×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Debt Reduction Super Committee Fails To Agree

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the spend-all-you-want-they'll-print-more dept.

Government 954

Hugh Pickens writes "VOA reports that the latest effort to cut the U.S. government's debt apparently has ended in failure as leaders of the special 12-member debt reduction committee plan to announce that they failed in their mandate from lawmakers to trim the federal debt by $1.2 trillion over the next decade. Democrats and Republicans blame each other for the collapse of the effort. 'Our Democratic friends were never able to do the entitlement reforms,' said Republican Senator Jon Kyl. 'They weren't going to do anything without raising taxes.' Democratic Senator Patty Murray, one of the committee's co-chairs, says that the Republicans' position on taxes was the sticking point. 'The wealthiest Americans who earn over a million a year have to share too. And that line in the sand, we haven't seen Republicans willing to cross yet,' Now in the absence of an agreement, $1.2 trillion in across-the-board spending cuts to domestic and defense programs are set to take effect starting in January, 2013, and the lack of a deal will deprive President Barack Obama of a vehicle for extending a payroll tax cut and insurance benefits for unemployed Americans, which expire at the end of the year." (Though the official deadline for the committee's hoped-for plan is tomorrow — the 23d — they were to have provided it for review 48 hours prior.)

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

How do you get 2 politicians to agree? (5, Funny)

cgfsd (1238866) | more than 3 years ago | (#38134722)

Line their pockets with gaff and offer them the opportunity to screw over the public.

Re:How do you get 2 politicians to agree? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#38134818)

This message brought to you by the George W Bush "I fucked you all but thanks for blaming it on the black guy" committee for Right-Wing "Truthiness."

Mod Up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#38134860)

Government is a business and the people who control it are there to make money. This is precisely why government MUST be strictly limited in both revenue and power over the people. Without limits, this is exactly what we end up with: corruption, debt, injustice, and runaway spending.

The need to limit government power and revenue is so critical that even voting should take a back seat to it. Yes, you heard right. Without strict limits on the scope of government, voting is a fool's game -- and we are proving it right before our eyes.

Re:Mod Up (2)

swalve (1980968) | more than 3 years ago | (#38135136)

Lunacy. The fix to corruption, debt, injustice and spending is oversight. Unfortunately, our (US) system of government didn't do a good enough of a job of making oversight a separate function. The legislative is expected to police itself, with the exception of the Supreme Court who has the power to oversee the constitutionality of their lawmaking. The Senate was supposed to work this way, but it got broken.

Ain't that a surprise (4, Insightful)

madhatter256 (443326) | more than 3 years ago | (#38134730)

The committee was like having a deer convince a wolf not to eat him and the wolf trying to convince the deer that it should be eaten.

Take two polarizing political topics, put them in a room and you will get a stand still, especially when elections are just around the corner....

So both and get it done! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#38134742)

Jesus really?

These aholes should just compromise. Raise taxes and cut spending. Do both. You can't agree? Well then why not fix the problem quickly by agreeing to these two points that would solve the problem in a hurry? Sure, I am not an economist, but I bet my understanding of solving the debt problem is just about as good as a senator or congressman who spends his time raising money all day, rather than trying to figure out this country's problems.

(yes I could be very wrong, and i look forward to more intelligent replies below, but at least i have proposed a solution right there! much better than 90% of our leaders....)

Re:So both and get it done! (2)

TheCRAIGGERS (909877) | more than 3 years ago | (#38134844)

While I agree it is sometimes a good thing to make a decision (even if wrong), I'm not so sure that world economics is the place. I understand what you're saying, but at the same time, there are some obviously bad choices that could really hurt us.

Of course, the problem here is that the two sides think those "obvious bad choices" and what the other side wants are one and the same.

Re:So both and get it done! (4, Funny)

PortHaven (242123) | more than 3 years ago | (#38135064)

Why not?

They've made tons of obviously bad choices already. It'd be nice to see them try some potentially different bad choices. ;-)

Re:So both and get it done! (4, Interesting)

Moryath (553296) | more than 3 years ago | (#38134884)

That's what they were supposed to do. The committee's mandate was to look at both where taxes could be raised, and spending cut.

Unfortunately, the Republicans are currently held hostage by the retard wing of the Republican Party, the Tea Tards, who are gung-ho on the "Grover Norquist Pledge" to never raise taxes on anyone who has enough money to donate to the Republican party and their various slush funds. Nevermind the fact that taxes on the rich are lower than they've been since the Truman administration. The end result is that the committee was going to fail, because the "party line" of the Republicans has grown under the "leadersship" of talk radio zealots like Hannity, Beck, and Limbaugh to be "no compromise, no sensible solutions, our-taliban-way-or-anarchy."

David Frum said it best: the Republicans have completely lost touch with reality [nymag.com] . I encourage you to read the whole thing, he makes a lot of sense and it explains quite well how insane the Republican party has gotten.

Re:So both and get it done! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#38134900)

Its more than a little ironic that one of the leading voices for the war in Iraq is suddenly acting like the voice of reason. What the fuck happened?

Re:So both and get it done! (2, Insightful)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 3 years ago | (#38135182)

The committee's mandate was to look at both where taxes could be raised, and spending cut.

Alas, part of the problem is that Obama has no real interest in raising taxes, since one obvious tax increase would be to repeal Obama's tax cut along with Bush's tax cut.

Remember, an election is coming up, and raising taxes is bad just before an election. Which was why, when Obama renewed the Bush tax cuts, he set it to expire just AFTER his next election.

By the same token, everyone can agree that spending cuts are necessary. Except the Dems of course. Note that the biggest proponent of NOT cutting Defense Spending is Obama's Secretary of Defense, not the Republicans.

That said, the nasty part of "spending cuts" as a solution is that they're meaningless.

This Congress could vote to reduce real spending by 5% per year for the next ten years (which would just about balance the budget), but budgets are written annually.

And next year's budget, being a law, and automatically overriding previous contradictory laws, can be written with a 5% INCREASE in spending even after an agreement is made to reduce spending. And there will be no ill-effects.

