet or something after the country dries up?
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
... until no bread or games are to be had anymore. Look to Greece what happens next.
Incidentally, on the actual numbers side, Greece is not doing that much worse than the US. It is just reputation that makes the difference. And reputation can change very fast indeed.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
And why do you think it needs to be a bigger part of your life ?
This is what you are asking for when you demand taxes be raised. Sure you may just want to soak the rich guy, I mean its hardly fair he has more than you do. What you really get is that money going to more bureaucracy that much more overhead in your daily life, and that much more of a boost to politicians patronage powers. That means that much less "Democracy" and that much more oligarchy in a country that has far too much of the later.
Republicans are obsessing over the horrible plight of the super rich. they will not agree until either they stop being idiots or maybe Chuck Norris shows up and kicks all of their butts.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
The super committee failed. Time to bring in the Super Duper Ultra Committee.
But at least they are representing the people that put them there. Its taken 30 years for the republican party to get ticked off enough with the republican office holders to make it happen, but make it happen they did.
"After a first meeting on September 8, the next three weeks were taken up with discussions over how many meetings should be held, and when and where. Murray and congressman Jeb Hensarling, her Republican co-chair, had to resolve who got to hold the gavel. In the end a compromise - something very rare in Washington - was agreed. They were to alternate it."
I don't think I've ever read anything that epitomized why our government is fatally broken than this short paragraph. Our government is filled with children.
It's about time someone used the word "efficient" in this debate.
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
For this subject, it's useful to see tax revenue and expenditures in a pie chart format. Even though this data is a little old, it still provides a good view of the landscape. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
Or is that not perfectly OK? And if not, who decided that?
USA taxes are at their lowest level ever in modern times, and the times when it wasn't as high were when there was no standing army, so disband that first.
In due time the US government will stop spending so much money, specialy on wars and entitlement.
Your Congress is just opting out of an ordered halting.
Rethinking email
Don't like this Congress? Thank the people who pay for, and respond to, this kind of ad. We always elect the government we deserve.
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
..and you're SURPRISED by this? >_>
Yeah, its Stuff That Matters, but is it News for Nerds?
I don't normally come to Slashdot to read yesterday's BBC headlines.
Seriously, yes, this is important but it is all over the mundane news sites - if you start putting general political/financial news on Slashdot, where does it stop? Football results?
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
I can't model it in software, so I know I don't understand it, so I won't comment further.
Well yes, they were realistic in thinking they couldn't do what was asked without raising taxes. And most Americans acknowledge that raising taxes is necessary and wanted you to come to a deal that was a combination of raising taxes and cutting spending. You, Mr. Kyl, and your Republican friends were the ones making unreasonable demands.
This part is not true:
"every single Republican candidate won't do anything that raises taxes by a single dollar"
This is not true, it may be their marketing angle, "pretend to never raise taxes", but they do raise taxes.
The last time was 2012, just after getting back into Congress they extended the Bush tax cuts AND IN THE VERY SAME BILL, they killed the "Making Work Pay Credit " and changed the FICA contribution rates.
The result is you lose out if you earn less than $40k a year for a married couple, and gain about $4k for a couple earning more than $106k. So they love taxes rises, just not tax rises on the rich. But they can and do raise taxes on low and middle income earners.
Not just the currently lot either, do a search on [Bush revenue enhancers] to see what he raised taxes on. All kinds of extra taxes, all of them hit low and middle income families. Not a single one hits the rich.
Did you not pay attention to the 2010 elections? Many were kicked out because they wanted something new. Now we have even WORSE people in office. Change for the sake of change rarely works. Quit saying this. Vote for people that back your views, or at the very least vote for the least evil if that doesn't exist.
The sensible middle of both the Republican and Democratic parties needs to withdraw from the party system and form a centrist Moderate party that can get something accomplished. That means entitlement reform AND tax reform AND some tax increases!
The Parties are no longer serving this Nation. It's time to trash them.
The Electorate will love it. "I stand before you as neither a Democrat nor a Republican but as someone who will serve the Nation before any Party." That person has MY vote.
We're living under a tyranny right now, it's a tyranny of the stupid and idealogues on both ends of the spectrum. It's time to have a revolution in Congress. And hey, no one has to die!
--PeterM
--PM
And I'd get a lot more satisfaction from a dozen Tim Horton's doughnuts than today's US Congress.
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
Why is there even talk about cutting social programs? Why are republicans so against social security, medicare, medicaid,..?
