Comments on: Deficit to shrink by $80 billion to just $1.3 trillion: Now don’t you feel better?

By: dmartin11

dmartin11 — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 17:39:28 +0000

I still think the only way to fix government budgets is to cut ALL programs by a set percent (say 30%) and make everyone plead their case for why they need more. I think we’d be surprised how many government programs would continue to operate but 30% more efficiently, just like private companies do when times get tough. Unfortunately, government seems inept at cutting out wasteful spending and instead would continue employing their worst workers and cut services instead. At least they’d be doing it cheaper though…

By: sigli

sigli — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:09:44 +0000

Christopher,

I think you’re right on the mark regarding people having the time to research every vote. We should repeal the 17th amendment so the state legislatures vote for US senators again. The added benefit is I can talk with my state representative and pass along ideas, good or bad. I can also put in meaningful work to influence reelection. If I don’t like the senator they voted for then I can actually do something about it.

I don’t have either of these options with US senators, and my campaigning would be like throwing a pebble at a locomotive.

While we’re at it we should repeal the 16th so senators cannot be bought off so easily and give pork pay-to-play rewards.

By: Christopher

Christopher — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 07:57:13 +0000

skllstrm, I wasn’t trying to imply that all these rules were put there by the founding fathers. I was just pointing out that the government they setup is clearly a government setup by people that didn’t trust anyone or group with too much power, because they will abuse it. So as far as I’m concerned policies that restrict one group in a government from shoving their policies down the throats of a good portion of another party (of the people) is a good thing.

As for fighting over deficits. I don’t have to choose to fight over it. If it becomes too large and if too many people are supported by too few, it will happen by itself. I really hope not in my lifetime, but all things come to an end, and this is one way they do.

By: andante

andante — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 06:36:18 +0000

Slavery is a moral issue. Some people don’t like to compromise when it comes to their morals. In the Civil War it was an economic concern for only one side. There haven’t been very many wars fought where it was a major issue. However, there have been a lot of wars fought over financial issues. (N.B. Personally I am against slavery, was a civil rights worker and had my life threatened while participating in nonviolent protests.
If the debt goes too high, what will happen to the credit rating of the country and investors willingness to keep investing here?

By: skllstrm

skllstrm — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 03:30:30 +0000

Christopher, Sorry you are so divided. The 60% rule is not from the founding fathers or the Constitution. It actually arose quite recently in this century. It is not a true filibuster. The Senate in itself was the compromise in that each state whether populous or not had an equal vote. The filibuster originally meant that as long as as senator was willing to continue the debate it could not be closed. But he or she had to stay up there. it used to be a true balance although not perfect. In the end, if you cannot compromise it means civil war. That killed more Americans than any other war we have had. I would fight over slavery. Will you fight over deficits?