Note that this was what happened when Reagan raised taxes in exchange for spending cuts. Taxes went up, and the spending cuts never happened. Ditto Bush Sr. And this is what will happen to any deficit solution that involves spending cuts - the spending cuts will be ignored by future congresses who need to bribe voters with the public treasury, and we'll be back where we were.

Re:So both and get it done! (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#38135196)

Richard Nixon was denounced as a fascist by the baby boomers in the late 60s. What's he remembered for now other than Watergate? He opened diplomatic relations with Chinese Communists, instituted wage and price controls by the government to check inflation, and ended the war in Vietnam. He would be thrown out of the Republican Party today for being more liberal than Bill Clinton.

It is amazing how much the Republicans, and those same boomers, have shifted to the right.

Re:So both and get it done! (5, Insightful)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 3 years ago | (#38134958)

The Democrats were willing to cut spending a little and raise taxes a lot. The Republicans were willing to cut spending a lot (but not on their programs) and raise taxes only on the middle class.

The whole thing was doomed from the start, the only time "bipartisianship" works is when both parties get to increase the power of government and fuck over everyone else. It's uncanny how, now that it's fallen apart, the Republicans are already rushing to break their promise of automatic spending cuts (but only on their programs). What principle! Of course, it's not without precedent, it's just like claiming that Medicare is saving money through cuts in doctors' pay that Congress cancels year after year.

Re:So both and get it done! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#38134984)

You do realize your proposal is exactly what the Democrats and Pres. Obama have been proposing since even before the debt ceiling fight, right? The sticking point is that Republicans only want spending cuts with no tax increases, period (thanks Mr. Norquist!). If the Republicans would just agree to let the high-income Bush tax cuts expire, they could pretty much get what they want from the Democrats on the spending cut side.

Why do you want more government (4, Insightful)

Crashmarik (635988) | more than 3 years ago | (#38135172)

And why do you think it needs to be a bigger part of your life ?

This is what you are asking for when you demand taxes be raised. Sure you may just want to soak the rich guy, I mean its hardly fair he has more than you do. What you really get is that money going to more bureaucracy that much more overhead in your daily life, and that much more of a boost to politicians patronage powers. That means that much less "Democracy" and that much more oligarchy in a country that has far too much of the later.

Re:So both and get it done! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#38135040)

The point everyone is missing is that the committee DID make a choice - a cowardly one at best. By punting they essentially chose the automatic spending cuts and can blame each other for what comes of it. We truly have no real leaders in Congress or the Whitehouse right now. The control of special interests in government has given us crony capitalism at all levels. We need to fix this asap.

Re:So both and get it done! (2)

Cornwallis (1188489) | more than 3 years ago | (#38135194)

I disagree. The point everyone is missing is that even with supposed spending cuts of $1.2 trillion it STILL doesn't make a dent in the debt nor solve the problem.

Re:So both and get it done! (5, Interesting)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#38135046)

Raise taxes and cut spending. Do both. You can't agree?

The Republicans have signed a pledge [atr.org] that they will never vote to raise taxes on anybody for any reason whatsoever. If they violate that pledge, the head of the organization who created it can and will ensure they lose their seat by cutting off their campaign funding. So they really can't agree to raise taxes.

When it comes to spending cuts, the big-ticket items are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the military. Any serious cuts need to affect one of those 4 items. The Democrats have been elected for decades with pledges to protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid at all costs - it's their party's signature program for the last 75 years or so, so they really can't cut any of those. The Republicans have been elected for decades with pledges to protect military manufacturing jobs in their district, so they really can't cut any of those.

So in short, no they really can't, not without betraying everything they claim to stand for.

Re:So both and get it done! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#38135144)

They will be perfectly happy to raise taxes on the bottom 50%! They tell me all the time. The non-paying 47% need to pay more. Seniors on Social Security, college students and the unemployed are all ok to tax more, but don't tax anybody with money, and no cutting at the pentagon. Why won't these d-bags go away?

Say what you want about the republicans (1)

Crashmarik (635988) | more than 3 years ago | (#38135228)

But at least they are representing the people that put them there. Its taken 30 years for the republican party to get ticked off enough with the republican office holders to make it happen, but make it happen they did.

Republican's won't let them (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#38135050)

Democrats will cut spending, but only if Republican's raise taxes on the rich.

It's not "both sides being inflexible", it's "both sides blaming each other".

The Democrats blame Republicans for not being flexible, Republicans blame Democrats for not giving in to their demands not to raise taxes on the rich.

Which is funny, because one of the first things Republicans did when they got back in in 2012, was raise taxes on the low and middle income, while extending tax cuts for the super rich.
(They removed the "Making Work Pay credit" and changed the rate of workers' FICA contributions to make - hitting almost exclusively poor and middle income families).

Did you read about that tax hike on Fox News??? I thought not.

That's the thing, Republicans always like to pretend the other guy is just as bad, but no they're not. Even in their private lobbying they admit they're a bought and paid for party of the rich:

http://upwithchrishayes.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/19/8896362-exclusive-lobbying-firms-memo-spells-out-plan-to-undermine-occupy-wall-street-video

What the government will do with raised taxes (1)

Quila (201335) | more than 3 years ago | (#38135090)

Increase spending.

Oh, it may not be in this year's budget in order to get the votes for budget balancing, but next year any money raised from higher taxes will be more than blown with increased spending. The politicians cannot help themselves, it's a compulsion.

Why not go the easy way? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#38134748)

Until the ones making the law agree to a way to cut debts, and make it a law, they are the ones getting their pay cut to make up for it.

I give it 1 day before we have an agreement.

Re:Why not go the easy way? (4, Interesting)

jimbolauski (882977) | more than 3 years ago | (#38134846)

Most politicians don't make their fortunes from government checks they make it from sweetheart deals and insider trading. Taking their pay away wouldn't hurt them in fact they would have to be extra corrupt to make up for the lost income.

Re:Why not go the easy way? (2)

iced_tea (588173) | more than 3 years ago | (#38135004)

Two Words. TERM LIMITS.

Hit 'em where it hurts.

Re:Why not go the easy way? (1)

jimbolauski (882977) | more than 3 years ago | (#38135072)

I got a better chance of winning the lottery twice then politicians voting to end their gravy train. To bad though because the day they do that is the day the US democracy starts heading down the right path again.

