Last week the debt limit was raised and default on our national debt payments averted; at least for now. But, nothing meaningful was done about the national debt or the rate at which it's growing. According to ABC World News, the current debt of $14 trillion will likely increase to $27 trillion in 10 years; nearly doubled.
Our national debt has been increasing at an ever-increasing rate since the 1960s. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have had the will to do what should have been done in the past 50 years. They didn't have it this past week either! Is there any reason to expect they will ever have it?
We must do something quickly!
There is a simple solution. Stop electing career politicians and replace them with ordinary citizens. This makes a lot of sense if you think about it. The career politician carries so much baggage; party allegiance, re-election concerns, prior courting by lobbyists and such. An ordinary citizen carries none. Think about it; an ordinary citizen candidate in the primary of all 435 representatives in 2012.
A present day patriot, Tim Cox, has developed a simple, workable plan. It's all described at www.goooh.com. Please help take our government back.
Glen Terrell, Arlington, Texas
JSBeals posted at 9:24 am on Fri, Aug 12, 2011.
Glen,
What you are saying may seem to work in theory, but we did that - electing "ordinary citizens" in the last election and it has brought us disaster. We don't need to "take the government back" - it always been ours -- we have just been lazy in our responsibility in electing people that perform for America rather than political party interests -- and lately corporate interests.
Butters posted at 9:47 am on Fri, Aug 12, 2011.
JS, how totally wrong you are about the elections in November of last year. We finally have some people in office that are being held accountable by the very voters that elected them, something long overdue. The Tea Party backed members to the house of representatives, and to a lessor degree, the US Senate, got the attention of this country, have flanked the DNC, thus causing them to expend all of their ammo to defend their ground that is going to be overrun and taken by a more responsible and conservative form of government. If you haven't been reading the news, especially about what Americans think about the debt, the ecomony, the jobles situation, or even the very poor job being done by a president with no economic or business common sense or background, then perhaps you should bring yourself up to speed.
Stay tuned, JS, you ain't seen nothing yet. We, The People, are mad as heck and we're not going to take it anymore.
JSBeals posted at 10:41 am on Fri, Aug 12, 2011.
I don't think you are correct in thinking that the Tea Party in Congress is doing what Americans think is best for America. Congress has a 10% favorable rating (recent Fox News Poll). And Democrats have a higher favorable rating than Republicans which includes the new Tea Party congressional members. The Tea Party is not liked much by most Americans. Getting the "attention of this country" by being obstinate does not equate to moving this country forward in the right direction. We ALL are The People of our great country both alike and different, not just the Tea Party and its select few.
mesateacher posted at 10:42 am on Fri, Aug 12, 2011.
Unfortunately, most Americans think two ways:
1) He may be a career-politician, but he's my career politician!
2) I want someone cool, and popular, and fun.
The thinkers, the braniacs are what we need. But in America, if you can't be on American Idol, you're out anymore. Could a 300 lb, 60-year-old, wrinkled, single woman run for President? Not in America. Too bad, too. We won't be taking the country back. That will require much more than electing the right people. It also requires having a real press corp and not the sycophants on ABC, NBC and CBS cheering on the incumbents, usually democrats. Electing a normal citizen sounds nice, and it is -- for school board, city council, etc. But nowadays, at the federal level we need bright people who have worked their way up.
NothingButTheTruth posted at 11:05 am on Fri, Aug 12, 2011.
Rasmussen Poll: Tea Party Favored Over Congress
More voters say the average tea party movement backer in Congress understands America’s problems better than the average congressman, although Republicans and Democrats have sharp differences of opinion.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone poll released Wednesday found that 42 percent of likely U.S. voters believe tea partiers get it, while 34 percent say the average congressman and senator isn’t clued in at all to the economic and other problems facing the country. Meanwhile, 24 percent of those surveyed said they were undecided about who knows what.
The survey of 1,000 likely voters conducted Aug. 5-6 might sound like fairly good news for House Republicans who held their ground with their no-tax, spending-cuts-only position during the debt ceiling negotiations with the White House. But it marks a 10-point drop in confidence in the tea party from March of last year when 52 percent thought its lawmakers understood the nation’s problems.
Overall, the poll found that just 36 percent of voters now have a favorable opinion of the tea party. Forty-four percent view the tea party in an unfavorable light, while 20 percent are undecided about how they feel.
