derek bomar
Posts: 3,722
Feb 17, 2010 7:21am
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/business/economy/17gridlock.html
After Republicans like McCain who sponsored the idea wouldn't even vote for it, I'm glad to see this move. Like I mentioned in the Paul Ryan thread, spending cuts won't work unless they're very, very drastic and ole people won't buy it.
"Elected Republicans, however, are under intense pressure from their party’s conservative base to oppose any tax increases — a line in the sand that dims any prospects for bipartisan cooperation. Yet economists, including veterans of past Republican administrations, are vocal in insisting that the debt problem is too great to be solved without increasing revenues somehow and perhaps moving to a new consumption tax system like Europe’s."
So if this panel recommends a little bit of both, will Republicans be on board and actually show some character, or will they just say no like they have to everything else and watch the problem get worse? And will Democrats be willing to make cuts to their favorite projects or be just as bad as the Right?
After Republicans like McCain who sponsored the idea wouldn't even vote for it, I'm glad to see this move. Like I mentioned in the Paul Ryan thread, spending cuts won't work unless they're very, very drastic and ole people won't buy it.
"Elected Republicans, however, are under intense pressure from their party’s conservative base to oppose any tax increases — a line in the sand that dims any prospects for bipartisan cooperation. Yet economists, including veterans of past Republican administrations, are vocal in insisting that the debt problem is too great to be solved without increasing revenues somehow and perhaps moving to a new consumption tax system like Europe’s."
So if this panel recommends a little bit of both, will Republicans be on board and actually show some character, or will they just say no like they have to everything else and watch the problem get worse? And will Democrats be willing to make cuts to their favorite projects or be just as bad as the Right?
fish82
Posts: 4,111
Feb 17, 2010 9:15am
Bam knows exactly what needs to be done. He's the smartest POTUS in a generation, remember?
Creating a "commission" is just a pussy way to put the issue off.
Creating a "commission" is just a pussy way to put the issue off.
derek bomar
Posts: 3,722
Feb 17, 2010 9:22am
The original idea was sponsored by John McCain (who then backed off because of the challenge he faces from the Right in Arizona)...would you say he's a pussy?fish82 wrote: Bam knows exactly what needs to be done. He's the smartest POTUS in a generation, remember?
Creating a "commission" is just a pussy way to put the issue off.
M
Manhattan Buckeye
Posts: 7,566
Feb 17, 2010 9:24am
Somewhat related article:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/national-debt-budget-deficit-scary-forecast-taxpayers/story?id=9854459
Lots of cheery news there (sarcasm alert).
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/national-debt-budget-deficit-scary-forecast-taxpayers/story?id=9854459
Lots of cheery news there (sarcasm alert).
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Feb 17, 2010 9:44am
Little more complex than that.ccrunner609 wrote: who needs a fucking commision to solve the problem. Its easy, stop spending our damn money morons.
Not only where to cut, but how much. Simply saying let's cut here is simple, but how much, where exactly, what department, how much on that department, what about possible cuts to SS, Medicare, etc.? Where and how much do you cut there?
Instead of having a million ideas out there, this can hopefully bring all the ideas into one report where Congress can act.
Now, the problem is reports and commissions have a history of for 1 day bringing "oohs and ahhhs" but then being put on the shelf and collecting dust.
fish82
Posts: 4,111
Feb 17, 2010 9:46am
All day long.derek bomar wrote:The original idea was sponsored by John McCain (who then backed off because of the challenge he faces from the Right in Arizona)...would you say he's a pussy?fish82 wrote: Bam knows exactly what needs to be done. He's the smartest POTUS in a generation, remember?
Creating a "commission" is just a pussy way to put the issue off.
derek bomar
Posts: 3,722
Feb 17, 2010 9:57am
yea, giant pussy that guy isfish82 wrote:All day long.derek bomar wrote:The original idea was sponsored by John McCain (who then backed off because of the challenge he faces from the Right in Arizona)...would you say he's a pussy?fish82 wrote: Bam knows exactly what needs to be done. He's the smartest POTUS in a generation, remember?
Creating a "commission" is just a pussy way to put the issue off.
S
stlouiedipalma
Posts: 1,797
Feb 17, 2010 10:37am
It's about time this happened.
