Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

outoffocus (24.53)

How is this good for us?

Recs

23

December 07, 2010 – Comments (15) | RELATED TICKERS: FO.DL , O , LZ

I'm sorry but I need to rant a little here.

During the midterm elections I heard people often say something that I seldom agree with: that we need "gridlock" in Congress in order to get things done.  Well lets see how thats worked for us so far.   The first goal under the new Congress was to reduce the deficit with the goal of eventually reducing the national debt.  Their first opportunity to do that was by repealing (at least some) of the Bush era tax cuts.  The republicans wanted to cut entitlement programs but keep tax cuts for the rich.  The Dems wanted to raise taxes on the upper incomes but keep entitlement programs where they are.  So what was the end result?  We got tax cuts for the rich and extended entitlement programs?  This will add at least $900 Billion to our already overbloated deficit.  Explain to me again how the heck is this good for us? Because I'm not seeing it.  You don't solve a problem caused by debt with more debt.  Talk about robbing Peter to pay Paul...

/end rant

15 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On December 07, 2010 at 7:20 AM, outoffocus (24.53) wrote:

We got the worst of both worlds.

Report this comment
#2) On December 07, 2010 at 7:46 AM, lemoneater (88.51) wrote:

Go ahead and rant, outoffocus, it makes me feel better. I'm not the only one who doesn't understand how more debt=less debt.

I hope that you have a pleasant day. Keep warm!

Report this comment
#3) On December 07, 2010 at 7:56 AM, outoffocus (24.53) wrote:

Thanks Lemon.  You too!!

Report this comment
#4) On December 07, 2010 at 8:47 AM, ChrisGraley (31.75) wrote:

The problem was that in this instance they didn't stay in gridlock.

Report this comment
#5) On December 07, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Jbay76 (< 20) wrote:

In fact, in this instance they worked towards re-election 2 years from now.  They are all self-serving, lying bastards, with a few exceptions

Report this comment
#6) On December 07, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Mary953 (39.90) wrote:

I realize I am about to sound like an idiot, but have the newly elected members of Congress already taken office?  I didn't think they would get in until Jan.  If so, then this is the 'last gasp' of a bunch of lame duck legislators.

The idea behind a split party legislature/executive branch setup is that one party does not have the ability to ignore the other and the views represented.  The hope is that they will have to compromise and to work together rather than taking marching orders from just one or two people.  In other words, an idea/a bill will have to have some merit or meet some need in order to be considered. 

Will it work?  I don't know.  But I didn't like some of the changes that we had during the last two years.  I was voting specifically to change that if there was a good alternative to change to,

Report this comment
#7) On December 07, 2010 at 10:20 AM, outoffocus (24.53) wrote:

Mary, you are right that this is a lame duck move.  But my original question still stands. 

Heres Yahoo Tech Ticker that backs up my point even more: 

Obama-GOP Agree to Tax Breaks But "We Need Major Tax INCREASES," David Stockman Says

"Nothing will happen on the deficit" unless and until there's "major upheaval" in the bond market

My thoughts exactly...

Report this comment
#8) On December 07, 2010 at 11:02 AM, devoish (98.78) wrote:

Its not good.  

Report this comment
#9) On December 07, 2010 at 11:32 AM, devoish (98.78) wrote:

As an American with no income it is better than no income.

As an American with a business, it is better to have sales to people receiving unemployment than people with no incomes.

As an American who is just scraping by in a low paying (comparable to unemployment) job to honor his commitment to support his family, it is better than having the unemployed come looking for that job and willing to work for less money.

As an American who is scraping by in a mid level job it is better than having the cost of his taxes go up.

As an American in an upper middle class job, it is better than having his taxes go up.

As an American in the investor class it is better than having his taxes go up, and even better to collect 13 cents interest on every tax dollar Americans pay, with the expectation that cuts to entititlements, will be used to secure that loan.

Boo Yah.

The bad things liberals warn of by cutting the Government agencys that protect us from lending, polluters, thieves, etc may never come to pass.

The bad things that Conservatives warn of by increasing Government debt may also never come to pass.

See you in the Congo.

Report this comment
#10) On December 07, 2010 at 1:23 PM, SweetMircha (93.51) wrote:

There  was a saying in business that " You have to spend money in order to make money".

  Is it related to Gridlock?

 Or is the government using the related saying as their motto to keep spending money that it does'nt have in order to boost the economy and, in turn increase employment?

 In turn when employment increases the public will begin purchasing more products which will help to boost the economy.

Did that make any level of sense relating the saying to the government's way of thinking?

Report this comment
#11) On December 07, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Mary953 (39.90) wrote:

Outoffocus,

I have a great deal of respect for your opinions and your blogged thoughts on TMF, but that link sent me on a rant of my own.  Democrat or Republican mindset in government seems to be much the same.  Please bear with me and I will tell you how this is good for us. 

You and I are focused on different quotes in this link.  Here is the Republican Stockman's quote that catches me by the throat -

"We're going to extend all the Bush tax cuts whether we can afford it or not"

Whether we can afford it?  as in We, the federal government?

I'm sorry.  I missed the doorbell when the government came calling to bring in the paycheck.  That is not the government's money.  IT IS MINE AND MY HUSBAND"S!  It belongs to whoever spent their time, traded their skills, earned their paycheck by being of worth enough to others in a mutually agreed upon exchange. 