No surprise (2)

Revek (133289) | more than 3 years ago | (#38134750)

They can't compromise. Its like watching children argue. They only unite to give themselves a raise.

Re:No surprise (3, Interesting)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#38134812)

Yep. They're more interested in "winning" for their party than helping the country. They were never going to agree.

OTOH the result is good. There's no way to decide who should get cuts because every department in government is lead by professional liars and bullshit artists. The only answer is to cut every single department by the same percentage.

There *are* no automatic cuts (5, Insightful)

bradley13 (1118935) | more than 3 years ago | (#38134870)

The problem is: there *are* no cuts. The so-called cuts are reductions in planned increases. Government spending continues to go up - just less than it otherwise might have. This is not success.

Anyway, the amount they were supposed to cut was a joke. They were supposed to trim 1.2 trillion over 10 years. That's 120 billion per year. But again - not off the current spending, but off of planned increases. The result would still have been a net increase.

Idiots re-arranging the deck furniture on the Titanic. It would be entertaining if it weren't so frustrating.

Re:No surprise (1)

stdarg (456557) | more than 3 years ago | (#38134932)

The only answer is to cut every single department by the same percentage.

I agree that across the board cuts would work and would make sense, but unfortunately it's not what happened. Social Security was excluded entirely from cuts. Medicare and Medicaid were limited to 2% (iirc).

Anyway, the odds of these cuts actually being implemented in 2013 are low.

I blame Norquist (4, Insightful)

Enry (630) | more than 3 years ago | (#38134752)

Completely taking tax increases off the table is stupid and shortsighted.

Re:I blame Norquist (4, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#38134822)

No. Tax increases are only a temporary solution at best.. At some point somebody has to put their foot down and stop spending so much money.

(Especially on "wars"...)

Re:I blame Norquist (5, Funny)

Enry (630) | more than 3 years ago | (#38134886)

See? You're part of the problem.

Re:I blame Norquist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#38134992)

No. Tax increases are only a temporary solution at best.. At some point somebody has to put their foot down and stop spending so much money.

(Especially on "wars"...)

Yeah, yeah, yeah everybody gets that - believe it or not. But the issue is when it comes down to what should be cut. And as far as revenue increases, well, the Republicans don't even want to eliminate tax loopholes because to them, that's the same as a tax increase.

From what I've seen, it's the Republicans that have been putting a damper on this because they won't budge at all on any of their demands- at least the Dems are willing to compromise

Re:I blame Norquist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#38135018)

Where exactly did you think that money spent on wars went? Straight to the Taliban? Those people who received that money are also for a large part US businesses. A lot of that money did actually went back into the economy. In fact you can sort of think of it like a stimulus (remember what WW2 did to the US economy?). Seems to me that neither proposed solution to the debt situation are in obvious ways better than the other.

Re:I blame Norquist (1)

DigitalGoetz (2510424) | more than 3 years ago | (#38135122)

So, trickle-down economics works? We funnel as much money into Defense Contractors (corporations) and they'll invest that money in hiring more people state-side and pay the U.S. tax on that money earned in foreign lands? I'm not sure on that, but I think they'll keep their current employees and sure, they might hire a few more, but I doubt it will make a grand change in unemployment here. Also, do we (the U.S.) receive any taxes from the money earned on contracts performed on foreign soil?

Re:I blame Norquist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#38135070)

No, they are a long term mechnaism for increaseing tax revenue while making us middle class people feel less screwed.

Re:I blame Norquist (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#38135158)

No. Tax increases are only a temporary solution at best..

Why? I'm German, and we live just fine with higher taxes (and free healthcare, truly public education, etc.)

Re:I blame Norquist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#38134914)

hmm, AFAIK, the problem is a guy named Grover Norquist has 238 of 242 House Republican by the balls, (Taxpayer Protection Pledge) so they cannot even bargain with taxes. What is then expected from them ?
How do US-ians see this by the way?

Re:I blame Norquist (-1, Troll)

llZENll (545605) | more than 3 years ago | (#38134924)

You can tax every single person in the country 100% and it isn't going to balance the budget over the next 10 years. Anyone who thinks the rich isn't paying their fair share hasn't thought it through. What is their fair share? 30%, 40%, 50%? Most rich are paying 45% in taxes currently, when the bush tax cuts expire it will be North of 50%. Why should a rich person that makes $1M pay $500,000 for the same services and protections from their country that a poor person that contributes absolutely nothing to society and receives $25,000? The more we reward people for doing nothing, the more they will do nothing, and this is exactly what is happening, the people who control capital hill are represented by the same people who take everything and pay nothing, and worse who actually live off of the government.

Quite ironic that capitalist USA has become a country of socialists and crony capitalism, and communist China has a less regulated and freer economy than we do.

Re:I blame Norquist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#38135038)

Actually the top rate is 35%. And once the Bush tax cuts expire, the top rate is still 35%. The Bush tax cuts states you should pay 15% on dividends from stock (instead of up to 35%). Note: Nobody pays 35% because this is the maximum value you can have. As you approach infinity you hit this.

Also, if you make more than 106,000 you can a 4.2% tax break because you do not have to pay social security anymore.

Re:I blame Norquist (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#38135062)

This is blatantly wrong, and the talking point "you can raise everyone's taxes to 100% and it won't work" would be laughable if it wasn't said with such seriousness.

You fret of the dangers and ineffectiveness of raising taxes to 100%, then turn around and cut programs you fundamentally disagree with in the name of "you have to start somewhere". I implore you to look at any actual data for the historical tax rates on the rich: they are the *lowest* they've been in decades. They were around 30% in the mid-90s, now they're almost half that. Raising taxes, not even to mid-90s level, would bring in significantly more revenue than cutting inadequately small programs from the budget in the name of partisanship. The rich can obviously handle the extra taxation--they did just fine in the 90s, and now we are quite literally "rewarding them for doing nothing". Their taxes have been the lowest ever since 2001, and yes we've had wars and a recession, but where are the jobs? They're sitting on massive piles of cash.

Your point of China having a freer economy proves you have literally no idea what you're talking about. Either explain these ridiculous points with data, or go read a few actual news articles instead of gluing your ear to whatever radio talk show is feeding you such misinformed BS.

