Fiscal hope for Europe....Is there chance the US could follow?

Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
2,842
Likes
96
Location
Nashua, NH

M1911

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
39,571
Likes
7,780
Location
Near Framingham
Ireland and other European governments are doing similar cuts. Is there any hope that the US will follow?
With a Democrat President, and the Republicans having, at best, a small majority in the Senate? No. Besides, even if the Republicans had large majorities in both houses, the Republicans haven't been very good at lowering government spending.
 
J

Jose

With a Democrat President, and the Republicans having, at best, a small majority in the Senate? No. Besides, even if the Republicans had large majorities in both houses, the Republicans haven't been very good at lowering government spending.
Republican control of the senate is irrelevant since appropriations can only be raised in the house.

I was listening to John Bohener (the Speaker of the House as of January) and he sounded pretty aggressive about defunding Obamacare as much as possible and cutting back on spending as much as possible.

The best way to cut spending is for the House to not appropriate (great word there) any money at all. Then watch the .fed grind to a halt. I doubt Boehner will go that far but I can only hope.

He's my rep so I'll be reminding him of what I've heard him say, for all the good that it will do.
 

cekim

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
29,885
Likes
4,684
Location
Clowns->Here<-Jokers
Polishing the deck of the Titanic - both here and there...

We are both at the point of needing a fundamental reset of the civic contract between the government and the people. The measures on the table right now are mere window dressing to what will be required...
 
J

Jose

Appropriations bills need to be passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President.
Article I Section 7: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives

If no appropriation bills are originated in the House, what will the senators vote on and what will the president sign?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

M1911

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
39,571
Likes
7,780
Location
Near Framingham
Article I Section 7: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives

If no appropriation bills are originated in the House, what will the senators vote on and what will the president sign?
And if the Senators don't agree with the bill sent by the House, they vote it down, or amend it and the result goes to conference committee. They may not originate the bills, but they still have power and exercise it, as does the President.
 
J

Jose

And if the Senators don't agree with the bill sent by the House, they vote it down, or amend it and the result goes to conference committee. They may not originate the bills, but they still have power and exercise it, as does the President.
I guess you are missing the point. The fastest way to reduce spending is to issue ZERO appropriations.
 

Bill Nance

Banned
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
4,091
Likes
843
Location
God's Country, WA
Also, the UK cutting spending by almost 20%???? What's the temperature in hell right now?
Actually, the conservative party has been drastically sane compared to any U.S. administration/congress in my lifetime. they know the fix they're in and are taking serious measures to address it.

We have the same problem here and people think banning EARMARKS is serious fiscal responsibility.[rofl]

And for the haters out there, Obamacare, as pathetic a mess as it is, doesn't begin to touch the fiscal damage Mediicare part D and no child left behind did, combined with a tax cut to the wealthiest people in the country. You know, because those poor people did sooo badly in the 90s they needed to pay less tax.

While the Dems have been hapless and hopeless about spending, the Republicans who claim to be fiscal conservatives aren't even GOOD liars. They spent more, taxed less and then blame the 14 trillion dollar debt on the Dems who weren't even in power. -Ya, sure....

Bottom line is that we're in a mess and NO ONE seems to be serious about addressing it. When Limbaugh starts talking about means-testing SS and Medicare and raising the minimum age for early retirement to 65 from 62 then I'll take the GOP seriously about spending. Until then it's all BS hot air.
 

M1911

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
39,571
Likes
7,780
Location
Near Framingham
When Limbaugh starts talking about means-testing SS and Medicare and raising the minimum age for early retirement to 65 from 62 then I'll take the GOP seriously about spending. Until then it's all BS hot air.
Neither party has the balls to address Social Security head on. The SS fund will eventually go broke. The alternatives are: 1) reduce benefits (by lowering payments, means testing, increasing retirement age, etc.), 2) increase SS taxes, or 3) end the program entirely. But between the two parties and the mainstream press, we're unable to have a rational discussion.
 

center442

NES Member
Rating - 100%
40   0   0
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
8,853
Likes
1,714
Location
Southcoast of PRM
Actually, the conservative party has been drastically sane compared to any U.S. administration/congress in my lifetime. they know the fix they're in and are taking serious measures to address it.

