Best
79 Comments
Post
  • #39
    !
    Damn congress finally did something,and now they want a pat on the back...what ever happen to the paycheck they did not work for the last 4 years ?
  • #57
    !
    @PNWest - Not sad, angry. Too much of our children's potential is being thrown away to feed the hungry political machine known as obama's Washington.
  • #65
    !
    @Neo_NtheMatrix - oh yeah, right, all this out of control spending started with Obama... sure... FYI: CONGRESS holds the purse strings, not the POTUS...
  • R Load more replies

  • #14
    !
    Not one senator, not one congressman, not the president should be allowed to leave DC and should be sequestered in the Senate, House and White House until a Budget is passed that reduces spending of the US Government across the board by 30%... Call out the Surrounding Militia to act as perimeter security so none of them can sneak out for champagne and caviar brunches....
  • #41
    !
    "House and White House until a Budget is passed that reduces spending of the US Government across the board by 30%" Even then, we would still have a deficit in the hundreds of billions. The numbers associated with our deficit is so mind boggling that most cannot grasp the dire straights we are in and things will only get worse. Our deficit is the greatest threat to our future.
  • #44
    !
    @IMAQT .. I don't disagree with you... If we cut spending today by 50%, taxed every person that makes over a million bucks 100% we would still be in debt for decades... But if we can't even get out government to pass a budget in 4 years we have to do something to get their attention... Today we have a National Socialist Government not the Federal Government we were given with the 1st Congress... If we look at the basic way it functions and the programs and policies that make up our costs of function it is absolutely a National Socialist form of Governance.... Federalism has been eroded to the point of insignificance....
  • #56
    !
    A 30% across the board cut... have you really thought about the effects of that?

    So let's just say we actually can cut across the board 30%, that would be about $1.5 trillion in cuts w/out touching SSI. So right off the bat we're going to cut GDP by 12%. Now let's assume for simplicity that this means a 30% across the board cut in federal jobs as well, that's about 1.5 million people added to unemployment. Then there's the contracts, which in 2005 employed 8 million people. Let's assume that hasn't changed, that's another 2.4 million people added to unemployment. 4 million new people on unemployment not paying taxes. Let's assume $10k per person in taxes, that's 40 billion in lost revenue, plus roughly another 150 billion in more expenditures. We're basically at a balanced budget at that point, but then you have to consider the lost buying power of 4 million people instantly gone and what that will do to the private sector, the loss of GDP's effect, and others. I smell a recipe for a depression.
  • #61
    !
    @AceLuby .. Yes I have considered the impact and the downside... Yes it would be Devastating on several levels... But the alternative in time will be a Totalitarian governance and there will be no method to avoid it.. And as long as we continue on the path we are going the fantasy of Balanced only exists on paper... When a Budget is proposed that is greater than the previous by 100% then is "Cut" to 50% more and we are told it is a Reduction in spending then we have come to a point that Devastation is required... then a rebuild... It's like the TV show Hoarders... if a Hoarder brings home 2 tons of garbage a week and throws out 1 ton a week sooner or later the house will pop like a balloon.... At some point the house has to be emptied of all the trash and the hoarder tossed out of the house so some disinfection can take place to get rid of the cockroaches and maggots before you can redecorate and move the owners back in....
  • #78
    !
    @Quantummist My point is that this plan makes about as much fiscal sense as doubling everyone's tax rate. Devastation is not required if you understand the core issues of our problems.