They keep talking about how big the governments is, complain how much we're spending, and that we need to cut back.
But we the people are paying into all of this. This is not government overspending but instead planning for the future.
What if you looked at your family budget and decided that you were not able to afford everything you wanted. Then you looked at your health care premiums and your retirement accounts. Would you say "hey, why I am spending so much on health insurance and why am I putting so much towards retirement?" Would you decide to then drop health insurance and stop contributing to your retirement plans? It may look like you've just reduced your expenses and you now have a lot more money each month to play with. But now you are in big trouble if you get sick, and you won't have anything to retire on later.
dream of being the 1%
http://usdebtclock.org/
From this week, no less. Make sure you click on it to zoom in.
Chuck Norris IS a Republican. Good luck persuading him to raise taxes on anyone. He endorsed Ron Paul for 2012 FFS.
The liberal left will come in here saying that categorically taking tax increases off the table was uncompromising and stupid.
The conservative right will come in here and point out that tax increases are always the answer for the left, who have no concept of fiscal responsibility and never met a government program that they didn't love.
I'm a conservative, but I'll be as objective as I can be: BOTH sides are arrogant, petulant, moronic, asinine, worthless bunglers that should all be fired. If the postal worker walks down the street and doesn't deliver the mail - she gets fired. If the paramedic looks great in his uniform and loves tooting his siren but never actually saves anyone, he gets fired. Congress's JOB is the control of the pursestrings. Period. They haven't done their job, yet we continue to re-elect them.
Let's be clear - to claim that Republicans are solely to blame is already tendentious. The 111th Congress (2009; you know, the one with the democratic majority in both houses, and a democratic president) DIDN'T pass a budget for 2010. To suggest that was somehow purely Republican fault is staggering mendacity.
I have already complained to my Republican congressman that they suck as negotiators - that the military (20% of federal spending) gets hit by 50% of the sequestration automatic cuts - was an idiotic agreement, and is essentially giving the Democrats who are typically anti-defense no reason to come to any agreement. No agreement = they already win. Thus I'm unsurprised that they've found no result to date.
Personally (and I know this is my politics speaking) I'm sick of the infinite expansion of government programs, seemingly no incentive by government to limit their spending, and their constantly assuming I as the tax payer am an endless font of more money.
Before the leftist strawmen attack: of course I understand that some government is necessary, and that as a member of a society, I'm willing to cheerfully contribute a share of the costs. HOWEVER I don't agree with the $trillions spent on bailing out investment firms and banks, and protecting them from their bad choices. Yes, letting them collapse would have been disastrous for the US economy, but here's how I see it: we've already built a society that's trying to be capitalist on the up side, (so people can reap the benefits), and socialist on the down side (so people are protected from the results of their choices). This is logically unsustainable. The resulting economic collapse is nothing more than the resolution of this unsustainability....pretty much just like forest fires. The more we try to resist the natural forces of capitalism, the more cataclysmic are the ultimate results when these forces DO eventually succeed in breaking the levees.
I don't agree with $billions being spent to bail people out of homes that they bought and couldn't afford. Caveat emptor shouldn't be MY problem. As a homeowner that DID moderate my desires, who DID buy a home within my means (INCLUDING planning for rainy-day money, and working/saving at a level that isn't predicated on boundless optimism, an eternally-growing economy, and permanent employment), I'm the schmuck; as a homeowner that makes his payments, I'm going to be (again) the one charged to cover the losses by the banks AND taxed by the gov't to cover the giveaways by the Fed too.
I'm disappointed by the $billions (or more) apparently lost in Iraq and Afghanistan without our government apparently caring very much?
In my adult lifetime, I've heard repeatedly at the federal and state levels that whenever there's a budget problem (and let's face it, need is infinite and resources never are), elected representatives like to increase taxes today and promise to cut spending tomorrow (liberals) or cut taxes today and promise to cut spending tomorrow (conservatives). Tomorrow never seems to come.
I agree that to dig out of this hole, we WILL have to raise taxes. I complained to the Republican National committee that as a Republican I w
-Styopa
...Put their jobs on the line. Literally ... If they cannot come up with a consensus, the committee members are fired / impeached immediately. We'll see how deep those lines in the sand really are.
Ironically ultimatums like this also work with fighting children: "You two get along or I'll turn this car right around!"
