Congress' Select Committee - Will they git 'er done?

[jblomenberg16]

Will be gridlock of epic proportion, with lots of "Transparency" along the way, which translates into the equivalent of a pre-school party where little Johnny is going to hold his breath until he turns blue unless Susie lets him have a turn playing in the sand box.

 

[Pocketman]

Can't we try a new party?

I'm sick of these 2.

Amen brother!

Look, you can't cut what you have already spent so all cut must come from future spending.

Some of the rhetoric said raising the debt limit was equivalent to giving Obama a blank check. It was only that simple.

Ronald Reagon bankrupted the Soviet Union by getting them into an arms race. THEY WENT UNDER TRYING TO KEEP UP WITH US. Osama Bin Laden took a page from our playbook and has done the same thing to us. He could not defeat us militarily, but has drug us into 3 wars that are bankrupting us. Why does nobody see this, Our defense budget has tripled in the last 10 years, and only Ron Paul is sounding the alarm. There is a Republican Debate tonight on TV. Watch it. Listen to what Ron Paul has to say. In my opinion ,he is the only one that makes any sense, although I disagree with a lot of his liberaterian positions. He would be the only republican I could vote for.

I think people see, but are in denial. Republicans fear cutting the defense budget, which is a large part of the problem.

 

[Hotdoger]

Nobody has mentioned the fact that all the republicans have signed the pledge not to raise taxes period. The dems are willing to go more than hallf way. $4 trillion in cuts, 1 trillion in new revenue,. Seems more than fair to me. But NO, The republicans will stand firm 0 in new revenue. Only cuts, That was their position before and that is their position now. IT MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY. no COMPROMISE

No problem for me. They don't need any more moneyto spend.

Do you continue to spend more if you are in debt to your eye balls?

 

[Hotdoger]

Amen brother!


Some of the rhetoric said raising the debt limit was equivalent to giving Obama a blank check. It was only that simple.


I think people see, but are in denial. Republicans fear cutting the defense budget, which is a large part of the problem.

Defense spending is no greater a % than under many past presidents.

Entitlements contiue to grow at a much higher % rate of the budget.

 

[other guy]

Maybe you're unfamiliar with Democrat "compromise". It's pretty simple, "do it our way". Have you noticed all of the "compromise" coming from the left is "follow us or else"? One would have to be completely ignorant or intentionally overlooking to not notice that. The R's aren't much better, but to go and make out the one side as unreasonable to reject compromise seems disingenuous.

Well, for those of you watching the Republican debate, I think the republicans made it pretty clear how much compromise they are willing to make. All cuts, no increase in revenue(taxes). Not even in a 10 to 1 ratio. To me it sounds like they are the ones who say "my way or the highway"

 

[Pocketman]

Defense spending is no greater a % than under many past presidents.

Entitlements contiue to grow at a much higher % rate of the budget.

Both are areas where we can save money. While I believe in a strong military, should the U.S. be funding 43% of the world's defense?

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

Just a few quick thoughts.

I think this committee has a reasonable chance of succeeding because neither the demopubicans or republicrats want to face the sequestration that will occur IF they do nothing. By putting in provisions for automatic cuts to programs each side loves it will force them to work harder to see that the perceived damage is limited.

I don't see this committee as being in any way out of line. All it says is that whatever they propose will go straight to both the House and the Senate for a yes/no vote. No adding, no taking away: Just yes or no.

I have recently (last 2 - 3 years) started to change my mind: I now think we need to increase revenue. We have let the hole get too deep for cuts alone. The question as I see it is: how much is cut v/s how much is raised. I could easily live with $10 in cuts for $1 in increased revenue. I could probably live with $4 in cuts for $1 in increased revenue. Less than that and I would have to be sold on specifics. All I am saying is that the damage is too severe at this point to not increase revenue. Do I like that: Heck NO!!! Am I willing to accept that we have screwed ourselves too much and have to increase revenue: Yes, darnit...

All that said I would want NO NEW programs even considered until we have cut the debt to 20% of GDP. As long as I am willing to accept increased revenue I would fight any and all new programs. I would want revenue increases to ONLY go toward fixing the mess we are in and in no way doing anything else.

In short, we are sick, we are screwed, and we need to make a face, pinch our noses and take medicine nobody wants IF we are to get through this crisis and come out economically healthy in the future.

Regards,

Doug

 

[hornadylnl]

To All,

Just a few quick thoughts.

