Will We Stay On Track?

[Guest]

Just in case you missed the press release this morning, Lockheed Martin announced that in anticipation of the automatic budget cuts scheduled for the first of the year, they are sending layoff notices to 120,000 workers. That's virtually their entire workforce. They are thought to be just the first defense contractor who will be announcing layoffs resulting from the failure of both Congress and the super committee to agree on government spending cuts.

Alright!! We wanted spending cuts--we're getting them! And along with the automatic tax increases that will also kick in on January 1, the effect will be a $7 trillion slowdown in the growth of our national debt over the next decade. That's more than either the Boehner-Obama "grand bargain" or the Ryan budget proposal! We all knew the necessary fiscal changes would hurt, and they will. But we all also know they are necessary.

We know how the Democrats will react to all this. The big question is how the fiscally conservative GOP will react? Will they do what they've said they would and refuse to reverse the changes that will slow the country's track towards complete bankruptcy? With complete control of the House and their cloture-proof position in the Senate, the Republicans will have complete control of Harry Reid and his obstructionist tactics in the Senate. The GOP has all the face cards in this game. The POTUS hasn't vetoed anything and almost certainly wouldn't on this issue. If Romney is elected, it's hard to imagine that a conservative president would veto major fiscal reform legislation.

I certainly hope the GOP will be as fiscally conservative as they said they would be and let the automatic fiscal changes stand. Or in another scenario, refuse to either reverse the defense cuts and tax increases unless and until other legislation us agreed on that would have have the same effect on a dollar-for-dollar basis. Maybe even take the opportunity to make the needed revisions to entitlements that everyone knows are necessary.

That's what I think. What do all of you think will happen?

[Guest]

Answer: QE 4.

[Guest]

VK: The federal budget is no different than the average household budget. He wants that she something different. He focuses on X while she focuses on y.......................

In the government's case its the old "guns v butter" debate. Most in Congress are shorted sighted when it comes to defense because it cuts into their claims on pork they feel so entitled to claim. so the debate continues

I am absolutely against a QE4 because the fed has financed beter that 65% of our bonds now. I am against defense cuts but I am not against better controls to weed out abuse and fraud. In facts such cuts will weaken that segment which will exacerbate our weak economy now.

I am infavor of tax cuts and an extension of the bush tax cuts for the foresseable future.

If Obama tax increases take place investors owning dividend stocks will take a 30% reduction because the tax treatment and tadd to the not so public 4.8% coming from ObamaCare on investment income.

As retirees and or as investors we like so many others arte taking a beating.

The recession ended in 2009 yet GDP, unemployment, etc has not reflected this event. We do need a change in strategy. My preference i to stimulate growth via production and production comes from business friendly policies.

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

the spending cuts, as usual, are in the areas that most affect we the people directly.

There is never any effort to cut the spending by government in their favorite or protected spending for pork projects, lobbyist projects, special interests projects and then the just plain old day to day spending by those elected to Washington who have passed the zero balance in the check book years ago and continue to spend.

The automatic spending cuts are a politically designed ruse that is currently coming up for attention as expected.

When struggling businesses make real spending cuts it requires those who work there to make a change in lifestyle and spending patterns.
That does not ever...EVER...happen in Washington. It is business as usual....take it out of the hide of we the people.

The auto spending cuts will be watered down, kicking the can once again down the road far enough as a political means to dupe the gullible into voting for Obama.

ITSA JOKE!

btk

[Guest]

....The auto spending cuts will be watered down, kicking the can once again down the road far enough as a political means to dupe the gullible into voting for Obama.

ITSA JOKE!

btkWhy would the GOP do that, Billie? For three and one-half years they have bitterly and assiduously opposed anything that Obama supported. They even opposed issues they had previously supported after discovering that Obama supported them as well! They have control. Nothing can happen unless they approve of it.

Having said that, I tend to agree with you. Sometime before the automatic spending cuts and taxes kick in, the Congress will eliminate them both. Both the Democrats and Republicans will support such legislation with near unanimous votes. Even the Tea Party will vote to eliminate the spending cuts. And the most liberal Demcrats will vote for the further extension of the Bush tax cuts.

Then they'll go home for Christmas vacation. They'll kick the can down the road once again. And they will all be impassioned in their defense of these actions. They'll make every attempt to convince us that continuing to outspend our tax revenues by 40-45%, growing the national debt by more than a trillion dollars each year, is really in our best interests.

When they come back to start the 113th Congress, the Republicans will be back to blaming Obama for spending the country into bankruptcy (if he's re-elected; if not the Democrats will be criticizing Romney for what he plans to do). And the Democrats will be accusing the GOP for defending the wealthy and ruining he middle class. Unemployment won't improve; the economy will continue to stagger; people's real income will continue to decline; the national debt clock will continue to spin, even faster. And Congress will continue to speak their criticisms if one another from the Capitol steps.

So if what happens is what you and I both think will happen, tell me the real difference between Republicans and Democrats? Is one conservative fiscally and with regard to the size of government? Is the other party flaming liberals and closet socialists? I'll continue to say that they're all the same, interested ony in getting re-elected and retaining power. Doing "the People's work"? Surely you jest.

