@LDS LiberalI am completely for a 22nd Amendment Repeal, that we can
get Bill Clinton back into office!If "it's the economy
stupid" who is better? When have we as a nation been more prosperous?
I found 19 resolutions that the present Congress proposed for "balanced
budget amendments." Fourteen of these House and Senate resolutions were
presented by Republicans, ~ letter========== and the
Flag Desecration amendment,the Christian amendment, the Human Life
amendment, the School Prayer amendment, the Pledge of Allegiance
amendment, Equal Opportunity to Govern [the Arnold Swartznager for
President] amendment, repeal the 17th amendment amendment, Federal
Marriage amendment, repeal the 22nd amendment amendment, I
could go on and on....The point is this; For those who SAY
they are the ones protecting the Constitution, The Republicans are
constantanly trying to CHANGE the Constitution.Hypocrites!
@Truthseeker:"Read S&P's and GAO report
yourself."Per your post, S&P says it reduced bond rating due
to controversy, fiscal policy debate, political brinksmanship, and policy making
becoming less stable... This is nice but says nothing. The underlying reason
is our on-going sluggish economy, as I posted.The GAO report you
quote does not explain why borrowing costs to the Treasury rise, so I'm
sticking by my prior comment... i.e., the cost to the government of borrowing is
directly related to available interest rates. Once a government bond is issued
the interest rate (cost) on that bond remains static... does not raise or lower.
Simple accounting concepts.Congress is not supposed to enact
budgets or other money bills unless there are funds in the Treasury to pay for
it. That's why there's such a tizzy in Congress when the Treasury is
dry and the government needs more money to pay bills. The issue comes to a head
when each party accuses the other of being responsible for shutting down the
government because the dept limit has not been increased.I ought-a
know... I used to work for GAO.
@The Real Maverick:"That's funny. wrz wrote to
himself."The imposed 200 word limit is generally not enough to
cover multiple points. Hence the transition to another post. Clever, I
thought."Seriously, wrz, who else are you? Redshirt? Invisible
Man? Mountainman? Mike Richards?"All of the above and more...
Including Real Maverick. Although, as Real Maverick I'll admit I've
posted some very stupid comments. :)"Folks, it's obvious
that the GOP is more concerned with obstructing the Democrats and making Obama a
single term President..."A very noble objective. We've had
enough of this guy who many think is a foreigner. For sure, his policies are
foreign to our traditional system of governance."... than
actually being serious about the deficit."Getting rid of Obama
is the first step in addressing the national deficit and debt.
@wrzRead S&P's and GAO report yourself. "We
lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that theprolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the
relatedfiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress
containing thegrowth in public spending....The political brinksmanship of
recent months highlights what we see asAmerica's governance and
policymaking becoming less stable, less effective,and less predictable.."(S&P 8/2011)GAO report:"The debt limit...restricts
the Treasury’s authority to borrow to finance the decisions ALREADY
ENACTED by Congress. We reported in 2/2011 that managing debt when delays
in raising the debt limit occur diverts Treasury’s resources away from
other cash and debt management responsibilities and that Treasury’s
borrowing costs modestly increased during debt limit debates in 2002, 2003, and
2010.Delays in raising the debt limit in 2011 led to an increase in
Treasury’s borrowing costs of about $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2011.
However, this does not account for the multiyear effects on increased costs for
Treasury securities that will remain outstanding after fiscal year 2011."(GAO 7/2012)
Seriously, wrz, who else are you? Redshirt? Invisible Man? Mountainman? Mike
Richards?Hilarious that you were caught responding to yourself. Next time, try logging out of your wrz account and logging back in as
your "other" persona.Folks, it's obvious that the GOP
is more concerned with obstructing the Democrats and making Obama a single term
President than actually being serious about the deficit. Had they been serious,
they would have quickly accepted that 10 to 1 ratio a long time ago. You folks made pledges to the American people and this Constitution. Their
pledges to Lindquist is unconstitutional and should result in an automatic
dismissal from Congress.
That's funny. wrz wrote to himself. Having multiple accounts
and responding to yourself in order to make your opinions look more authentic or
popular is a poor way of proving whatever point you were trying to make.
