Minnesota: Harbinger of things to come

This problem is fundamental.

Ignore your favorite party for a moment. Most politicians act in the interest of their own re-election rather than the interest of their constituents or their Country/State/City. They would rather do something moronic- like a govt. shutdown, then address the issue in a bi-partisan fashion. Bi-partisanship means occasionally moving away from your position to meet in the middle to accomplish something or advance the business of the State.

I have heard of ideas to address this- some are better than others:

1) Term limits on Senators and Congressmen- no more 90 year old politicians with 40 year careers- who are the definition of bureaucrats. 2 terms max? Or, 1 term, yet extend to 5 years?

2) Move vote requirements from 2/3 to simple majority

3) Remove the filibuster, as well as other procedures such that votes will occur rather than games

4) Reduce the size of House of Reps.

5) Remove ability for one party to "redistrict" to game election demographics- this has gone both ways

6) Remove the ability of private corporations to privately fund politician campaign funds/cap their amounts significantly.

I don't know what else- but, I believe our govt. process is injured. The founding fathers could not have predicted how it would evolve in 2011- something needs to be done.
 
McBrett, since it so seldom happens, I'll take the opportunity to agree with you.

As sophisticated as GPS and such things are getting, I'd bet a software company could develop a way to redistrict a certain population in a completely non-political way. Gerrymandering is just a ridiculous introduction into our system. This is the kind of thing that gives the Sheila Jackson-Lee's of the world a career and it is a trajedy that she is an elected official in our government.
 
It is simple if you don't care about the consequences. It's all those sissies that want to pay soldiers, get granma her Social Security check and keep the Arlington National Cemetery open for visitors that got us into this mess in the first place.
 
what is unfortunate is that the government is so ingrained into the economy and the hidden taxes are so widespread that any reform is going to cause problems. it is why we are basically screwed and we are going to just have to wait until it all comes crashing down. At this stage, there is no realistic way to pay off our debt or even make a dent in it. it is all a slight of hand con game right now.
 
That's almost comical, Giovanni.

My dad fishes nearly every day and he said that he's seen an incredible rise in fishermen. He's sure that most don't have licenses. There are no game wardens to enforce them.

So the lakes are probably getting over fished. No good fishing = fewer tourists coming to fish = fewer dollars to pay the unemployment of the laid-off game wardens.
 
McBrett,

I've never been a fan of term limits. Having worked in politics for a long stretch of my life, I'm not convinced this would help at all. People are unaware of how much influence and even power staffers have especially on committees. Term limits IMO would just transfer more power to them and worst of all, there is no oversight on them. They can be the most corrupt people in a Capitol and there is really no way of even knowing. Ive seen firsthand staffers kill legislation in exchange for lucrative "consulting" gigs and there's no way to prove it unless you get something on tape.

Out of curiosity though, if we did go to software or some other form of redistricting would you favor eliminating VRA or would we still have to ensure there are a certain number of minority districts, communities of interest, etc?
 
"Just spend less money! That's all we have to do"

That's like saying to a family that brings a new baby into their world that they can't look for higher paying jobs, aim to send all their kids to college, buy a bigger house."

Whether you agree or not, the country went on a spending spree under GW Bush - two unpaid for wars. And then our federal government - a pretty bipartisan consensus let Wall Street run out of control and destroy wealth. And yes, spending is being reduced. The argument that you shouldn't raise taxes in a recession is not off the beaten path, but those same people want to reduce spending - which pretty much has the same effect as raising taxes during a recession. Sot to argue that there is not a revenue angle to this equation is just pure dumb ideology - an ideology that believes that there should be no state role whatsoever unless it is culture war issues. In the meantime, we have a growing population and in terms of education, infrastructure, etc, spending will have to increase to accomodate it although as a percenage of GDP, I would like to see it come down to 90s levels with a sustained recovery. Where is General Eisenhower when you need him?
 
Big government doesn’t come cheaply. According to Congressional Budget Office (CBO) figures released Monday, the budget deficit for February hit a staggering $223 billion - meaning the Obama administration added more in debt last month than was borrowed in all of 2007. It’s no secret that these mounting bills must eventually come due in the form of higher taxes or a deflated currency. Either alternative would hit consumers hard.

Since Barack Obama was sworn in as president, each American taxpayer’s share of the federal government’s IOU has grown to $50 per day - more than the average cell-phone user is billed in an entire month. The monthly share of the deficit is $1,500 per taxpayer - about what the average household spends on a mortgage. On an annual basis, each taxpayer owes $18,250 - more than an Old Dominion resident would pay in tuition at the University of Virginia or a nonresident would spend at the University of Maryland.

In January 2009, the national debt stood at $10.6 trillion. Fueled by the so-called stimulus, this debt grew by $3.6 trillion in just two years. The magnitude of this amount is difficult to grasp without a comparison. Under Mr. Obama, government has been borrowing $4.6 billion each and every day. That’s more than it cost to construct the world’s tallest building, Dubai’s Burj Khalifa. In other words, the amount of future productivity being sapped from the American economy would be sufficient to construct a new 160-story skyscraper every day of the year.

This looming burden will eventually hit, but it will not fall on every American. According to the latest Tax Foundation figures, 90,718,339 paid more in taxes than they received in 2008. The price of present, past and future bureaucracy will fall on these shoulders. According to CBO’s rosiest projections, we are on track to hit $18.2 trillion in debt within the next 10 years. Each taxpayer would have to cough up $200,620 to retire that debt.

The current Republican plan would trim 2011 spending by $58.6 billion and lighten the weight around the necks of future generations by one-third of 1 percent. America’s looming insolvency calls for more than half-measures and convenient trimming around the edges. Government has grown too large and too intrusive. It must be rolled back by a return to spending levels no greater than those found in the 2006 budget. This is hardly an extreme suggestion; it’s not like people complained about not having enough government around five years ago. Such a change would have the added benefit of returning desperately needed capital to the private sector.

The actions of Mr. Obama and his congressional allies betray a lack of faith in the promise of capitalism to raise the living standards through economic growth. We’ve tried two straight years of Keynesian stimulus, and this discredited theory has produced no better results than it did under Mr. Obama’s ideological forerunner, Jimmy Carter. It’s now up to the House Republican majority to use the upcoming debt-limit vote to inform the president that his partying at the nation’s expense must come to an end.
 
Some actual discussion on this thread. Refreshing.

Mcbrett, I agree w what you're saying, but I think that the only change that really will matter in this country is that we've got to get the corporations out of the legislative process. They only create policy that transfers vast taxpayer wealth into their (private) pockets. Our country cannot keep giving away our hard-earned money for wars, prescription drugs, agricultural subsidies, wall street bailouts, cash-for-clunkers, etc., etc. All these policies benefit someone, but that someone definitely isn't Joe Taxpayer.

And which party is in power really only predicts WHICH companies get the best seats at the trough.

It's going to be our great undoing as a nation.
 
Uninformed, I think Obama has been a terrible president, and yes, the wild spending by this administration (including healthcare "reform") has been shameful.

That said, I find it incredible that anyone could post an article that blames only one political party for irresponsible spending. Truly incredible.
 
Obviously you missed the post before mine. Read it and it might provide some insight.

As for blame, I could care less. What is important is correcting the problem. It is clear that the people who brought new entitlements and anti-stimulus plans and escalated our debt to GDP ratio from 60 to 90% are not going to willingly decrease spending. Our hope lies with our newly elected Congressmen who not coincidentally were elected to stop government growth and spending.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top