There's no time to fix our defecit, not when they have their re-election to consider.

It's time for Term Limits !!!

absolutely nothing

Mission Accomplished

Jesus, I mean how hard is it to cut federal funding from the industries not represented by the politicians sitting on that committee?

Obvious tag on vacation?

They could use Ron Paul's idea of cutting $1 trillion within a year, including closing down five Cabinet agencies, the departments of Commerce, Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development and the Interior, and reducing most other federal spending to 2006 levels.

numbone: They could use Ron Paul's idea of cutting $1 trillion within a year, including closing down five Cabinet agencies, the departments of Commerce, Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development and the Interior, and reducing most other federal spending to 2006 levels.

That is so stupid I think it gave me cancer.

That was the point.

Now just wait for the announcement that automatic cuts are unconstitutional or some such.

Inyego: There's no time to fix our defecit, not when they have their re-election to consider.

It's time for Term Limits !!!

I hear ya. It's kind of sad when lame ducks are more effective legislators than their colleagues who can win elections.

The committee should be empowered to execute 1 congress person every day that the budget is not balanced.

Honest question here:
What, other than politics prevents us from returning to 2006 spending levels? What would the consequences actually be?

meat0918: vernonFL: They won't agree to anything, and then *just before* the automatic cuts get triggered, they'll find some way to "un-trigger" them, and they'll postpone negotiations until after the 2012 election.

No, they'll postpone to just before the election, and they'll use it to paint Obama as the most worstest, divisive, do nothing president in all the multiverse.

But yeah, Republicans have already said they are going to nullify the automatic cuts.

Not for sure: there honestly is a rift between deficit hawks and defense hawks (who are aided by people in major elderly districts) on if they should nullify the automatic cuts. Chances are defense hawks will win and deficit hawks will agree that it's all the Democrats' fault for wanting to raise taxes and not agreeing to abandon all anti-poverty programs in budget negotiations.

I think they'll do the "let's shut down the government instead of passing a budget; we swear voters will put all of the blame on Obama this time" thing once they find out that every attempt they've made to cause major cuts has been neutered.

Giltric: Jesus, I mean how hard is it to cut federal funding from the industries not represented by the politicians sitting on that committee?

Without an armed rebellion, impossible.

Inyego: Honest question here:
What, other than politics prevents us from returning to 2006 spending levels? What would the consequences actually be?

Why 2006 levels? Why not 2001 or 1991?

They're all stupid and arbitrary numbers that do nothing but making governing more difficult. The US already has a threadbare social net and crumbling infrastructure, spends uncompetitively on research, and is functioning in an economy that is cratering. Cutting spending is literally the last thing we need to do. The government needs to spend MORE, not less, to fill in the economic gap since private spending is tanking.

Contrary to GOP propaganda, we do not have a spending problem, we have a huge revenue problem. Government receipts are at historic lows thanks to the Lesser Depression. Investors are willing to give the Treasury money for free yet Republicans in Congress are more determined to sabotage the US economy than make Obama more likely to win reelection.

How about a little pressure like: "You will be taken out in front of the white house and hung by your neck until you die" kind of pressure on these jackasses. You know.. that might entice them to do a little compromise.

vernonFL: closing down five Cabinet agencies, the departments of Commerce, Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development and the Interior

The Department of Energy controls nuclear power plants and our electrical grid. The Department of the Interior controls hundreds of millions of acres of land.

Yes, those are two departments that we should simply eliminate right away.

Their argument is that each of the states could just then take over all the responsibilities of those Departments. I just have this mental image of Arizona, a state desperate enough for funds to sell its Capitol building (and are now renting it from the private owner) being given control of the Grand Canyon and being asked to do it on their own dime

Goddamn do I ever hate politicians.

Makes sense.

If Congress is a bunch of fark ups, the Super Congress is a bunch of SUPER fark ups.

I_C_Weener: Barbigazi: The super-committee was a red herring.

[i.imgur.com image 427x240]

Fun fact: the hot French Maid in CLUE went on to play Mrs. Vanderhoff in Wayne's World.

Kazrath: How about a little pressure like: "You will be taken out in front of the white house and hung by your neck until you die" kind of pressure on these jackasses. You know.. that might entice them to do a little compromise.

How about pressure like televising the discussions instead of having them behind closed doors? I think American would like to see their representatives work this out.

TofuTheAlmighty: Inyego: Honest question here:
What, other than politics prevents us from returning to 2006 spending levels? What would the consequences actually be?

Why 2006 levels? Why not 2001 or 1991?

They're all stupid and arbitrary numbers that do nothing but making governing more difficult. The US already has a threadbare social net and crumbling infrastructure, spends uncompetitively on research, and is functioning in an economy that is cratering. Cutting spending is literally the last thing we need to do. The government needs to spend MORE, not less, to fill in the economic gap since private spending is tanking.