[Guest]

The Preamble to the Constitution reads as follows:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

We need to go back and look at each and every program that our Federal Government is involved in and see if it contributes to the duties of the Federal Government as enumerated. Defense is clearly required, but many other things that we do are not. Among them: (1) A national arts program; (2) A national television and radio program; (3) Incentive programs for any action including farm subsidies, oil subsidies, energy subsidies, etc.

[Guest]

The Preamble to the Constitution reads as follows:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

We need to go back and look at each and every program that our Federal Government is involved in and see if it contributes to the duties of the Federal Government as enumerated. Defense is clearly required, but many other things that we do are not. Among them: (1) A national arts program; (2) A national television and radio program; (3) Incentive programs for any action including farm subsidies, oil subsidies, energy subsidies, etc.I agree completely, BBQ. But if the three programs you mentioned were totally eliminated it might...might...cut federal spending by about 1/10% of current federal spending. What do we do to cut to get the rest of the $1.4 trillion in spending cuts or increased revenue needed to balance the budget?

As I've pointed out repeatedly before, we could eliminate ALL discretionary spending by the federal government (everything that we currently know as "government") and still not balance the budget.

[Guest]

What has been siad on this thread thus far is a piece of the puzzle. What is missing is how do you get members of Congress to act? For far too many years when asked to act all these legislators just blink and deflate.

Initially the Tea Party got these people to do something but that was short lived. I don't have an answer

[Guest]

What has been siad on this thread thus far is a piece of the puzzle. What is missing is how do you get members of Congress to act? For far too many years when asked to act all these legislators just blink and deflate.

Initially the Tea Party got these people to do something but that was short lived. I don't have an answer
It's a tough question. The only answer I've been able to come up with is what I used to use as my "signature" on TOTV...."Never vote for an incumbent".

I'm increasingly convinced that's the only strategy that has a chance. Throw them all out of office and start over. Then keep throwing them out with each election until it's clear that those elected "get the message" and begin to legislate and govern in the best interests of the whole country.

Do I think a lot of people will agree with me? No, not really. There will be lots of people who will say they agree. But when they enter the voting booth, they'll vote a straight party ticket, in essence saying that they believe the crap the politicians have been spouting to justify their election or re-election.

The result will be similar to most previous elections. Something like 90% of the incumbents will be re-elected. They'll sigh in relief, make an impassioned acceptance speech...and to go back to the same politically-driven conduct that got us to where we are now.

So I will recommend to all who will listen. Forget political parties or the drivel that the candidates spout in their stump speeches. Do a fast forward past all the ads. Whatever you do, don't ever tune in to the "political entertainers". And on election day, make sure you know who the incumbents are. Then vote for anyone else!

I'm only one voter. But that's what I'm going to do.

[Guest]

It's a tough question. The only answer I've been able to ome up with is what I used to use as my "signature" on TOTV...."Never vote for an incumbent".

I'm increasingly convinced that's the only strategy that has a chance. Throw them all out of office and start over. Then keep throwing them out with each election until it's clear that those elected "get the message" and begin to legislate and govern in he best interests of the whole country.

Do I think a lot of people will agree with me? No, not really. There will be lots of people who will say they agree. But when they enter the voting booth, they'll vote a straight party ticket, in essence saying that they believe the crap the politicians have been spouting to justify their election or re-election.

The result will be similar to most previous elections. Something like 90% of the incumbents will be re-elected. They'll sigh in relief, make an impassioned acceptance speech...and to go back to the same politically-driven conduct that got us to where we are now.

So I will recommend to all who will listen. Forget political parties or the drivel that the candidates spout in their stump speeches. Do a fast forward past all the ads. Whatever you do, don't ever tune in to the "political entertainers". And on election day, make sure you know who the incumbents are. Then vote for anyone else!

I'm only one voter. But that's what I'm going to do.

LEADERSHIP !!!!

You have to have someone in the WH who can be a leader and will work at it, as it will not happen because you say it.

And same thing applies to house and senate. You can vote all newbies in but if you do not change the leadership there, nothing will change.

LEADERSHIP, AND in my mind it must start in the WH

[Guest]

LEADERSHIP !!!!

You have to have someone in the WH who can be a leader and will work at it, as it will not happen because you say it.

And same thing applies to house and senate. You can vote all newbies in but if you do not change the leadership there, nothing will change.

LEADERSHIP, AND in my mind it must start in the WHWell, I'll give Romney a chance, Bucco.

While I'll vote for Romney, at this point I don't have terribly high hopes. Real leaders often were willing to take a position, point the way, encourage people to "follow me". Mitt seems to concentrate on being politically correct, choosing his words and limiting his thoughts to offend the fewest number of people possible. Trying to understand the direction he's choosing for the country is difficult because he's so unspecific on everything. Trying to figure out whether his priorities and ideas are what I agree with is tough, because mostly all he says is that Obama is wrong. When he does say something reasonably specific, often it's different from what you thought you heard him say earlier.

If he doesn't lead any better than he campaigns, those who he's trying to lead won't be able to figure out what direction he wants them to go.

He'll get my vote. But I'm afraid it'll be with the same pre-condition I put on my vote for Obama in 2008--if I don't like him, I'll vote for someone else in 2016. Like in 2008, I'll be voting for the lesser of two evils. I hate that kind of choice

I'll bet Hillary won't be so mealy-mouthed. And we know that Chris Christie will tell you what he thinks. I wish I had that choice this time around.

If America can't do better than this, we're in a heap of trouble. Where's George Patton when we need him?