Wow! Ayone noticed if Congress DOES nothing, we will reduce our deficit by $4.5T?

[ericatdallas]

So, if the 'Super' Committee does nothing or Congress disagrees with their recommendations and fails to act, then there is an automatic $1.2T across-the-board cut in all programs. Interestingly, if Congress does nothing, then Bush-era tax cuts expire and there is an additional $3.3T in taxes.

... hm... I wonder if Obama just outsmarted the Republicans? If the Democrats let the across-the-board cuts go in effect, the 'hit' social programs take will be severely less than what Republicans are proposing. If they let the Bush tax cuts expire, the tax increase will be significantly MORE than the Democrats were asking for.

My other thought is, this may be have been planned all along by Congrees (Both Republicans and Democrats). This may be the most palatable way of getting tax increases and cuts and they can point fingers at each other.

If Congress does nothing, it's a $450 billion reduction in deficit spending. I wonder if this is a really clever plan by someone.

Also, for those worried the military will take a significant hit, it's a non-issue. The military can be funded with emergency funding which in many areas gets bipartisan support.

[stephcps]

Congress is now trying to change that whole "if supercommittee fails then" clause. Somebody has just realized what happened!! LOL

[ericatdallas]

Congress is now trying to change that whole "if supercommittee fails then" clause. Somebody has just realized what happened!! LOL

LOL, then I gave congress too much credit, that or the "somebody" trying to change the clause wasn't part of the elite senators part of the plan.

Maybe I'm giving politicians too much credit, but this is really a masterful plan (if it is indeed intentional) to get our finances in order and be able to point at "the other guy" for screwing it up.

My other prediction is that: Politicians really are that worthless, our system is broken, we deficit spend to the point of going into economic collapse, someone (there are a few countries here) starts a war with someone else (lots of countries here), we get pulled in by treaty, WWIII starts and we're forced to reign in spending, sacrifice and adapt, and come out leaner and smaller population.

Personally, I prefer the ideal picture of some smart people figuring a way to dupe fellow politicians and american public to do the responsible thing (hopefully the plan is for good).

[ericatdallas]

I didn't go through it in too much detail, but this site shows that the maximum cut to medicare is 2% in all scenarios.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3557

That's what Obama was trying to protect. That's what republicans are least worried about in terms of social programs (medicare helps a lot of their voters).

I'm growing more and more convinced this was a masterful plan all along. The up to 9% reduction to military spending is a non-issue since we're drawing down troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Personnel budget is believed to be exempt and military is predicted to do additional cuts to manpower after drawdown anyway. Most of the trimming can come out of failed acquisition programs and developing/purchasing supplies for Iraq/Afghanistan.

[Sean Buehrle]

If Congress does nothing, it's a $450 billion reduction in deficit spending. I wonder if this is a really clever plan by someone.


LOL
Highly doubtful, I don't think if you combined all those dumba$$es brain power together they could come up with a plan that works.

And if anything good were to come of it they will all take credit for it and label it as some ultra secret plan to outsmart the other party.

I wouldn't be surprised to see this really happen.

[chrisb01]

I don't think if you combined all those dumba$$es brain power together they could come up with a plan that works.

If you combined all those dumba$$es brains together, you couldn't make a full and complete brain out of it!!!

If Obama had brains he'd be dangerous.

On a serious note: Both parties are playing political games, and both have let the American people down.
The spending keeps going full force. And China is holding the mortgage.
Our three biggest creditors are China, Japan and England. We owe China five times what we owe Japan and England put together.

One question: Why are we sending troops to Australia?

[djallor]

If you combined all those dumba$$es brains together, you couldn't make a full and complete brain out of it!!!

If Obama had brains he'd be dangerous.

I thouhgt this was a website about discus? But as long as you brought up the subject.....

If you combined all those dumba$$es brains together, they probably could not agree on what time it was and maybe not even the day of the week!!! LOL


Obama is dangerous with or without brains.


I am holding my breath on the outcome of the so called "Super Committee", but am not very hopeful.

[chrisb01]

The 'Super Committee' will not come to an agreement any time soon. The dems on the SC are holding secret meetings by themselves. Something's fishy in Denmark.

[stephcps]

The 'Super Committee' will not come to an agreement any time soon. The dems on the SC are holding secret meetings by themselves. Something's fishy in Denmark.

And you don't think the republicans are doing the same? Dems, repubs....essentially the same party....big corporations.....not a single one of them gice a crap about the american people....only the almighty dollar and how many they can get for themselves.

[ericatdallas]

My personal opinion is I don't care who did what... right now, in my opinion, if nothing happens it's pain all around and it might be the best thing for this country to get our finances in order. Anyone agree/disagree on this?

I can see sides for disagreement. The usual, lower taxes and/or increased public spending means more jobs and stimulus (depending who you ask) or raising taxes and lowering spending is a double whammy and could cause a depression/recession.

The way I look at it, spending more than we can afford (however we do it), is steering us towards disaster. I would rather have short-term pain now than long-term pain a little later. Short being measured in years to a decade, long-term being measured in decades or scores.

Either way, whether it's spending beyond our means or not taxing enough, our economy might be artifically propped up with "imaginary" money (if you want to know what I mean by imaginary, think stock and real estate wealth and how it 'disappeared' last time).

[chrisb01]

You're absolutely right Eric and stephcps. It's a shame.

A politician is just a legal crook, doing illegal things and getting away with it. They comment and put a face on TV news for the public and then go to lunch together and crack a few jokes.

Don't forget the golf game between the speaker and the president.

[stephcps]

You're absolutely right Eric and stephcps. It's a shame.

A politician is just a legal crook, doing illegal things and getting away with it. They comment and put a face on TV news for the public and then go to lunch together and crack a few jokes.

Don't forget the golf game between the speaker and the president.

Exactly!! I'm so sick of the status quo!! IMO we should fire them all and start all over again!! We need people with some guts to make some real decisions and stop all the drama.

[ericatdallas]

I don't understand why our politicians are mostly lawyers either. I know, that's not across-the-board, but it's pretty typical. Maybe I'm biased because I am an engineer, but I really think we need more engineers, doctors, scientists, average-joes, etc running for office. I think it works both ways though. The people that are most capable of running the country are too timid to be in the spotlight and the american public votes for the most charasmatic people. Charasmatic people that are also educated in science though end up running multi-billion dollar companies though...

I'm not saying one people of science need to run for office though. I think we need to have more diversity of capable people (including lawyers) in our government.

But really, it's American apathy that's the problem and not the politicians. I'm talking about 'root cause' and not symptomatic problems. The average voter isn't even the average American. The average voter is polarized in the left or the right.

American people have the power to recall elected officials. American people have the power to submit legislation. The problem is getting the critical mass, the motivation, and the driven person/people to lead the way. The system also makes it kind of hard to fill out the paperwork. The average American doesn't know what we are able to do because there are so many rules. The average American also gets easily swayed and is easily mislead. How many times have you went to someone and say, "Have you heard about the issue in <insert world issue>" and they stare at you blankly.

To me, the protests need to address root cause. To me, rather than attack the politicians, we should attack the system that makes it so easy for mediocrity to succeed.

[chrisb01]

I don't understand why our politicians are mostly lawyers either.

Of course, that's what makes things worst. Lawyers and politicians are both one and the same. All that's important to them is the money.

I have a brother and a cousin that are attorneys, and I have told them both that lawyers are crooks and so are politicians.

Back to track on the thread. A lot of people are blind to what we are talking about here. They are picking sides. They are blind, and don't see that there are no sides in politics, just money to be put in their bank accounts. Swiss banks at that.

Anyway Eric, it looks like the 'Super Committee' drank too much and forgot that they were supposed to come to a resolution. The time has almost run out on them.

[stephcps]

To me, the protests need to address root cause. To me, rather than attack the politicians, we should attack the system that makes it so easy for mediocrity to succeed.[/QUOTE]

Totally agree. However, like you said the rules have become so cumbersome that very few, not just "the average" even understand them. The only other alternative is to hope that ONE of the jerks we HIRED and pay will actually do the job he/she has been hired to do. I mean if I made decisions the way congress does at my job, I would not only be fired but people would die.