Re:I blame Norquist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#38134946)

Hum, lets see:

You have a credit card, and you've reached the limit

How exactly does increasing your income lower that debt?

Answer; it doesn't, it allows you to continue spending without lowering the debt. Exactly the principle of indentured servitude that credit card companies operate on... small example, same thing. You don't need to be an economist to understand how simple it is. When you reach your max, pay off your deb FIRST.

Raising taxes only exacerbates the problem... it gives congress a false sense that they did something.

Re:I blame Norquist (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#38135186)

How exactly does increasing your income lower that debt?

1. You start spending your income rather than putting more on the credit card.
2. If you're now taking in more than you spend, you pay off the credit card.

And I should point out that in the 1990's, the US government did exactly that. Then some guy named George screwed up the plan by taking the extra money and handing it back saying "never mind, we don't need this, we can just get a higher credit limit to buy the stuff we want".

Norquist is hardly alone.... (5, Insightful)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 3 years ago | (#38134966)

Completely taking tax increases off the table is stupid and shortsighted.

I'm not sure if you can lay it all on Norquist, but he's clearly the most powerful proponent of the stupidest, most obstructive Republicans in the budget mess. Norquist, the 96.5% of the Republicans in congress (238 of 242 House, 41 of 47 Senate) who signed his pledge, and every single Republican candidate won't do anything that raises taxes by a single dollar.

And check out this:

In a debate in August, Republican presidential candidates were asked whether they would support a budget deal that bundled $10 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases. All said no. They rejected any deal that involved raising taxes.

So they hate raising taxes. We get it. These assholes still can't accept a proposal that goes in their favor 11 to 1? They reject it out of hand before even talking about what the spending cuts would be? Are they joking?!??!?

Who the fuck supports a platform, for a major party in a democratic republic, that says: "We get every single thing we want and you get nothing you want. If you don't comply, we'll watch it all burn until you give it."

That's not debate. That's not governing. It's fucking economic terrorism; it's taking hostage of 295 million people to satisfy your ideological hard-on.

Re:I blame Norquist (1, Informative)

jimbolauski (882977) | more than 3 years ago | (#38134980)

Tax increases in a bad economy is a dangerous thing the higher the taxes the less profit a company can make off an investment. Companies have a risk reward calculation they base their investment decisions on. In a bad economy the risks of failure are higher and raising taxes reduces the reward so there will be less investment. If the goal is to fix the budget then the economy has to be taken into account because a bad economy means less revenue. The US is in a corner and the only way out is to reduce spending, the military is preparing for a 20% cut in spending, many of the pork projects need to get cut as well.

Re:I blame Norquist (2)

jbengt (874751) | more than 3 years ago | (#38135060)

Tax increases in a bad economy is a dangerous thing

Spending cuts are worse for a bad economy. The problem is, we didn't have anything saved up for a rainy day.

Re:I blame Norquist (0)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#38134982)

And from what I remember it's not so much raising new taxes but letting the Bush era tax cuts expire. Tthe Democrats are asking for 1% increase (I'm not sure where this applies) on those making $250K and higher. Warren Buffett who by all accounts is very rich agrees with this sentiment. His tax rate is 17% while those like his secretary pay a higher percentage in taxes and earns much less.

Re:I blame Norquist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#38134986)

I disagree. There are two way to balance a budget, 1. Increase revenue or 2. decrease spending

Republican's are looking for the second. Something government has a VERY hard time doing. I see this as a major problem with our combination of government/media. It's bad press to take away or reduce any benefit from anyone. And this means they don't get re-elected.

I will also add that in the last few years, the Democrats seem to look at increasing revenue as the go-to. This is why the last election went to the Republicans in a big way.

The go-to argument is "the rich need to pay more" ... well I've always thought that is bs. If they pay the same PERCENTAGE of their income then it's fair. In fact they tend (on average) a higher percentage. Now, how they spend their after tax income is their own business. Many donate a good amount of money. And I'd much rather them donate to a cause rather than the government (ROI in a charity tends to be much better than the government.)

I'm with the republican's on this one. Primarily because government seems to expand to spend any money given to them. We need a good way for government to shrink. Without a good "line in the sand" this doesn't seem to happen.

Re:I blame Norquist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#38135016)

Yeah, Norquist needs to just go away. That's why it's a good thing that the GOP negotiators broke ranks and offered some tax increases. Doesn't sound like it was as much as needed to really tackle the long-term problem, and they were never going to agree to the $1 trillion tax increases that the Democrats were demanding, but it was a big step in the right direction--away from Norquist--and the rest of the GOP needs to follow their lead.

And, yeah, "stop spending so much money" is the only real way to impose fiscal discipline over the long run. Congress hasn't tried to match spending to revenues for decades now and that needs to change. "We have X revenue, so we can only spend X" is the only long-term solution to this mess.

so much for democracy (1)

lecheiron (2441744) | more than 3 years ago | (#38134754)

the 12 members of congress trying to make decision for 311 million Americans.

Re:so much for democracy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#38134796)

Yeah, well, you're the fucktards who put them there, and cling to the same ideologies, so SHUT THE FUCK UP, GEEK TRASH!

Before you get snookered... (4, Informative)

Bardwick (696376) | more than 3 years ago | (#38134756)

Understand that most of what they are talking about is reductions in spending INCREASES, not cuts, ala Military. In the current lingo: You spend $100 in 2011, you planned to spend $125 in 2012. If you only spend $100 in 2012, it's called a 25% cut in the military... In most cases (by default), government spending goes up by 8% per year. If it only increase 4%, every screams "cut my program by 4%". Again, all of this rests on the ASSUMPTION that we have a budget, which we do not. The United States has not passed a budget in about 3 years...

Re:Before you get snookered... (1)

SoothingMist (1517119) | more than 3 years ago | (#38134944)

Bardwick is correct. Even if the committee had "succeeded", our spending would still be out of control. What we need is a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. America has passed its debt capacity and needs to reform itself. Another thought along these lines is that the American people do not hold their government accountable. Americans, as a whole, do not even vote. My wife, a poll worker, tells me that less than half of the people bother to register and only half of those trouble themselves to actually go to the polls. So, when a politician says they have a mandate, they are not talking about the majority of Americans. Even the richest person gets the same number of votes as the poorest, ONE. Plus, corporations can not vote. YOUR VOTE COUNTS, even if you just write in someone's name. It will become readily evident that most Americans are not voting for the two main-line parties that have proven that they do not offer the solution America needs.

