Debt ceiling- intelligent discussion plz

homeagain wrote: Get it, Shut up and HOLD ON........the REAL fight is just beginning. O is NOT going to be a push over and the R's see THIS as THEIR
time to extract "payment" for the tax increase they had to "swallow". JMO

In a way you are holding our congressional Republicans in higher esteem than I do. Just like the 1% tax hike, I predict the Republicans will cave after they get some fresh pork sent to their districts.

The Can Will Be Kicked Down The Road...again.

It's our job toehold their feet to the fire so that doesn't happen. We have to stress that,just like here, intelligent discussion and compromise is the way to run a country- not stubborn partisanship. We have fallen into two patterns; one where a single party controls both the executive branch and the legislative branch and forces through all kinds of wasteful policies, and one where we are gridlocked and unable to function at all. That means all changes are extreme.

I thought that also.....BUT, I think there are TOO many issues coming to a head for the "kick the can" solution.JMO, but I think the
crisis and chaos is a process of purging the system that has LONG been dysfunctional. (notice I did NOT say it would go well,nor did
I say it would be fast.)

I think everyone knows the solution will be painful and politically ruinous.

Irony? Didn't Obama vote against raising debt levels in 2006?

I think that there is no solution under the current political system. I am not suggest revolution, I am just suggesting that we need to adjust the system so that there are INCENTIVES for the leaders to not kick the can. Incentives are the only real motivator, it almost is silly to even say it because it is saying if there is a way for someone to benefit personally or not suffer more, they are more inclined to follow that path.

How can you provide incentive for a leader that knows that can quit any time, not run for re-election, fade away in any number of years or days....to care about the medium and long term consequences of their voting or legislating. I hate to say it, but after I type that, the only thing I can come up with is to tie the fortunes of those that choose to run and get elected directly to the fortunes of the country of a whole.

A perverse example. How about any elected federal official must forfeit their fortunes and will be given the average wealth and earnings for an American of the same age for the rest of their life, no additional income or wealth allowed, you may not move out of the country or have assets elsewhere. You believe in this country. Under the previous rule, everyone the led you sure as heck would or would be well bought off by a major foreign power, but no worse than today.

There is not enough incentive for what anyone really wants, a stable country and economy where most can appreciate hard work and families. We are all just debating ways to get there, and attacks on personal freedoms (guns or your right to be gay or). I think it is almost a little childish to discuss the "sides" of the debt ceiling and these paths on the road to nowhere.

This is the perfect discussion for my new forum idea....unless this type of discussion could persist here. Just in that new forum, the name of this thread would simply be, Debt Ceiling.

I believe you are right but do not see it happening without a revolution. The foxs are guarding the hen house and there are too many people who want government to control their lives.

Actually I do not think too many people want government to control their life, they want government to control your life.

If we could "adjust the system" I can think fo several options.

There is a book which addresses these issues. If anyone is interested, I think I have a copy to loan. While it is classified SF think of it as Gulliver more than John Carter.


http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Moon_I ... h_Mistress


"Thing that got me was not her list of things she hated, since she was obviously crazy as a Cyborg, but fact that always somebody agreed with her prohibitions. Must be a yearning deep in human heart to stop other people from doing as they please. Rules, laws — always for other fellow. A murky part of us, something we had before we came down out of trees, and failed to shuck when we stood up. Because not one of those people said: "Please pass this so that I won't be able to do something I know I should stop." Nyet, tovarishchee, was always something they hated to see neighbors doing. Stop them "for their own good" — not because speaker claimed to be harmed by it."

_____________________________________________________________________


" I note one proposal to make this Congress a two-house body. Excellent — the more impediments to legislation the better. But, instead of following tradition, I suggest one house of legislators, another whose single duty is to repeal laws. Let the legislators pass laws only with a two-thirds majority... while the repealers are able to cancel any law through a mere one-third minority. Preposterous? Think about it. If a bill is so poor that it cannot command two-thirds of your consents, is it not likely that it would make a poor law? And if a law is disliked by as many as one-third is it not likely that you would be better off without it?
In writing your constitution let me invite attention to the wonderful virtue of the negative! Accentuate the negative! Let your document be studded with things the government is forever forbidden to do. No conscript armies... no interference however slight with freedom of press, or speech, or travel, or assembly, or of religion, or of instruction, or communication, or occupation... no involuntary taxation.
What I fear most are affirmative actions of sober and well-intentioned men, granting to government powers to do something that appears to need doing.
Seems to be a deep instinct in human beings for making everything compulsory that isn't forbidden."

on that note wrote: I think that there is no solution under the current political system. I am not suggest revolution, I am just suggesting that we need to adjust the system so that there are INCENTIVES for the leaders to not kick the can. Incentives are the only real motivator, it almost is silly to even say it because it is saying if there is a way for someone to benefit personally or not suffer more, they are more inclined to follow that path.

How can you provide incentive for a leader that knows that can quit any time, not run for re-election, fade away in any number of years or days....to care about the medium and long term consequences of their voting or legislating. I hate to say it, but after I type that, the only thing I can come up with is to tie the fortunes of those that choose to run and get elected directly to the fortunes of the country of a whole.

A perverse example. How about any elected federal official must forfeit their fortunes and will be given the average wealth and earnings for an American of the same age for the rest of their life, no additional income or wealth allowed, you may not move out of the country or have assets elsewhere. You believe in this country. Under the previous rule, everyone the led you sure as heck would or would be well bought off by a major foreign power, but no worse than today.

There is not enough incentive for what anyone really wants, a stable country and economy where most can appreciate hard work and families. We are all just debating ways to get there, and attacks on personal freedoms (guns or your right to be gay or). I think it is almost a little childish to discuss the "sides" of the debt ceiling and these paths on the road to nowhere.

This is the perfect discussion for my new forum idea....unless this type of discussion could persist here. Just in that new forum, the name of this thread would simply be, Debt Ceiling.

OTN, you just used the word that always comes to my mind when thinking about what government does with our tax dollars... INCENTIVE. There isn't any other than satisfying special interests that get these people reelected. In the real world (private sector), our incentive to be creative, efficient, and productive is increased income and the opportunity for advancement. What's the incentive for a politician to treat our tax dollars like they were his/her own?

And when the president says we need to raise the debt ceiling just to pay our bills, he's right. But he also doesn't seem too concerned about the fact that we are increasing our bills every single day. He spent his first two years pushing through health care... I'd love to see him spent these next two years working as hard as possible to help lower the burden on our kids, on my kids who shouldn't have to suffer with a lower standard of living just so we don't have to feel any pain. There must be some pain for everyone, and not just the rich who really aren't plentiful enough to make a dent in this problem. If Obama wants to leave with a real legacy that would be admired by ALL Americans, he would focus on our debt and deficits for the next four years. And I realize he didn't create the problem, but he's making it worse by only trying to reduce the growth in spending and not trying to reduce it.

In order to cut spending, you have to take stuff from folks. They don't take kindly to that. we found that out in our business, if we gave an incentive to a customer they soon came to feel entitled to it. Everyone will protect what they get and expect the other guy to give up his stuff. Everyone will have to share the pain.

chickaree wrote: In order to cut spending, you have to take stuff from folks. They don't take kindly to that. we found that out in our business, if we gave an incentive to a customer they soon came to feel entitled to it. Everyone will protect what they get and expect the other guy to give up his stuff. Everyone will have to share the pain.

Same issue when you give people a payroll tax holiday, or an ill-advised tax cut, once given it becomes the norm and you will pay hell taking it away.