[Darrell Ward]

People are foolish if they think the people elected are running the country. It's not that they have no brains, it's that they are bought and paid for by big time special interest groups. Today's elections are all about the big money. If they don't do as their "master's" wishes, the money dries up, and they don't get re-elected. That's what we've been seeing in Congress. Congress controls the money, not the White House. Frankly, I'm getting tired of hearing people blame the White House for money problems, when most of it lies with Congress. Big money owns the upcoming pres. election as well. Let's take a look at the Republican canadates running for pres. for example, they all are saying basically the same thing, and it's all pro big business. Nothing proposed will even remotely help average voters. In fact, if you do the research, 99% of it will hurt average people. It's all pro big oil, big pharma, cut big money taxes (they hardly pay anything now), kill all unions, state voter suppression laws (designed to make us even more powerless), end all regulations, so big banks can screw us even more, big companies can pollute without interference, wall street can rob us blind, the list goes on. Love Obama or hate him, it doesn't matter, people that are paying attention better hope he gets re-elected, or we all could be in for much worse times to come. He's the lesser of the two evils at this point and time. We can only hold out hope that somehow big money gets out of politics before it destroys what's left of the country.

[chrisb01]

Anyone that can be bought, has no brains. Prostitution doesn't have to have anything to do with sexuality, anybody that can be bought in any way, shape or form, is prostituting him/herself. Sure, big money people and special interest groups, are steering the the car. I don't trust the Republican contenders either.


Let's take a look at the Republican canadates running for pres. for example, they all are saying basically the same thing, and it's all pro big business. Nothing proposed will even remotely help average voters. In fact, if you do the research, 99% of it will hurt average people. It's all pro big oil, big pharma, cut big money taxes (they hardly pay anything now), kill all unions, state voter suppression laws (designed to make us even more powerless), end all regulations, so big banks can screw us even more, big companies can pollute without interference, wall street can rob us blind, the list goes on.

Right on. If I posted on here the letter I got from my bank, everyone would be shocked. Or maybe not, I think probably all of us have heard from our respective banks. They are inventing things to add fees to. They are putting fees where there were none, and raising the ones that had.

Pres. Obama did inherit the bad economy. But as if it were a football game, he took the pass and ran with the ball to the end zone. Spent more money in three years than Pres. Bush did in eight. BTW Pres. Bush started the slippering slope the economy is in right now.

Pres. Obama asked for bail out money twice, promising to make things better and fooled us all.

Who did he give the money to?

Exactly, the big money people and special interest groups. The Solyndra people went to the White House four times within the week just before they got more than a half of a billion bucks, not to the House of Congress or the Senate.

I think all of Washington failed the American people, whether Democrat or Republican. Everybody on the 'Super Committee' knew they could not reach an agreement, it was all a game.

The corruption starts from the head, at the White House. Lets not forget 'Solyndra' or 'Fast and Furious'.

See? I've been watching CSPAN not MSNBC :-)

[Darrell Ward]

You're leaving out the fact that Solyndra had already been approved for the money before Obama had even been elected. No one in either admin. had knowledge the money would be "stolen". Ecomonists have said the so called bailouts didn't go far enough, but did help to keep money flowing when few people were spending any, and with extending unemployment, and other money to cash poor states for road projects, cop, teacher pay, etc. Loans were given to banks after the housing collapse and to car mfgs, most of this has already been paid back. It's a non issue. The "super committee" was never going to do anything anyway, everyone knew it. It was just kicking the can down the road to buy more time for both sides. Nothing important will happen until after the 2012 election. Depending on the outcome, nothing may not happen then either. Is the Obama admin. perfect? Hell no! But compaired to the Republicans running at this point and time, it's no contest. Also, I forgot to mention that Bush left the cost of the two wars, and the medicare drug plan for old people out of his budgets, so those were not paid for. So he actually spent far and away more than was listed. Of course, you never hear about this on the news either.

