This morning's news programs highlighted the smoke, mirrors and accounting gimmicks used by Congress to calculate the 'historic spending cuts' that was said to total $38.5 billion. Not being subject to FASB accounting standards, Congress ran no risk in adding up the numbers in any way that made them look good.

Now after the Congressional Budget Office has read the bill and actually calculated the "spending cuts", it turns out that the country's cash flow will only be reduced by $352 million, less than 1% of the amount members of Congress took so much credit for.

This wasn't known before the legislation was passed because the bill was never published beforehand, was never provided to the public or members of Congress to read, and was never debated on the floor of the House or Senate. In fact, it's now clear that Congress passed this bill without ever reading it. They simply relied on what their leaders told them had been negotiated. Then they voted the way they were told to vote. Then many of them immediately found some TV cameras to create soundbites congratulating themselves for such a job well done.

Does all this sound familiar? Is my memory failing or wasn't it exactly this modus operandi for which the Republicans so vehemently castigated the Democrats for when the healthcare bill was passed? Then many members of this forum jumped on the bandwagon and parroted those criticisms. Where are you all now? Now that the table has been reversed by the mid-term elections? Now that it's apparent that those elected to represent us act in exactly the same way, regardless of their political stripe, their claimed idealogy, or what they have said in the past?

Without taking too much credit, I predicted that this type of conduct was exactly what would happen, even with a major shift in power between the political parties.

Are any of you beginning to join me in believing that there is little or no difference between those who call themselves Republicans, Democrats, liberals, progressives, conservatives, even the tea party. The only categorization worth mentioning are incumbents and those trying to take their jobs. Apparently those 535 elected positions in Congress are so desirable, so profitable, provide so much power for the incumbents, permit them free reign to feather their own nests, that they'll do anything and say anything to convince voters that they should be elected or re-elected. Govern the country? Do what's right?

No, all those 535 do is work from the day they're first elected to get re-elected. If any of you out there continue to believe that there is even one whit of difference between those seeking election to one of those sweet 535 jobs under one ideological banner or another...I feel sorry for you. I feel sorry for us.

Kahuna,

Yes, your predictions were right on. Your posts continue to be accurate and thought provoking.

I have written you privately questioning why you are so insistent on never voting for an incumbent. It seems like such an unlikely, simplistic solution to our huge problems.

But now, for the sake of argument, I'll agree with you that Congress is totally dysfunctional, but I would ask how you can possibly conclude that newcomers will perform differently (better) than incumbents. I suggest they will not, for a number of reasons, but mostly because they too will be enslaved by the funding and attached strings which allow them to unseat an opponent.

So here's my solution: Forget Congress. Let's waste no more time and tears railing over a governing model our founding fathers would be the first to radically redo if they were around. My focus is entirely on the President.

Let's debate the wisdom of finding and supporting Presidential candidates who are smart enough and brave enough to push an agenda which will move us forward. No matter what his opponents say now, President Obama was widely seen, even by open-minded conservatives, as having real leadership potential. Displaying presidential qualities overcame the millions spent to defeat him and the fact that he was not a white man.
Scream and holler about government spending, but even objective tea party folks will admit you can't really affect change without reducing defense, social security and medicare costs. The new health care laws and the decisions to end our massive presence in Iraq and Afghanistan are monumental positive steps. The amazing record of 'lame-duck' legislation in the final months of 2010 is a huge accomplishment.
I will vote for Obama again in 2012. Perhaps as a lame-duck himself he will pull out all the stops and find ways to better control the funding of Medicare and Social Security. If he is successful, it will be by increasing the contributions of the wealthy. That sure won't play well here in TV, but it will be our only real solution. Smart and brave will require that he continues to twist arms as he has done. Never quitting means he will find ways to defeat the special interests and make the 'compromises' work for the good of the majority. I believe Obama can continue to essentially lead Congress by the nose to more needed reform. Congressmen will continue to vilify him for this or that, but it will hopefully not stop the progress.

I haven't seen any candidate whom I think will be better for America in 2012 than the incumbent. I'm already concerned about 2016, but in the meantime Congress can just go their merry way.

