Make your mark...spending problem or revenue problem

[MaggieMae]

hummm...spending to what we are taking in is still very high, the issue is we have baselined our way into a hole becasue of the ongoing prgms that eat up dollars year to year.

yes that drop in revenue is killing us, but, even then, we need to do some heavy editing of prgms etc. that just take on a life of their own. and yes its not a 1 party problem, never has been.

the fact is we have a revolving door of allocators that come and og in congress and wh, thats why we have to cut into the 2012 and 13 budgets, I don't trust this out year cut plan, so much as the immediate cuts, because congress can change and poof, there it goes right out the door.

that is why we need the BB amend. yes I know there are some drawbacks, but we are heading for a cliff Cuyo, we have to stop them, any which way we can and not just for the next 2 years but down the road.

I also think a balanced budget amendment is a good idea. At least it would be a jumping off point. But it CAN'T be part of the current debate over raising the debt limit. A Constitutional Amendment would take months, probably more like years, to get through, and as you say, it could all go up in smoke with a changing of the guard. It's something that should be done by resolution, and within the year taken up (and followed through on) by Congress, regardless how the balance of power falls).

A balanced budget amendment is a terrible idea.

It would be difficult, for sure. There's bound to be a conflict with the USSC ruling outlawing line item veto. How else does a government balance a budget?

 

[Trajan]

hummm...spending to what we are taking in is still very high, the issue is we have baselined our way into a hole becasue of the ongoing prgms that eat up dollars year to year.

yes that drop in revenue is killing us, but, even then, we need to do some heavy editing of prgms etc. that just take on a life of their own. and yes its not a 1 party problem, never has been.

the fact is we have a revolving door of allocators that come and og in congress and wh, thats why we have to cut into the 2012 and 13 budgets, I don't trust this out year cut plan, so much as the immediate cuts, because congress can change and poof, there it goes right out the door.

that is why we need the BB amend. yes I know there are some drawbacks, but we are heading for a cliff Cuyo, we have to stop them, any which way we can and not just for the next 2 years but down the road.

I also think a balanced budget amendment is a good idea. At least it would be a jumping off point. But it CAN'T be part of the current debate over raising the debt limit. A Constitutional Amendment would take months, probably more like years, to get through, and as you say, it could all go up in smoke with a changing of the guard. It's something that should be done by resolution, and within the year taken up (and followed through on) by Congress, regardless how the balance of power falls).

A balanced budget amendment is a terrible idea.

why?

 

[Polk]

I don't understand the process as much as I should, but aren't the feds between a rock and a hard place as they try to keep inflation from marching upward in times of economic distress anyway?

In theory, sure. In practice, inflation is well below the level the Fed defines as stable and has been for several years. We could actually run above that level for several years at this point without doing any real harm, and that's without getting into the idea that we should be targeting a higher rate of inflation anyway.

But wages being at historic lows, high inflation will only add to the misery.

Assuming wages didn't increase (we'd see more upward pressure on wages in a higher inflation environment), it would still be a net positive. One of the ways to move out of a recession is to convince workers to accept reductions in pay. The problem is that no one wants to take a pay cut. Inflation outpacing wage growth would reduce pay in real terms.

However, it's very likely we'd see more growth in wages in the higher inflation environment. This is where most Americans would see the benefits, since most households have a large amount of debt that's denominated in fixed terms.

I'd also note that when I'm talking about targeting a higher inflation level, it's in the 4-5% range, not 10%+.

 

[Trajan]

I also think a balanced budget amendment is a good idea. At least it would be a jumping off point. But it CAN'T be part of the current debate over raising the debt limit. A Constitutional Amendment would take months, probably more like years, to get through, and as you say, it could all go up in smoke with a changing of the guard. It's something that should be done by resolution, and within the year taken up (and followed through on) by Congress, regardless how the balance of power falls).

A balanced budget amendment is a terrible idea.

It would be difficult, for sure. There's bound to be a conflict with the USSC ruling outlawing line item veto. How else does a government balance a budget?

I think it would be fine in the house and senate...

