Republican bill passes, opening path to debt deal

[Mark (Basspig) Weiss]

Mark

Let me return you the question. The needy and the poor should then left to fend for themselves? A modern society then has no obligation toward those less fortunate? Please do ponder on the value of a society that would abandon its poor and needy ... Poverty and neediness can befall onto any particular person... Such occurrences have then the strong effect of changing one's perspective ...

That's what charity is for. And we Americans are darned charitable. We would be more charitable if 92% of our income didn't go to the government in the form of taxes, devalued spending power of our fiat currency, the many ridiculous fees and permits we are required to have just to live, etc.

No man has a moral right to that which he did not earn. When you put a gun to my head and say "give to the needy", I say "go to Hell."

 

[Ron Party]

I don't know about where you live, Mark, but where I live (Oakland, CA), many, many people would ask what you are smoking. So in the spirit of your philosophy, and also since my hometown is harboring far more than its share of have nots, I propose we embrace and designate New Milford, Connecticut as safe haven for them.

While we're at it, just how does one *earn* anything in a society which by the rules of its very existence produces haves and have nots?

Supply side voodoo economics is a proven failure, so if we're now proposing to expand this failed economic policy to charity, i.e., redistribute the wealth to give the rich even more money and surely they will spend more on charity than what is being spent now, well, like I said, pass the jo!nt so I also can escape reality.

 

[Roger Dressler]

 

[Orb]

Just curious,
do the papers in North America tell the public the true level of the debt, how much interest that is, the current annual deficit adding to the debt, and how long to even get back to a neutral budget so there is no longer a deficit and then how long to reduce the overall debt?

Over here in the UK the majority of the papers have been quite appalling and only focus on the annual deficit, which for the public makes it look like the problem is not that bad unless they understand how the deficit just compounds a financial nightmare.

The problem is; how does a government balance social morality against an ever increasing financial debt, which the markets become less eager to buy - hence S&P recent rating and the threat to the UK's AAA as well.
This is not to suggest that the poor should just fend for themselves though.

Cheers
Orb

 

[rblnr]

We would be more charitable if 92% of our income didn't go to the government in the form of taxes, devalued spending power of our fiat currency, the many ridiculous fees and permits we are required to have just to live, etc.

Where does that 92% number come from?

 

[Steve williams]

Where does that 92% number come from?

I'm wondering that myself

 

[Roger Dressler]

The problem is; how does a government balance social morality against an ever increasing financial debt, which the markets become less eager to buy - hence S&P recent rating and the threat to the UK's AAA as well.
This is not to suggest that the poor should just fend for themselves though.

Agreed.

The federal government should shift its mission to empowering people to do for themselves rather than taking the easy route of being on the dole. But government has no motivation to foster empowerment in the populace, as then it is less needed and engenders less dependence. That dependence perpetuates repeat voters. Politicians are motivated by power and control, which is at odds with empowering the populace, and with running programs efficiently. Competitive businesses reward cost efficiency. There's no competition in government, no profit motive, no spending limits. Hence no incentive to improve efficiency, to scale back people or programs. To reorganize. All the things any business has to do on a regular basis to stay alive in a competitive market. Just get re-elected, at any cost. The problems are a lot easier to solve when the incentives are aligned with the desired outcomes. But that's not how government works, unfortunately.

What was originally seen as a temporary detour from the private sector has turned into life long careers in Washington. People who have never had a real job tell us how to run a business (into the ground). Term limits for every office is an easy way to break the cycle. 6 years max, and out. The one-page tax return is another. That will improve efficiency and productivity overnight. See? Simple.

 

[Gregadd]

We already have term limits . It's called a term of office. As we have seen when the term is up you just elect someone with the same ideas. Mayor Bloomberg of NYC is a prime example of the failure of term limits. I agree with empowering the people. What is the empowerment most people need?. Capital! Giving away capital is not what the private sector is all about. When the government leaves the private sector to its devices you wind upf with huge monopolies and bank failures.

 

[Roger Dressler]

We already have term limits . It's called a term of office.

Nope. It changes the motivations. If an elected official is motivated to get re-elected, he behaves differently than if that is not possible. If people keep electing people you don't like, that's a different problem.

As we have seen when the term is up you just elect someone with the same ideas. Mayor Bloomberg of NYC is a prime example of the failure of term limits. I agree with empowering the people. What is the empowerment most people need?. Capital! Giving away capital is not what the private sector is all about. When the government leaves the private sector to its devices you wind up with huge monopolies and bank failures.

Regulation is necessary. Not all, not just any, but sensible regulation. Some of these colossal problems are born of businesses having too much to gain by helping candidates get re-elected. It's all too cozy. It's not a panacea, but eliminating that form of "gaming" and reducing the lobbying would help realign the decision-making process.

 

[Gregadd]

Yeah they do behave differently when not running for reelection. They are completely irresponsible like they are running a going out of business sale. Listen we know what term limits were about. Defeating the incumbent. Once they became incumbents it's not so attractive anymore

 

[Orb]

Agreed.

