login
Email sent out today at my Wife's work... (Page 2)
-
No new posts
|
 2012-11-13 9:26 AM in reply to: #4495284 |
Master  1780     Boynton Beach, FL |  Subject: RE: Email sent out today at my Wife's work...Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-11-12 3:52 PM I don't see the "fiscal cliff" as a Democrat or Republican thing. I see it as an amazing example of US politicians unwilling to take any action or put forth a vote that they think will hurt their chances for reelection. Congresspeople are simply too afraid to do the tough thing, the right thing, for fear of getting voted out. They made promisses and pledges that lock them into a position and are too afraid to budge from them. The "fiscal cliff" was supposed to be a consequence so horrible, it would FORCE Congress and the President to some to an agreement. Force them to budge. How cowardly can you be when you're looking over the edge and you're STILL too afraid to budge because it might cost you your job? 536 people. 435 House Members, 100 Senators, and 1 President. It's crunch time. Pragmatic. Give and take. Bargain. Negotiate. No one wins and no one loses. Do whatchya gotta do. I don't care about the so-called "pros" of going over the cliff (higher revenues through taxes, being able to vote for a tax cut in 2013, making a dent in the deficit through a sudden and monster cut to defense, medicare, medicaid, etc.) The resulting global retraction and recession will be brutal! Sure it gets you lower, but you're literally doing it by falling off of a cliff. Not much control in that. It's this concept of "winnign" and "losing". That one party has to win and one has to lose. Well in this case, there is NO winner! Cutting the deficit means making hard choices. Everyone loses. The only question is how much both sides take in the loss. 536 people. If the threat of a "fiscal cliff" isn't enough to get them to do their jobs..... Should these people have these jobs at all? Both Democrats and Republicans? Do we want cowards running our country?
x1,000 |
| 2012-11-13 1:13 PM in reply to: #4496243 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Email sent out today at my Wife's work... tuwood - 2012-11-13 8:07 AM PhilipRay - 2012-11-13 9:01 AM TriRSquared - 2012-11-13 2:41 AM BINGOpowerman - 2012-11-12 9:15 PM tuwood - 2012-11-12 6:14 PM I know it would be a nightmare to pass but the only real solution in my mind is to pass a balanced budget amendment. They could phase it in over 5 or 10 years or whatever, but no matter who is in power they spend way more money than they have on whatever fancies the party in power. If they have to balance the budget then so be it. Raise taxes or cut taxes all you want but you have to cut spending or fund spending proportionately with revenue. What, Social Security is taking up 98% of the budget, well I guess you snapperheads have to reform Social Security then to pay for studying the mating patern's of the upper madagascarian horned moth. I'll see your balanced budget amendment, and raise you a cap on spending to a determined percentage of GDP. I'm all in with term limits...
Terms limits are a double edged sword. There are members of both parties that many people would like to see go and frankly need to go. However, if either team gets a good guy in who truly does what he's supposed to do and represents the people then he gets thrown out as well after a couple terms and some schlep gets voted in who may be worse. I know in Nebraska they put in term limits of two four year terms for state legislatures and everyone was all excited because of the old sticks in the mud that needed to go. Then all of a sudden all the good senators got swept out too and they just had a new ballot measure last week to change it from 2 to 3 terms by the same people who pushed in the term limits in the first place. That's where I'm at... I do not really know what the right "term" is. I don't want a bunch of rookies running around finally figuring out how to do their job and then leave. Plus... those on the take don't care, they can still make as much money lobbying and working the other side of the fence. I think money is the biggest problem. It was always going to be a problem, but now it is a HUGE problem. If we can't get the money out of the races and out of the parties, then it does not matter who get's plugged in or how often. At this point, the government does not represent the People. It represents the government and money. That has to change, but he who has the gold, makes the rules... and here we are. |
| 2012-11-13 1:15 PM in reply to: #4496229 |