@wrz:"Why is our economy sluggish? Because our jobs have moved
overseas."Truer words were never spoken (typed). Jobs moving
overseas has been on-going for decades. But we didn't much care ... we had
a booming economy driven mostly by real-estate industry as well as the tech
industry. Real-estate dried up with the 2008 bust and foreigners are now
beating us in the tech business. Manufacturing moved long ago...
Textiles/clothing, furniture, building materials, appliances, watches, toys,
bicycles. You name it. If you want proof go to a big box like
Wal-Mart, look at any merchandise tag and see where it's made... China,
India, Indonesia, etc.We've lost the service industry as well.
Call for 'help' with your cell phone, ipad, etc., and who will you
get...? A foreigner. Even our beloved Deseret News is not guiltless. Call the
paper's delivery help line and you get...? Watch for it... A
foreigner!*Well, least we still have hamburger flipping and
insurance salesman's jobs. *PS: We can help here... When the
foreigner answers, tell them you want to speak to someone in the US. They are
required to transfer you.
@Truthseeker:"It is wrong-headed to require a 2/3 majority to
raise taxes or the debt ceiling."It's wrong headed to raise
taxes or the debt ceiling. The federal government is now borrowing 42 cents on
each dollar that it spends. And it is making no effort to change things...
either party. That's obscene conduct."And because many of
those securities “will remain outstanding for years to come,” the
borrowing costs will continue to rise in the near future."the
cost of borrowing has nothing to do with how long the debt remains outstanding.
Borrowing costs rise when interest rates rise... but only on new debt."The debt limit fight also caused the first-ever downgrade of
America’s credit rating, which Standard & Poor’s blamed on
Congress' inability to work together and brinksmanship by the
Republicans."The US bond credit rating was caused by our
on-going sluggish economy... something that will be with us for a very long
time. Has nothing to do with the 'fights' that go on in Congress.Why is our economy sluggish? Because our jobs have moved overseas. We
need a president who will get them back.
It is wrong-headed to require a 2/3 majority to raise taxes or the debt
ceiling. Republican opposition to raising the debt ceiling
increased the government’s borrowing costs by $1.3 billion in fiscal year
2011, and costs will continue to rise in the future, a report from the GAO
found. The U.S. Treasury was forced to take varying actions to avoid hitting the
debt limit before Congress raised it in August, forcing borrowing costs higher
on multiple Treasury securities, the report found. And because many of those
securities “will remain outstanding for years to come,” the
borrowing costs will continue to rise in the near future. The debt limit fight
also caused the first-ever downgrade of America’s credit rating, which
Standard & Poor’s blamed on Congress' inability to work together
and brinksmanship by the Republicans.
So basically, neither party has a solution. And, repubs have used
the "balancing the budget" claim to obstruct Democrats' legislation
more than Democrats have used it to obstruct Republican legislation. That's essentially what the letter writer proved. Since neither is really
serious about balancing the budget, they're merely using ridiculous
proposals to merely obstruct legislation.
This is an excellent and thoughtful letter. There are real solutions out there.
But until the powerful influences of corporations, Wall Street, banks, and
other special interests are eliminated, no change is possible.The
first step must be eliminating Citizens United.The second should be
public financing of campaigns.The third needs to be strict term
limits for all legislators.
What the author has rightfully pointed out is that neither side of the aisle
seems serious about responsibly balancing our budget. To me it boils down to
the problem of campaign finance. Congressmen are elected every two years and it
seems they must start fund raising the day after the election if they are
intending to be re-elected. Senators have a longer term but often their
campaigns are more expensive and so they are in a similar boat. So while many
of them genuinely want to serve the people that elected them they are usually
more beholden to those that finance their campaigns and that is where the
conflict starts.There are those who point out that freedom of speech
would require us to not mess with this system but it seems obvious that the ones
with the most money (their own or their donor's) are the ones that get
elected and that money buys influence in Congress. I could suggest a solution
to this problem but most who respond on this page would think I was a radical or
might even call me a socialist. But until we fix that problem the other one