[chrisb01]

Exactly Darrell. Which brings back to Eric's point, we'd be better off if Congress does nothing. They brake everything they touch.
They don't care, they have a good retirement plan plus the under the table money from the biggies.
I'll be honest, I thought the solar energy industry would be up and coming.
The one thing I agree with Trump, China is sticking it to us in more ways than one.

No, I wouldn't buy a used car from any of the Republican Contenders either.

[brewmaster15]

So... lets turn this one around a bit...

If YOU had the responsibility here and could fix things without worrying about being re-elected, pundits opinions , polls, lobbyists, or getting fired, recalled , or shot.....

What would you do to Fix this issue or better yet ...fix the woefully broken Political system in this Country? Seriously what would you do different and why?

-al

[ericatdallas]

Al, no matter what the plan, there's always someone to counter it to try to 'game' the system in their favor. Politics is about distributing limited resources. The problem is shady accounting and Congress can change their own rules. It's like playing monopoly and one person arbitrarily declares that "free parking" gets you $500 only for them and they are entitled to unlimited get out of jail free cards.

For me, in this situation, I would let the $1.2T get cut and I would let the $3.3T happen. I would tie Congresional salaries to the formula they use to adjust inflation for federal employees, retirees, and social security recipients (the lesser of the three) with the maximum not to exceed the average salary increase in the US (or something that both protects them from giving them secret raises through fiscal irresponsibility).

Ideally, I would also like to change the number of representatives. I understand both sides of the argument, but having so many elected officials is ridiculous.

I would also like to see term limits for congress, but possibly longer terms.

Also, maybe a check... state Governors are able to set into motion recall congressmen and people will have to vote on it. To protect political abuse, the governor that recalls the congressmen will be on the ballot for recall.

Line item vetoes.

Just brainstorming... not all ideas are going to pass the 'good' test, but we do need to make adjustments IMO.

Finally, why I started this thread... apparently someone else beat me to it. ACtually, he points out a few additional deficit reduction measures that might kick in.

How we can succeed through supercommittee’s ‘failure’ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-we-can-succeed-through-supercommittees-failure/2011/11/16/gIQA7hLXSN_story.html)

Summary of above from a Yahoo Article (http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daniel-gross/superfail-why-d-c-fiscal-clown-show-may-133350178.html;_ylt=Am1.3qOtAUFqwVURHOTfGyKiuYdG;_ ylu=X3oDMTRibTYwN3ViBG1pdANGUCBDb21tZW50YXJ5IGFuZC BBbmFseXNpcwRwa2cDMDZhYzBhMjgtYzkxYy0zMzRiLWEwYWIt ZGQzYzI5MjcxYmUzBHBvcwMxBHNlYwNNZWRpYVNlY3Rpb25MaX N0BHZlcgMyZDNkMzZjMC0xNDkzLTExZTEtYmM5Zi1lMmQzMGMy MmRkYzQ-;_ylg=X3oDMTFvdnRqYzJoBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRw c3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25zBHRlc3QD;_ ylv=3)

[brewmaster15]

I'd like to see truly Public referendums...In the old days, elections were a logistical dilemma to begin with, certainly hard to hold frequently on key issues... These days that not true.. Its should be perfectly feasible for People to have their wishes made known with out half as many political figureheads and without the undue influence of money.

One person gets One vote, majority rules that would be true Democracy.

Too many times the will of the people is ignored, when it is the basis for our Constitution. Look at today....it matters not what "we the people want" even on clear cut issues where poll after poll shows one thing...Politicians cater to special interests with big bucks.

Find a way to force issues to be decided directly by the people ...a national vote.

Want to extend Bush Era Tax cut permanently...

National Vote.

Health Care debate

national vote

Social security

National vote

Tax Increase on Higher income...

National vote

Force Congress, the Executive and Judiciary branches to truly represent the will of the people.


Novel Idea huh?:)


Thats were I would love to see a huge change. It puts all of us, regardless of socioeconomic standing or political leanings on the same scale and all of us have a direct say in the laws that govern the land.

-al

[Darrell Ward]

Yeah, and also get rid of the money. National referendums would never be allowed to take place otherwise. Taking the donations out of elections so politicans (and even entire parties) couldn't be bought, would do wonders on it's own to clean up the process. Get back to basics. It's the only way the people will be fairly treated again.