    Step 1: Cut $400 billion from defense (we'd still have the biggest military)
    Step 2: Use that the first year to build a coast to coast rail system as well as a federal bio diesel program with the intention of getting UE down under 5%.
    Step 3: With UE down under 5% you have an extra $4-500 billion in savings due to more taxes and less people taking UE, foodstamps, etc...
    Step 4: Year 2 would have $800 billion less in spending at which point we can do targeted cuts like removing TSA and homeland security (they are redundant), means testing medicare and SSI, and an across the board 5-10% cut of social programs
    Step 5: Build a surplus and actually pay off the debt

    All this would require is three things. First, realizing that we spend WAY too much on defense and are less safe w/ less freedom than we had in 1980. Second, realizing that govt investments here help long term (Ike proved that w/ the highway system). And lastly, that we once we balance the budget we have to take serious steps to pay off the debt instead of giving tax breaks as soon as the budget is balanced.
  • #9
    !
    The creaking sound you heard was the house GOP beginning to fold like a cheap lawn chair. It was nice of the democrats to compromise with the GOP with their kabuki theater legislators don't get paid fraud - they get paid anyway at the end of the session. Regardless but we all know how the GOP loves show over substance.
  • #17
    !
    Your reading is totally 100% bassakwards pal. What you heard was the Repbs. closing the door on all the drama that Obama likes to surround himself with and all the angst he can stir up with the general public, you know, SS won't be paid, babies will starve, the poor will be thrown out of their homes type of rhetoric, usually slung around by Obama when he doesn't get his way. He HAD to accept this, couldn't veto it and that forces Harry Reid to FINALLY do some bill passing in the Senate. The House has passed many budgets, not the Senate, thanks to Harry, and that's how it works (look it up) the House passes a budget, the Senate passes a budget and then the House gets together a committee to RECONCILE both budgets into something that both Senate and House can live with. This is what has not been done in 4 years. They get paid at the end of the session is correct, that session ends in 2015! Just the embarrassment of being docked for non-performance will resonate with the American public, as I said, it's time the American public gets to see just what they voted for. Ha ha ha ha, jokes on you darlin'. Obama and the Democrats will have to OWN this economy and jobs market this time.
  • #38
    !
    @Tralee And the joke will be on you in 2014 and 2016 as things continue to improve in spite of republican obstructionism.
  • #6
    !
    Barky will be spending cash like a divorced woman who just cleaned up, scored alimony, child support and dumped the kids with her parents for a non-stop shopping bender!
  • #26
    !
    You're lack of knowledge on the subject is so typical... A hint the debt ceiling has nothing, read my lips nothing to do with what "Barky" will be spending. A high school social studies class would have taught you this authorizes payment on debt incurred by past presidents and congresses. It has nothing to do with future spending. You're paying for unfunded wars, unfunded Medicare drug bills, tarp, bail outs, stimulus, entitlements all approved in the past, nothing new. So take a deep breath and relax you're buddy Barky can't spend a dime without congressional approval of the expense.(any HS grad should know that much)
  • #50
    !
    Is there any consciouness about paying down this debt instead of continually raising it and if so when the hell are they going to start.
  • #64
    !
    @marine1 The only way that happens in my veiw is if they set up a write of of tax specifically allocated and legally prohibited from going to anything else. For example: cut program x and take funds for program x and pay specifically to pay down the debt. As likely to happen as seeing elephants and donkeys fly.
  • #19
    !
    Well I mean really did you think that the Republican House really wanted to go another round with the Whitehouse and the Senate and get a slap in the face like they just did a few weeks ago. I think this is something the party is trying to do to better place themselves when it comes to the election cycle in 2014.
  • #62
    !