The survey highlighted once again the huge differences in how Americans, who identify themselves as either Democrats or Republicans, view things.
For example, 60 percent of those identifying themselves as Democrats said they have more confidence in the average lawmaker than in tea party members. On the other hand, 68 percent of the Republicans polled gave thumbs up to the conservative GOP members.
Dale Whiting posted at 4:24 pm on Fri, Aug 12, 2011.
Glen from Arlinton Texas,
Does not electing career politicians mean you advise us not to support Governor Perry?
samkat posted at 7:24 pm on Fri, Aug 12, 2011.
Nothing: I doubt that 1,000 people, probably cherry picked is representative of 306 million people less the illegals.
Who the heck would support Perry other than hard core conservatives?
Cerulean posted at 8:27 pm on Fri, Aug 12, 2011.
mesateacher said, “But nowadays, at the federal level we need bright people who have worked their way up.”
Lo and behold, we have in our office of President just such a person. President Obama worked his way through school (without his papa’s money or nepotism, I might add), beginning at an elementary Catholic school in Indonesia and finishing with a law degree from Harvard.
President Obama is a man of the people and for the people. [smile]
Rodini posted at 10:47 am on Sat, Aug 13, 2011.
Read this please:
In a measured tone, the NYT article effectively makes clear that when it comes to economic policy, Republicans plainly have no idea what they’re talking about.
The boasts of Congressional Republicans about their cost-cutting victories are ringing hollow to some well-known economists, financial analysts and corporate leaders, including some Republicans, who are expressing increasing alarm over Washington’s new austerity and antitax orthodoxy.
Their critiques have grown sharper since last week, when President Obama signed his deficit reduction deal with Republicans and, a few days later, when Standard & Poor’s downgraded the credit rating of the United States.
But even before that, macroeconomists and private sector forecasters were warning that the direction in which the new House Republican majority had pushed the White House and Congress this year — for immediate spending cuts, no further stimulus measures and no tax increases, ever — was wrong for addressing the nation’s two main ills, a weak economy now and projections of unsustainably high federal debt in coming years.
Instead, these critics say, Washington should be focusing on stimulating the economy in the near term to induce people to spend money and create jobs, while settling on a long-term plan for spending cuts and tax increases to take effect only after the economy recovers.
Republicans respond to all of this by … not caring at all. Some may want a weaker economy on purpose, some are too blinded by ideology to consider objective information, some aren’t terribly bright, and some, as David Brooks recently noted, simply “do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities.”
But the bottom line remains the same: nearly everyone who understands economic policy at any level is convinced Republicans — in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail — are spewing gibberish. And in this case, “nearly everyone” includes veterans of the Reagan and Bush administrations, making opposition to right-wing Tea Party nonsense bipartisan.
Also note the scope of the concerns. Current GOP officials aren’t just wrong about stimulus, the timing of budget cuts, taxes, debt reduction, or monetary policy — they’re wrong about all of them at the same time.
In fairness, the article does note one economist — Stanford’s John Taylor — who’s willing to defend the Republican line (as he always does, regardless of merit). But to appreciate the credibility of the GOP’s go-to economist, swing by Krugman’s blog and type Taylor’s name into the search engine.
Regardless, it’s an important article about the nation’s most pressing crisis. Take the time to read it, save it, and send it around.
By Steve Benen
Dale Whiting posted at 12:55 pm on Sat, Aug 13, 2011.
Rodini,
In case you did not notice, this letter to the editor was written by Glen and addressed the topic of career politicians and their propensity to run up the deficite to please their constituent financial supporters. Finally you quote others but only those critical of Republicans. Are you saying career Democrats are sinless saints? Thought not.
Watchfuleye posted at 4:10 pm on Sat, Aug 13, 2011.
So you won't want a career doctor, or auto mechanic either. The issue isn't with career politicians; it's the problem that they care more about re-election. Also, the public is to blame, if a politician sees information that causes them to change their mind the public attacks them. If a politician votes for something the other party wants, the public is outraged. If a politician votes for pork that would give their constituents jobs, no one cares but if a politician in another area does it, the votes complain about government corruption. Most people are more concerned about their sports team than the political decision that affect our day by day lives. Most people read the headlines and then have a gut level reaction. Most people will vote for a candidate who is more effective slandering the opponent and believe this isn't the core character of that individual. Maybe if we would education ourselves, we would have a better republic which has a better caliber politician.