Iron Donkey 38643 , Wisconsin | Subject: RE: Email sent out today at my Wife's work... PhilipRay - 2012-11-13 9:01 AM TriRSquared - 2012-11-13 2:41 AM BINGOpowerman - 2012-11-12 9:15 PM tuwood - 2012-11-12 6:14 PM I know it would be a nightmare to pass but the only real solution in my mind is to pass a balanced budget amendment. They could phase it in over 5 or 10 years or whatever, but no matter who is in power they spend way more money than they have on whatever fancies the party in power. If they have to balance the budget then so be it. Raise taxes or cut taxes all you want but you have to cut spending or fund spending proportionately with revenue. What, Social Security is taking up 98% of the budget, well I guess you snapperheads have to reform Social Security then to pay for studying the mating patern's of the upper madagascarian horned moth. I'll see your balanced budget amendment, and raise you a cap on spending to a determined percentage of GDP. I'm all in with term limits... ... was his name-o. |
| 2012-11-13 4:09 PM in reply to: #4495634 |
Extreme Veteran 1648 | Subject: RE: Email sent out today at my Wife's work... tuwood - 2012-11-12 6:14 PM I know it would be a nightmare to pass but the only real solution in my mind is to pass a balanced budget amendment. They could phase it in over 5 or 10 years or whatever, but no matter who is in power they spend way more money than they have on whatever fancies the party in power. If they have to balance the budget then so be it. Raise taxes or cut taxes all you want but you have to cut spending or fund spending proportionately with revenue. What, Social Security is taking up 98% of the budget, well I guess you snapperheads have to reform Social Security then to pay for studying the mating patern's of the upper madagascarian horned moth.
I disagree with balanced budget amendments. I don't run my house that way and I don't think we should run the country. I ran in deficit during Grad School (School Loans) then I was balanced for a while- but now I am in surplus with an eye on future expenditures coming up. (College for kid etc.) I don't think we should be in deficit a lot- but I think we would avoid deficit if we could properly plan for future expenditures. Maybe the law of large numbers cancels out some of this with the government.
BTW- I'm curious about your views on your child tax credit- do you think we should subsidize children? |
| 2012-11-13 5:29 PM in reply to: #4497098 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Email sent out today at my Wife's work... Moonrocket - 2012-11-13 4:09 PM tuwood - 2012-11-12 6:14 PM I know it would be a nightmare to pass but the only real solution in my mind is to pass a balanced budget amendment. They could phase it in over 5 or 10 years or whatever, but no matter who is in power they spend way more money than they have on whatever fancies the party in power. If they have to balance the budget then so be it. Raise taxes or cut taxes all you want but you have to cut spending or fund spending proportionately with revenue. What, Social Security is taking up 98% of the budget, well I guess you snapperheads have to reform Social Security then to pay for studying the mating patern's of the upper madagascarian horned moth. I disagree with balanced budget amendments. I don't run my house that way and I don't think we should run the country. I ran in deficit during Grad School (School Loans) then I was balanced for a while- but now I am in surplus with an eye on future expenditures coming up. (College for kid etc.) I don't think we should be in deficit a lot- but I think we would avoid deficit if we could properly plan for future expenditures. Maybe the law of large numbers cancels out some of this with the government. BTW- I'm curious about your views on your child tax credit- do you think we should subsidize children? Your logic is sound, but I'll counter your analogy with a drunk sailor (i used to be one). When a sailor hits shore from a long time at sea you don't give him an unlimited credit line because he'll spend it ALL. He'll be renting a palace, hire 5 women to adorn him, and have a staff of 10 servants before the night is over. No impulse control at all. He needs a budget and limits on his spending. (btw, that is a true story from Thailand) Congress has no impulse control at all and will spend everything if we don't demand they have limits. I'm ok with a percentage of GDP, or a balanced budget with some flexibility or whatever, the simple fact is they have to have limits. I think the child subsidy credit is stupid and unfair. There's no reason I should pay less in taxes because I have 3 children versus my next door neighbor who has no children. My neighbor even has to pay school taxes to pay for my kids to go to school. He's getting hosed coming and going. I'm personally a proponent of either a flat tax or a consumption based tax with zero deductions for anything. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK