Enough already...

Stop screwin' around and get something done!

from JoeUser Forums

Alright you so-called big boys and girls in the congress, you've had your fun playing your game of chicken and waiting until the last minute before you actually get something accomplished, but the time for the fun and games is over now, it's time to actually do the jobs you were sent to DC to do.  In other words, crap or get off the pot.

It doesn't take that much effort to put together a deal that all sides can live with but instead both sides want to be able to paint the other as the reason we're failing to get a deal done.  Uh, how about both sides (or should I say all sides since it seems that there are more than 2 parties at work here) sit down and throw the cards on the table as to what they want and will trade away in favor of what they'll eventually be able to get.

Increase revenues?  Really, that's what the Democrats want so desperately?!  Give it to 'em if you must but make them take those revenues from places they really don't want to have to hit.  Yeah, I know, that won't get the deal done, will it?!?  Instead the Dems will just say the GOP wants to protect the rich and save the tax-cuts rather than doing the right thing.

Meanwhile the GOP wants a shorter term deal so they can have the whole thing repeated before the next major election.  Can't say I blame them because if they gave in and gave Obama and company a blank check it would let him off the hook and simply punt until the next President is in office.  Yeah, I said it, the next President.  At the rate things are going Obama is headed for Jimmy Carter territory - one term and done.

But... well, it is possible to compromise if the parties are willing.  If they both dig in their heals and wait for the other to blink they'll all lose and so will we.  It's time.  Heck it's past time.  Something needed to be done already and yet it hasn't happened because neither side wants to compromise.  They've forgotten the meaning of the word and both refuse to budge.

I wish we could flush 'em all but most voters are too inept to do anything about it, or they refuse to believe it's their Congress-critters that are the problem.  Personally I think every single stinkin' one is the problem and want 'em all gone.  The longer they've been there, the more they need to go, but that doesn't exclude any of the freshmen that were new there from the last election cycle.  They all stink and every single one of them should be sent packing in favor of sending in people that might get things done.

Lets get things done and move on so that perhaps, maybe, there'd be a chance that the economy could again become the focus so we could grow some revenues and get the additional funds we need out of tax dollars for employees that have finally gotten jobs again.

politics
7,546 views 5 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

They already have a massive tax increase built in - the elimination of the Bush tax cuts.

They also have massive spending built in - the Base line is January of this year which includes the Porkulus.  I would say the republicans have done all the compromising.  Time for the democrats to do some.  I am glad the Tea Party is holding firm.  The Budget is garbage.

Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top

 

Thanks Terpfan for the article.

You write:

Alright you so-called big boys and girls in the congress, you've had your fun playing your game of chicken and waiting until the last minute before you actually get something accomplished, but the time for the fun and games is over now, it's time to actually do the jobs you were sent to DC to do.
End of quote

They are big boys and girls. It's just that some of them are corrupt and are there in Washington, DC for self... for self-serving purposes and ideology. In other words, some are not there in Washington to serve the common good and general welfare of all America.

 

You write:

Stop screwin' around and get something done!
End of quote

Lets get things done and move on so that perhaps, maybe, there'd be a chance that the economy could again become the focus so we could grow some revenues and get the additional funds we need out of tax dollars for employees that have finally gotten jobs again.
End of quote

I know everyone wants to "just get something done", but what's all this really about....what's really at stake?

Let's discuss government revenues..that is money coming in through taxes. We pay lots of taxes. We know now it's not a revenue problem, but rather a huge spending problem. Of every dollar the government spends, 42 cents is borrowed. Obama has borrowed 1.7 trillion dollars... that means he spent 1.7 trillion more than government took in in revenues.This is unsustainable.

For over two years, the Democrats has a super majority. they wouldn't/ didn't offer a budget. They couldn't becasue there was no way of hiding these numbers. How long would your household last if you spent 44% on your credit card more that your household brings in? Is the answer to raise the limit on your credit card?

Obama and some of the Dems are trying to convince Americans to do just that (and only that had it not been for this budget fight).  Raise the debt ceiling by a whopping amount until after the 2012 election, continue spending and raise taxes.

Obama likes the phrase "shared sacrifices" which means tax increases. Obama's goal is to create his vision of society and the way to accomplish that is to NOT SERVE the common good and general welfare of all Americans, but rather to serve self, by using government continue his big spending ways, trigger a crisis, and use the crisis to force higher taxes.

 

Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top

I am glad the Tea Party is holding firm.
End of quote

Me too! Without them, we wouldn't even be having this crucial debate and getting this aired out for public consumption.

Here is the latest from the Heritage Foundation.

08/01/2011

Liberals Force Choice Between Economic and National Security

Put the security of the nation at risk or raise taxes. This is the sour "deal" liberal lawmakers are offering in exchange for insufficient spending cuts, according to reports of this weekend's debt negotiations in Washington.

The framework that Republicans and Democrats are close to approving would raise the debt limit by at least $2.1 trillion and get Obama and congressional Democrats past their target date: Election Day 2012. In return for this generous political cover, Democrats would agree to a modest $1 trillion in supposed cuts spread out over 10 years; $350 billion of those "upfront" savings come from gutting national security resources.

A trillion dollars over 10 years is not sufficient to impress credit rating agencies, which have threatened to downgrade America's credit status unless Congress enacts real measures to reform spending and lower the deficit. In fact, on Friday, Moody's announced that neither the Boehner plan nor the Reid plan had sufficient cuts, saying: "Reductions of the magnitude now being proposed, if adopted, would likely lead Moody's to adopt a negative outlook on the AAA rating." The current plan does not improve upon either of those earlier plans.

In addition to the $1 trillion, the framework sets up a "special" congressional committee that would seek $1.4 trillion in "deficit reduction" by the end of 2011. Of course, for liberals, "deficit reduction" is synonymous with "higher taxes."

If the commission's recommendations are not enacted, across-the-board spending cuts would be triggered, half of which (nearly $500 billion) would come from national security spending, and apparently none of which would come from the ever-growing, budget-busting entitlement programs. This provides Democrats on the committee a powerful bargaining position. Agree to their tax hikes or gut defense. It is a dangerous choice conservative lawmakers should not have to make. The defense cuts would compromise our nation's security and the tax hikes would compromise our nation's economy.

Sadly, some liberals view our nation's national security as a bargaining chip and fail to recognize that (1) defense spending is not the cause of the problem, and (2) these cuts put our troops and our national security at risk. Without adequate security, our nation will begin an avoidable decline and lose superpower status.

Every honest observer knows the problem is entitlement spending, not the defense budget or a lack of revenue. Defense spending has been on the decline for decades, as a percentage of GDP, despite wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Libya. It is currently below its historical average of 5.2 percent of GDP. Meanwhile, entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) grew from 2.5 percent of GDP in 1965 to over 10 percent today and represent 60 percent of the total federal budget.

If the country spent nothing on defense, we would still be headed towards an entitlement-driven spending crisis.

On the revenue side, on ABC's This Week yesterday, White House political advisor David Plouffe suggested that even "most Republicans in America" support raising taxes. Of course, his pronouncements of their popularity are undercut by him not being able to say the word tax and rather incorrectly calling them "revenue."

Equating tax hikes with revenue is simply incorrect. Government revenue will grow from increased economic growth and more people employed. Most people in America do in fact believe raising taxes on job creators is not the way to create employment or economic growth.

Some Republicans are claiming that tax hikes are nearly impossible due to the structure of the debt reduction committee. Many disagree with that, including Red State's Erick Erickson, The Washington Post's Ezra Klein, and White House Advisor David Plouffe, who categorically said this morning that tax hikes are not only possible but likely.

Other Republicans are claiming that defense funding is protected because the legislative category also includes the Departments of State, Homeland Security, Veterans Administration, and Foreign Aid. But the target of cuts will still be the Pentagon.

There are thankfully some lawmakers resisting ending this debate on the backs of our troops. Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) released a statement on Sunday saying he is "very concerned about rumors that the debt agreement now being negotiated will disproportionately cut defense spending and result in unacceptably high risk to our national security." In a press conference on Saturday, Congressman Allen West (R-FL) called potential defense cuts "incredible" and "unconscionable."