I understand that the government cannot afford all the things that everyone wants.  Guess What?  I cannot afford a lot of things.  The stores are just full of the things that I want.  I cannot afford them. I am looking at how I will need to budget now and in the future.  I DO WITHOUT!   My younger family members cannot afford the homes, cars, clothes, tuition payments, vacations that they would like to have.  THEY DO WITHOUT!  Every dollar that Stockman and others like him claim as THEIR own is a dollar less to be budgeted for the legitimate needs of the people who earned it.

How dare a man like Stockman come along and lay claim to what we have responsibly gathered by budgeting!   We who earn must keep doing without because "We, the government, can't afford" to let all these people their money.  We, the government, need it for more pet pork projects?  I don't think so. 

That bailout money didn't bail out anyone that I know of.  It went to banks and was loaned out of the country for the most part or to line pockets that were already well lined.  It granted every Democratic Congressional wish for the last 40 years AND increased the national debt while doing it.  Afterward, even more people had difficulty fitting in all of the bills (We the people cannot run a deficit for generations), so Congress and Obama generously passed a healthcare bill that will help out - oh, sometime in the future! 

So I Don't want to hear "Can't afford"  from any government official.  If you don't work for the money, it costs nothing.  You spend it as though it is worth nothing.

There are two types of structures in this town that are named for people.  The difference in the types is this.  The private sector buildings reflect families that worked hard and built businesses.  They created.  The names mean something here,  The government buildings are named for politicians.  Those buildings are monuments built with tax dollars taken from the pockets of others.  They mean nothing - monuments to ego.

I heard something during the election evening coverage.  A governor was explaining why she could not cut her state budget any more.  She was using examples like hospice care to emphasize that she could not run a Moral government on less money.  Government IS NOT MORAL.  It is not IMMORAL.  It is not either.  If you are legislating morality and using someone's hard earned money to enforce that morality, then you are using government as a gun and committing theft.  This state was voting to place an added tax on their wealthiest citizens and businesses.  No extra work was being produced, but the state stood to reap a windfall just by demanding it.  How many large employers will leave that state if that tax passed?  How many smaller businesses will go under and have to rely on the governor and her Moral government welfare system?

This is why the TEA Party has so many supporters across party lines.  It is the Taxed Enough Already party and its purpose is to state loudly that the government is too invasive, too large, doing too many things that it is not intended to do, and doing it with money that is NOT THEIRS TO SPEND. 

Again - It Is Not Their Money!  It Belongs to The People Who Earn It!

And I will protest when the fed or state plays noblesse oblige with  usury rate taxes, especially when it causes one member of my family to choose between vaccinations for a child or food for her table.  There is nothing Moral about that!

Report this comment
#12) On December 07, 2010 at 2:38 PM, outoffocus (24.53) wrote:

Mary, I agree with you 100%.

Regarding the Stockman quote, I believe he agrees with you to an extent.  He wasnt stating that we SHOULD extend the tax cuts, he was criticizing the Republican mentality that we should extend tax cuts regardless of whether we can afford it or not. (I think the video in the article can provide some clarification). 

Another quote from the same article: 

A former Republican Congressman, Stockman blames both parties for the sordid state of affairs, but is more critical of the GOP.

"The Republicans have finally shown their true colors, to my dismay," he says. "There's nothing left in the budget they want to cut despite all their rhetoric. If the Republicans are unwilling to cut any spending that's material, how can they say ‘no tax increases'?"...

...While critical of Democrats for stubbornly opposing entitlement cuts, Stockman says Republicans are "helping to polarize and stalemate the system" by sticking to the mantra of "no tax increases anyway, anyhow."

Stockman believes we should cut spending and increase taxes

So in the end stockman pretty much agrees with me that the government needs to get their financial house in order.  They need to cut spending tremendously and get rid of some of these useless tax breaks.  Thats different then raising taxes out right. But the government just continues to kick the can down the road in the interest of "getting re-elected".   This short term mentality is going to kill this country in the long run.  But as I stated in previous blogs and comments, we get the government we deserve.   The government spends like drunken sailors because we spend like drunken sailors (apologies to drunken sailors).  Thats why we keep electing spendthrifts into office. 

Simple fact is, if we want to be prosperous as a country anytime soon, we're going to have to make some painful cuts.  In order to make these cuts we must be collectively willing to face reality.  As long as we continue to live in la la land and turn a blind eye to the problems that are growing right in front of our faces we will continue to decline until we have no choice BUT to face reality.  By then we will have dug ourselves so deep that we can't get out.   

 

Report this comment
#13) On December 07, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Mary953 (39.90) wrote:

I was disappointed in Stockman - but I had the sound off and the idea that the government owns us instead of the other way around is a real hot button for me.  I have transferred my comment to a new blog.  Would you transfer your comment as well?  It would help start a good conversation hopefully!

Report this comment
#14) On December 07, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Borbality (52.22) wrote:

Glad to see I wasn't the only one wondering how this was a "compromise" even though both sides got what they ultimately wanted.

 This will just make it that much uglier when someone is finally forced to cut spending AS WELL AS tax.   

 

 

 

 

Report this comment
#15) On December 07, 2010 at 10:48 PM, russiangambit (29.96) wrote:

Ha-ha, you know what this reminds me of - 2 kids with dad's credit card. Sure, dad will be mad when he finds out but it is dad who is going have to pay it.

Last few years, with the financial crisis, the FED, trillions wasted are just surreal . I would've never believed it could happen in the most powerful and wealthy country in the whole world. It is like monkeys are at the steering wheel of  a nuclear submarine.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement