Pain and Balanced Budgets

[Foxfyre]

And I don't believe the average American has ZERO voice. They are quite responsive to our voices or else they wouldn't be doing the non stop polling that is always going on.

Come on now, they do this to keep an ear to the ground as to what we're really paying attention to. Don't you find it odd that, for example, all food legislation is solely for the big agra monopolies? How anti-small farm, anti-sustainable, anti-farmer's market and direct farm sales and anti-competition they are? Are these laws really written to protect us? HELL NO! Those companies are basically paying our elected officials to poison us, make us sick and, most importantly, to make $$$ for those corporations. These laws are NOT in our favor, no matter how you spin them. And this is just one speck of an example. Wake up, please! American citizens have no voice in the matter anymore. Do WE get to vote on Monsanto's terminator seed moratorium being lifted? No. Do WE get to vote on whether Monsanto should label GMO foods? No, again. But this legislation sure as hell affects us directly, just like all corporate-paid for legislation... and you can bet your bippy, it's going to affect us in a bad way.

The Founders most thoughtfully designed a system of government that would not be held hostage to the tyranny of a pure democracy. So no, we do not get to vote on legislation that is the prerogative of those we send to Congress nor do we get to sign the legislation that the President signs.

We DO however have the power to send people to Washington who will vote for fiscal sanity and to pull the power away from the influence peddlers. We DO have the power to demand that our state legislatures call a Constitutional Convention and put a Constitutional amendment out there that would rein in a runaway Congress. All it takes is the will and the stamina to do it.

Would you vote for a Constitutional amendment forbidding Congress to dispense favors to anybody?

 

[Mr. Peepers]

We DO however have the power to send people to Washington who will vote for fiscal sanity and to pull the power away from the influence peddlers. We DO have the power to demand that our state legislatures call a Constitutional Convention and put a Constitutional amendment out there that would rein in a runaway Congress. All it takes is the will and the stamina to do it.

Would you vote for a Constitutional amendment forbidding Congress to dispense favors to anybody?

Of course, but like I said, those who are already in favor pay for and choose who we get to vote for - we've lost before we can even pull the lever. There should be a cap on contributions per person - NO GROUPS. You said people can choose what to spend their money on, so yeah, thay can choose to send in $100 or not. The money is all that matters any more and it is KILLING this country. That is the only way we can get honest people in congress. Here's a question. Is there ONE person in congress who is not wealthy... that makes the average 40K a year? Nope. Ever stop to wonder why that is?

 

[Mr. Peepers]

The Founders most thoughtfully designed a system of government that would not be held hostage to the tyranny of a pure democracy. So no, we do not get to vote on legislation that is the prerogative of those we send to Congress nor do we get to sign the legislation that the President signs.

Yes, but unfortunately, corporate tyranny has turned out to be much, much worse.

 

[Foxfyre]

We DO however have the power to send people to Washington who will vote for fiscal sanity and to pull the power away from the influence peddlers. We DO have the power to demand that our state legislatures call a Constitutional Convention and put a Constitutional amendment out there that would rein in a runaway Congress. All it takes is the will and the stamina to do it.

Would you vote for a Constitutional amendment forbidding Congress to dispense favors to anybody?

Of course, but like I said, those who are already in favor pay for and choose who we get to vote for - we've lost before we can even pull the lever. There should be a cap on contributions per person - NO GROUPS. You said people can choose what to spend their money on, so yeah, thay can choose to send in $100 or not. The money is all that matters any more and it is KILLING this country. That is the only way we can get honest people in congress. Here's a question. Is there ONE person in congress who is not wealthy... that makes the average 40K a year? Nope. Ever stop to wonder why that is?

The reason why is that they are able to use the people's money to increase their personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth. You cannot restrict people buying ads or financing events on behalf of another person without scrapping the First Amendment.

So you don't worry about how much they spend to get elected. You restrict their ability to benefit from it personally after they are elected. Make it impossible to use the people's money for their own benefit and you eliminate 95% of the graft and corruption in Washington as well as among the beneficiaries of their 'benevolence', you bring the budget into balance with a strong incentive to keep it that way, and the lobbying business would cease to exist as well as a huge number of worthless organiations who exist only for the government money they receive.

 

[Erand7899]

Well there sure as heck won't be if those who us who want it don't talk about it and vote for it when they get the chance.