My idea of bipartisanship is making an offer to be a part of legislation. If the minority party doesn't want to get involved, or "just says no", then you use your supermajority and shove it down their throats. That's how Bush was able to get his stuff passed. The Democrats are caught up in this "please everyone" nonsense and it hasn't worked. If the Republicans want to filibuster, let 'em. While they're reading the phone book and dictionaries their constituents can wonder what they are being paid to do. Perhaps it's time to revisit the "nuclear option".
My idea of bipartisanship is making an offer to be a part of legislation. If the minority party doesn't want to get involved, or "just says no", then you use your supermajority and shove it down their throats. That's how Bush was able to get his stuff passed. The Democrats are caught up in this "please everyone" nonsense and it hasn't worked. If the Republicans want to filibuster, let 'em. While they're reading the phone book and dictionaries their constituents can wonder what they are being paid to do. Perhaps it's time to revisit the "nuclear option".
fish82
Posts: 4,111
Feb 17, 2010 11:07am
He's a mealy mouthed fence straddler with the core principles of a boiled shrimp. Having his nads hooked to a car battery 40 years ago doesn't change that. Sorry.derek bomar wrote:yea, giant pussy that guy isfish82 wrote:All day long.derek bomar wrote:The original idea was sponsored by John McCain (who then backed off because of the challenge he faces from the Right in Arizona)...would you say he's a pussy?fish82 wrote: Bam knows exactly what needs to be done. He's the smartest POTUS in a generation, remember?
Creating a "commission" is just a pussy way to put the issue off.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Feb 17, 2010 11:18am
Not willing to get a grip on this federal spending is a pussy no matter the party affiliation....yeah, I'd say it.
tk421
Posts: 8,500
Feb 17, 2010 2:09pm
Won't amount to anything. The commission will hem and haw and make "suggestions" that will be soundly ignored by both parties, after wasting god knows how much money on the panel.
derek bomar
Posts: 3,722
Feb 17, 2010 2:22pm
well if they make the suggestions and they follow the suggestions, wouldn't that be a good thing (assuming they'd lead to a lowering of the debt)?
tk421
Posts: 8,500
Feb 17, 2010 2:26pm
They'll probably cut a few things and have a deficit of 500B or so instead of 1.5+T then say they lowered the deficit. We'll still be racking up huge deficits each year.
tk421
Posts: 8,500
Feb 17, 2010 2:27pm
The debt isn't going to be lowered. That would require actually paying off the debt. Reducing the amount of the deficit is not reducing the debt.
derek bomar
Posts: 3,722
Feb 17, 2010 2:33pm
Just because you say so doesn't make it so...it's entirely possible to put a plan in place that would lower the debt (probably over a 50-75 yr span, but still...)tk421 wrote: The debt isn't going to be lowered. That would require actually paying off the debt. Reducing the amount of the deficit is not reducing the debt.
tk421
Posts: 8,500
Feb 17, 2010 2:36pm
It's also possible I'm going to win the lottery then be struck by lightning. I'd put better odds of that happening than Congress doing anything positive for this country.derek bomar wrote:Just because you say so doesn't make it so...it's entirely possible to put a plan in place that would lower the debt (probably over a 50-75 yr span, but still...)tk421 wrote: The debt isn't going to be lowered. That would require actually paying off the debt. Reducing the amount of the deficit is not reducing the debt.
derek bomar
Posts: 3,722
Feb 17, 2010 2:37pm
I think it's going to come to a point pretty soon where they're actually going to have to start because so many people are pissedtk421 wrote:It's also possible I'm going to win the lottery then be struck by lightning. I'd put better odds of that happening than Congress doing anything positive for this country.derek bomar wrote:Just because you say so doesn't make it so...it's entirely possible to put a plan in place that would lower the debt (probably over a 50-75 yr span, but still...)tk421 wrote: The debt isn't going to be lowered. That would require actually paying off the debt. Reducing the amount of the deficit is not reducing the debt.
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Feb 18, 2010 8:47am
This is good, if our lawmakers aren't supposed to discuss and debate solutions to problems then I don't know why they're there.