Ten years ago we had a budget surplus. 8 years of a Republican president, and most of that time a Congress in his pocket, and we're now 14 trillion dollars in debt. They happily cut taxes, but you can't cut your income and keep spending at the same level. The Republicans claim to be a financially responsible party, but this fact seems to have eluded them. They ran up the credit card like some redneck family living in a trailer park with a 52" flat screen TV. The Democrats were happy to roll over and let it happen, because they're a bunch of vaginas.
Well now the party's over and the bill collectors are coming knocking, and they still can't bring themselves to be responsible. They like their flat screen and their Camaro. Bubba doesn't want to get a job. Right now the bill collectors are asking, but pretty soon they're going to be telling, and the longer Congress doesn't do their job, the more it's going to hurt when the bill collectors start telling. That's been the message for the last two years.
Congress should be ashamed. This is a historically non-functional Congress. They should do the honorable thing and resign en-masse, but they're not going to do that. They're not even going to be ashamed. They're too busy pointing fingers.
So we're going to have to vote them out next year. And I suggest we vote them all out. None of them are blameless in this fiasco. None of them have been able to show an ounce of leadership. All they do is collect a six digit salary and make excuses, while more and more of the country goes to the unemployment rolls. Well now it's time to add this Congress to the unemployment line. I can find someone to make excuses and point fingers for a lot less than what we're paying them. Lets make ourselves heard next year, and remove every single incumbent up for re-election, and let's do it with turnout this nation hasn't seen in decades. Perhaps that will send a clear enough message that they need to cut this fucking shit out and get to work.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Let the Democrats write the taxes portion(since they want to raise them) and Republicans write the budget cuts portion(since they want to cut the most).
You'd end up with a net delta of 2x what was originally intended and the public could decide in future elections which they dislike the least...taxes or services reduction.
Our competing special interests have us by the balls and neither one of them wants to give up an inch.
If the idiots in congress had actually done something (other than raise taxes) back in the early 80's when the NCSSR declared that social security would become insolvent, or in 1994 when Gingrich et.al. were making noise about it, or maybe even as late as 2000 when Gore made it a core part of his platform, then we could have had serious social security reform. The baby boomers would have had time to adjust their retirement plans and deal with the changes.
It's too late now. The boomers are already retiring, and it isn't right to pull the rug out from underneath them after the government has been promising them their money back (they paid into the program after all). Raising taxes is the only option for social security now. Which sucks for my generation, but at least I have time to plan around it.
Should taxes not decrease?
We need only the freshmen lawmakers to be this committee. Those that don't have an ax in their hands to go after the other side.
For this we need idealists, not politicians.
This is a committee, guys. By definition they never get anything done.
Even if the committee had "succeeded", our spending would still be out of control.
This.
You know, I think part of the problem is how they approach it. They shouldn't be looking for places to cut spending at all! Allow me to digress...
When I moved into my current house, which is on the edge of a forest, the garden was totally overgrown. Saplings had taken over about 30 feet of the property - a huge, dense thicket you could barely force your way through. Now, I could have said "ok, I'll look for a tree to trim", and maybe taken out a couple of sickly saplings. This would have gained me exactly nothing - for every sapling I took out, another dozen would have sprouted. The only possible solution was the chainsaw - level the entire thicket down to the ground, and then decide what I actually wanted to let grow.
It's the same with the US budget. Spending is totally out of control; there are too many special interests. In the end, the only solution that might really, actually work would be to announce: in one year, *every* existing federal department will close, *every* existing federal program will terminate, and *all* federal employees will lose their jobs. Then decide: what do we actually need? Use new legislation, define new federal departments, build it up from scratch. Stop fighting about which twig to trim - mow it all down, and plant anew.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Thanks for the lack of any intelligent statement, sgt scrotum
After 3 years of Democrat leadership (2 years controlling the White House, Senate and House, and the last year still controlling the White House and Senate) we have no national budget. We've been moving forward on continuing resolutions for 36 months now. But it's "Tea Tards" keeping us from getting our national finances in order...
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
Democrats: Raise taxes on the rich and we'll do the deep spending cuts
Republicans: Only the deep spending cuts, no tax rises on the rich.
One is offering a compromise (Democrats), the other is only stating their extreme view: no tax cuts for the rich (Republicans).
So the original post *would* be possible with the Democrat compromise, but not possible with the Republican inflexibility.
I've always been partial to the Death and Taxes poster for people who just want a curious at-a-glance type overview:
http://deathandtaxesposter.com/
The wiki article of course has far more in-depth information.
They are not uncompromising, just realistic.
