Punt on the fiscal cliff
The grand bargain the nation needs probably will not be reached in the next few days.
Somewhere along the way, too many leaders in Washington lose sight of the people they went there to serve. They become jaded politicians worried more about party loyalty, embarrassing the other side and re-election than about their constituents.
They become willing to let the nation crash over a fiscal cliff that will likely drive a fragile economic recovery back into recession as part of some grand political game. Partisans on both sides believe the cliff could benefit them politically, the effects on real people be damned.
December 27, 2012 - 8:15 AM
Just a “slim hope” indeed. I do not think historians will have enough ink for this malevolent Congress.
Buying more time is not the solution. That just gives Congress and the POTUS more time to do nothing. Obama can’t deliver the democrats on any spending cuts and Boehner can’t deliver the republicans on any tax increases. What is the point of making these agreements if they have no meaning or consequences?
The last thing a bloated Federal Government that cannot control its spending needs is MORE REVENUE. You don’t fix this problem by sending the government more money.
The RTEB seems to have forgotten that these people were elected to LEAD. Postponing the fiscal cliff deadline is not leading.
Ever tried to dance when both people are “leading”? This divisive Congress will see this nation ruined rather than work with Obama, that much is obvious. When the recession hits, they will have nowhere to hide.
I maintain that gun advocates have far more to answer for than those who do not believe more guns is the answer to gun violence John Wilburn.
The ATF is “tasked with stopping guns from being trafficked into Mexico’s vicious drug war.
Some call it the “parade of ants”; others the “river of iron.” The Mexican government has estimated that 2,000 weapons are smuggled daily from the U.S. into Mexico. The ATF is hobbled in its effort to stop this flow. No federal statute outlaws firearms trafficking within the U.S., so agents must build cases using a patchwork of often toothless laws. For six years, due to Beltway politics, the bureau has gone without permanent leadership, neutered in its fight for funding and authority. The National Rifle Association has so successfully opposed a comprehensive electronic database of gun sales that the ATF’s congressional appropriation explicitly prohibits establishing one.”
http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/
Even in the most seriously high traffic areas, the NRA and gun advocates tie the hands of law enforcement. The blood is on their hands. There is no other way to look at it.
Gun advocates admit that there are many other guns that could serve the purpose of the military styled assault rifles favored by gangs, drug lords, mass shooters and video gamers who idealize them, but still refuse the idea of banning them. They admit that there are other fast loading magazines and gun combinations that would do the defense job easily, yet they still refuse the idea of banning the high round magazines.
There is something wrong with people who think these thug guns should remain in circulation. Even if they are “fun” to shoot. Marijuana was not always illegal, neither was “Moonshine”.
Apologies! Crossed my posts and blogs on the above. Wrong blog, wrong thread. Sorry!
#4, what in the heck are you referring to? I think you got your Blog wires crossed.
#3, Leading can certainly be done and within respective parties. You dems see “working with Obama” as giving him the right to raise the debt ceiling as he see fit (he has included that in his proposal to congress). I don’t see working with someone as giving them what they want. Like it or not, republicans that were re-elected to a significant majority in the house were not elected to capitulate to Obama. Yes-he won the presidential election but they also won the house election.
I don’t think you lead by campaigning your position in New Jersey and places like that.
The fact is that this fiscal cliff could have been avoided months ago-there has been ample time to reach agreement. The deadline has been known for a long time. But you don’t get there by proposing a budget that the democratically controlled senate rejected 97-0. That isn’t leadership.
Let it come. It will hurt but it might be good for people to realize that the Federal Government is not the source from whence all blessigs flow.
Yet another example of hating Obama more than loving America. “Let it come” means an almost certain recession and a worse economy. Why would you even think of wishing that on us? And why assume that will be blamed on Obama? The majority of the voters voted for him and his tax increase on the wealthiest people. They still support that too.
Deal or not the sky will not fall. All left wing media drival.Gotta keep that fear going to increase viewers and readers.
#7
Somebody send some reality pills to Sandy- ” an almost certain recession and a worse economy.”
Quit reading newspapers Sandi! The election is over! We never were out of a recession and we haven’t been out of one despite insane and massive deficit spendng by the Obama administration.
The fact is that this government has a spending problem that you liberals do not seem to want to see addressed. You don’t fix that by sending them more money to spend!
Hope you are brushing up on learning how to speak Chinese….
#7 – “And why assume that will be blamed on Obama?”
You are absolutely correct, Sandi. It will NOT be blamed on Obama. No matter what the republicans could have come up with, nothing they proposed would have been acceptable.
That was a given when this ‘fiscal cliff’ mess was first mentioned.
The fact is that this nation had an economic collapse that has devastated the economy, confidence and certainly was enabled by the very government you think can fix it. In truth, we do not have “a spending problem” anymore than a lack of revenue problem. We have a massive, you can’t touch this bureaucracy that has taken decades and decades to build and that is NOT the fault of liberals, nor are we the ones who refuse to face the truth of it. I know you folks think we can just “quit spending” and all will be well, but that is not the truth.
Learn any language you like, it changes nothing.
#4 Mrs. Saunders, you have been harping on this Mexican “flow” for a long time.