G
Gobuckeyes1
Posts: 497
Feb 18, 2010 9:07am
C'mon man, get with the program.I Wear Pants wrote: This is good, if our lawmakers aren't supposed to discuss and debate solutions to problems then I don't know why they're there.
Obama did it, so it's bad.
Mr. 300
Posts: 3,090
Feb 18, 2010 10:57am
This is such a waste of time. Why do we have these elected officials in DC???? They're the ones who are to be taking care of this, not a "Blue Ribbon Commission". Just another waste of taxpayers money, and a chance for these idiots in Washington to slide on by without doing anything. It's a two way street, so both parties are involved. However, since the dems had a super majority, why didn't they get something done?? They re in power with maximum ability to pass whatever they want. Makes you wonder what it is they really want passed???
A complete and utter joke!!!!
A complete and utter joke!!!!
Writerbuckeye
Posts: 4,745
Feb 18, 2010 1:04pm
You really must be young, or you'd know (for certain) that these commissions or panels NEVER lead to anything constructive. Unless you consider generating a lot of hot air to be constructive.Gobuckeyes1 wrote:C'mon man, get with the program.I Wear Pants wrote: This is good, if our lawmakers aren't supposed to discuss and debate solutions to problems then I don't know why they're there.
Obama did it, so it's bad.
These folks are ALREADY in a position to do something they know needs to be done. Why do we need yet another group discussion on the matter?
A.
Monumental.
Waste.
Of.
Time.
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Feb 18, 2010 1:27pm
Uhhh, 9/11 Commission?Writerbuckeye wrote: You really must be young, or you'd know (for certain) that these commissions or panels NEVER lead to anything constructive. Unless you consider generating a lot of hot air to be constructive.
These folks are ALREADY in a position to do something they know needs to be done. Why do we need yet another group discussion on the matter?
A.
Monumental.
Waste.
Of.
Time.
I'd even add the 1998 Rumsfeld Commission on ballistic missiles. (Read parts of it today for work)
derek bomar
Posts: 3,722
Feb 18, 2010 1:29pm
I coulda swore you were trying to throw in an acronym, but AMWOT makes no senseWriterbuckeye wrote:You really must be young, or you'd know (for certain) that these commissions or panels NEVER lead to anything constructive. Unless you consider generating a lot of hot air to be constructive.Gobuckeyes1 wrote:C'mon man, get with the program.I Wear Pants wrote: This is good, if our lawmakers aren't supposed to discuss and debate solutions to problems then I don't know why they're there.
Obama did it, so it's bad.
These folks are ALREADY in a position to do something they know needs to be done. Why do we need yet another group discussion on the matter?
A.
Monumental.
Waste.
Of.
Time.
fish82
Posts: 4,111
Feb 18, 2010 1:41pm
Sure it does! Just say it like it sounds...AMWOT....like "ANWR."derek bomar wrote:I coulda swore you were trying to throw in an acronym, but AMWOT makes no senseWriterbuckeye wrote:You really must be young, or you'd know (for certain) that these commissions or panels NEVER lead to anything constructive. Unless you consider generating a lot of hot air to be constructive.Gobuckeyes1 wrote:C'mon man, get with the program.I Wear Pants wrote: This is good, if our lawmakers aren't supposed to discuss and debate solutions to problems then I don't know why they're there.
Obama did it, so it's bad.
These folks are ALREADY in a position to do something they know needs to be done. Why do we need yet another group discussion on the matter?
A.
Monumental.
Waste.
Of.
Time.
fish82
Posts: 4,111
Feb 18, 2010 1:43pm
Seriously though ptown....what did the 9/11 Commission tell us that we pretty much didn't already know, or at least have a pretty good idea about?ptown_trojans_1 wrote:Uhhh, 9/11 Commission?Writerbuckeye wrote: You really must be young, or you'd know (for certain) that these commissions or panels NEVER lead to anything constructive. Unless you consider generating a lot of hot air to be constructive.
These folks are ALREADY in a position to do something they know needs to be done. Why do we need yet another group discussion on the matter?
A.
Monumental.
Waste.
Of.
Time.
I'd even add the 1998 Rumsfeld Commission on ballistic missiles. (Read parts of it today for work)