Deficits don't matter. This is a bunch of political ballyhoo to put on a play for the masses who think the government's bank account behaves just like their own down at the local bank. It doesn't and has not for a long time. The government got downgraded by Moody Credit Rating (McGraw-Hill) because some very rich people were upset that their bonds weren't going to yield as much (rather possibly threatened) as a result of foreign pressure. It has nothing to do with the government's actual ability to repay the actual obligations. The treasury (or Fed) can produce as much money as needed to pay anything. Taxes are taken in to trim the fat from M1, not to actually pay for anything. This is a joke.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Treat it like Obama Care, write a bill with things like restoring the US Constitution, End the Fed, Deactivate DHS, outlaw electronic voting, Revoke the Patriot Act, give the Logan Act teeth, and then tell them they have to pass it before they can see what's in it. Time it so it has to be dealt with on some CRUNCH time date in the future, and have sub bills in place to remove authority of anyone attempting to nullify the US Constitution with more crap.
Starve the beast in a failure, at least according to the Libertarian Cato Institute: http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj29n3/cj29n3-7.pdf
The article backs up a previous Cato study that says the same thing.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
with out medicare no health insurance will take seniors at all or make them pay like 3K-5k /mo for lowest level of care + lot's of pre existing conditions.
Democrats : We'll keep spending the country into oblivion until the people who pay half the taxes of the entire nation already pay more. Republicans : This is stupid. We have to stop spending.
If there's no money, you stop spending. Why doesn't anyone recongnize that if you took every penny from the top 1% we'd still be completely screwed because we spend way too much .
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
The Democrats keep offering more and more cuts but get nothing back from the Republicans.
We need both revenue increases and spending cuts.
The Republicans, and the Tea Party radicals specifically, are the problem.
Blar.
Make them performance based and slide with the economy. If the economy is down like now the rich get taxed at the max level loop holes get closed and the poor get medical larger food stamps without re-qualifying all the time cant be kicked off. When the economy is up the loop hole open again the rate slides down and qualifications for medical and social assistance programs go up.
Make the rich earn it as they say.
Its not poor people that crash a economy.
Which is perfectly rational of the health insurers. This customer is nearly guaranteed to be making expensive claims non-stop for the rest of his life. If the senior is expected to make claims of $X a month, the health insurance needs to cost $X + 10% (at least) /month.
We want everyone to have health coverage. But insuring everyone just isn't good business sense. That's why the government should be in the health "insurance" business. The government doesn't have to make money, an insurance company does.
The Republican party has been hijacked by extremists. The Koch brothers, et. al. have been very successful in pushing big lies en masse to a voting constituency too stupid to understand the consequences of what they're being fed. This constituency elects "tea-party" candidates and vows to push out "RINOs".
Result? A de facto extremist takeover of the conservative republican wing of the party. Anyone who compromises is accused of heresy, and voted out. Compromise becomes as impossible for congress.
FYI, I'm an elitist. Since I'm not running for office, I don't have to pretend to be stupid. Nor do I pander to stupid people. So, take your best shot.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Do you keep bailing water faster and faster, or do you just plug the hole?
"Any rational person" knows you plug the hole, because you can't just keep bailing forever. The Democrats refused to plug the hole.
Technically if the tax base increases and you don't increase the government budget, then you have an effective reduction in per-capita spending.
The committee was like having a deer convince a wolf not to eat him and the wolf trying to convince the deer that it should be eaten.
I think it was more like 12 wolves trying to agree on which deer not to eat.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
...they DID agree... to disagree. So, that's something, right??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_hz5HFmA6A
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
that one side was willing to compromise. One side wants to cut entitlements, the other to raise taxes. Republicans say: the Democrats wouldn't compromise and do it all by cutting entitlements. The Democrats say: the Republicans wouldn't compromise and do it with a mix of taxes and entitlement cuts.
One side just sounds saner here. It's depressing.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Am I the only one who thinks that since they failed to do their mandated job they shouldn't have that job any longer? If I was given an explicit task (and not an overly abstract or vague one at that) and told to complete it by a certain date, I'd be expected to produce something at the very end. If what I provided was a list of places I could point my finger then I'd be out on my ass!
I know people here love to complain about overpopulation, but the downside to having less kids is that the welfare state becomes unsustainable.
When these entitlement programs were set up, people were actually having a fair amount of kids. Now that we are down to about 2 kids per female, you can't make the welfare state sustainable long-term without crushing young people.
If you want to have a welfare state that takes care of people, start having lots of kids. Otherwise, gets some popcorn and enjoy the show.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
"It is amazing how much the Republicans, and those same boomers, have shifted to the right." no it is no amazing. People as they age get to be more and more conservative and adverse to anything "new". An aging baby boomer population will automatically shift to the "right". Please note any way that the point is moot, because from my point of view (from EU) you have any way 2 party from the right, and nobody from what we call the left.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Fire the entire committee - Republicans and Democrats alike.
Isn't that what you do with people that can't perform their assigned responsibilities? Oh wait, these are politicians, and we don't actually attach consequences to their failures.
Never mind, carry on.
What the US now needs the most in congress is for a third party to gain enough power (say at least 20%) to bring back actual compromise and discussion to our government. This two party system just polarizes everyone way too much. And since both parties hover around 50% on average, nothing ever gets done and no discussion is ever made. It's always just an "us vs them" mentality persisting, and that mentality has been our downfall. I hope enough of us can realize someday the need for a third (or fourth, etc) party to help balance out the government again.
This is where I feel bipartisan politics fails everyone. We end up fighting each other, disagreeing seemingly just for the sake of disagreeing and forget that we're all going to have to give up something to come to a solution. No one wins. A while back I suffered some cutbacks at work, so I had to drop some cable channels, quit going to the gym and use the free one at my apartment complex, and limit eating out to once (if at all) a pay check. Those weren't huge sacrifices, just luxuries, but I pulled through a difficult period of lower income until I got a better offer. Quit fucking arguing and fix the shit. Bottom line. No one that really matters will blame you if you fix the bigger picture.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
Let's be fair. Most Republicans want to means test entitlements. That's roughly equivalent to a tax increase on the rich.
Furthermore, you could take 100% of the rich's income. There's not enough money there to close our deficits. They are coming for the middle class. That's where the money is.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
I'm of the opinion Democracy is broken. Representation is what's important. Our current system has given us a Congress where 90% are lawyers.
How does that represent the people?
Draft people to Congress in a similar manner to jury duty. They serve two years. Most won't want to server another. But then we'd have everything from CEOs to waitresses, farmers, doctors, mechanics, Union workers, students, retirees, etc.
Then we could elect a 100 Senators from the pool of representatives. They server a second 6 year term.
From that, we elect two Senators to server as President for 4 years. 2nd place becomes VP.
Just read the two statements in the summary. Nothing else is necessary.
Republican: "Our Democratic friends were never able to do the entitlement reforms. They weren't going to do anything without raising taxes."
Democrat: "The wealthiest Americans who earn over a million a year have to share too. And that line in the sand, we haven't seen Republicans willing to cross yet."
I mean, one of those is clearly a bald-faced misrepresentation: this is made clear within the statement itself. In the first sentence he flatly claims that Democrats would not "do the entitlement reforms". In the very next sentence he makes it clear that this is simply a lie: Democrats were entirely ready to do entitlement reforms, but on the condition that they were accompanied by tax increases. You know, compromise. That thing two sides who don't agree are supposed to do for the greater good.
The Democrat, by contrast, simply states that the Republicans would not agree to anything that included tax rises - whatever entitlement cuts were involved.
I just don't see where's the room for interpretation or greyness there. From their own statements it's quite clear that the Republicans are a) fundamentally dishonest and b) utterly unwilling to compromise.
To continue the metaphor, offering to put a piece of Scotch tape across the gaping hole in the boat in exchange for much faster bailing is not really sincere bargaining.
While you were out whining about the bankers, this happened. Thanks.
They should be summarily fired!
So, now that the super committee has failed, can Congress get back to important things, like creating jobs, which has NOTHING to do with the deficit?
why vote for a lesser of evils?
Its not my fault, someone put a wall in my way.
If you didn't hear about it, some polls showed higher approval of communism than this Congress which is so low that it is approaching being within the margin of error of 0% approval! (I was surprised Castro was the only one lower.)
Today's Republicans are not the same as the ones from the past, they can't compromise anymore than the Taliban can. The misinformed public is unable to see the difference or have a historical perspective so to them it seems like both sides are just acting normal. This is not the case at all. They are boxed in by the over effectiveness of their propaganda; they even have suckers getting elected who believe the hype! (that was never the intent)
Personally, I am GLAD they failed and wanted them to do so; the democrats have conveniently wimped out so much that too many people are realizing they are just the good cops in the good/bad cop scam that has been going on far too long. We need more people involved not more disillusioned non-voters! The stupid people are not smart enough to become disillusioned, they continue to vote and fall prey to the marketing tactics.