We have the same problem here and people think banning EARMARKS is serious fiscal responsibility.[rofl]

And for the haters out there, Obamacare, as pathetic a mess as it is, doesn't begin to touch the fiscal damage Mediicare part D and no child left behind did, combined with a tax cut to the wealthiest people in the country. You know, because those poor people did sooo badly in the 90s they needed to pay less tax.
While the Dems have been hapless and hopeless about spending, the Republicans who claim to be fiscal conservatives aren't even GOOD liars. They spent more, taxed less and then blame the 14 trillion dollar debt on the Dems who weren't even in power. -Ya, sure....

Bottom line is that we're in a mess and NO ONE seems to be serious about addressing it. When Limbaugh starts talking about means-testing SS and Medicare and raising the minimum age for early retirement to 65 from 62 then I'll take the GOP seriously about spending. Until then it's all BS hot air.
Bill, I agree with much of what you said. A couple of comments about the part in bold:

Obamacare is a disaster now and will be a greater disaster in the future, just like Medicare. Like Topsy, it will grow into another bankrupting entitlement program. The fact that it's not as bad (yet) as some of the other programs is poor reason to justify its existence.

While I wouldn't classify NCLB as a complete disaster yet, it seems to be on track to fail. BTW, NCLB was passed in 2001 with broad support from both parties. In fact, it was shepherded through Congress by our good pal, Ted Kennedy. Somewhere along the line people have come to believe that NCLB was entirely a Republican creation, something else to blame on Bush. Yes, Bush signed it into law, but it was widely supported by both parties. IIRC, support was strong enough that it probably would have survived a Presidential veto.

As far as tax cuts for "wealthy" folks, I guess it comes down to how strongly you believe in progressive taxation as a tool for social engineering, you know, the "spread the wealth around" that Barry is so fond of. The figures I've seen indicate that a small percentage of taxpayers in this country pay the lion's share of the tax burden as it is. I would prefer that taxes get cut for everyone. Decreasing or increasing taxes for specially selected groups is government wealth redistribution, plain and simple. I'm not a big fan of it.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that both the Dems and the GOP have a miserable track record when it comes to taxing and spending. Neither is the answer, and part of the problem is that the people aren't asking the right question. The real question is "What should the role of government be in America?"
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
390
Likes
25
I don't know about us or the rest of Europe but Daniel Hannan of GB gets it. I'm reading his book the "New road to serfdom" and he clearly understands how Europe came to power over Asia only to become surpassed by the USA. The spark of liberty is catching on there and re-ignited here but only time will tell if it catches on.

Edit: Great Video on Daniel Hannon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs
 
Last edited:

Bill Nance

Banned
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
4,091
Likes
843
Location
God's Country, WA
Bill, I agree with much of what you said. A couple of comments about the part in bold:

Obamacare is a disaster now and will be a greater disaster in the future, just like Medicare. Like Topsy, it will grow into another bankrupting entitlement program. The fact that it's not as bad (yet) as some of the other programs is poor reason to justify its existence.

While I wouldn't classify NCLB as a complete disaster yet, it seems to be on track to fail. BTW, NCLB was passed in 2001 with broad support from both parties. In fact, it was shepherded through Congress by our good pal, Ted Kennedy. Somewhere along the line people have come to believe that NCLB was entirely a Republican creation, something else to blame on Bush. Yes, Bush signed it into law, but it was widely supported by both parties. IIRC, support was strong enough that it probably would have survived a Presidential veto.

As far as tax cuts for "wealthy" folks, I guess it comes down to how strongly you believe in progressive taxation as a tool for social engineering, you know, the "spread the wealth around" that Barry is so fond of. The figures I've seen indicate that a small percentage of taxpayers in this country pay the lion's share of the tax burden as it is. I would prefer that taxes get cut for everyone. Decreasing or increasing taxes for specially selected groups is government wealth redistribution, plain and simple. I'm not a big fan of it.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that both the Dems and the GOP have a miserable track record when it comes to taxing and spending. Neither is the answer, and part of the problem is that the people aren't asking the right question. The real question is "What should the role of government be in America?"
I don't support Obamacare for a lot of reasons, least of which is that it doesn't even do what was promised (i.e. cover everyone) most of which is about cost and controlling thereof. Obamacare, like Romneycare doesn't do either one worth a damn so what's the point? If you're going to socialize medical insurance, just do it and be done with it. This half-measure crap has the very worst of both systems with none of the benefits of either.

