Baloney!
 

Jeb Hensarling (R., Texas), co-head of the supercommittee said, "We have 12 good people who have worked hard since this committee has been created to try to find sufficient common ground."

What B.S.! Twelve ideologues unwilling to give an inch for the good of the country.

How do you know this? Have you been privy to the discussions? Could you please give us links? Thank-you.

I saw a report this evening that said they had picked the 6 most far right and 6 most far left for this committee and their hope was that they would come up with something that the middle of the road senator or congressman could vote for.

That logic can only look right in the planning stages in Washington DC.
I think we might be screwed!

You're Welcome
 

I guess you don't read the news. Here's a few clips for your perusal...

HOUSE REJECTS BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT (http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/18/politi...html?hpt=hp_t2)

JUST BLAME EACH OTHER (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...committee-plan)

NO PROGRESS (http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/18/politi...tee/index.html)

THE WORLD LOOKS ON (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0fd4d78e-1...#axzz1e7evkO35)

DON'T ANYONE GIVE AN INCH (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...upercommittee/)

You're welcome!

Well played sir!

add to their lack of confidence the recent vote against a requirement for a balanced budget and what do we have?

Business as usual in Washington.

A balanced budget will never happen until such time as the lawmakers acknowledge they will have to cut into their pet/protected/no not mine programs to make it happen.

There is not one shred of evidence the current 12 will do any better than their entire cadre on the same subject. Business as usual, hence get ready for a new round of gridlock, name calling, finger pointing and ever increasing deficits.

btk

Thanks, I guess I have not paid attention to this fiasco as I never thought they would do anything from the get go. Someone described them as acting like high school kids who will do nothing until the last minute, and then come up with excuses when they didn't finish their homework.

Like anything else in Washington these days leading up to next November's elections, the principals of the so called "super committee" need to secure their agenda, their vision, and their political party's public face.

More than trying to "fix", or even get a handle on the enormous debt run up by this administration, the two political parties involved want to establish their election agenda.

The party that blinks will probably lose the election. I think it's as simple as that. So each side has dug in their heels and is insisting on the most important aspects of it's agenda be inviolable.

Maybe They Actually Did Something
 

I don't disagre with anything you've said, Richie. But I do think that it bears noting that the growing deficit and national debt is not just the product of this administration. The runup of debt began in the beginning of the first Bush administration, more than ten years ago. Deficit spending and the national debt has accelerated under the Obama administration certainly. But independent analyses show that the recent increased debt is as much caused by continuing to spend money on wars and the effect of the Bush tax cuts combined with lower revenues resultant from recession as it is from increased spending.

If the super committee punts and the "automatic" spending cuts are implemented and the Bush tax cuts expire and are not extended, we'll take a big step towards reducing the deficit and slowing the growth of the debt. No one is going to like the effect of those two "automatic" events--the defense budget will be slashed in a major way and almost everyone will be paying more taxes, not just the wealthy--but the Congress can go home pointing at the other party and telling their constituencies, "I didn't do that!"

Hmmm, maybe the "do nothing" Congress actually will have done something. And if everything runs true to form--I surely hope that it doesn't--the majority of the 535 will be re-elected!

VK, I think at this point Obama owns the economy. He tripled the debt and at the same time deflated chances for growth with an onerous regulatory agenda.

Nobody is going to be thinking of Bush on Nov. 2nd 2012 except those still afflicted with "Bush Derangement Syndrome". Obama fought the economic fire with gasoline. He now want to continue to rack up more debt and enact more job killing policies. His most recent example is the Canadian Pipeline halt.

This thread, particularly the dialogue between Kahuna ane Richie, gives me some hope that an adult discussion with respect and nuance can actually still occur on this board. I don't get on here often, and usually even unsubscribe so as not to even be exposed to the vitriol, but if there is going to be change in our governance, it must begin with intelligent and sincere discussion. Calling politicians demeaning names and answering sincere opposing arguments with ad hominem attacks only perpetuates the divisive atmosphere that is crippling this great country.

I have to agree with Richie. Whenever someone takes over a company, he or she is now responsible for righting the ship. Blaming the current conditions on someone who they replaced three years ago no longer works.

So far, Obama has only worsen the picture with his agenda. He needs to stop the spending and find some way to fix the problems.

Unfortunately farming the budget responsibility to a group of 12 is not the answer. These senators and representatives that we elected need to roll up their sleeves and get down to business. That is what we are paying them for.

Maybe it would have been better if they would have picked a committee of 13 non-government people from each state - people like us using the thirteenth person as the spokesperson for the group to go over all of the budget including the pork and see what they could have done. That way there would be no favorite project to be saved in each state.

I would bet that in three months these groups would have reached a reasonable budget.

I know it would never happen because somehow the senators would make sure that their people were in the group to protect their interests.

It's all a matter of control and grip on party power that affords them the money to play Santa Claus with taxpayer money......in exchange for votes.

Richie:

I think I'm a bit confused. Triple the debt? I don't think so. Even 'triple the deficit' isn't accurate. Going to the OMB for the following numbers:

Bush's last budget year was FY 2009 (which started 10/1/2008). The deficit for that year was $1.4 Trillion.

Obama's deficits are: FY 2010 - $1.2T, FY 2011 est $1.6T, FY 2012 (which started last month) $1.1T

Looking at the public debt itself.. The amount of debt on the last day of the fiscal years:

Clinton's last - FY 2000: $5.6T
Bush's last 1st term - FY 2004: $7.3T
Bush's last 2nd term - FY 2008: $10T, and it was $11.9T by the end of FY2009 (Bush's last budget plus remember the off-budget stimulus package and bailouts that were started under Bush's term)
By 9/30/2010 it's at $13.5T.

Sorry, Richie, you're wrong on both counts. Obama neither tripled the deficit, nor the debt. Even at $1T/year it would take Obama more time than he can Constitutionally BE President to triple the debt.

Are you referring to some other numbers I'm not aware of?

I am beginning to think like VK and just vote them all out.