    Yes, it is. To me that is what matters most. I want to see a 50% reduction of military spending, but know it won't happen, and want to see what we get for not cutting military programs. But I have a tony hope it all falls apart the last second, cause in absence of that we will never get significant cuts to the military budget...
  • #10
    !
    Good ploy by the Republicans. This takes the constant "Drama" out of the question. Pass what the president wants along with the budget requirement, keep Obama coming back for more and more and more and keep the budget lapse and continual needs to raise the debt ceiling in the limelight. Take away the Drama Queen's Modus operandi of pointing his silly finger at the Republicans every time things don't go his way.
  • #11
    !
    If the GOP wanted to "Take away the Drama Queen's Modus operandi of pointing his silly finger at the Republicans every time things don't go his way" wouldn't they have just removed the debt limit once and for all? What they want to do is play up to their base as much as possible before folding like a freshly washed T-Shirt. Hence they push things down the road a few months so they can hem and haw again.
  • #21
    !
    @PNWest Of course not, they want the public to SEE Obama need more and more and more money, over and over and over again and then see that Obama is loath to cut any expenses, let alone any entitlement expense that even the CBO's most recent report states will break the bank in less than 10 years. Welcome to Greece, well welcome to Greece knowing that Greece can't just print more money and that Germany came along and bailed out Greece, no one is going to bail the US out. We are SOL when the entitlements exceed revenue and the bills come due.
  • #36
    !
    @Tralee In your first post you say "This takes the constant "Drama" out of the question" then now "they want the public to SEE Obama need more and more and more money, over and over and over again". Two diametrically opposed points. We will eventually dig out of the hole that Bush dug us into and at that time the deficits will go down. Obviously the stock market sees it that way - it is at a 5 year high. Obviously the bond market see it that way too - bond yields are at an all time low.
  • #43
    !
    @PNWest No it doesn't, there is the constant dramatics that Obama needs ("Never let a crisis go to waste" even if you must manufacture or create said crisis yourself) to create a crisis like atmosphere so he can stir up the pubic lemmings to a fever pitch of hate for anyone standing in the way of those starving children, freezing homeless and of course the poor old folks living on SS. He uses it like a orchestra leader uses his baton to lead the band. It's all just smoke and mirrors but the press loves it, reports dutifully on all the angst and the looming crisis ahead all because those nasty, should just be put out of their misery Republicans, are standing in the way of progress. See? It's all drama and angst with Obama, which is why I call him a Drama Queen, everything is soooo dramatic and urgent. The public needs to finally realize that Obama is the big spender, Obama took the national debt from 9 Trillion to over $16 Trillion in 4 years. That's why they need to see him constantly requesting more money, more taxes and more spending. Don't even try to pass off that misbegotten bit of misinformation and DNC rhetoric that Bush is still to blame for all our woes, he did his share, but Obama doubled down on Bush's spending in spades. We can erase the few T that Bush ran up, but what about the SEVEN TRILLION + that Obama ran up in less than 4 full years? Hmmm, that Bush's fault too?, how about the common cold, Bush's fault? Just WHEN is Obama going to take ownership of the position of President of the United States? Isn't it about time, it's been 4 years of "It's not my fault" excuses and evasions, surely he's had enough on the job training to finally do the job. It's comical and becoming painfully clear that you guys are totally brain dead, not brain washed, if you can't recognize that your guy, not Bush, ran up the tab twice as far and twice as fast as all other presidents combined before him.
  • #45
    !
    @Tralee Bush is still to blame and will be until we dig out from the damage that he did to the country. Just because Bush screwed things up so badly that they can't be completely fixed in four years doesn't mean that Obama didn't do a good job. The GOP argument that Obama didn't clean up Bush's mess fast enough fell flat with the American people in November. We are going to continue to go forward in spite of republican obstructionism. All of the Party of No crap is biting the GOP in the butt.
  • R Load more replies