What pray tell does it have to do with Newtown (etc.)….with our Constitution, with our rights…..
Do you for a moment think Mexico’s violence issues are due to their draconian gun laws not working because of our freedoms?
What is your point?
(Wherever you meant to post).
11 – we do not have “a spending problem” anymore than a lack of revenue problem. We have a massive, you can’t touch this bureaucracy that has taken decades and decades to build”
And how is that massive bureaucracy (an accurate description to be sure) funded?
Put differently, if we were to dismantle large parts of that bureaucracy would it not leave a smaller bureaucracy in its place, one that would require less funding, one that would more allow us to live within our means?
If we had an operable and functioning Congress, it might be possible to reform some of the problems we have created. The problems from my view ARE the smaller bureaucracies. Each department is a separate bureaucracy, built up to meet the need (and built to justify its existence). Congress being the worst of them all.
14 – So you would be in favor of streamlining, consolidating and/or eliminating bureaucratic functions? What would be the basis of determining whether a certain bureaucracy/agency/office/whatever is to be reorganized in some form or eliminated completely?
I would not be in favor of this Congress ordering lunch. I am not sure how much clearer I can be. I have no faith, no respect, no inkling of their intelligence, knowledge or ability to do anything constructive as a body or as individuals for that matter.
16 – unless your comments about bloated bureaucracy and reform are addressed specifically to this Congress (an odd target considering the vast majority of Leviathan was in place before this Congress, and most of that under the Executive Branch), then you still have clearly NOT answered the question.
What would be the basis of determining whether a certain bureaucracy/agency/office/whatever is to be reorganized in some form or eliminated completely, irrespective of who is Congress?
#16 – “I have no faith, no respect, no inkling of their intelligence, knowledge or ability to do anything constructive as a body or as individuals for that matter.”
And yet you mock someone else for not trusting the government.
How does that work???
Michael,
There is no logic to Sandi’s posts, most of it is simply to shield any of the blame from falling on beloved Obama (even though the most massive debt in history has been achieved under this regime).
Liberals talk cuts but only propose defense cuts. They always want the tax increases first and the cuts later. Then the cuts never come and that is HOW you get bigger and bigger and bigger yet bureaucracy. Spend what you have, then spend what you don’t have, and then spend some more on top of it. The federal government is involved with things never intended by the the founders and it all costs money.
Let’s try a new approach- CUTS FIRST and taxes later.
And anybody who thinks this government doesn’t have a spending problem needs a healthy dose of reality pills.
Hope you are brushing up on your Chinese Sandi…….
I do not believe I mock people for “not trusting” the government, I believe I “mock people” for believing their guns will enable them to fight the government. There are many stupid laws, inept systems and corrupt behaviors in our government. I do not believe I have ever denied that. I am often the one pointing them out.
My “comments about bloated bureaucracy and reform are addressed specifically to this” blog conversation. I would not deign to address this Congress.
After the 2011 Congress was sworn in, there has been no hope for their salvaging any vestige of governance much less good governance. I think I have been more than clear all along about that.
I already said the “Leviathan” took decades and decades to build. However, THIS Congress is the one charged with responding to the problems of that creation and the economic collapse we suffered and they have been woefully inept in every way I can fathom to judge.
There is provision for the Executive Branch and even the Supreme Court to be “overruled”. I will not blame one or nine when the truth is 535. To do so is a cop-out. It may be made worse with a complicit Judicial and Executive Branch, make no mistake, but the 535 in Congress are our elected representatives to make laws, fix laws, address needs and create solutions.
No reform can be “irrespective of who is Congress”. You know very well what “the basis of determining whether a certain bureaucracy/agency/office/whatever is to be reorganized in some form or eliminated completely” would be. This is more of your baiting, but this time I will answer: Whether it is efficacious and worth the price.
Parse away.
#20 – “I do not believe I mock people for “not trusting” the government…”
Wow, believe it or not, but you did exactly that the other day when you expressed your failure to understand how anyone can live here.
20 – translation: I don’t know what’s wrong, I don’t care what’s wrong, I don’t know how to fix it, I don’t care how to fix it…but it sure as hell isn’t a democrat’s fault.
Very helpful. And consistent.
Bob H, you and Michael, 89Hoo, Jim Lucas and the occasional other conservatives who pop in here do more to assure me of my logic being spot on and my reality being the one in effect, than anything I read, hear or see anywhere else. When my liberal flag is drooping, a few minutes here sees it unfurl and fly high again. Thanks for that!
谢谢你
Michael, no doubt you know me better than I know myself. Context has never mattered. What I said was: I cannot fathom how people so afraid of and disdainful of their government can bear to live here. In response to your comment: “Registration tells those in power who has the guns and where to go to confiscate them“. If you think that means I “mock someone else for not trusting the government”. So be it.
I knew you would not disappoint me 89Hoo.
#24 – “Michael, no doubt you know me better than I know myself.”
Nah, Sandi, I gave up trying to figure you out a long time ago.
25 – and I knew you couldn’t give a straightforward answer to a straightforward question. I remain disappointed in you.
I will try to live with the regret.
28 – that’s one approach. You also try the straightforward answer (I promise that I will remain disappointed…).