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) described the situation: "The Army and Marines are stretched dangerously thin, separated from their families, and using hardware that has been chewed up by a decade of fighting." And Congressman Randy Forbes (R-VA) similarly said: "If they have to make these cuts it'll have to come out of personnel, and they'll have to reduce their force structure, and they'll have to have a new strategy for how they defend the United States of America."

There is room for internal reform at the Pentagon, and savings can be found, but those savings need to be allocated for other pressing military needs. Our nation's enemies will take advantage of this weakness, and in turn, we'll have to spend more than necessary in the future to catch up, fight off threats, and lower our heightened risk.

As Heritage expert James Carafano points out: "Defense cuts disconnected from reality and lacking in strategic foundation will only burden an already heavily taxed force and increase the risk confronting all Americans."

President Obama initially wanted a "clean" debt limit increase, and then he wanted more "stimulus" coupled with an increase. Now we are debating how best to make real cuts in our spending. Conservatives have gotten us to this point because public support is on our side. These last desperate gasps to gut resources for our troops or raise taxes on job creators are the final liberal attempts to appease a far left base.

Congressional conservatives fought hard to drive down spending toward a balanced budget, while protecting our defenses, and without raising taxes. The Ryan budget plan and the Cut, Cap and Balance Act were good steps in that direction. But the final deal, driven by liberal leaders on Capitol Hill and in the White House, sets up America for the worst possible outcome later this year—both job-killing taxes and safety-risking defense cuts—while entitlement spending goes on and on.

 

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
The following editorial analysis of the raising of the debt ceiling is from the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano. 
I think it makes alot of sense.

................................................................................................................................................................................

The roots of the crisis and the difficulties of politics

Economics of survival

The United States was not able to produce a new “bubble”: they threw in the towel and reached an anti-default agreement, preceded by a real political drama which reconfirmed the liberalistic, but responsible, soul of the country. What does it mean to raise the ceiling on public debt? It means essentially to nationalize private debt, which had become unsustainable. But it also means inflation, more taxes and the devaluation of the dollar. The ratings of the American economy worsen and the cost of debt increases.


We are faced with economic choices of survival, without prospects, not convinced and not convincing. Uncertainty reigns in the real functioning of the global market, and everyone thinks of himself in the short-term. In European countries, there is disagreement – in contrast to the United States – on how to privatize public debt, using the still substantial savings of citizens. In the end, the solution for both economic areas, will not be other than a more prominent role for the State, with the consequence of higher taxes. One could almost say that the political systems want to make citizens regret protected markets and pay for the cost of twenty years of apparent growth.


Not long ago, economic plans were developed in the service of politics. Then, politics became necessary in order to make economic plans. Now, it seems that false economic plans are invented without even attempting the politics. In some countries, there have even been plans for a sort of patrimonial tax in order to have resources which can continue to be wasted, in absence of serious planning. It is as if a doctor, to stop the bleeding, cut the injured artery.

 

Or if a nation banned childbirth, temporarily increasing the pro capita GDP. Separated from ethical considerations and assuming a moral autonomy, the economy ends up in the hands of people who transform it into an instrument of power, including political power. To paraphrase Sollicitudo rei socialis, these men have sophisticated instruments at their disposal, but they do not have sufficient wisdom and maturity to think of the common good. How politics can get on top of this situation is not entirely clear and there are many difficulties.

 

The solution to economic problems would necessitate a long-term politics of austerity. But this is an unpopular strategy and risks electoral defeat for whomever attempts to put it into practice. The threat, then is one of choices which are electorally popular but not economically prudent. In Europe, the need to govern the common currency imposes equivalent rules for very different contexts which are unable to be homogenized, and risks producing unsustainable solutions which will aggravate eventual political crises. Looming unemployment in countries with mature economies is the fruit of competitive weakness due to de-localization, which aims to consume more, at a cheaper price. To improve unemployment rates, production should be returned to its home countries. Which would mean, briefly, advantages for producers, but serious disadvantages for consumers.


But are all of these problems really the consequence of today’s economic crisis? Or are we only experiencing the effects of a preceding crisis, which is not economic but has produced economic effects?

 

In reality, the real crisis has been created, lived and fed by the Western world, in accepting the idea of a man who needs to be satisfied only materially, making him consume.

  Ettore Gotti Tedeschi
August 4, 2011