As you probably know, I was as disgusted and skeptical as you guys... and I am furious with the Rinos. BUT.. the good thing about that 2010 resolution and the upcoming votes on debt ceiling and 2012 budge is you know who to vote against. .. and it does include some freshmen tea party rinos. We do not want excuses any more.

Now.. unfortunately as you can see by Paul Ryans budget and President Obamas budget, deficits continue for DECADES and the DEBT WILL INCREASE by trillions during that time.. ... and that means they know it cannot be fixed. ..

When I retired last year as age 56 I didn't know it but I am John Galt. I got tired of the high taxes, and bs rules, and I took my talent, pension, and stayed home.
JJ

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

Kahuna,

Yes, your predictions were right on. Your posts continue to be accurate and thought provoking.

I have written you privately questioning why you are so insistent on never voting for an incumbent. It seems like such an unlikely, simplistic solution to our huge problems.

But now, for the sake of argument, I'll agree with you that Congress is totally dysfunctional, but I would ask how you can possibly conclude that newcomers will perform differently (better) than incumbents. I suggest they will not, for a number of reasons, but mostly because they too will be enslaved by the funding and attached strings which allow them to unseat an opponent.

So here's my solution: Forget Congress. Let's waste no more time and tears railing over a governing model our founding fathers would be the first to radically redo if they were around. My focus is entirely on the President.

Let's debate the wisdom of finding and supporting Presidential candidates who are smart enough and brave enough to push an agenda which will move us forward. No matter what his opponents say now, President Obama was widely seen, even by open-minded conservatives, as having real leadership potential. Displaying presidential qualities overcame the millions spent to defeat him and the fact that he was not a white man.
Scream and holler about government spending, but even objective tea party folks will admit you can't really affect change without reducing defense, social security and medicare costs. The new health care laws and the decisions to end our massive presence in Iraq and Afghanistan are monumental positive steps. The amazing record of 'lame-duck' legislation in the final months of 2010 is a huge accomplishment.
I will vote for Obama again in 2012. Perhaps as a lame-duck himself he will pull out all the stops and find ways to better control the funding of Medicare and Social Security. If he is successful, it will be by increasing the contributions of the wealthy. That sure won't play well here in TV, but it will be our only real solution. Smart and brave will require that he continues to twist arms as he has done. Never quitting means he will find ways to defeat the special interests and make the 'compromises' work for the good of the majority. I believe Obama can continue to essentially lead Congress by the nose to more needed reform. Congressmen will continue to vilify him for this or that, but it will hopefully not stop the progress.

I haven't seen any candidate whom I think will be better for America in 2012 than the incumbent. I'm already concerned about 2016, but in the meantime Congress can just go their merry way.

Ah, so again we have the idea of "tax ourselves to prosperity". When has that ever worked?

Because they all are politicians, deep in the ways things have been done for years world wide and in Washington, catering to the every whim of special interest, lobby and minority groups....Obama, a first and foremost proven thourohbred politically only motivated individual and any other candidate from the Washington experienced will never meet the well stated criteria:

"...Presidential candidates who are smart enough and brave enough to push an agenda which will move us forward...."

Obama and the 534 incumbents demonstrate daily they will not ever take any action or make any decisions that involve risk to their being able to be re-elected...their first and foremost priority. Hence what needs to be done will not be!

btk

I am glad I happened on these posts. I learned that the reason I don't like Obama is because he is not white. But wait he is half white so does that mean I only half don't like him. Or to put a more positive spin on it I half like him. It can't be because of his socialist ideology, or his inability to lead or his under handed and sneaky manner of getting his agenda and people in place. It can't be because of his long list of unsavory associates most of whom want to destroy America. It can't be because of his disastrous domestic,economic and foreign policy. Even Chris Matthews and he is left of Soros has soured on Obama. Obama will not be reelected in 2012

If you really want to change things, start at the local level, city, county and state. Scare the crap out of them, do recalls if necessary. If they, the local pols raise taxes, recall them, put new ones in place. Then start with the federal level. It will take a few election cycles, but that is the only way to really get their attention.

The other solution to the problem is armed conflict. Forcefully remove the government that we have in place now, in accordance with the Constitution of the United States and start new with fresh faces. It will keep them in line for a while.

Then it should take us another 230 years or so to get into the same mess that we are in now.