Contrary to GOP propaganda, we do not have a spending problem, we have a huge revenue problem. Government receipts are at historic lows thanks to the Lesser Depression. Investors are willing to give the Treasury money for free yet Republicans in Congress are more determined to sabotage the US economy than make Obama more likely to win reelection.

My mistake, I should have mentioned I was looking for a mature answer, not partisan hyper-ventilating.

Inyego: Honest question here:
What, other than politics prevents us from returning to 2006 spending levels? What would the consequences actually be?

The same reason(s) you can't call up your bank and politely ask them to reset your account to 2006 either.

Kazrath: How about a little pressure like: "You will be taken out in front of the white house and hung by your neck until you die" kind of pressure on these jackasses. You know.. that might entice them to do a little compromise.

Not while they can counter with "You will be mowed down like grass by heavy machine guns."

I am g4lt's complete lack of surprise

TofuTheAlmighty: Contrary to GOP propaganda, we do not have a spending problem, we have a huge revenue problem.

We have both. Revenue is 15% of GDP. Spending on the other hand is about 24% of GDP. Bring those both to the historical revenue amount (about 18% to 19%) and then we can talk.

Just spending more makes this yellow line look even worse than already projected

Inyego: Honest question here:
What, other than politics prevents us from returning to 2006 spending levels? What would the consequences actually be?

OMGSOMALIAWHARGARBL

/don't you pay attention?

Muta: Kazrath: How about a little pressure like: "You will be taken out in front of the white house and hung by your neck until you die" kind of pressure on these jackasses. You know.. that might entice them to do a little compromise.

How about pressure like televising the discussions instead of having them behind closed doors? I think American would like to see their representatives work this out.

How about no? "Laws, like sausages, cease to inspire respect in proportion as we know how they are made.", Saxe

HeadLever: Just spending more makes this yellow line look even worse than already projected

fark it, I'll be dead before it get's bad, and I have no kids.

Spend baby, spend!

Trying to eliminate our debt while the economy is stagnating just seems like an incredibly stupid idea. Raising taxes and cutting spending, the only way to manage our debt, are both bad for economic growth. No matter who "wins" the debt talks it will tank our economic recovery.

Which I suppose is the point of the right getting up in arms about it in the first place. The motto of the GOP lately has been "hurt Americans to save America!"

AcneVulgaris: fark it, I'll be dead before it get's bad, and I have no kids.

Depends what you consider 'bad'. In 12 or so short years, just the interest payment is expeced to surpass what we currently spend on the millitary AND the wars.

I'll bet they've managed to rack up a bunch of expenses.

odinsposse: Trying to eliminate our debt while the economy is stagnating just seems like an incredibly stupid idea.

And to allow that yellow line (interest on the debt) to grow out of control will ensure that we will have a terrible economy for decades to come. Pick your poison. We are fresh out of 'good' options.

HeadLever: odinsposse: Trying to eliminate our debt while the economy is stagnating just seems like an incredibly stupid idea.

And to allow that yellow line (interest on the debt) to grow out of control will ensure that we will have a terrible economy for decades to come. Pick your poison. We are fresh out of 'good' options.

The talking point is still "There is no crisis" and it's all a plot by the hoverround brigade to punish the blacks and enrich the monopoly guy....So don't expect that perfectly accurate statement to hold weight 'round these parts.

kmaywfec: Obvious tag on vacation?

Jailed for a decade with no early parole, simple posession.

HeadLever: TofuTheAlmighty: Contrary to GOP propaganda, we do not have a spending problem, we have a huge revenue problem.

We have both. Revenue is 15% of GDP. Spending on the other hand is about 24% of GDP. Bring those both to the historical revenue amount (about 18% to 19%) and then we can talk.

Just spending more makes this yellow line look even worse than already projected

[endoftheamericandream.com image 640x466]

"without future policy changes" so basically if we spend now, and don't raise taxes later, we're boned but who is proposing that? That kind of makes that graphic kind of dumb then because what rational human being thinks we aren't going to have any policy changes in the next 70 years? You're supposed to offset current spending with future tax hikes to pay off the debt. We've done this before.

Benni K Rok: kmaywfec: Obvious tag on vacation?

Jailed for a decade with no early parole, simple posession.

Well, it wasn't no parole until that cellular phone call to its family

HeadLever: odinsposse: Trying to eliminate our debt while the economy is stagnating just seems like an incredibly stupid idea.

And to allow that yellow line (interest on the debt) to grow out of control will ensure that we will have a terrible economy for decades to come. Pick your poison. We are fresh out of 'good' options.

How about :

* first 10,000 of inheritance is tax free. The rest is taxed at 60% (so bootstrappy)
* political contributions are taxed
* bonuses are taxed at 60%