Re:Before you get snookered... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#38135140)

We have a balanced budget amendment in California, and it means nothing. We are going broke faster than almost any other state. The solution to a problem is not to pass a law. The solution is to fix the problem: people who spend too much. Once you propose how to fix that, I'll listen. My solution is much more practical: keep spending until you declare bankruptcy. Proven effective 100% of the time.

Re:Before you get snookered... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#38135000)

And our media is so useless that no one else knows this. All you hear about is how everything is going to be gutted. Our entire government is ordered so that misleading information can be fed to the press with a straight face.

The budget thing is a trick Dems are using to keep people from actually seeing what they're spending- quantified in one place. We have elected people who are happily ass-raping us. We seriously need to dismantle the machine.

Re:Before you get snookered... (1)

Kaenneth (82978) | more than 3 years ago | (#38135188)

Good luck with getting balance budget amendmnt/law without a 'Time of War' exception.

Triple A, nothing to worry about (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#38134766)

As long as the "what's that over there!" works, the US of A have nothing to worry about. The struggling European economies may have much lower debt compared to their GDP, but they don't get to print free money like the US does to keep the interest on its bonds low. Look over there! Nothing to see here.

Re:Triple A, nothing to worry about (2)

jbengt (874751) | more than 3 years ago | (#38135106)

The struggling European economies may have much lower debt compared to their GDP

They may, but they don't.

Rant on budgeting gimmicks (5, Informative)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 3 years ago | (#38134776)

The reason they're not getting anywhere with spending cuts is the game has been rigged in favor of spending increases in the first place.

They have generous rates of increase built into the budgeting process. All of the so-called "cuts" are actually (slight) decreases to the rate of increase.

They could plug up the deficit merely by having slightly greater increase rate decreases.

Anyways, they can cut now, or they can have the universe cut for them. There's a limit to how much you can just keep spending pretend money.

A related rant is how Congress has gotten around the 27th amendment. That was supposed to say there should be an election in between Congressional pay raises. But they came up with a process whereby they get automatic cost of living increases without voting on it. Flagrantly unconstitutional. It's the same sort of thing.

Re:Rant on budgeting gimmicks (4, Insightful)

Cthefuture (665326) | more than 3 years ago | (#38134940)

And it's not just the government that does that, businesses do it too. Over the past few years we have seen consumers cutting back personal budgets which causes businesses and governments to increase prices or look for other sneaky ways to get more money from people in order to make their next budget cycle. Which then causes consumers to cut back even more, which then causes business to increase prices even more... and so on.

The whole thing is about to implode here at some point if businesses and government don't recognize that they need to seriously cut spending just like us normal people have been doing. You can't have infinite budget increases when the economy is going the opposite direction.

Kick'em all out (5, Insightful)

vinn (4370) | more than 3 years ago | (#38134778)

I say we all get together and agree to not re-elect a single member of Congress. We could clear the entire House next year and a decent chunk of the Senate. I don't care if the new members are democrats, republicans, blue, green, red, or purple, it just seems like the entrenched politics is completely broken.

It's too bad we can't figure out a way to just throw them into jail.

Re:Kick'em all out (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 3 years ago | (#38135076)

I say we all get together and agree to not re-elect a single member of Congress. We could clear the entire House next year and a decent chunk of the Senate. I don't care if the new members are democrats, republicans, blue, green, red, or purple, it just seems like the entrenched politics is completely broken.

This has been my modus operandi for years. If you are sitting in that seat, you have proven yourself to be incompetent. GTFO and let someone else try.

Re:Kick'em all out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#38135092)

TERM LIMITS!

Didn't care about cuts? (1)

Dripdry (1062282) | more than 3 years ago | (#38134790)

What gets me is that if it's not important enough to either of them to compromise and reduce spending, it seems to me that the 1.2 trillion cut is perfectly ok, or at least better than any alternatives either side could see. I would suspect that they already knew they could make these cuts and just haven't been willing to. It also makes Barry look bad of course.

Also as usual, we're clearly not hearing any truth about what's been going on in these talks. If it was this simple, they could have just looked at each other and said after 5 minutes "Fuck it, we're not gettin' anywhere. Let's go back to the bar..." instead of all this rigamaroll.

Republicans and Taxes (3, Insightful)

jellie (949898) | more than 3 years ago | (#38134798)

I don't know why everyone tries to be "fair" and blame the Republicans and Democrats equally for not "compromising." Any rational person knows that it makes no sense trying to close a budget deficit without raising taxes and undoing some of the damage of the Bush years (when he cut taxes for the wealthy, estate taxes, capital gains taxes, etc.) The Republicans were never going to agree to anything, but they get to play the blame game as usual.

Re:Republicans and Taxes (4, Insightful)

downhole (831621) | more than 3 years ago | (#38134928)

Says who? Every time we get into one of these debt crises, people say we have to cut spending and raise taxes. And in the end, the taxes get raised, but the spending never actually gets cut, and so the Government just gets bigger and bigger and bigger. It's gotta stop somewhere. That's why I say no tax increases until we've really cut spending. Like not a small decrease in the rate of future increases, more like 10% actual cuts across the board, including both entitlement programs and the military.

Re:Republicans and Taxes (2, Insightful)

acoustix (123925) | more than 3 years ago | (#38135156)

Says who? Every time we get into one of these debt crises, people say we have to cut spending and raise taxes. And in the end, the taxes get raised, but the spending never actually gets cut, and so the Government just gets bigger and bigger and bigger. It's gotta stop somewhere. That's why I say no tax increases until we've really cut spending. Like not a small decrease in the rate of future increases, more like 10% actual cuts across the board, including both entitlement programs and the military.

THIS! A thousand times this!!!

Raising taxes would only bring in more money that would be spent. I don't care what your party affiliation is, but you know damn well that more revenue coming in means that it will all be spent and none of it, NONE OF IT would go to reducing the deficit. Prove to me that you can cut spending and then we'll talk about raising taxes. Until then you're not getting a single cent from me.

Re:Republicans and Taxes (5, Insightful)

Alomex (148003) | more than 3 years ago | (#38135204)

And in the end, the taxes get raised, but the spending never actually gets cut, and so the Government just gets bigger and bigger and bigger.

Actually spending went down during the Clinton years as percentage of GDP, which is the metric that matters. The last time before that when spending went down was during the Kennedy/Johnson administration.

You should note that there is no a priori "right" level of expenditures. You can choose to create a Haiti still level of government services in which case 10% of GDP in government expenditures would be too high, or you can create a cradle-to-grave, free education, free health care, safe streets, government backed pensions, system like in Sweden, and if you can provide that for 30% of GDP you are getting the deal of the century.

So rather than asking for more or less government spending, how about asking for efficient government programs for a change?

Re:Republicans and Taxes (4, Informative)

muffen (321442) | more than 3 years ago | (#38135126)

The Republicans were never going to agree to anything.

Oh but they did agree to something, they agreed to go into the discussion AFTER signing the "Taxpayer Protection Pledge": http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/21/grover-norquist-tax-lobbyist-supercommittee-gop [guardian.co.uk]
They really set themselves up for success on that one.
"I know, lets go into a discussion about the US finances, but before we do, let's remove some of the most powerful tools in our toolbox completely"

I'm a european working for an American company, and have always been impressed with how American companies do business, their aggressive plans and the "everything is up for grabs" mentality. Lately however, I've been equally unimpressed by the opposite, here we are, facing a massive problem, and the American politicians are behaving like babies.
The response? Smoke weed on wall-street!

Re:Republicans and Taxes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#38135152)

when he cut taxes for the wealthy, estate taxes, capital gains taxes, etc.

He also created a new tax bracket (the 10%) and removed 2.5 million people from paying anything at all.

Of the past ~50 years (where most of the increases came from) ~40 were controlled by democrats. From 2006-20010 (where we doubled a existing huge debt) was controlled by democrats.

Then every one wants to blame the republicans for the issue?! The democrats at any point could have blocked the spending JUST as much as the republicans. So I am not being "fair" I am calling it what it is. These guys need to get their act together. I am not voting for my current guys (did last time) but they obviously do not have the will to do anything. Both parties have their glass houses. Instead of stepping up to the plate and doing the right thing. Both 'sides' are busy pointing at each other how neither will compromise.

If you think the budget can be passed without bi-partisan support your dreaming.

Now for my POV I am 100% for an increase in taxes (across the board) as we are too far in the hole at this point to NOT do that. However, I would like to see at least an effort to curb stomp a 3 to 2 payout that is currently going on before we talk about that. I am not seeing that. So why should I bother to support paying more when they can not be bothered to spend within their means. I do not give drug addicts more drug to cure them, it doesnt work.

To put it bluntly sir you are part of the reason there is the mess in washington now. You have been manipulated into a game of 'we vs they'. Turn off the 'news' as it is controlled by 3-5 mega corps anyway and has messages and agendas. These guys will say anything and do anything to get their way. From straight up 'bribes/campaign contributions' to what we would consider insider trading. Do not stand for it. Hold your guys feet to the fire. I do.

Let's swap governments! (4, Interesting)

cardpuncher (713057) | more than 3 years ago | (#38134802)

It is, of course, the same picture in Europe. Governments aren't capable of delivering pain to their core supporters and therefore can't deliver rational solutions to the most serious problems they face.

The answer is to swap governments - the Dutch elect the Greek government and the Greeks elect the Dutch government, for example. The electorate is sufficiently detached to evaluate the choices more dispassionately, but have sufficient incentive to be diligent as they know if they really cock it up they'll be shafted in turn.

Anyone want to draw lots?

Re:Let's swap governments! (4, Interesting)

MadKeithV (102058) | more than 3 years ago | (#38134892)

The answer is to swap governments - the Dutch elect the Greek government and the Greeks elect the Dutch government, for example. The electorate is sufficiently detached to evaluate the choices more dispassionately, but have sufficient incentive to be diligent as they know if they really cock it up they'll be shafted in turn.

Close, actually. IMHO all parties ("both parties" for you USians) should agree together to stand down to form a time-limited technocratic austerity government. This would be a sacrificial government - the political parties can be certain these guys don't get re-elected because the measures necessary will be deeply unpopular.

And if we're REALLY lucky, the people will actually prove the original political parties wrong in the next election and re-elect some of the more successful technocrats.

Re:Let's swap governments! (2)

stewbee (1019450) | more than 3 years ago | (#38134954)

Sure. I vote we get Germany's government for number one pick. As an outside observer, here is why I would recruit them. They still are a net exporter of goods/services. Their budget appears to be running a surplus. They still have a decent manufacturing sector (ie. they haven't sold them out entirely to China, Mexico, etc.). They have low unemployment when compared to the US. Their GDP is growing > 3%. Their inflation is low at about 1.3%. I guess the downside is that their taxes are a bit higher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Germany [wikipedia.org]

Ron Paul must be happy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#38134810)

He would've approved those cuts even if they weren't triggered by the committee failure.

Obama, Boehner and McConnell all must have known there was a signficant chance that the talks would fail, so presumably they each crafted a Plan B that took the automatic cuts into account.

The Politicians' Motto (1)

killmenow (184444) | more than 3 years ago | (#38134820)

Consequences, shmonsequences...as long as I'm rich.

They had no incentive to agree (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#38134826)

What's the loss to them with a disagreement? NOTHING, because they can just blame the other side, and the people have no way to directly hold them personally accountable. No recalls, no real challenges, and most of them are in gerrymandered districts. If anything, they have a disincentive to try, since if they did betray their base, they'd probably get a more hardcore challenger.

They should have picked 100 or so, random American citizens (2 from every state, maybe some from the territories and district), and let them decide on a proposal.

I wouldn't have even mandated they be adults, or sane, or non-criminals(Not like Congress can complain), just not politicians or lawyers.