I think this committee has a reasonable chance of succeeding because neither the demopubicans or republicrats want to face the sequestration that will occur IF they do nothing. By putting in provisions for automatic cuts to programs each side loves it will force them to work harder to see that the perceived damage is limited.

I don't see this committee as being in any way out of line. All it says is that whatever they propose will go straight to both the House and the Senate for a yes/no vote. No adding, no taking away: Just yes or no.

I have recently (last 2 - 3 years) started to change my mind: I now think we need to increase revenue. We have let the hole get too deep for cuts alone. The question as I see it is: how much is cut v/s how much is raised. I could easily live with $10 in cuts for $1 in increased revenue. I could probably live with $4 in cuts for $1 in increased revenue. Less than that and I would have to be sold on specifics. All I am saying is that the damage is too severe at this point to not increase revenue. Do I like that: Heck NO!!! Am I willing to accept that we have screwed ourselves too much and have to increase revenue: Yes, darnit...

All that said I would want NO NEW programs even considered until we have cut the debt to 20% of GDP. As long as I am willing to accept increased revenue I would fight any and all new programs. I would want revenue increases to ONLY go toward fixing the mess we are in and in no way doing anything else.

In short, we are sick, we are screwed, and we need to make a face, pinch our noses and take medicine nobody wants IF we are to get through this crisis and come out economically healthy in the future.

Regards,

Doug

All of this is assuming that it is politically feasible that cuts are possible. What can be cut that won't upset at least 10-20% of the population? There wouldn't be many scream if they cut funding to find out how bats mate, etc. but those things aren't even a blip in the big picture. Just how are we going to make a single cut to entitlements? The military?

 

[Libertarian01]

HornadyInl,

I think the cuts are feasible ONLY because of the sequestration that is in there.

As I understand it IF the Super Committee cannot propose legislation that both the House and Senate can pass to THEN automatic, uncontrolled cuts will become automatic.

So, big uncontrolled cuts to the military that will make many old line Republicans scream and gnash their teeth.

So, big uncontrolled cuts to medicare and medicaid that will make many liberal Democrats scream and gnash their teeth.

It will only be fear of these automatic cuts that will drive them toward a reluctant compromise.

Just my .

Regards,

Doug

PS - I won't be surprised if I am wrong and you are right. I just think this is what gives the ability to work together a CHANCE of success.

 

[J_Wales]

"Will they git 'er done?"


No.

 

[Hotdoger]

Both are areas where we can save money. While I believe in a strong military, should the U.S. be funding 43% of the world's defense?

You have lumped ever republican in with your "no defense cut", which is certainaly not true.

The leftists and Paulbot arguement that defense spending is causing our budget woes is pure BS!

 

[other guy]

To All,

Just a few quick thoughts.

I think this committee has a reasonable chance of succeeding because neither the demopubicans or republicrats want to face the sequestration that will occur IF they do nothing. By putting in provisions for automatic cuts to programs each side loves it will force them to work harder to see that the perceived damage is limited.

I don't see this committee as being in any way out of line. All it says is that whatever they propose will go straight to both the House and the Senate for a yes/no vote. No adding, no taking away: Just yes or no.

I have recently (last 2 - 3 years) started to change my mind: I now think we need to increase revenue. We have let the hole get too deep for cuts alone. The question as I see it is: how much is cut v/s how much is raised. I could easily live with $10 in cuts for $1 in increased revenue. I could probably live with $4 in cuts for $1 in increased revenue. Less than that and I would have to be sold on specifics. All I am saying is that the damage is too severe at this point to not increase revenue. Do I like that: Heck NO!!! Am I willing to accept that we have screwed ourselves too much and have to increase revenue: Yes, darnit...

All that said I would want NO NEW programs even considered until we have cut the debt to 20% of GDP. As long as I am willing to accept increased revenue I would fight any and all new programs. I would want revenue increases to ONLY go toward fixing the mess we are in and in no way doing anything else.

In short, we are sick, we are screwed, and we need to make a face, pinch our noses and take medicine nobody wants IF we are to get through this crisis and come out economically healthy in the future.

Regards,

Doug

At last nights Republican debate, the question was put to all the candidates. Would you reject a proposal of 10 trillion in cuts and 1 trillion if revenue increase? All said they would reject it. All the republicans on the panel have made the same pledge not to raise any revenue or taxes. So, the republicans are not going to compromise. Either the dems will cave again or the automatic cuts will take place. Those is the only two choices. To say otherwise, you are not listening to what they are saying. You aRE LISTENING TO WHAT Fox News says their position is. I don't know how many times they have to state their position before you will believe them.

 

[dross]

Now that all 12 apostles have been appointed, will they be able to accomplish something positive or will it be gridlock politics as usual?

I would like to be an optimist and believe they will actually propose some worthwhile legislation. A more simple and fair tax code; smaller government; modest Social Security and Medicare reform for starters. My gut tells me neither will do more than token modifications to their respective sacred cows.

What would people like to see from this group and how likely is it we'll see real change?

The voters won't let them do any of those things. If the voters wanted those things, they'd get done. Since the voters don't want it, it won't happen.

 

[other guy]

The voters won't let them do any of those things. If the voters wanted those things, they'd get done. Since the voters don't want it, it won't happen.

Wow, have you been living under a rock. Congress has totally ignored the polls over the last 6 months. A majority of peopla wanted a balanced approach to deficit reductions. didn't happen A majority of Americans think the rich should pay more in taxes, did't happen So, what the American people want is not what we get.

 

[Pocketman]

Wow, have you been living under a rock. Congress has totally ignored the polls over the last 6 months. A majority of peopla wanted a balanced approach to deficit reductions. didn't happen A majority of Americans think the rich should pay more in taxes, did't happen So, what the American people want is not what we get.

If dross lives under a rock, he has a very large periscope.

 

[ATM]

That's what she said.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Wow, have you been living under a rock. Congress has totally ignored the polls over the last 6 months. A majority of peopla wanted a balanced approach to deficit reductions. didn't happen A majority of Americans think the rich should pay more in taxes, did't happen So, what the American people want is not what we get.

So vote them out the next time around....

Didn't the Rolling Stones sing about "You can't always get what you want..." ??

And then there's that Eagles tune... "Get over it"

I'm not trying to be a hard case here - we elected _representatives_. If we don't like what they are doing - then we ought not whine - we ought to vote them out.

 

[rambone]

I think people see, but are in denial. Republicans fear cutting the defense budget, which is a large part of the problem.

You mean the offense budget.

I have recently (last 2 - 3 years) started to change my mind: I now think we need to increase revenue. We have let the hole get too deep for cuts alone. The question as I see it is: how much is cut v/s how much is raised. I could easily live with $10 in cuts for $1 in increased revenue. I could probably live with $4 in cuts for $1 in increased revenue. Less than that and I would have to be sold on specifics. All I am saying is that the damage is too severe at this point to not increase revenue. Do I like that: Heck NO!!! Am I willing to accept that we have screwed ourselves too much and have to increase revenue: Yes, darnit...

I think further taxes (aka Revenue Increases) will only further suppress the teetering economy.

The leftists and Paulbot arguement that defense spending is causing our budget woes is pure BS!

The hell it isn't. Every vet who gets hurt over there needs a lifetime worth of medical treatments. And 25% of soldiers are now being put on drugs to cope with their situation. This **** needs to end, now.

I'm sure this number has gone up now that we are in additional wars with additional troops.

Economists predict care of Iraq/Afghanistan wounded vets will cost an additional $2.5 Trillion in decades to come

 

[dross]

Wow, have you been living under a rock. Congress has totally ignored the polls over the last 6 months. A majority of peopla wanted a balanced approach to deficit reductions. didn't happen A majority of Americans think the rich should pay more in taxes, did't happen So, what the American people want is not what we get.

I'm not entirely sure what's happening out there in the light, but under my particular rock, the opinion polls a year and a half from an election often mean nothing when the actual vote occurs.

Also, there's not one election for Congress, but hundreds of them, each one of them with voters who have different concerns. Each of these congress people have an excellent idea about what their voters think, which is why some of these policies have remained the same and gotten worse over many years.

 

[chraland51]

Our elected representatives think that they know better than we do about everything. They ignore the wishes of those of us who are lucky enough to still be working and paying taxes. The have to strongly consider the wishes of the leeches and parasites one every bill they vote for. Take something away from the bums and they will vote against you. Keep offering them more taken from the pockest of those rich fold and they will keep voting for you. What has happened in France and is now happening in Great Britain and has occasionally reared its ugly head in this country is probably going to start happening here more frequently. Most of our politicians will just bury their heads in the sand and vote to please the liberals and the leeches. Screw the conservative voter and the taxpayer. I very seriously doubt if they will git 'er done. There is just not enough of them willing to put their jobs on the line at this time when they are so desparately needed.