As for NCLB? I want the federal government out of education altogether with the exception of equalization payments between rich and poor states. (i.e. kids in Mississippi shouldn't get less taxpayer money than kids in Mass. It's done this way in a number of states with good result BTW).

This is not 1789. A lot of things have simply changed radically and will never, CAN never, be the same again. Pretending otherwise is a fantasy. One of those things is a massively disjointed country. We aren't ever going back to a pre-civil-war country and when you look at decisions like McDonald, anyone here should see why that's a GOOD thing. We aren't a collection of states loosely affiliated with each other anymore. That model worked in 1789 but would NOT work today. We'd be a third world country. WRT education, it's in NO ONE'S best interest that kids in 10 poorest states should grow up with a massively underfunded education system solely by virtue of natural resources or shifting world economies etc. That doesn't put us in a good position to compete with the rest of the world, which is exactly what we're going to be doing in the future.

I don't mind paying for education. I mind paying for education dictated in content by some weenie in DC who is 3000 miles away from realities on the ground. What works in NYC isn't what's going to work in Yakima, WA. I'm still all for state and local control of education, but funding is something that everyone has a stake in. The taxpayers of California, where I got my public school education get bupkis from their investment in me. I don't work, shop or visit that pesthole. The people of the entire USA get a lot out of it, not least of which is vastly increased earnings and hence taxes.
 

calsdad

NES Member
Rating - 100%
28   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2006
Messages
40,174
Likes
17,316
Location
Chelmsford MA
Actually, the conservative party has been drastically sane compared to any U.S. administration/congress in my lifetime. they know the fix they're in and are taking serious measures to address it.

We have the same problem here and people think banning EARMARKS is serious fiscal responsibility.[rofl]

And for the haters out there, Obamacare, as pathetic a mess as it is, doesn't begin to touch the fiscal damage Mediicare part D and no child left behind did, combined with a tax cut to the wealthiest people in the country. You know, because those poor people did sooo badly in the 90s they needed to pay less tax.

While the Dems have been hapless and hopeless about spending, the Republicans who claim to be fiscal conservatives aren't even GOOD liars. They spent more, taxed less and then blame the 14 trillion dollar debt on the Dems who weren't even in power. -Ya, sure....

Bottom line is that we're in a mess and NO ONE seems to be serious about addressing it. When Limbaugh starts talking about means-testing SS and Medicare and raising the minimum age for early retirement to 65 from 62 then I'll take the GOP seriously about spending. Until then it's all BS hot air.
All of which is why my vote is for collapse.

After watching this circus show for a few decades now - I have given up on expecting anything to change - until something happens that FORCES change.

I liken it to the people I know who - when times were good - would say things like: " but I have to drive a Range Rover - it's the only thing that will hold all my bags when I go shopping" - or - " We need a 5000 square foot house - I mean we need to have space for us and the 2 kids and the dog" - or - " I always do my food shopping at Whole Food (expensive) - I can't eat that crap they sell at Market Basket", - or - " I always buy a new car every 3 years - I just figure I will permanently have a car payment".

Sort of funny how - after they lose their job, the house gets foreclosed on and the Range Rover and Mercedes have been repossed - these very same people have suddenly figured out how to have everybody live in a small 3 bedroom ranch in the crappy part of town, they are driving 8 year old Honda Civics, buying food at Market Basket - and not going shopping and taking expensive trips any more.

You can make all the arguments you want and scream til you are blue in the face about fiscal responsibility and you will be completely wasting your time. You can vote in a new crop of senators and congressmen - and they will very shortly - fall into the system and start spending like drunken sailors.

The only thing that will stop all of this - is breaking the system. It needs to have a hard stop. People will scream and cry about the end of the world, there will be welfare riots, there will be politicians trying to grab all they can before the clock runs out ( there are some people arguing that this is actually what is happening right now - when the Roman empire fell - the elites gutted everything once they knew the empire was going down) - and there will be pain.