 

[Polk]

hummm...spending to what we are taking in is still very high, the issue is we have baselined our way into a hole becasue of the ongoing prgms that eat up dollars year to year.

yes that drop in revenue is killing us, but, even then, we need to do some heavy editing of prgms etc. that just take on a life of their own. and yes its not a 1 party problem, never has been.

the fact is we have a revolving door of allocators that come and og in congress and wh, thats why we have to cut into the 2012 and 13 budgets, I don't trust this out year cut plan, so much as the immediate cuts, because congress can change and poof, there it goes right out the door.

that is why we need the BB amend. yes I know there are some drawbacks, but we are heading for a cliff Cuyo, we have to stop them, any which way we can and not just for the next 2 years but down the road.

I also think a balanced budget amendment is a good idea. At least it would be a jumping off point. But it CAN'T be part of the current debate over raising the debt limit. A Constitutional Amendment would take months, probably more like years, to get through, and as you say, it could all go up in smoke with a changing of the guard. It's something that should be done by resolution, and within the year taken up (and followed through on) by Congress, regardless how the balance of power falls).

thx. also it appears Mconnell wants to create a commission for debt reduction, heres some sketchy specifics he is planning on introducing;



As has been reported, McConnell is negotiating now with Sen. Harry Reid for a large-scale package that will allow the debt ceiling to rise unless overturned by a two-thirds vote. If a White House debt-ceiling deal comes through with $1.5 trillion of spending cuts, that will be part of the package. Right now, it’s not completed because enforceable spending caps have not been determined.

The key part of the new McConnell package is a joint committee to review entitlements in a massive deficit-reduction package. Unlike the Bowles-Simpson commission, this committee will be mandated to have a legislative outcome — an actual vote — that will occur early next year. No White House members. Evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. No outsiders. This will be the first time such a study would have an expedited procedure mandated with no amendments permitted. Also, tax reform could be air-dropped into this committee’s report.

Senator McConnell is determined to produce something from this grand-design package. He’s a smart guy. He may be saving the GOP from itself. McConnell believes that debt default must be completely taken off the table. That’s the thinking behind his debt-ceiling proposal, unless overturned by two-thirds of a congressional vote…


more at-
McConnell

Obama would be a fool to agree to that.

 

[Foxfyre]

And in the 'you can't make this stuff up' category:

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) on Friday strongly suggested that members of Congress are making it difficult for President Obama to raise the debt ceiling because of his race.

"I do not understand what I think is the maligning and maliciousness [toward] this president,” said Jackson Lee, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. “Why is he different? And in my community, that is the question that we raise. In the minority community that is question that is being raised. Why is this president being treated so disrespectfully? Why has the debt limit been raised 60 times? Why did the leader of the Senate continually talk about his job is to bring the president down to make sure he is unelected?”

Earlier in her speech, Jackson Lee said Obama has been targeted unlike any other president.

"I am particularly sensitive to the fact that only this president — only this one, only this one — has received the kind of attacks and disagreement and inability to work, only this one," said Jackson Lee from the House floor.

"Read between the lines," she continued. "What is different about this president that should put him in a position that he should not receive the same kind of respectful treatment of when it is necessary to raise the debt limit in order to pay our bills, something required by both statute and the 14th amendment?"

Jackson Lee: Congress complicating debt ceiling because Obama is black - The Hill's Floor Action

I guess she and President Obama were most complimentary of President Bush when they both voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006. And no doubt because he was white.

Obama said of that 2006 vote:

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” he said on March 16, 2006. “Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership . Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”
Gibbs: Senator Obama Only Voted Against Raising Debt Ceiling in 2006 Because He Knew It Would Pass Anyway | Scotty Starnes's Blog

Robert Gibbs subsequently defended him by saying that 'he only voted against it because he knew it would pass."

I kid you not. You can't make this stuff up.

Without intending to derail this entire thread, surely you realize there are great numbers of people who actually DO hate Obama because he's black. I think Sheila Jackson's major point in saying that is that he does NOT have the respect of THE POSITION by many people, some of whom are elected officials.

And I think there is zero evidence for her statement and her suggestion that the reason he is declining in approval and respect because he is black is a blatantly racist suggestion and flies in the face of rational thought from people of all races.

 

[Big Fitz]

and none of those answering the poll are a surprise in how they voted.

