Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:oldsaw wrote: Sadly, the only approach that works to change "the system" is the one that is maligned the most.Armed rebellion?
Not yet, but our overlords are preparing for the possibility:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/20/local-cops-ready-for-war-with-homeland-security-funded-military-weapons.html
Doesn't anybody realize where this "tax cut" is coming from?
Social Security!
This isn't a cut of the federal income tax, it is a cut in FICA, which is where Social Security funds come from. So, this "tax cut" doesn't increase the federal deficit, it just makes the coming Social Security blow-up more severe. And if you know anything about pension plans (which is what SS is supposed to be) you know that it is doubly hard to make up for contributions that were foregone in the past. Lost time is the enemy of money. So these "cuts" now will have to be paid for later by increasing the retirement age and the payroll tax even more.
SS is already headed into a brick wall with the baby boomers and these geniuses in Washington just made it sooner, and worse. And for what? Supposedly it was to help the economy. Has it helped the economy? Doesn't look like it. It certainly has helped the Dems paint a story that they think will get them reelected, though, which was the real reason it was implemented. I'm sure they'll find a way to blame the coming SS crisis on the Republicans, as well.
Just as stupid as raising taxes overall (it doesn't matter on whom) to pay for more government jobs in the interests of "job creation." Does anyone really think that increasing taxes, filtering money through the gov't's hands, then employing more bureaucrats and government contractors is going to be an efficient way to increase productive jobs? Rather than leaving that money in the private sector to begin with? Welcome to the American Jobs Act.
A pox on both their houses, BTW, because the Republicans aren't any better at balancing spending and taxation. Witness the two wars we've been conducting.
In reply to Basil Exposition:
Are you under the impression Al Gore's lock box idea got implemented and that is where they put in and take out SS?
Basil Exposition wrote: Doesn't anybody realize where this "tax cut" is coming from? Social Security!
Good post. When the cut went in at the 11th hour last year I thought it was retarded, as it takes probably our worst debt load, and makes it worse.
That said, I'm more and more of the opinion that E36 M3 won't get fixed until it's blown up, so lay a brick on the throttle and hang on!
In reply to Basil Exposition:
its immaterial that the money is coming from 'ss' because congress for more than a decade has borrowed against the entire annual ss surplus every budget.
Here's the fix:
*Term limits
*Congressional members get good pay and benefits while in office. Once they are done, no pensions, no health care
Publicly funded campaigns-- Candidates would need to collect signatures to qualify for running for office. Once they are accepted they would receive a set amount for campaign. (including equal T.V. time) No public / private contributions would be allowed
If above finance rules are broken the candidate would be brought up on charges for Treason because they are endangering the welfare of the American people. (Maybe not punishable by death, but at least 10 years hard time-- no parole.
The sort of political bickering / spinning that has been going on is disgusting. Neither side wants the other to "win" so in the end we all lose.
Neither the GOP or the Dems are looking out for the best interests of the country. They are looking out for the best interests of their party, and themselves. To be on one side or the other is naive and counterproductive IMHO.
Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to Basil Exposition: Are you under the impression Al Gore's lock box idea got implemented and that is where they put in and take out SS?
The spare key was in a magnetic box under The Beast.
In reply to Joe Gearin:
Treason is a pretty sizeable threat. I like sizeable threats.
Joe Gearin wrote: Here's the fix: *Term limits *Congressional members get good pay and benefits while in office. Once they are done, no pensions, no health care * Publicly funded campaigns-- Candidates would need to collect signatures to qualify for running for office. Once they are accepted they would receive a set amount for campaign. (including equal T.V. time) No public / private contributions would be allowed * If above finance rules are broken the candidate would be brought up on charges for Treason because they are endangering the welfare of the American people. (Maybe not punishable by death, but at least 10 years hard time-- no parole. The sort of political bickering / spinning that has been going on is disgusting. Neither side wants the other to "win" so in the end we all lose. Neither the GOP or the Dems are looking out for the best interests of the country. They are looking out for the best interests of their party, and themselves. To be on one side or the other is naive and counterproductive IMHO.
QFT. I am so sick of both sides it's not funny.
Armed rebellion is not the answer (but man sometimes it sounds like a real good idea). The safety valve of elections is the mechanism that was put into place for We The People to change things as we see fit so that armed insurrection wouldn't be necessary. Unfortunately, the parties have learned to inflame the sheeple, pointing fingers and hollering about stuff that doesn't mean E36 M3. Bread and circuses, man.
As long as they can keep that up, thus keeping the sheeple voting the same old jerks back in over and over and so feather their own nests this country will continue to go to hell in a handbasket. Taxes won't get fixed. Entitlement spending won't get fixed. Military overspending (or more accurately overall government overspending) won't get fixed because making a hard decision means someone won't get voted back in and they just got to get the background to go work for the lobbyists, where the big bucks are.
Joe Gearin wrote: Here's the fix: * Publicly funded campaigns-- Candidates would need to collect signatures to qualify for running for office. Once they are accepted they would receive a set amount for campaign. (including equal T.V. time) No public / private contributions would be allowed * If above finance rules are broken the candidate would be brought up on charges for Treason because they are endangering the welfare of the American people. (Maybe not punishable by death, but at least 10 years hard time-- no parole. The sort of political bickering / spinning that has been going on is disgusting. Neither side wants the other to "win" so in the end we all lose. Neither the GOP or the Dems are looking out for the best interests of the country. They are looking out for the best interests of their party, and themselves. To be on one side or the other is naive and counterproductive IMHO.
I think that right there would go a long way to fix the mess we have right now.
Campaign finance reforms are a good idea. The way you're laying it out probably violates freedom of speech, but we should do what we can do.
I'm not sure why term limits seem like such a good idea. Near as I can tell, the new guys are worse than the old guys. And a whole crew of dudes with no experience doesn't really sound like such a great idea. Typically, the guys who have been there for a while are more willing to find some kind of compromise than the young guys who are more interested in making a name for themselves than governing.
fast_eddie_72 wrote: Campaign finance reforms are a good idea. The way you're laying it out probably violates freedom of speech, but we should do what we can do. I'm not sure why term limits seem like such a good idea. Near as I can tell, the new guys are worse than the old guys. And a whole crew of dudes with no experience doesn't really sound like such a great idea. Typically, the guys who have been there for a while are more willing to find some kind of compromise than the young guys who are more interested in making a name for themselves than governing.
If you want a radical change, new guys is a good thing.
The old guys know better how to twist the rules to better serve them.
We already have a mechanism for getting rid of people we don't like, its called voting. I have never really understood the whole Term Limit thing, if you don't like the person in office then run, volunteer, work the phones, do something.
yes and no.. it is hard to be the new guy when the person you are trying to defeat in the polls has 5 or more times your advertising budget.
voters have a very short term memory.
DILYSI Dave wrote: If you want a radical change, new guys is a good thing.
Radical change always sounds better in theory than practice.
fast_eddie_72 wrote:DILYSI Dave wrote: If you want a radical change, new guys is a good thing.Radical change always sounds better in theory than practice.
Cue Obama......
fast_eddie_72 wrote:DILYSI Dave wrote: If you want a radical change, new guys is a good thing.Radical change always sounds better in theory than practice.
Agreed. But I do think what we're seeing is that a mindset within the populus that says "berkeley you, I'm tired of compromise that results in us merely driving more slowly off the cliff. I want to reverse course." is working it's way into the Congress. Makes for a painful period for sure, but it also seems like an inevitable backlash to too much compromise.
Rusted_Busted_Spit wrote: We already have a mechanism for getting rid of people we don't like, its called voting. I have never really understood the whole Term Limit thing, if you don't like the person in office then run, volunteer, work the phones, do something.
Vote them out? OK.
So you don't like the Dem incumbent, can you choose another Dem? Nope, because they won't run against thier own party. Will you choose a Repub? Probably not because they don't share your same beliefs..at all. So you cast another vote for the incumbent because you feel it is the lesser of two evils. Of course this applies to both parties. Valid third party? Most likely not, the system is designed for two parties.
Man the phones and volunteer? How many minds have been changed here by the opposing party? So a cold call from some stranger will be enough for somebody to change parties? Not gonna happen.
Term limits will not solve all problems, but it can solve some.
I was accused of towing the party line earlier. If the Dems put out another presidential candidate I would probably vote for him/her. Not impressed with Obama's track record thus far. Would I vote for a Repub if he/she was moderate? Yep. Problem is they are fighting over who is the most extreme right, that will not get me to cross party lines. Someone like Huntsman might get my vote, but he is too moderate and logical to be put on the GOP ticket.
My whole point in posting this thread is that Republicans were all "Lower taxes at any cost!" Now when they have that chance they won't even allow the bill to a vote. The reason they won't allow it to a vote is because they would lose. Mostly because this is good for our economy, the citizens, and would look good for Obama because - it is good.
For political gain the Congressional Republicans threw you, the common man, under the bus. They couldn't fight hard enough to keep the Bush tax cuts in place which benefit the upper percent of tax payers. These tax cuts are financed by deficit spending. Those same Republicans will tell you that they're against any deficit spending. Let's also consider how hard the Republicans fought against any mention of a private jet tax. Now, when we're talking a middle class tax cut they're all smoke and mirrors about why this is unacceptable. Do you really think they would've let the Rich Guy's tax cut, aka Bush Cut, expire over some dip$hit oil pipeline?! Crackah please.
Citizens who are not rich are not being helped by the Republican party in any way. In fact, you are actively being charged more taxes by them at this time. Enjoy your tax hike. It's $1000 a year on average.
Say what you want about Obama, he's working with Senate Republicans like John McCain to give you a tax cut. Congressional Republicans like Can't-or and John Boner? Yeah, keep supporting them. They'll look after the wealthy for you. 
Cone_Junky wrote:Rusted_Busted_Spit wrote: We already have a mechanism for getting rid of people we don't like, its called voting. I have never really understood the whole Term Limit thing, if you don't like the person in office then run, volunteer, work the phones, do something.Vote them out? OK. So you don't like the Dem incumbent, can you choose another Dem? Nope, because they won't run against thier own party. Will you choose a Repub? Probably not because they don't share your same beliefs..at all. So you cast another vote for the incumbent because you feel it is the lesser of two evils. Of course this applies to both parties. Valid third party? Most likely not, the system is designed for two parties. Man the phones and volunteer? How many minds have been changed here by the opposing party? So a cold call from some stranger will be enough for somebody to change parties? Not gonna happen. Term limits will not solve all problems, but it can solve some. I was accused of towing the party line earlier. If the Dems put out another presidential candidate I would probably vote for him/her. Not impressed with Obama's track record thus far. Would I vote for a Repub if he/she was moderate? Yep. Problem is they are fighting over who is the most extreme right, that will not get me to cross party lines. Someone like Huntsman might get my vote, but he is too moderate and logical to be put on the GOP ticket.
You, sir, hit the nail on the head for why we desperately need term limits. Thank you.
Cone_Junky wrote: I was accused of towing the party line earlier. If the Dems put out another presidential candidate I would probably vote for him/her. Not impressed with Obama's track record thus far. Would I vote for a Repub if he/she was moderate? Yep. Problem is they are fighting over who is the most extreme right, that will not get me to cross party lines. Someone like Huntsman might get my vote, but he is too moderate and logical to be put on the GOP ticket.
I'm with Cone Junky. I'm not impressed with Obama's civil rights or civil liberties record. Present me with a moderate Republican with some good sense and some compassion for anyone worth less than a million dollars and I may cross party lines.
But these extreme jack holes who are currently running? The ones who could care less about 99% of the country? The ones who are going to help the rich and corporate screw us over further? No thanks.
DILYSI Dave wrote: Agreed. But I do think what we're seeing is that a mindset within the populus that says "berkeley you, I'm tired of compromise that results in us merely driving more slowly off the cliff. I want to reverse course." is working it's way into the Congress. Makes for a painful period for sure, but it also seems like an inevitable backlash to too much compromise.
We're seeing what happens without compromise, though. Nothing. I think people are liking that less than the compromise.
There were a lot of Rasmussen polls being tossed out in another thread. The most amazing one I saw today was most Americans now fear the government will do to little about the economy. Last time I looked, it was the other way around and not in a small way.
It's a democracy. Without compromise there is no governing. Government without compromise is a dictatorship. Someone needs to remind the folks on one side of the aisle that we don't have one of those, even if they think we do.
Another fact to consider.
This moment in Congressional history was so shameful that Boehner turned off C-Span coverage of it.
If you want a case study for term limits, look no further than the state of California. Which is on the verge of bankruptcy. Term limits haven't helped the state of California one bit. Just sayin' http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/rb/RB_1104BCRB.pdf
Term limits aren't the universal panacea you guys are making them out to be. The party machine stays the same, it just has a new face every 6/8/12 years.
The Federal budget was ~ $3.8 trillion this year. The last thing we need is a different group of enthusiastic, but inexperienced amateurs running the show every 4/6/8, relying on outsiders (ie. lobbyists and other special interests) for advice on how to run the show.
You'll need to log in to post.