Problem with that is... the wealthy and corporations pay for and choose who we get to elect.

About getting money out of politics, I have long argued that the only thing that will fix the system is an iron clad law, preferably a constitutional amendment, that the federal government at any level cannot expend or obligate one dime of the people's money that benefits any individual, entity, group, or demographic that does not equally benefit all regardless of political party, socioeconomic status, or ideological leanings.

Would you agree to that?

The only thing that will work is outlawing any contribution over $100 per social security or voter registration number. Set up a set, even public fund for each person being considered for election and outlaw campaign contributions other than what I mentioned above. No corporations, no unions, no special interest groups should be allowed to contribute, ONLY the people in them. Lobbyists can talk all day and night to our congresspeople, but should not be the only ones with direct access (money). Right now, average American people have ZERO voice.

What makes $100 a magic number? You are aware, are you not, that news organizations are mostly corporations? Do we just turn over all the rights to free speech to those groups and the special interest organizations that can afford to buy ads? There are many ways to influence a political contest that do not involve campaign contributions.

How about we work on taking away the politicians ability to sell benefits to those special interests? No goodies to sell, means no buyers. We could start by burning the thousands of pages of IRS regulations, and replace them with ten pages of simple rules that apply to all individuals and all businesses.

Then, we could remove the federal government from all of the functions that are properly the responsibility of the individual states. Perhaps congress could then find the time to do the functions that the Constitution assigns to the federal government.

 

[Erand7899]

Contrary to what some say, and others imply, is that average citizens do have a voice in government. We exercise it through the special interest groups that we belong to. We have a larger voice at the state and local level, and that is why I advocate the the government functions that affect people personally should be assigned to the lowest level of government possible.

I have never understood why some people think that federal politicians and bureaucrats are somehow more honest, wise, and/or compassionate than state and local politicians and bureaucrats. Afterall, that is where most federal politicians learned their craft.

 

[SniperFire]

The people of Greece are in the process of tossing out a years worth of hard, hard bailout work by the rest of the EU to try and save them from their fiscal crisis.

When the going got tough, the people gave the socialists more power.

As is happening in France.

Our Founders were right. When people finally decide to just vote themselves other people' money (the Democrat Party way), a Nation is doomed.

 

[Foxfyre]

Most political threads focus on blaming somebody for what has happened in the past, what is happening now, or what is intended to happen in the future. And there is no greater point of contention or blame or fault finding than what the federal government does with the people's money.

In my opinion, it is no longer important whose fault it is. I believe we are at the jumping off place, the absolute last chance we have to start turning it around. Or it will be too late.

Hal Mason, a retired accountant, has been quoted quite a bit on many of the financial sites recently and has put together a short video illustrating the problem we have.

United States Budget Dilemma.wmv - YouTube

The point he makes is that it will require considerable sacrifice and pain for everybody to stop our headlong rush into national bankruptcy and generations of stagnation.

Is he right? If not, how is he wrong? If so, how much pain/sacrifice would you endure personally to fix the problem?

How much PAIN and sacrifice did we endure through TWO World Wars against tyranny?

Exactly, and both those who went to war and those who stayed home dug in and got it done without expectation of any reward or compensation above and beyond their daily wages. Even those who did not work outside the home willingly accepted the rationing of tires, gasoline, meat, butter, and many other daily necessities and neither complained nor went to streets to protest.

But we now have 50% of Americans who wholly or in some regard have become addicted to some form of government entitlement. Are we too soft now to accept the pain and sacrifice necessary to deal with a severe national problem?

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right - how dey s`posed to fight a war if dey can't afford to buy no bombs an' bullets an' tanks an' such??...

Defense official says automatic cuts will cause 'absurdities'
May 31st, 2012 - The Pentagon's chief budget officer is ringing the alarm bell about looming budget cuts that could destroy the department's new defense strategy and force the defense industry to face "absurdities" as defense programs are shuttered.

"This is not the way to do defense planning and budgeting," said Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter. Carter was speaking to reporters Wednesday in Washington about the effects of sequestration, a possible automatic cut in the defense budget of more than half a trillion dollars over the next 10 years. Sequestration would kick in starting in January 2013 if President Obama and Congress cannot come to agreement on cuts in the overall budget.