I really believe that its to late, America will never be the reat country it once was. We are fastly becoming a 3 world nations just so some sleaze bag politicans can get elected again. Our money is junk, we manufacture nothing and most of all the vast majority of American don't vote and know more about American Idol that they do about who represents them. All they want is a hand out from the working class who are learning its better to be on the hand out list then in the work force.

It's going to take some real hard times to wake the lazy children that we are raising and over protecting to get this country back on its feet and a place where only those that want to work and will help themselves will want to come too. We need to go back to the "you don't work, you don't eat" policy that made this country so great.

Be prepared hard times are coming, and coming lots sooner that we think.

Originally Posted by rubicon

I am glad I happened on these posts. I learned that the reason I don't like Obama is because he is not white. But wait he is half white so does that mean I only half don't like him. Or to put a more positive spin on it I half like him. It can't be because of his socialist ideology, or his inability to lead or his under handed and sneaky manner of getting his agenda and people in place. It can't be because of his long list of unsavory associates most of whom want to destroy America. It can't be because of his disastrous domestic,economic and foreign policy. Even Chris Matthews and he is left of Soros has soured on Obama. Obama will not be reelected in 2012

Maybe it's because he was born in Kenya....or that he's a Muslim...or that his middle name is Hussein....or that he shoots baskets left handed....or that he cares about the less fortunate in this county...or that he's intelligent....or...or...or.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Ah, so again we have the idea of "tax ourselves to prosperity". When has that ever worked?

A silly slogan doesn't counter or diminish what the President still insists are important agenda items: 1) reverse the 9% reduction of taxes for 'super rich' individuals which has occurred since the early 90's, and 2) alter the loopholes which allow companies like GE to earn billions in profits and pay no taxes.

Who knows, Obama may begin to turn this situation around before he's done. Which of his predecessors has had the guts to go toe-to-toe on taxes with our REALLY powerful companies and individuals?

And there's even a rumor that the President has this pipe dream of limiting access by anyone to easily portable automatic weapons with multi-shot clips. Imagine that!

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

A silly slogan doesn't counter or diminish what the President still insists are important agenda items: 1) reverse the 9% reduction of taxes for 'super rich' individuals which has occurred since the early 90's, and 2) alter the loopholes which allow companies like GE to earn billions in profits and pay no taxes.

Who knows, Obama may begin to turn this situation around before he's done. Which of his predecessors has had the guts to go toe-to-toe on taxes with our REALLY powerful companies and individuals?

And there's even a rumor that the President has this pipe dream of limiting access by anyone to easily portable automatic weapons with multi-shot clips. Imagine that!

Fool me once shame on you , fool me twice shame on me.
Turn the ship around? You must be kidding he's the one trying to sink our country and our economy.

It appears the smoke and mirrors is still working effectively with some.
Standing toe to toe with corporate America? Would GE paying zero taxes be a good example?

btk

It was posted online. I read it. It was supposed to be posted 3 days before the vote. They defined 3 days as anytime on the first day and the vote could be anytime on the 3rd day. Tricky counting too. The language in the bill was readable but what it didnt tell you is the details of the CUTS. They didnt tell you those cuts were just unspent money that occurs every year and would have happened without the vote, nor that the Cuts were from non reoccuring budget items and have no effect on future budgets, nor that they were from PROJECTED costs, and a number of other gimmicks. AND I think the public interpret 3 days, as 3 full days. Rinos and demos are responsible and all must be kicked out.
JJ

The whole budget reduction GAME goes on due to lack of leadership...plain and simple.

It reminds of my corporate days when we were looking for budget and headcount reductions to REDUCE SPENDING. There was always those who would always, always try to submit cancelling the hiring of new people TO BE ADDED to the payroll. Now just exactly does not adding a person to the payroll have to do with REDUCING headcount? REDUCING current expenditures.
Absolutely nothing. My response to such an attempt was if they could not show me how to REDUCE headcount to REDUCE spending, I would gladly show them how to reduce at least one more!!!

This is the game being played in Washington and without leadership to bring the game playing to a stop...there will be no REDUCTION in spending.

No accountability, no responsibility and no leadership = business as usual by Washington's 535.....and we the people just continue to re-elect the same old game players...hence we are getting what we deserve....NOTHING!

btk