What it all boils down to

I completely agree that congress should be held accountable. Congress does indeed make the rules. However, the current congressmen and women inherited a really bad situation. I'll bet that at the start of their careers they wanted to make a real change in a positive way. As they got older and more experienced they realized something. That the situation is damn near unfixable.
 
Quote from piezoe:

This is one of those captivating articles --written some time ago, but nothing has really changed -- that makes a lot of sense on the surface and makes things pretty simple. All of the problems are because our legislative, executive and judicial branches of government profess one thing but do another. The problem is, this is way too simple.

In fact, most of these folks believe in what they profess, and much of the time, probably the majority of the time, are true to their word. If the article had started with that premise, which is the correct one, and then explained how, in spite of good intentions to balance the budget, prevent inflation, reduce taxes, and I might add, simplify the tax code, they screw up anyway, this could have been a ground breaking article, because it would have then addressed the root causes of our disfunctional government. And, certainly, the root cause is not that these people are mostly fuck-ups and people with bad intentions. They are not.

It makes sense to place blame for the country's failure to solve its problems squarely on the shoulders of these 545 (a few more now, isn't there?) individuals. That I can agree with completely. But they are not scoundrels. Nor are they, as individuals, incompetent or irresponsible, not many of them anyway, yet collectively they seem to be. (One has to acknowledge that occasionally a Phil Gramm or a Tom DeLay will come along, but they are the exceptions.) So why in spite of good intentions, can nothing get done. To me, that is the proper question to be asking.
pimps sell prostitutes for cash,lobbyists sell us congress and senate for cash,they may have started out trying to make a difference,but they all eventually become whores for the almighty dollar
 
Quote from Elitist Trader:

The military budget allows the US to have incredible influence in the world, doesnt that influence help the US to make money? why should this be given up?

Influence in the same way the mafia is influential. We make people offers they can't refuse. :D And of course that's one of the reasons the USA is disrespected in so many countries. Frankly, if you are interested in making friends abroad and making money from business activities, there must be a better way to do that than killing and torturing people.

If the military "helps the US to make money", as you say, then the only way that would be justified in the financial sense is if the financial gain outweighs the costs of military operations. I don't think there is any creditable evidence of that ($4K/person per year, remember). If there is please let me know, but I won't be impressed with anecdotes. I want hard numbers like the hard numbers I have just given you. As I said: "We can't afford that folks!"
 
It is perhaps the fault of the gov., however, the people are to be blamed.

We don't have the discipline to say NO. We don't have the discipline to say no to any entitlement programs. Along with all the other budget expenditures that we've grown accustomed to.

When they do stupid programs like cash for clunkers, or stimulus packages etc. etc. we dont' say NO to cash.

Also people no longer have million citizen marches to say No to the BS. We're too lazy and others too clueless.

It's gov.'s fault for the BS, but our fault for believing in it and not doing anything about it.
 
Quote from bob2007:

It is perhaps the fault of the gov., however, the people are to be blamed.

We don't have the discipline to say NO. We don't have the discipline to say no to any entitlement programs. Along with all the other budget expenditures that we've grown accustomed to.

When they do stupid programs like cash for clunkers, or stimulus packages etc. etc. we dont' say NO to cash.

Also people no longer have million citizen marches to say No to the BS. We're too lazy and others too clueless.

It's gov.'s fault for the BS, but our fault for believing in it and not doing anything about it.

Well, I have to agree we ,collectively, get the government we deserve. But there are at least two of us who don't believe the government BS, you and I.

It's a curious thing, but I am becoming more and more convinced that entitlements are not the problem. These are the cash cows that government borrows from (Social Security) or steals from (Medicare) that fund US wars! Social Security is actually sound and needs only a very minor adjustment in contribution rates to adjust for changing demographics (It's two to three cents per dollar split between employer and employee according to the 2009 summary report of the Social Security administration That amounts to a increase from 12.5% to 14.5 % or a 16% increase in the contribution rate. When the opponents of social security describe the change in contribution rate needed they invariably quote the 16% increase figure. People don't realize that we are only talking about 12 cents to begin, so a two cent increase is a 16% increase! If we were at one cent and needed to go to two, WJS headlines would trumpet "100% Increase in Social Security Tax Rate Needed to Rescue Troubled Social Security System." (These people are scoundrels and will stop at nothing in their efforts to mislead the public and kill Social Security. :( Arguably the single best government program.) In my opinion it ought to be strengthened not weakened.

And I am fast becoming a believer that medicare could be made sound if it were treated like social security and the revenue invested at interest just as social security contributions are. Both programs need to be taken off budget, i.e., not shown on the revenue side of the general budget. I used to believe that Medicare was a hopeless situation, but the recent posts of ET folks have me convinced that the program can be made sound. The real problem with Medicare is that American Medicine operates as a government protected cartel and the cartel is selling a service that can't be refused. That's obviously a recipe for ever rising costs! If the cartel is broken by deregulating medicine and welcoming competition, prices will stabilize and likely come down some. I can hear the howling now coming from the AMA, AHA, drug and insurance industry. They'll all be screaming deregulation won't be safe, drugs from Canada and Mexico will kill us because the FDA has no control over them, and people every where will be dropping dead from heart attacks because they didn't check with their physician ($90 please) before starting a physical exercise program.

For anyone who believes deregulating medicine to the same extent that it is in many other countries, with better outcomes I might add, would be "too risky", then I have a proposal I'd like to sell you. Clorox and Draino are extremely dangerous, just a little bit of either in the eye can make you go blind. This is obviously too dangerous. We need a government regulation that requires a prescription from a chemist be obtained before anyone can purchase Clorox or Draino. That's the only way to be safe. :D
 
It boils down to the fact that the Fed runs the country and the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel makes money when the government runs a deficit so let there be deficits. No rational person would promise to reduce the national debt by $4T over 10 years and then go out and borrow $1.4T to balance this years budget. It's all about the banks. The fleecing of America.
 
Quote from the1:

It boils down to the fact that the Fed runs the country and the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel makes money when the government runs a deficit so let there be deficits. No rational person would promise to reduce the national debt by $4T over 10 years and then go out and borrow $1.4T to balance this years budget. It's all about the banks. The fleecing of America.

Those are interesting ideas. Let's suppose you are right. How does the Federal Reserve get the government to run these big deficits that the Fed finds so profitable? Since the Fed has nothing to do with legislation and doesn't get to vote on the budget, how do they do it? (They don't even get to sit on Ways and Means or the Senate Armed Services Committee.) Do they just go to Washington and whisper something in the Treasury Secretary's ear like: "Go on up to Capitol Hill, Tim, and tell those folks you have a lot more money lying around then you really do. That way they will run up huge deficits, and we can get rich."?
 
Back
Top