  • #79
    !
    more spending, will not cure the ills of the economicly decreped. take away their, blank check policy now. here is your income, so live withing your budget.
  • #77
    !
    This article neglects to mention an important detail. If this bill is passed, lawmakers will not be paid unless they pass a budget that will balance the budget in 10 years.
  • #74
    !
    our country is just about to crush under the weight of the already well over $16 trillion debt. this will completely demolish our country. Obama will see to that.
  • #58
    !
    Looks like three more months of unlimited spending...the Republicans have to do it, or they are the ones who will get the blame...It's been FOUR years still no budget from Harry, and no out cry from the left either.
  • #63
    !
    I'm guessing we might disagree on the issue, maybe not. Either way, can you elaborate on your analogy. Thinkyour saying they're not true consrvatives, but not certian if that is what you're saying.
  • #70
    !
    @PoliticalSpice they are not true fiscal conservatives and they will not do much of anything untill they figure a way to keep their dollars comming. the only real difference between the two parties is how they steal from the the people.
  • #72
    !
    @marine1 much as i detest politics of tea party, that is ghe one thing i admire about em, they have tried to keep the promises they made and kept faith with thd voters who put them
    In office, neither the traditional repub or many of the dems can say that. Still your statement is 100% correct, until we move toward a system i want I still prefer the theft of dems, at least they split some of the loot with us...
  • #52
    !
    It's like one of those film loops when someone is robbing the bank vault and we are the vault. Around and around it goes and where it will stop. WE will never know.
  • #20
    !
    I'm for giving it a try. The suspension-of-pay part is gimmicky but the budget part ties the passage of a budget... something that hasn't been done since the deficit-exploding 2009 Budget which is still in effect due to the Democrats' abhorrence of any budget that starts to rein it back in and the resultant gridlock in Congress that has been able to do nothing more than kick cans down the road... to the next debt limit hike in three months.
  • #42
    !
    If I were a betting man, I'd say the democrats do not produce a budget as that would require them to show their hand. They are having way to much success in destroying the GOP which I believe is their real goal. I am still waiting for the democrats to start talking about the elephant in the room..reform of medicare and SS.
  • #16
    !
    Just damn!!! I'm about to start speaking Chinese. It's real simple, bring American jobs back home. I would tax the American companies that have gone over seas for cheaper labor costs so bad their ass would hurt!
  • #23
    !
    Sorry to have to break it to you, but the reason they are over seas is due to the highest corp. tax rate going, right here in the good ol' US of A. You want more American jobs? Lower the corp. tax closer to the rest of the world and American companies would have no reason to go elsewhere. It's not just cheaper labor, although unions have done their best to price themselves out of the market, it's lower corporate taxes and a friendlier business climate.
  • #24
    !
    @Tralee Nonsense. 3.00 a day labor is why jobs are overseas. That and nothing more. Companies had the lowest tax rate since taxes began for the past 11 years and we lost 12 million jobs. ABSOLUTE NONSENSE.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #28
    !
    @jessejaymes No, you are wrong again, you really should do a bit of fact checking before you make these pronouncements, the jobs overseas, except in certain select areas, pay the going wage for that area. See Ireland for one place. And no, America has one of the HIGHEST tax rates in the world, our rate is 35%, the highest, the next highest is France with 34%.

    "McCaul spokesman Mike Rosen told us by email that 35 percent is the top statutory rate for U.S. corporate taxes, citing an April 5, 2012, "backgrounder" from the Council on Foreign Relations.

    The council, an independent, nonpartisan think-tank, said the U.S. had the highest corporate tax rate in the world by two measures: Excluding state and local taxes, the rate was 35 percent. With those sub-national taxes, the rate was 39.2 percent."
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • R Load more replies

  • #8
    !
    I love the provision of suspension of pay. But I doubt we'll see that. They just kicked the can down the road. Business as usual.
  • #5
    !
    I approve, especially about the part that prevents the Congress from getting paid if the government shuts down. If that is unconstitutional, then the Constitution needs to be amended. It seems that it has never been found unconstitutional that Congress can increase their own pay.
  • #35
    !
    The Constitution has already been amended.

    Amendment 27 - Limiting Changes to Congressional Pay. Ratified 5/7/1992. History

    No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

    Looks like the clowns still will get paid.:-(
  • #47
    !
    @Thunderchicken An amendment that was intended to prevent sitting members of Congress from voting themselves a pay raise was modified into one that grants automatic pay raises unless they are voted against by Congress. What one amendment does, another one can undo.
  • R Load more comments...
Post