[ericatdallas]

I did think of the national vote aspect of it... this may sound elitist, but have you ever watched the Tonight's Show w/ Jay Leno and when he does "Jay Walking"? If not, he asks simple questions about the world, like, "Who is the first president" and a lot of people are unable to answer. Our country was also founded on "Majority Rules, Minority Rights."

Should we go to war on a national vote? Well, what if the key piece of evidence was obtained by a confidential source? What if identifying that information revealed the source? So what? The person dies? Oh well? Okay, with new evidence, we go to war, lose a confidential information, lose the credibility to get more informants, and we conduct a war with no information.

Also, you can't put specifics into a vote. How do you vote a revision of complex regulations. Something near and undear to my heart is the Federal Acquisition Regulations. It's like 3 volumes and if you printed it double-sided, it would be 2-3 feet tall (I'm fortunate enough to have only needed it as an online reference).

Some issues just are too complicated for that and I think social security and health care are such issues.

What are we voting on? Yes or no? Well, if the answer is yes, then what? Who gets it? Sure... then what do we do? Vote on requirements? Sure... Now we vote on the budget? Sure... It can go on forever. The average american does not have that kind of time. So who would run the country? People that have nothing better to do.

Certainly, there are some issues that should be put to national vote. However, polls find that most americans are pretty moderate and accepting of compromise. Then why are our politicians so polarized? It's because they lose touch. The people most involved in politics are those that are polarized. So politicians get money, volunteer help, and constantly read letters, listen to phone calls, and answer questions at public meetings from the polarized left and right. If the moderate Americans were more active (many claiming real-life time constraints, negative feelings towards the system, or helplessness that there vote does not count). That's why people with time are the most active.

So what does that leave? Rich people (typical stereotype of republicans) and jobless (typical stereotype of democrats - welfare recipients and idealistic students).

Again, that's my crude opinion of how I think things spill out.

My personal political views are a little more complex in how I make decisions. I don't vote on ideals. I vote on "incremental improvements." (I could type up pages by what I mean by this but basically, I would rather get a little of what I want for something that's really important to me and give up a little for something that is not too important to me).

For instance, I would pay more taxes to help the deficit if it meant that certain social welfare programs (and I won't name any specifics to avoid taking this thread on a very awkward tangent) were reduced.

[chrisb01]

Eric, Al, Darrell, Amen to your last posts.
I think congressional term limits, as well as the National Vote that would go a long way.For sure it will slow down, if not stop the big money.

[ericatdallas]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JEjXbLQOOE

[stephcps]

Strip coporations of the right given by the supreme court of personhood. public dollars for public office. no private or corporate nothing. term limits... drop the rules that prevent a 3rd or 4th or 5th party from competing. line item veto. Love the recall idea...we must have some way of saying sorry you just ain't cutting it. Definitely need a way to cap salary and maybe even hold their paychecks if they pull the kind of crap they are right now. That is what infuriates me....they are making very good money with excellent benefits and they have the absolute nerve to sit there and do nothing when people are losing their homes, jobs and kids are hungry. It is truly sickening.

[ericatdallas]

Maybe we should use a performance based model for their salary.

Give them a base salary which can be supplemented by a bonus.

The bonus is a function of the percent increase in GDP, an inverse relation to the amount of personal income taxes, inversely related to the amount of spending relative to revenue, and other goals. Obviously, there are going to be times the undeserving get overpaid (think the dotcom boom), but it will really motivate the people during a recession.

We can also make it dependent on the amount of bills passed and not vetoed to those formally proposed. Maybe also have a portion (10% or so) dependent on the general job approval rating (w/ the value dependent on the average of four quarterly polls average between three independent polling). They'll also take a negative hit if the Supreme Court for each unconstitutional judgement.

If they implemented that, this Congress would get paid like the rest of us...

When not compromising adversely effects their pocket book, they'll find a way to compromise.

Although it wouldn't happen for multiple reasons. The main one would be that some metrics are highly variable and numbers could be manipulated.