Radical idea I know, but I would just have it a proposal, which Congress would vote on. No law says where Congress gets their ideas. Which is why the ALEC exists.

You got chocolate in my peanut butter (1)

shadowrat (1069614) | more than 3 years ago | (#38134834)

You got peanut butter in my chocolate!

This is a surprise (4, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#38134836)

The Democrats appear to have located their spines.

The game that's been going on for over a year is simple:
1. Make demands in exchange for continuing to have a functioning government after some deadline.
2. "negotiate" with the Democrats until several hours before the deadline.
3. Democrats blink, make an 11th-hour deal with Republicans to give them about 95% of their original demands.
4. Democrats declare victory and tell their constituents that the 5% that they got is worth it. Their constituents, apparently not as stupid as the Democratic politicians, don't believe them.
5. Republicans declare victory, and tell their constituents that the 5% cost was worth it, because they'll get rid of it soon enough. They then locate the next deadline they can use.

Re:This is a surprise (1)

ATMAvatar (648864) | more than 3 years ago | (#38134936)

From what I'd read, it was more that the Republicans decided their 5% cost (raising taxes slightly or eliminating tax breaks) wasn't worth it, and were going to vote against anything that didn't give them 100% of what they wanted. That isn't to say the Democrats were necessarily in the right, but the Republican side went into the whole thing with the hard-line stance that any tax increases at all were going to be cause to kill the deal, essentially going into the discussion in bad faith. The blame here is hardly even.

Truly, the solution presented to we voters is to vote out the lot of them and start with a clean house. Congress has proven itself ineffectual in solving any *real* problems.

Let's bring some numbers into this... (2, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 3 years ago | (#38134856)

What pisses me off the most about discussing the debt with most of the people I know is that they won't discuss the numbers. Why? Because they don't want to see what even Wikipedia will show them about how we spend money [wikipedia.org] . The federal government spends the vast majority of its money on domestic spending, not military. The combined total spent every year on the Department of Defense and both the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are still a few billion shy of all we spend on Social Security per year.

Just Social Security. Think about that for a moment. We spend as much on that as we do on the military, which is one of the only functions of the federal government which no one disputes is a constitutionally-defined function of the federal government.

There is no getting around the fact that first and foremost, we need domestic spending cuts. As a Millennial, I don't give a rat's ass if you "paid into Social Security all of your life." I am paying into it now and it's a fact that I won't receive it. I don't mind paying for the elderly, but the program needs to be cut off at its knees now because it is the height of injustice to expect us and Generation X to fund such a horribly mismanaged program now that the Boomers want to retire. They had 1994-2008 to right the ship of state, to try to rebuild the trust fund (which was destroyed on their parents' watch) and ran one of the most irresponsible periods of American government in our history. Arguably, the worst.

As a practical matter, means test the heck out of Social Security and Medicare while cutting our military's responsibilities. We could shave hundreds of billions per year with neither a loss in our national defense nor creating any genuine inequity by cutting of access to the former for people with private retirement or other government pensions and by bring our troops home. The reason our budget is so out of control is first and foremost our inability to say "no" to anyone, be it the middle age people who want to collect a fat benefit check they don't really need or a foreign government expecting us to police the world.

Re:Let's bring some numbers into this... (1)

WillAdams (45638) | more than 3 years ago | (#38135034)

Social Security wouldn't have a funding problem if there weren't caps on what people put in each year --- remove those caps and the well-heeled will no longer pay in for 2 months, max out their contribution and then get what amounts to a pay raise / free ride for the balance of the year.

Re:Let's bring some numbers into this... (1)

fredrated (639554) | more than 3 years ago | (#38135080)

"As a Millennial, I don't give a rat's ass if you "paid into Social Security all of your life."

And there is why your suggestions will be so well received. Are you by any chance a politician?

Re:Let's bring some numbers into this... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#38135202)

As a Millennial, I don't give a rat's ass if you "paid into Social Security all of your life." I am paying into it now and it's a fact that I won't receive it.

Actually, it's pretty likely you will receive Social Security benefits. As things stand now, the Social Security Administration can afford to pay all benefits as promised into the 2030s. Once the economy recovers, revenues will increase and the horizon will extend back into the late 2040s. Minor tweaks to the system can easily save Social Security. Republicans are determined to drive a stake into the heart of the New Deal, and therefore try to convince people that Social Security is on the brink of collapse and that something radical must be done right away, before it's too late! Bullshit.

Payroll taxes fund Social Security and Medicare. Payroll taxes cap out around $100k or so. More than 20% of income earned in the US is taken home by people making more than $400k/yr (the 1%). Raise the payroll tax cap to $1M/yr and the "problem" is more than solved.

No cut for workers or employeers. It is bad! (1, Informative)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 3 years ago | (#38134858)

Democrats want to give the working class a 1% tax cut, cut taxes on businesses by 50%, and let the tax rates for the 1% go back to where they were?!? OMFG no way! It is good that the Republicans are working so hard for "us". [/SNARK]

Obama wants to cut the payroll tax by another percentage point for workers, at a total cost of $179 billion, and cut the employer share of the tax in half as well for most companies, which carries a $69 billion price tag.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA?SITE=PAREA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT [ap.org]

Democrats, including Obama, want to extend the Bush tax cuts only to individuals making less than $200,000 a year and married couples making less than $250,000.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPERCOMMITTEE_BUSH_TAX_CUTS?SITE=PAREA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT [ap.org]

"After months of hard work and intense deliberations, we have come to the conclusion today that it will not be possible to make any bipartisan agreement available to the public before the committee's deadline," said a joint statement by the co-chairs, Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash.

Deficit (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#38134866)

It's not about debt reduction, but about the budget deficit.

national debt 15 trillion

budget 2012 3.7 trillion
income 2012 2.6 trillion

deficit 2012 1.1 trillion

went as planned (5, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 3 years ago | (#38134910)

I surprised everyone is fooled by this. The solution to the problem at hand is obvious... Cuts in both military spending as well as social programs, and ending the Bush tax cuts... in fact, we probably need even more than that. But how can the republicans raise taxes and cut military spending and then go home and get re-elected? How can democrats cut social spending and not invent some new "screw the rich" tax? It would require a diabolical plan... pass a law that says if a special committee cant agree on a plan, all these things happen... Then find people to be on the committee that are all as far left and right as possible so that, not only will they not agree, but their respective electorate will praise them for not making a deal with those evil republicans/democrats. Taxes go up, spending goes down, everyone can blame everyone else... It's perfect! The only problem? Even this wasn't enough. We're still doomed.