The federal government should shift its mission to empowering people to do for themselves rather than taking the easy route of being on the dole. But government has no motivation to foster empowerment in the populace, as then it is less needed and engenders less dependence. That dependence perpetuates repeat voters. Politicians are motivated by power and control, which is at odds with empowering the populace, and with running programs efficiently. Competitive businesses reward cost efficiency. There's no competition in government, no profit motive, no spending limits. Hence no incentive to improve efficiency, to scale back people or programs. To reorganize. All the things any business has to do on a regular basis to stay alive in a competitive market. Just get re-elected, at any cost. The problems are a lot easier to solve when the incentives are aligned with the desired outcomes. But that's not how government works, unfortunately.

What was originally seen as a temporary detour from the private sector has turned into life long careers in Washington. People who have never had a real job tell us how to run a business (into the ground). Term limits for every office is an easy way to break the cycle. 6 years max, and out. The one-page tax return is another. That will improve efficiency and productivity overnight. See? Simple.

Good points and agree with it all.
It is interesting David Cameron over here talked about the concept you mention about empowering the people, sadly though it looks like he is not going to spend the time and focus required to make it viable as it seems it will take a lot of political and general public social will to implement in a successful way, and possibly cash that may have made him concerned if it failed (the backlash would be huge in the papers over here).
Still, shame he has not tried to do this even with the risks and other requirements.

Cheers
Orb

 

[es347]

Agreed.

The federal government should shift its mission to empowering people to do for themselves rather than taking the easy route of being on the dole. But government has no motivation to foster empowerment in the populace, as then it is less needed and engenders less dependence. That dependence perpetuates repeat voters. Politicians are motivated by power and control, which is at odds with empowering the populace, and with running programs efficiently. Competitive businesses reward cost efficiency. There's no competition in government, no profit motive, no spending limits. Hence no incentive to improve efficiency, to scale back people or programs. To reorganize. All the things any business has to do on a regular basis to stay alive in a competitive market. Just get re-elected, at any cost. The problems are a lot easier to solve when the incentives are aligned with the desired outcomes. But that's not how government works, unfortunately.

What was originally seen as a temporary detour from the private sector has turned into life long careers in Washington. People who have never had a real job tell us how to run a business (into the ground). Term limits for every office is an easy way to break the cycle. 6 years max, and out. The one-page tax return is another. That will improve efficiency and productivity overnight. See? Simple.

Three cheers for Roger...hip-hip, etc. Seriously well stated and fit for a bumper sticker...albeit a very long bumper sticker.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

The problem with this is it still leaves the problem. Six years is more than enough to take a bribe, influence in favor of your contributors and get set up with a fat job handing out bribes to the next guy. It would sure help if they weren't all running for re-election the moment that they hit the ground. But it would hurt that none of them have any experience in governing; I really don't want the lobbyists to be the only people in DC who know their way around.. If the last few weeks have shown us anything, it's that freshmen Congresscritters know enough to be dangerous. Sweeping campaign and election reform would be much more effective, I think, and no more difficult than passing term limits. In other words, we're waiting for a cold day in hell.

Tim

 

[RBFC]

Look what changes have occurred in less than 3 years.....

Lee

 

[LenWhite]

Mark

Let me return you the question. The needy and the poor should then left to fend for themselves? A modern society then has no obligation toward those less fortunate? Please do ponder on the value of a society that would abandon its poor and needy ... Poverty and neediness can befall onto any particular person... Such occurrences have then the strong effect of changing one's perspective ...

I agree society has an obligation to citizens in need. But direct financial assistance should be short term and accompanied by education and training leading to work force re-entry. Long term financial aid destroys individual pride and incentive as evidenced by the ghettos created out of welfare systems. Congress has long been guilty of gross partisanship and self serving interests rather than working together to address job creation and long term federal deficits.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Look what changes have occurred in less than 3 years.....

Lee

Which changes, Lee?

Tim

 

[es347]

Pardon the off-topic question but Tim, who is the newly-adopted distinguished gentleman (in stark contrast with mine) in your avatar?

 

[RBFC]

Which changes, Lee?

Tim

Healthcare, disclosure of until-now classified interrogation technique, accelerated debt accumulation. taking 1 of 3 working days to attend campaign fund-raisers.... that should be a good start.

Lee

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Pardon the off-topic question but Tim, who is the newly-adopted distinguished gentleman (in stark contrast with mine) in your avatar?

Early this morning I discovered that I can take self-portraits with the web cam on my MacBook. Even better, if you do it in Facebook, you get some manipulation tools like "pinch" which pinches the center of the image a bit. I discovered that if I use that and put my face in just the right place, my nose and mouth become small, and my glasses and beard expand, and tilt outward. It makes me look a bit like an Klingon.

I'm rather easily amused when I can't sleep at 5 am on a Sunday.

Tim

 

[Roger Dressler]

Yeah they do behave differently when not running for reelection. They are completely irresponsible like they are running a going out of business sale. Listen we know what term limits were about. Defeating the incumbent. Once they became incumbents it's not so attractive anymore

No question there are bad actors and bad apples who get elected. But at least their damage would then be limited with term limits.

Incumbents have an advantage over the challenger, one of them being to use the powers and access of their office to get re-elected rather than doing what they were elected to do. They were not elected to be in perpetual campaign mode, but that's what we're seeing all too often, at taxpayer expense.