Do you think such a HUGE cut to military spending is even possible today? This failure to STEAL money from the public trusts (they are not entitlements!) at the expense of the military is a good sign that there is some limit to how far they'll go. If this is how we cut military spending then its all we can get at this point and I'd take it.
Consequences for failures? Yes they do! The modern Republicans run against government then screw it up themselves resulting in benefits for their party (and their corporate masters who are not deterred) even if they lose a little in the short term. Meanwhile, the pro-government Democrats are harmed when government doesn't function properly. The message wars are so unbalanced that the Dems stepped back from government and the word Liberal has become a dirty word. What is odd about all this is how Democracy itself has become meaningless on multiple levels; the word has died as well. (Leave it to lawyers and PR people and they'll kill the effectiveness of the common language...)
Democratic government is run by the people; therefore, if the government sucks so does the democracy and it reflects poorly on its populace. This is all OUR fault. Take some responsibility for a change, Americans.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Your significant other has a problem with spending too much money and has a massive credit card debt and doesn't work. Your significant other asks for more money and promises to spend less, you agree. Next day you see a shiny new expensive car with a 20 year service contract in your driveway. Its explained that only one was bought instead of two so you "saved" money, and only two more will be bought next year instead of three. This goes on for years - At a certain point you realize that your significant other is a liar, cheat, and stupid so you hold on to as much money as you can and don’t give up a penny more. If you do you will lose everything as every dollar you give comes back looking like a dime after all the friends get their cut.
Instant Balance Budget (not my idea)
Pass a bill that any member of Congress/Senate serving during a deficit budget cannot run for reelection. --- Problem Solved
I can get news like this from yahoo, if we're just going to start posting links. There's hardly anything technical about this and here's another secret shhh this stuff barely matters, even to nerds. A big charade and anybody who believes any of it has any basis in reality needs a real education. It's a 3 ring circus. The truth is this is a stupid time to even be concerned about the debt. Many more pressing matters to attend to. Nobody that knows anything thinks out debt is even a problem, especially in light of the percent of gdp compared to other nations. Whatever distracts you from what matters though!
Actually, there's enough to reverse most of the ballooning deficit strictly by reinstating the Bush tax cuts. Furthermore, the best argument is the one that every deficit hawk all over the tubes are stating: current debt levels are untenable and need to be reversed.
But yeah, it's helpful to pretend this is an intractable problem and "both sides are doing it". But it's a lie and repeating it makes you a liar.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
We all KNOW the Federal govt spends too much.
Why not start with cutting spending...do this as hard as possible, it is a tough job, and required some time and concentrated effort.
Once a good start has been made on that...THEN look at raising taxes. Frankly, why not look further into revamping the tax system entirely? Simplify and flatten it as much as possible....get rid of all the deductions, etc....that alone would likely result in lowering tax rates for everyone, and still provide enough income fo the Federal govt to continue functioning.
I don't see anything wrong with EVERYONE in the us that earns an income paying at least some tax. Everyone should have some skin in the game, and not get deductions enough to pay absolutely no net taxes. Even if the poorest person pays only $2, it would be something.
But, why not start with cutting spending, and see what we need in terms of increase tax revenues when that is all done???
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
This just in off the wire:
Greedy Americans don't want to share!
More at 11.
As a Millennial, I don't give a rat's ass if you "paid into Social Security all of your life." [...] As a practical matter, means test the heck out of Social Security and Medicare while cutting our military's responsibilities.
This. The previous generations' decisions to implement a pyramid scam do not obligate the current generations to double-down on FAIL.
As I have pointed out before, the Social Security Trust fund is a farce: there is no possible way the government could "save" any surplus payments (ie. the "lockbox" is an impossible concept). The money wasn't "stolen" because it never can be saved in the first place. Thus, even though SS receipts are in surplus at the moment, once the Boomers retire then SS payments will be made out of general tax receipts.
Also, definitions would need to be altered if SS wage basis amounts were changed. SS was always envisioned as a pension-like system, which is why the tax doesn't "go all the way up" on income. This explains why Medicare lacks a wage basis... unlike SS, it was never pitched as a system where the amount paid out is linked to the amount paid in.