And in the end - once the system implodes - those of us who are still standing will go on with our lives - without having every single little aspect of our life having to be accounted for - so the govt. can collect tax on it to keep the charade going.

I would rather go thru some pain - and be rid of all this - than wake up every day pissed off because I KNOW I am getting screwed over to keep the system running - the system that is screwing me on a continual basis.


So let's all remember to get out on Tuesday and vote - vote for a "best of the worst" candidate - because that'll fix it.
 

center442

NES Member
Rating - 100%
40   0   0
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
8,853
Likes
1,714
Location
Southcoast of PRM
I don't support Obamacare for a lot of reasons, least of which is that it doesn't even do what was promised (i.e. cover everyone) most of which is about cost and controlling thereof. Obamacare, like Romneycare doesn't do either one worth a damn so what's the point? If you're going to socialize medical insurance, just do it and be done with it. This half-measure crap has the very worst of both systems with none of the benefits of either.

As for NCLB? I want the federal government out of education altogether with the exception of equalization payments between rich and poor states. (i.e. kids in Mississippi shouldn't get less taxpayer money than kids in Mass. It's done this way in a number of states with good result BTW).

This is not 1789. A lot of things have simply changed radically and will never, CAN never, be the same again. Pretending otherwise is a fantasy. One of those things is a massively disjointed country. We aren't ever going back to a pre-civil-war country and when you look at decisions like McDonald, anyone here should see why that's a GOOD thing. We aren't a collection of states loosely affiliated with each other anymore. That model worked in 1789 but would NOT work today. We'd be a third world country. WRT education, it's in NO ONE'S best interest that kids in 10 poorest states should grow up with a massively underfunded education system solely by virtue of natural resources or shifting world economies etc. That doesn't put us in a good position to compete with the rest of the world, which is exactly what we're going to be doing in the future.

I don't mind paying for education. I mind paying for education dictated in content by some weenie in DC who is 3000 miles away from realities on the ground. What works in NYC isn't what's going to work in Yakima, WA. I'm still all for state and local control of education, but funding is something that everyone has a stake in. The taxpayers of California, where I got my public school education get bupkis from their investment in me. I don't work, shop or visit that pesthole. The people of the entire USA get a lot out of it, not least of which is vastly increased earnings and hence taxes.
Some good thoughts. Regarding McDonald, the fact that this case even had to be brought to SCOTUS indicates how far we've come from the original intent of the Founding Fathers.

Education should be controlled at the local level; if I understand you correctly, you seem to be in favor of all education funding being handled by the Feds. If the money was disbursed without any strings attached and local citizens determined how the funds would be spent, that might be viable. When you have the situation that you have in MA, where schools are funded by property taxes, there are always going to be inequalities between communities. I have little faith that the Feds will be willing to disburse funds without a lot of strings attached. Money=power, and both are what feed big government. They (the Feds), won't give that up easily.

I may be old-fashioned, but I like the idea of shifting power from the Feds back to the states. I liken it to competition and I believe that it encourages innovation. 50 states competing for citizens is a good thing. The problem is that right now the Feds give support ($$) to states who have passed moonbat legislation, so it's not really a level playing field. I think Romneycare in MA is a recipe for financial disaster. If Obamacare doesn't take some of the load off the state, it will become obvious what a big disaster it is. States should be free to create the environment that works for their citizens, without the Feds getting involved. Time and reality will quickly show what works and what doesn't, and citizens will vote, with their ballots and their feet.

We've come so far down the path we're on that I'm beginning to think that calsdad's "hard reset" might be the only way to correct the situation.
 

cekim

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
29,885
Likes
4,684
Location
Clowns->Here<-Jokers
[Bill Nance]We aren't a collection of states loosely affiliated with each other anymore. That model worked in 1789 but would NOT work today.[/quote]
There is no reason it cannot work if government is properly restrained - in fact, it would work better - see the tax competition thread...

Obviously there is more interstate commerce now as transportation has become trivial, but what most people _actually_ need from the government can and should come from local government not the Feds. That's where we've gone horribly wrong. We used a legislative nuke to solve slavery and civil rights problems in our society that transferred FAR too much power to the Feds.

Think about the useful services that government provides less bad than private and save the national defense and currency, they are local issues - justice, deeds, fire, police, etc...
 
Top Bottom