Carter is the latest senior Pentagon official to speak against sequestration. His boss, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, has called sequestration a "meat ax" while the nation's highest-ranking military officer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, has warned that the cuts would be catastrophic, leaving the military with a hollowed-out force. "Sequester would have devastating effects on our readiness and our workforce and disrupt thousands of contracts and programs," Carter said.

The cuts would be piled on top of the already $500 billion in defense spending cuts set by the White House over the next 10 years as part of a longer-term budget strategy. Panetta has said the Pentagon is not planning for cuts because the White House's Office of Management and Budget has told them not to until the summer. "There is not a hell of a lot of planning I can do," because sequestration makes automatic and equally distributed cuts across Department of Defense accounts, using a "meat-ax" approach, he said.

In February, speaking before the House Budget Committee, Panetta said planning could start this summer if Congress had not made a deal on the budget. In a letter sent in November to Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Panetta said the effects of sequestration would create the smallest ground force since before World War II, the smallest Navy since before World War I, the smallest tactical fighter force in Air Force history and the smallest civilian work force in the history of the Department of Defense.

MORE

 

[zFurd]

Hal Mason says that payments to Social Security recipients comes from the general revenues (income taxes paid to the treasury), and counts that expense as an item contributing to the deficit. I was always told that FICA payments (payroll taxes paid into Social Security) went to the Social Security Trust Fund, and that payments to recipients were paid out of that fund, not out of the General fund. True, the government has been borrowing from Social Security to pay some of its debts, but the governemnt paid the Social Security fund with US bonds -- the same type of bonds that China bought from us. If the government defaults on those bonds it will probably cause a war with China. Anyway my point is that the Social Security Fund is safe, and it is not part of the deficit since it has its own funding, separate from the US Treasury.

 

[8537]

Once we get back to a reasonable level of unemployment I'd be fine with a tax hike. I'd also suggest that the debt is a political one, not an economic or accounting one. We could take a few steps over the next decade to radically change our fiscal path if we made it a priority. The most important way to shrink the debt is via growth. Beyond that, a series of steps -

For instance:

1) Freeze spending across the board in real dollars for three years. No exceptions. Probably save 100B off the top.

2) Let the Bush cuts expire. 2.4T over 10 years iirc.

3) Index SS to inflation. This a no-fucking-brainer.

4) abolish Medicare D. 1.2ish T saved in 10 years.

5) end all ag and oil subsidies.

6) End a wide range of tax exemptions - mortgage interest for starters.

7) Treat capital gains as earned income.

 

[blackhawk]

If you really want this problem fixed everyone is going to have to take a hit and yes some are going to get hit worse than other's that is just a unpleasant reality of the situation simply cutting spending or just raising taxes on the rich will not get it done. Until we accept as a nation there is no simple painless way to deal with this problem we will continue to go deeper in the hole.

 

[percysunshine]

If luddly gives uncensored a blow job. The economy should perk up just fine and we will all be saved.

 

[Foxfyre]

If you really want this problem fixed everyone is going to have to take a hit and yes some are going to get hit worse than other's that is just a unpleasant reality of the situation simply cutting spending or just raising taxes on the rich will not get it done. Until we accept as a nation there is no simple painless way to deal with this problem we will continue to go deeper in the hole.

I was listening to Mitt Romney campaigning in New Hampshire this week and was dismayed when he made one of those 'no new taxes' statements when he said he would not raise taxes on the Middle Class. I think that is completely wrong when you have almost 50% of Americans paying little or nothing in federal income taxes and that has to include at least some in the Middle Class.

While I overwhelmingly support his pro business, pro free market approach to reform, did he in that statement negate any possibility of reforming the tax code in his administration? There would now be no way to have a fairer, flatter--preferably flat--simpler system in which everybody has at least some skin in the game?

 

[8537]

If you really want this problem fixed everyone is going to have to take a hit and yes some are going to get hit worse than other's that is just a unpleasant reality of the situation simply cutting spending or just raising taxes on the rich will not get it done. Until we accept as a nation there is no simple painless way to deal with this problem we will continue to go deeper in the hole.

I was listening to Mitt Romney campaigning in New Hampshire this week and was dismayed when he made one of those 'no new taxes' statements when he said he would not raise taxes on the Middle Class. I think that is completely wrong when you have almost 50% of Americans paying little or nothing in federal income taxes and that has to include at least some in the Middle Class.

While I overwhelmingly support his pro business, pro free market approach to reform, did he in that statement negate any possibility of reforming the tax code in his administration? There would now be no way to have a fairer, flatter--preferably flat--simpler system in which everybody has at least some skin in the game?

You're working under the very unsafe assumption that what Mitt Romney say and what Mitt Romney does bear any resemblance. The tax plan he actually advocates raises taxes on the middle class. That's what he wants to do. You can pretty much ignore what he says - or just assume he means the opposite.

 

[Foxfyre]

If you really want this problem fixed everyone is going to have to take a hit and yes some are going to get hit worse than other's that is just a unpleasant reality of the situation simply cutting spending or just raising taxes on the rich will not get it done. Until we accept as a nation there is no simple painless way to deal with this problem we will continue to go deeper in the hole.

I was listening to Mitt Romney campaigning in New Hampshire this week and was dismayed when he made one of those 'no new taxes' statements when he said he would not raise taxes on the Middle Class. I think that is completely wrong when you have almost 50% of Americans paying little or nothing in federal income taxes and that has to include at least some in the Middle Class.

While I overwhelmingly support his pro business, pro free market approach to reform, did he in that statement negate any possibility of reforming the tax code in his administration? There would now be no way to have a fairer, flatter--preferably flat--simpler system in which everybody has at least some skin in the game?

You're working under the very unsafe assumption that what Mitt Romney say and what Mitt Romney does bear any resemblance. The tax plan he actually advocates raises taxes on the middle class. That's what he wants to do. You can pretty much ignore what he says - or just assume he means the opposite.

Mitt is not known for saying one thing and then governing or managing contrary to what he says. Does he adopt some positions out of politial expediency? Probably. I've never known a politician who didn't. But when it comes to core convictions and methodology on things that matter, he has been very consistent to mean what he says and to do what he says.

 

[8537]

I was listening to Mitt Romney campaigning in New Hampshire this week and was dismayed when he made one of those 'no new taxes' statements when he said he would not raise taxes on the Middle Class. I think that is completely wrong when you have almost 50% of Americans paying little or nothing in federal income taxes and that has to include at least some in the Middle Class.

While I overwhelmingly support his pro business, pro free market approach to reform, did he in that statement negate any possibility of reforming the tax code in his administration? There would now be no way to have a fairer, flatter--preferably flat--simpler system in which everybody has at least some skin in the game?

You're working under the very unsafe assumption that what Mitt Romney say and what Mitt Romney does bear any resemblance. The tax plan he actually advocates raises taxes on the middle class. That's what he wants to do. You can pretty much ignore what he says - or just assume he means the opposite.

Mitt is not known for saying one thing and then governing or managing contrary to what he says.

You're joking, right? He has a plan that raises middle class taxes. He just said he would not raise taxes on the middle class. Which do you believe?

Does he adopt some positions out of politial expediency? Probably. I've never known a politician who didn't. But when it comes to core convictions and methodology on things that matter, he has been very consistent to mean what he says and to do what he says.

He has said he is a progressive...and severely conservative. He has said that a health care mandate is imperative, and that it is wrong. He has said that he would respect a woman's right to chose and that he would repeal Roe v. Wade...

I could go on.

 

[Foxfyre]

You're working under the very unsafe assumption that what Mitt Romney say and what Mitt Romney does bear any resemblance. The tax plan he actually advocates raises taxes on the middle class. That's what he wants to do. You can pretty much ignore what he says - or just assume he means the opposite.

Mitt is not known for saying one thing and then governing or managing contrary to what he says.

You're joking, right? He has a plan that raises middle class taxes. He just said he would not raise taxes on the middle class. Which do you believe?

Does he adopt some positions out of politial expediency? Probably. I've never known a politician who didn't. But when it comes to core convictions and methodology on things that matter, he has been very consistent to mean what he says and to do what he says.

He has said he is a progressive...and severely conservative. He has said that a health care mandate is imperative, and that it is wrong. He has said that he would respect a woman's right to chose and that he would repeal Roe v. Wade...

I could go on.

I don't know what to believe at this point. I only know I want him to leave the door open for a thorough tax reform including policy that will encourage private sector economic growth and as well as eliminating the free ride too many Americans are currenting getting. (Including me. Since we closed our business, our earned inome is below the threshhold on which we owe taxes. And that is just wrong.) Obama's theory is to use hidden taxes, soak the rich, and print/borrow the rest. That is even more wrong.