It is also clear that tax increases are insufficient to fix the budget—spending cuts are absolutely necessary, especially in social programs like SS/Medicare. For example, even if we cut the ~700 billion defense budget to zero (obviously untenable), it would only cut our annual deficit by 50%, from ~1.4 trillion down to ~700 billion.
Much of the reticence to raise tax rates is that tax increases have historically taken effect immediately, and any promised "spending cuts" always manage to evaporate before they ever take effect. Therefore, a "balanced approach" of tax increases + spending cuts always ends up being tax increases only.
Personally, I advocate austerity: unfairly high taxes for the successful and cuts in social programs for the poor. These entitlement programs like SS/Medicare need to be recast as welfare for the poor only. The qualification age for SS/Medicare benefits needs to be raised, probably to age 70+. We need to severely cut defense expenditures, keep out of foreign military involvements, and generally stop footing the bill for the world's defense. To make this happen, we somehow need to make real spending cuts in absolute expenditure amounts, make those cuts stick, and also raise taxes to near-punitive levels.
If we don't made these hard decisions now, then we Millennials will just be passing the same sorry situation to our children that our parents handed to us—except with compounded interest and even more toxic debt levels.
You didn't do a very good job staying objective.
One rather major item you missed:
If the defense sequestration goes into play defense spending levels will be cut to unsustainable and "hollowed out" level of 2007. Yes it would absolutely gut our millitary to decrease spending to 2007 levels. Many people fail to remember that Clinton and the Republican congress balanced the budget in the 90's by cutting defense spending. Social security has and always will be self funded and it's doubtful that even in the worst possible projections that it will go bankrupt more than 40 years from now (unless you declare the 2 Trillion in debt SS holds as insolvent). Medicare on the other hand is bankrupt right now because GW Bush and the Republican congress shoved a prescription drug program through that was 100% unfunded. In addition they dramatically increased millitary spending and cut taxes substantially on the basis of the coming surplus taxes. Those three items along with the recession's reduction in taxes are the entire basis for the deficit.
If you want to fix the federal deficit you do three things. You cut defense spending dramatically, back to inflation adjusted 1998 levels. Secondly, you increases taxes to support the Medicare prescription drug coverage or you do away with it. Third you eliminate the bush tax cuts. At a point down the road social security needs to cash in those 2 Trillion worth of Bonds it holds and we need a balanced budget with a surplus to cover that time.
. . . should look at the headline and think it should have looked liked this: "Debt Reduction Super Computer Dissolves Congress and Fixes the Economy and Everything." All hail Friend Computer!
Republican on the committee who was the first (as far as I know) to draw a line in the sand about no new taxes.
You both are saying the same thing. Republicans will not raise taxes before spending is cut. The Democrats have only offered promises to make cuts in the future, promises they have no power to keep. But they want the tax increases now. Any smart person who has payed attention to the workings of governments knows that if you give them a tax increase, they will not decrease spending, no matter what they promise. So how do you compromise with someone who has a long track record of never living up to their end of the deal? You make them live up to it by never giving them another inch until they do. As far as I'm concerned, all the spending cuts we need have already been promised to us in the past in exchange for tax increases. We'd paid the increase, the increase on the increase and even the increase on that, it's time we get our cuts. I, for one, am not willing to give the Government another dime until it actually goes one year spending less than it did the year before.
The 1% and large corporations aren't the only ones who need to pay their fair taxes like the rest of us normal folk, churches don't pay any taxes and its strait up unconstitutional. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Other non-profits have no problem paying their taxes.
"Consider that for every tax dollar a religious organization does not pay, you and I pay it on its behalf. Many are among the wealthiest organizations in the world: by 1971, the amount of real and personal property owned by U.S. churches was approx. $110 billion. In New York City alone, the amount was $3 billion in 1989. A 1986 estimate showed religious income in that year of approx. $100 billion, or about five times the income of the five largest corporations in the U.S. All tax free." http://taxthechurches.org/
"I'm pretty sure you meant "Agrees to Fail".
Let me explain - he does not have, in his family tree, anyone who, in generations past, was captured by slavers, transported across an ocean, and sold into slavery.
Instead, his father was an actual, born in Africa, African. He is an American, with one parent American and one African (by birth).
Get it? Slavery does not apply - why do so many people try bringing that up? Makes no sense what-so-ever!!
The number of far Left Democrats on this commission made the commission's failure entirely predictable.
Realistically, they couldn't cut $200Bn a year from yearly spending that was expanded by more $1000Bn? President Obama has said that raising taxes during a resession is stupid and that's the only proposal the Democrats had! Wouldn't it have been nice if the Democrats raised the passed a budget or raised the debit ceiling wen they controlled the House, Senate and the Presidency? Harry Reid still won't pass a budget.
How many times did this commission actually meet? Where was Obama on this? The Democrats took money out of Medicare to fudge numbers on Obama care, now they have to pretend to fight to get it back just like they pretended to fight to cut the debt. The net result is that Kerry, Murrey, et all got a ton of special interest funding for being there and the American people got hosed.
Just hurry up and collapse America, The rest of the world is sick of your greed and Bullying.
I remember seeing a series of snow-white presidential portraits that show a bunch of prior American presidents that all looked like Colonel Sanders (KFC founder) and then it showed the recent as Obama with the words "C-c-c-c-combo Breaker" or like. It thought it was racist against whites because they were portrayed all to be undistinguished from Colonel Sanders.
Someone also does the face-morphing on the presidents, but when Obama is portrayed then it's not racist against anyone but black people? Goddamn. It's like Blacks have become the people they hate. One thing everyone doesn't notice is none of them need their faces morphed into an Ape just for them to behave like one: whites get morphed and continue behaving as they did prior, yet blacks get morphed and they continue behaving like the same kind of Apes they were prior to their portraits being morphed.
Blacks are racists that simply argue to distract everyone from their biggotry, and when they accuse someone else it's already a fact that the accuser has already done the same 10 times of what they're accusing against another.
Chimp is not a racist word, it's short for chimpanzee.
Why anyone would be offended is because they are doing the same as the Legislature as adapting a word or phrase for your own purposes in context otherwise not what it means by etymology. Slang creates impediments of language into another language of it's own: known as a law.
You have these problems because children are forced into school to speak good of other students they don't have any relation to, and the only time differing people should come together is at a trade convention to actually share the fruits of their culture. School today is about tainting the minds of children, and the present adults today are the degenerate that you see and have no cultture of their own other than a bunch of PC rambling.
ah I love it. Whenever I confront a democrat about Obama and his failings, they always say "Well ya cant fix what Bush did!". Unfortunately for the dems, you can, and unfortunately for Obama, he hasn't.
It's like right having money trouble and borrowing some money from your rich uncle. Now: he's retiring and needs some of it back.
No, it's more like your father and grandfather borrowed money from your rich uncle. Your father and grandfather spent all the money they made and more, and so now your uncle is hitting you up to pay back their debts, most of which were created before you were born. His rationale is that your father and grandfather told him that you would be liable for their debts, even though they never asked you.
Furthermore, the rest of your extended family gasps in horrified disbelief when you suggest that it might not be your responsibility to pay your uncle back. Instead, your family demands that you, your uncle, your father, and your grandfather vote about this issue to determine what is the "fair" solution.
AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BUDGET.
Ah, but it does. Social Security and the general budget are inextricably linked because there can never be any concept of a "savings account" or "lockbox" at this scale. Thus, the SSA never had any choice but to dump their surplus into the general federal budget (albeit via indirection), and any redemption of the debts in the Trust Fund must always come from general tax income.
The Trust Fund itself has never been anything but a notional, bookkeeping entity created to confuse, inveigle, and obfuscate.
Please mod parent up
You're no more objective.
The major parts of the budget are:
-debt service
-medicare
-medicaid
-social security
-defense
Every one of these needs cuts. The only one that probably can't sustain them is debt service, if we ever want to get out from under this debt, period.
I entirely agree that defense can sustain major cuts. Personally, I'd like it if our military were a little less 'available' to be thrown at whatever cause celebre happens to occupy the pigeon-like brains of whoever is the current administration.
I'd agree with your military cutting.
Medicare and medicaid are badly in need of belt tightening. End the prescription drug benefit, and let people buy cross border as much as they like.
Social security is NOT self-funded; it's self-evidently a ponzi arrangement where the workers today pay for the retirees of yesterday. The only way that it's going to stay solvent is if it floats with lifespan, such that it's only available for the final 6 years of life (as it was originally intended).
By the way, your example is badly flawed: the budget was balanced in the 90s on the surging tax revenues of a false dot-com boom. It's much easier to balance a budget in a boom than a recession.
-Styopa
This is a group of people who took it upon themselves to come up with a compromise amongst parties with the simple goal of coming up with a solution to the debt problem (OK not so simple but still). If this group of supposedly bipartisan individuals could not reach an agreement what measures must be take to reach a true agreement?