Slabside posted at 4:29 pm on Sat, Aug 13, 2011.
"President Obama is a man of the people and for the people."
Cerulean, put down the crack pipe.
NothingButTheTruth posted at 8:25 pm on Sat, Aug 13, 2011.
lol Cerulean you maka me laugh so hard my teeth fall out hahahaha. Obummer is the man of what people? Not my people. Who are your people? hahahaha.
I know, lets elect career hairdressers instead of career politicians then we can all get good haircuts hahahaha.
Rodini posted at 12:39 pm on Mon, Aug 15, 2011.
Billionaire urges lawmakers to raise taxes on rich to help cut budget deficit
Billionaire Warren Buffett urged U.S. lawmakers Monday to raise taxes on the country's super-rich to help cut the budget deficit, saying such a move will not hurt investments.
"My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It's time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice," The 80-year-old "Oracle of Omaha" wrote in an opinion article in The New York Times.
Buffett, one of the world's richest men and chairman of conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway Inc , said his federal tax bill last year was $6,938,744.
"That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income - and that's actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent," he said.
Vote: Is Congress coddling the super-rich, like Buffett says?
94.3%
Yes, and they should be taxed more.
58,411 votes
5.7%
No, everyone pays too much in taxes already.
3,506 votes
Lawmakers engaged in a partisan battle over spending and taxes for more than three months before agreeing on August 2 to raise the $14.3 trillion U.S. debt ceiling, avoiding a U.S. default.
"Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country's fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness," Buffett said.
Buffett said higher taxes for the rich will not discourage investment.
"I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone - not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 - shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain," he said
"People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off."
Amen and thank-you for telling America the TRUTH Warren!! And the polling numbers clearly show the VAST MAJORITY AGREE!!
sockratties posted at 1:38 pm on Mon, Aug 15, 2011.
I tend to agree with what WatchfulEye posted. Also:
Congress currently determines how it will be compensated, what is paid for, who pays and what programs it will or won’t participate in:
These questions should be answered by each individual state. Congress shouldn’t be allowed to determine who it answers to and how it is compensated. Both Representatives and Senators should be sent to D.C. with the agenda of their constituents as determined by their state legislatures. They should have limits not to exceed two terms for senators or three terms for representatives. There should be no seniority system as each congressperson should have equal say and influence. Any monies earned for appearances, dinner engagements or books and articles while serving would be returned to the state treasury unless the proceeds are for charitable (not political) purpose. Such activities would be considered a function of the office so any earnings belong to the state.
The idea that the common man or woman should be sent to D.C. to govern is ridiculous. We have a plethora of people who couldn’t run a lemonade stand. We have to sent qualified people:
Individuals who wish to be elected should be required to pass some kind of test to indicate that they have the necessary minimal skills to perform the job of governing (perhaps something like an SAT exam). They should be compensated by their individual state who determines the amount and per diem and expenses should be paid for by the sponsoring state. Washington should provide the work environment required such as supplies, offices and buildings.
Congressional staffs are made up of a lot of “old-timers” who know how things work. Unfortunately they also know how to make patronage part of the equation:
The Washington D.C. congressional staff would work out of a pool and not report directly to the congressperson except by assignment. Individuals that work as campaigner for the congressperson cannot subsequently work as members of the congressional staff. The number of staff available to a representative or senator would be limited to a number that reflects the projects and assignments being attended by the congressperson at any given time. The state or home office of the congressperson would be individually staffed as determined by the individual state.
Congresspersons are unduly influenced by special interests that do not necessarily reflect the needs of the state agenda:
Lobbyists should only be able to tout their wares, persuasions and influences in forums open to congress people for attendance if interested. The press and public should be allowed free access to all private interest appeals. Agreements between congress people should be public and documented including quid pro quo agreements that are sometimes tacitly understood.
Pie in the sky? Perhaps. We can be sure congress has too much say for any changes to take place even though they're supposed to be working for us.
PatrioticPerson posted at 9:56 pm on Mon, Aug 15, 2011.
Here we go again. Attacking the so called Tea Party. Keep in mind they said they were going to reduce government spending and reduce the size of the federal government. They are doing what they said they were going to do. And keep in mind they got re-re-elected in Wisconsin. Look out Washington as I feel you are going to see a lot more of the so called "Tea Party"