I Never Realized until now that I'm Clairvoyant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#38134978)

Wow! I predicted the complete and utter stalemate of the Super Committee months ago, when it was first proposed.

Now for some new predictions
The Kennedys will be in the news
A plane will crash and many people will die
An NFL Team will win the Super Bowl
Congress will spare the military from any budget cuts

Let them fail (1)

cmdr_klarg (629569) | more than 3 years ago | (#38134988)

From what I'm seeing it's the Republicans that are going to suffer the wrath of We The People for this failure. The sooner the stubborn idiots that are unwilling to compromise are removed from office the better.

Seeing the Department of War budget cut automatically makes me a little less disgusted with our Congress. Seeing the Bush tax cuts expire gives me the warm fuzzies. I shouldn't get too pleased, they will somehow save both from the automatic budget axe...

I am Jack's utter lack of surprise... (5, Insightful)

Assmasher (456699) | more than 3 years ago | (#38135002)

...seriously people?

F*** what I wouldn't give for the Clinton years again. Smart president, likes a little scandal, smart Republican congress, keeping each other in balance with COMPROMISE and working together. Ignoring that whole ridiculous impeachment thing (personally, I'm happier when the President is known to be getting some.)

Now? Well meaning, if weak (first term-itis), President, diametrically opposed Republican Congress who are caught between a rock and a hard place trying to embrace the Tea Party while ignoring its ridiculous 'no compromise' policies.

I remember when I first heard about the tea-party, it sounded good. People wanting common sense and a return to 'founding father' kinds of ways. Then it became popular and got hijacked by the whack jobs. The founding fathers espoused compromise and working together - the tea party? Hell no, "My way or the highway" is more their tune.

Government meant to operate in balance cannot operate when one part of the government simply will not work with the others.

Do I want my taxes to go up? F*** no. Should they go up to solve debt problems in addition to cutting spending? Of course. Make corporations making over 10 million dollars actually pay taxes? What a crazy idea...

Time for the 99% (2)

JoeCommodore (567479) | more than 3 years ago | (#38135024)

...to vote out the 1%.

Re:Time for the 99% (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#38135102)

...to vote out the 1%.

In practice the 1% controls all the major political parties. To start a new party you would have to go against all the smear campaigns and dirty tricks of the other parties. and the only news coverage you would get would portray you as irrelevant loonies at best.

Debt committee (1, Insightful)

Independent_forever (1851460) | more than 3 years ago | (#38135052)

The fact that this group was needed simply tells the American people that we not only have a dysfunctional government right now but these so-called elected "leaders" can't get the job done and it is one they are paid to do....Congress failed the minute they appointed this smaller group. In essence, they punted on the hard decision so they could wash their hands of it--plain & simple. This government is a disaster right now and while the previous administration may have caused some things leading up to Obama's term, the fact is this administration does not take ownership of anything, blames other people/events for their problems and is dividing this country by the hour and setting us back decades both on the federal level as well as personal levels. I've never seen or heard of a President causing so much hatred and divisiveness among groups within the country. I hope all the black voters out there don't simply vote this guy back in simply because he is black--he has to be the most racist and divisive President this country has had in a long time. The only difference between him and people who are outwardly racist is the fact that he practices it through policies, speaking out of both sides of his mouth and puts things in motion behind closed doors out of public eye. To me, that's more dangerous than hate groups in the streets...at least you can deal with those idiots in public and in the open. How can you fight racism and hypocrisy on this level when you don't know until it is too late? Very disappointed in our government and we may need another Declaration Of Independence to free ourselves of this current government. It is in the Constitution and DOI--when the government ceases to be in place for the people and begins to usurp too much power it is time to disband it and create a new government---that's really what we need now as this cancer has been growing for decades long before Bush was in office. We've got a do-nothing Congress, divisive President and a court system that is out of control with a "Statist" agenda. We need to turn this country around and right this ship once and for all....America was NOT built to have government interfere in our lives and tax us ad infinitum--that's why we broke with England in case anyone forgot. The government believe it can dole our rights to citizens...they forget...WE, the people, give the government its power and WE the people can take it away. Otherwise, we might as well be Socialist or worse, Communist at our core and we know how well those systems works don't we. I find it hypocritical that WE, as a nation, are supporting revolutions around the world so people can opt in to Democracy YET our government is killing our democratic way of life and taking away the very freedoms other countries are dying for....

Thank You America (5, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#38135068)

Thank You America for letting us in Europe feel that we are not alone in being governed by a bunch of self-serving idiots

stop the political stories (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#38135084)

Is this a technology website or politics?

Lets Imagine (1)

bobstreo (1320787) | more than 3 years ago | (#38135104)

Invite in 10 or 12 random Senators/Representatives, give them 2 weeks.

Their mission:

Save 120 billion from the deficit, or 120 billion a year is cut from the federal support for states the members of the Committee are from.

You should be able to do this a bunch of times. No downside at all.

Corporations are strangling the USA (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | more than 3 years ago | (#38135114)

These politicians need to put their heads down and work out how to get all that money back that's been lining the panties of the 1% for the last 30 years. What do they think the end-game is here? Do they plan on just relocating to with a big fat wallet or something after the country dries up?

The US is voting itself bread and games... (1)

gweihir (88907) | more than 3 years ago | (#38135154)

... until no bread or games are to be had anymore. Look to Greece what happens next.

Incidentally, on the actual numbers side, Greece is not doing that much worse than the US. It is just reputation that makes the difference. And reputation can change very fast indeed.

Duh... (0)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#38135200)

Republicans are obsessing over the horrible plight of the super rich. they will not agree until either they stop being idiots or maybe Chuck Norris shows up and kicks all of their butts.

Time for plan C (3, Funny)

Patron (2242336) | more than 3 years ago | (#38135208)

The super committee failed. Time to bring in the Super Duper Ultra Committee.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?