Here's a solution. Instead of cutting a program or a few programs.
Let's just do 20% cut across the board in everything.Boom! That
just reduced our bills by 20%. If that doesn't balance the budget, then
cut across the board whatever % will do that. Then you cut another 5% from that
number. And use that 5% as revenue to pay down the principle of our debt. Once
the debt is paid off then you use the money that was servicing the interest and
create a rainy day fund. Once that fund has 5-10 Trillion in it, then you move
80% of that money into the general fund and spread it around.That
wasn't soo difficult now was it? That's what my household would have
to do during tough times. We wouldn't be allowed to borrow, tax, print and
spend our way to "prosperity".
Nothong is going to happen, except this comedy of errors will be repeated in a
few months and the Tea Partiers will once again bring us to the brink.Tea Partiers are immune to facts and reality. They live in their own
world.We can't placate extremists--we need to repel and expel
Who caused this ask Jason? Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), presiding over
the chamber, told Van Hollen that the rule he was asking to use had been
"altered" and he did not have the privilege of bringing that vote to the
floor. In the ensuing back and forth, Chaffetz said the recently passed House
Resolution 368 trumped the standing rules. Where any member of the House
previously could have brought the clean resolution to the floor under House Rule
22, House Resolution 368 -- passed on the eve of the shutdown -- gave that right
exclusively to the House majority leader, Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia."The Rules Committee, under the rules of the House, changed the standing
rules of the House to take away the right of any member to move to vote to open
the government, and gave that right exclusively to the Republican Leader,"
said Van Hollen. "Is that right?""The House adopted that
resolution," replied Chaffetz.
The only trouble Ted is that, unlike real people like you and me, no one cancels
the government credit cards if they go over limit. And, on top of that, when it
comes time to pay the ones holding our debt, we the people will be asked to foot
the bill. Can't wait for that one. 75% tax rates (rats) on the horizon,
especially if the Dems win all of Congress again in '14.
@ Liberal Ted. Democrats refuse to cut ANY government program except the
military. No entitlements will be cut and Obamacare entitlements alone will
explode the debt by trillions every year, thus they must borrow ever more money.
One party is working to restore financial sanity to the federal government and
the other party wants to keep borrowing, even after they handed us a huge tax
increase (tax the rich). Think about the last sequester that forced minuscule
reductions in some spending and how Obama told us how it would destroy life as
we know it! Nothing he predicted actually happened. Democrats need dependency
because it wins elections and keeps them in power. How's a $20 trillion
debt by the time we choose a new President going to effect our grandchildren?
I can think of nearly 17 trillion reasons why raising the debt limit is a very,
very bad idea.Some might claim "Tea Partiers are immune to facts
and reality. They live in their own world." But that is the real world,
where unicorns do not magically drop unlimited money to pay for programs that do
not work, or duplicate other programs (which might also not work). Tea Partiers
also do not ignore that this is a dangerous world, where we are at war (not of
our choosing) with radical Islam, and Iran is near nuclear weapons, and the
resurgent Russians are becoming a threat again. Thus the TP folks are more
concerned about national security than expanding welfare programs.Democrats talk about compromise, but to them that means "Republicans must
give use everything we want and we will delay until the last minute and then
blame them if they demand even tiny concessions."The time for
"compromise" with liberal Democrats is long past, and our nation's
very existence depends on confronting the ugly truth that we are broke and
cannot continue spending at current rates. Raising debt limits fixes nothing,
only hides our perilous condition.
“some advocates say the president and the courts must find a way to stop
congressional factions from extracting concessions from the president's
party by threatening a default on U.S. obligations… Aaron wrote in The New
York Times”The AP started to write a non-biased article, then
the above sentences appeared, showing again that the AP supports the dems not
budging, that it is all the GOP’s fault, though BO and harry have shown
obamacare matters more to them that everything else in government, including the
constitutional requirement that the government’s credit be maintained.And there will be no default on the debt if Lew abides by the
constitution and services the debt before making other payments.t-seeker,obamafiles live in their own fantasy world, they are immune to
facts and reality. the GOP house voted to open the government, BO and harry
voted to shut it down.
I really hate this. Both parties being stubborn as mules. The Tea Partiers
being idealogues, not happy till everything is perfect right now . . . in their
eyes. And the Democrats being just as unwilling to negotiate. Instead of doing
something constructive, they sit across the aisle and point their fingers at one
another, saying, he's responsible for shutting the government down, no, he
is. Do they think the public is that naïve. What is it with a $16.7
TRILLION debt that doesn't shake some people up? That's a number that
should be used in astronomy or physics, not in describing our nation's
dept.As far as I'm concerned we need a lot more strong
moderates with character, honesty, and wisdom. Apparently, not many currently
in Washington know the meaning of the word, *compromise*, so I'll give it
here;Compromise: *a settlement of differences by mutual concessions;
an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims,
principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.* It's not a dirty
word.Another definition of *compromise* could be: Get off you tails
and work together instead of pulling us into oblivion. Quit the gridlock.
@Liberal TedAcross-the-board budget cutting is one of the worst
possible ways to reduce government spending, because it tends to penalize lean,
efficiently-run programs that don't have "fat" to trim (e.g., the
CDC, generally speaking); conversely, it also tends to under-target
"pork" programs that can often absorb at least some of the cuts without
achieving significant efficiency gains (e.g., the Department of the
Interior's former Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and
Enforcement, again generally speaking). Strategic, targeted budget cuts are a
vastly superior way to reduce government spending, because they are much more
likely to maximize savings while minimizing negative impacts from the cuts. Unfortunately, for lawmakers who don't know how to compromise and
collaborate, and who are afraid to incur the wrath of various interest groups
for targeting their pet programs, across-the-board cutting is probably the only
viable option they have.
rw123I love the line about trillion should only be a number used in
science. Not American economics. Especially when talking about debt. I think
that what we Republicans, and or T-Party people need to hear from the Democrats
before we feel we can work with them is that they even CARE about this massive
debt. I actually believe that the liberal mindset, even coming from some
economists, is that the debt does not matter and can go on being raised forever.
If Obama, (today as President, not when he was smart as Senator) would go back
and acknowledge this major problem, as he once did, then I think some compromise
could begin. But without that, we really have no beginning foundation from
which discussions could begin. It ends up apples and oranges.