 

[Polk]

I also think a balanced budget amendment is a good idea. At least it would be a jumping off point. But it CAN'T be part of the current debate over raising the debt limit. A Constitutional Amendment would take months, probably more like years, to get through, and as you say, it could all go up in smoke with a changing of the guard. It's something that should be done by resolution, and within the year taken up (and followed through on) by Congress, regardless how the balance of power falls).

A balanced budget amendment is a terrible idea.

It would be difficult, for sure. There's bound to be a conflict with the USSC ruling outlawing line item veto. How else does a government balance a budget?

If members of Congress wanted a balanced budget, they could raise taxes or cut spending in the amounts needed at any time. That's the how. The more important question to me is the why. I don't think we should have a balanced budget. At least not in the sense most people talk about. I don't think we should have a balanced ledger from year to year. I think the government should shoot for surpluses during the good times, and use that money to finance deficit spending during the bad.

 

[Foxfyre]

A balanced budget amendment is a terrible idea.

It would be difficult, for sure. There's bound to be a conflict with the USSC ruling outlawing line item veto. How else does a government balance a budget?

If members of Congress wanted a balanced budget, they could raise taxes or cut spending in the amounts needed at any time. That's the how. The more important question to me is the why. I don't think we should have a balanced budget. At least not in the sense most people talk about. I don't think we should have a balanced ledger from year to year. I think the government should shoot for surpluses during the good times, and use that money to finance deficit spending during the bad.

And I hope, I hope, I hope that our elected leaders understand that the budget and revenues received in the treasury are two separate things. A Constitutionally balanced budget would in no way prevent Congress from banking a rainy day fund. It would absolutely keep them from spending more than the budget allows, however, and that would require much more responsibility in how the funds they do receive are allocated.

 

[Brutus]

If members of Congress wanted a balanced budget,

more specificially, the Repubicans in Congress do and so have proposed 40 Balanced Budget Amendments since Jefferson founded the party in 1792. The Democrats have killed every one of them and are hard at work trying to kill the current one. This must tell you something about Democrats?

 

[Brutus]

And I think there is zero evidence for her statement and her suggestion that the reason he is declining in approval and respect because he is black is a blatantly racist suggestion and flies in the face of rational thought from people of all races.

Moreover, while there are many racists no doubt, there are many who give him the benefit of the doubt because they want to see a black man do well. BO himself has confirmed this.

I'd love to see a black Republican man succeed myself, just not an uber liberal who had 2 communist parents, and acts accordingly.

 

[SKEPTICISM]

I would agree that the recession is part of the economic problems we as a nation are facing. However, Congress overspends. Note: I said Congress not the President. I'm not blaming the President although being one of those who have suffered from the economic collapse, I would say that his Stimulus Plan did not do jack shit for those who really needed it.

Thanks for the effort Mr. President. Now do you think you can actually do something for those in this country who really need help as opposed to your buddies that put you in office?

Immie

Mark Zandi, who was an economic adviser to the McCain campaign, wrote a paper showing there would be 8.5 million fewer jobs today in the absence of the stimulus.

So?

All that tells me is that Zandi is as good at using the "jobs saved" bull shit as the President.

The Stimulus Package has done little to ease the burden of those who suffered job loss during the recession. Maybe if one wants to believe the "pie in the sky" numbers pulled out of their asses one might say well, that is 8.5 million less people on the unemployment lines, but then one would need to believe those pie in the sky numbers first.

I repeat the stimulus package did not do jack shit for those who really needed it.

Immie

I agree, the stimulus should have been doubled! It was way to small given that the U.S. almost went into a Great Depression. You do realize the nation was hemorrhaging 750K jobs every month during Bush's last year and in office and Obama's first 6 months in office.

So IMHO, Obama should doubled his stimulus package and not allow the Governors of the states to disseminate the money. Obama should have mandated that the stimulus should have went to rebuild the roads, highways, bridges, and other badly needed infrastructures needs.

Oh well, its now time for another stimulus, lets hope the funds are used more wisely this time around.

 

[Brutus]

I agree, the stimulus should have been doubled!

FDR prolonged Depression for 10 years using a liberal stimulus. It was worst economic performance in American history, which explains why FDR is greatest hero to liberals.

A stimulus does stimulate, but the taxes necessary to pay for it de stimulate so no net economic gain is possible.

Further, when the stimulus is exhausted or the bubble bursts you are in worse shape because resources have been allocated to the wrong places. The recession continues until workers are retrained and resources are put back in sustainable places by the free market.

A recession is simply the time period when the free market corrects the mistakes liberals have made by misallocating resources to non sustainable places.


The concept is way over a liberals
head but one has to try.

 

[SKEPTICISM]

I agree, the stimulus should have been doubled!

FDR prolonged Depression for 10 years using a liberal stimulus. It was worst economic performance in American history, which explains why FDR is greatest hero to liberals.

A stimulus does stimulate, but the taxes necessary to pay for it de stimulate so no net economic gain is possible.

Further, when the stimulus is exhausted or the bubble bursts you are in worse shape because resources have been allocated to the wrong places. The recession continues until workers are retrained and resources are put back in sustainable places by the free market.

A recession is simply the time period when the free market corrects the mistakes liberals have made by misallocating resources to non sustainable places.


The concept is way over a liberals
head but one has to try.

We just have to get back to making things again. This idea of manipulating capital for the enrichment of a few investors and bankers is not going to keep our country strong. Like President Obama said, we need a strong middle class to compete and a strong middle class means jobs making things. We need incentives that are results driven. Incentives that just help the money manipulators make more money is not what capitalism is really about. Capitalism is about financing new industies and creating new jobs which in turn create a strong middle class. Let's get back to basics before its too late.

 

[Brutus]

We just have to get back to making things again. .

well, the days when a man with ambition and a strong back can make a good living for his family by making things ( automobiles for example) are fading fast; never to return. China and India have 2 billion or so people who can do that, not to mention Vietnam and many others.

To survive we have to do more upscale stuff like design things, not make things. Besides, ours is now a service economy so you need to think in terms of that.

 

[SKEPTICISM]

I agree, the stimulus should have been doubled!

FDR prolonged Depression for 10 years using a liberal stimulus. It was worst economic performance in American history, which explains why FDR is greatest hero to liberals.

A stimulus does stimulate, but the taxes necessary to pay for it de stimulate so no net economic gain is possible.

Further, when the stimulus is exhausted or the bubble bursts you are in worse shape because resources have been allocated to the wrong places. The recession continues until workers are retrained and resources are put back in sustainable places by the free market.

A recession is simply the time period when the free market corrects the mistakes liberals have made by misallocating resources to non sustainable places.


The concept is way over a liberals
head but one has to try.

We just have to get back to making things again. .

well, the days when a man with ambition and strong back can make a good living for his family by making things ( automobiles for example) are fading fast; never to return. China and India have a billion or so people who can do that, not to mention Vietnam and many others.

To survive we have to do more upscale stuff like design things, not make things. Besides, ours is now a service economy so you need to think in terms of that.

The U.S. has become a service sector econmy becasue of Greed. We just have to get back to making things again as well as designing green investments and technology that will create the new jobs and wealth for the 21st Century.

This idea of manipulating capital for the enrichment of a few investors and bankers is not going to keep our country strong. Like I've already said, President Obama said, we need a strong middle class to compete and a strong middle class means jobs making things.

We need incentives that are results driven. Incentives that just help the money manipulators make more money is not what capitalism is really about. Capitalism is about financing new industies and creating new jobs which in turn create a strong middle class.

 

[Brutus]

We need incentives that are results driven.

thats idiotic, did someone say they wanted incentives that are not results driven???


Why not share with us the biggest most important incentive you can think of.

 

[Polk]

If members of Congress wanted a balanced budget,

more specificially, the Repubicans in Congress do and so have proposed 40 Balanced Budget Amendments since Jefferson founded the party in 1792. The Democrats have killed every one of them and are hard at work trying to kill the current one. This must tell you something about Democrats?

The Republican Party wasn't founded until the 1850s.

 

[Brutus]

The Republican Party wasn't founded until the 1850s.

so then why be so afraid to tell us what party Jefferson founded in 1792??

 

[Polk]

The Republican Party wasn't founded until the 1850s.

so then why be so afraid to tell us what party Jefferson founded in 1792??

The Democratic-Republican Party, which dissolved after the 1824 election.