"We The People" have spoken -- will the Congress listen?

[dca221]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010...75226_page8.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

"In order to balance the budget, 61 percent of Americans would rather start by taxing the rich more and 20 percent would cut defense spending. Very few people would mess with Medicare (four percent) or cut Social Security (three percent)."


Before the election and during the healthcare reform debate, I heard the Republicans proclaim many many many times that the Dems were ignoring the opinions and the wishes of the Americans. So, will they practice what they preached for two years? In the face of this overwhelming majority's wishes, will the newly elected Republicans work with Obama and the Democrats to raise taxes on the very rich, you know, to do as "we the people" want? Or will they ignore the voice of :"we the people" and shove down our throats legislation "we the people" do not want, like cut social security or medicare?

 

[werepossum]

So Sixty Minutes and Vanity Fair, two notoriously left wing media outlets, have proven that America overwhelmingly elected Republicans to tax the wealthy and cut defense? Do you think we're really stupid enough to believe that?

 

[Zebo]

We don't need new taxes we need tax payers not liabilities. Getting people working again is the only thing that will fix our situation.

Granted I don't think it's right working income pays more in taxes than investment income and the hedge fund manager exemption where they are taxed at investment rates for regular income but that is all a drop in the bucket to the real issue.

No one is serious about getting people working again other than make work project which generate no wealth and exacerbate our problems.

 

[matt0611]

Yes, ask people would they rather get reduced benefits or tax some other guy to pay for them...hmm I wonder what most would choose?

Lets ask 90% of the population if they want to tax the other 10% to pay for things that they want. Guess what they will say.

 

[dca221]

So Sixty Minutes and Vanity Fair, two notoriously left wing media outlets, have proven that America overwhelmingly elected Republicans to tax the wealthy and cut defense? Do you think we're really stupid enough to believe that?

Yes, they are not quite Fox News or Rasmussen

Are you arguing the results are wrong or deliberately false?

 

[dca221]

Lets ask 90% of the population if they want to tax the other 10% to pay for things that they want. Guess what they will say.

Yes, let's ask the people what they want. I thought that was called democracy, you know, where people are free and vote. When some declared a few years back after an election he "had a mandate" with 51% of the vote, 90% would be hyper-super-duper mandate to do something, wouldn't it?

 

[matt0611]

Yes, let's ask the people what they want. I thought that was called democracy, you know, where people are free and vote. When some declared a few years back after an election he "had a mandate" with 51% of the vote, 90% would be hyper-super-duper mandate to do something, wouldn't it?

Yes, whatever 51% of the people want, who cares about the other 49%, lets take from them to give to the 51%, because hey, we're the majority right?
Ugh, government fail.

 

[dca221]

Yes, whatever 51% of the people want, who cares about the other 49%, lets take from them to give to the 51%, because hey, we're the majority right?
Ugh, government fail.

Dude (or dudette),

you said in your previous post:

Lets ask 90% of the population if they want to tax the other 10% to pay for things that they want. Guess what they will say.

.

I was simply pointing out 90% is a pretty damn good majority. And 51% was Bush who thought he had a mandate after the 2004 election (because that was the first one he actually won), and he intended to spend the political capital he earned on privatizing social security

 

[matt0611]

My point is, its easy for people to say "don't reduce my benefits, tax that other guy, he has enough money"

All I'm saying, its no surprise people would choose that option in a poll. Its human nature.

 

[manimal]

this is why argumentum ad popolum arguments are idiotic no matter what the slant.

 

[dca221]

It seems like this is how the popular wishes work:

1) Bush is president. He and Cheney ignore the public's wishes and opinions on Iraq War, because that's leadership and they have the balls

2) Obama becomes President, leads the Healthcare Reform that he campaigned on, 40% of the public likes it, 20% don't like because it doesn't go far enough, 40% just dont' like it because they are Republicans, then he is a socialist fascist islamist Kenyan dictator who shoves down our throats evil legislation that's 2500 pages

3) Republicans take the House, Boner becomes speaker, "ad populum arguments are idiotic no matter the slant"

Got it

 

[boomerang]

Here you go folks. Credit card, bank account or check. Personally, I think credit card is the American way.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/resources/faq/faq_publicdebt.htm#DebtFinance

How do you make a contribution to reduce the debt?




There are two ways for you to make a contribution to reduce the debt:

• You can make a contribution online either by credit card, checking or savings account at Pay.gov
• You can write a check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it's a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail your check to:

• 
  
  Attn Dept G
  Bureau of the Public Debt
  P. O. Box 2188
  Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188

You can all make a personal contribution right now while sitting at your computer. Just click on the pay.gov link. No need to wait for all those endless debates and partisan bickering by Congress. Your money goes to work instantly.

Quit counting on the other guy to pony up, make a stand and show your support. Tell all your friends. All the cool people are doing it! Don't be the last on one board!

 

[bhanson]

http://crfb.org/stabilizethedebt/

Try to win the game without touching Medicare or Social Security.

 

[Lemon law]

My position, in terms of a thread title is that current economic conditions are bad, the American sheeple, have voted to vote their wallets with greater belief in GOP propaganda v lesser belief in democratic propaganda.

Two years from now, we will be facing even tougher economic times, the propaganda on both sides will be at least as great, and the American sheeple voters still will be clueless
in terms of understanding which party is better able to lead us out of the Abyss of the poor public policies that got us and keep us in the same mess.

 

[Svnla]

Look at the hard data. What are the LARGEST expenses for the federal government?

They are: SS, medicare, medicaid, interest on the debt, and defense. You can tax all the rich you want and cut everything else but won't make a dime of different if you don't do anything about the entitlement programs (they will be even worse if we push the problems down the road) and defense.

 

[dca221]

Look at the hard data. What are the LARGEST expenses for the federal government?

They are: SS, medicare, medicaid, interest on the debt, and defense. You can tax all the rich you want and cut everything else but won't make a dime of different if you don't do anything about the entitlement programs (they will be even worse if we push the problems down the road) and defense.

keep looking at the hard data (e.g., check out: http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html) SS, MD, and MA all have their own funding sources, so separate their revenue and disbursements from discretionary and defense expenses. SS trust fund will have enough funds at least until 2037. Lifting the cap on taxable income for SS will make it solvent forever. MD Hospital Insurance fund is now solvent through 2029 (thanks to the Affordable Care Act). And ask people whether they would prefer to collect some more taxes or reduce benefits on SS, MD, and MA.

Then ask people whether the government should collect more taxes to fund the discretionary and defense expenses, or cut the spending on those items

Putting SS, MD, and MA in the same basket as defense and discretionary expenses simply blurs the picture and enables people who want to tear down these social programs b/c they can't stand social programs. If this is a true democracy, ask people what they value and they do not, and cut accordingly.

 

[Craig234]

Look at the hard data. What are the LARGEST expenses for the federal government?

They are: SS, medicare, medicaid, interest on the debt, and defense. You can tax all the rich you want and cut everything else but won't make a dime of different if you don't do anything about the entitlement programs (they will be even worse if we push the problems down the road) and defense.

We can't balance the budget by increasing taxes on the rich.

But we can do critical things for the good of society and increasing productivity by that.

 

[Svnla]

@ dca - there is no such thing as "trust fund" with money in it and the shortfall is coming sooner than later.

Forget all the talk you'll hear about how Social Security is okay until 2040 or thereabouts. That is, as we'll soon see, utter nonsense. The real problem starts only a decade or so from now, when Social Security begins to take in less cash than it spends.
How can I say that, given Social Security's $2.3 trillion (and growing) trust fund? It's because the fund owns nothing but Treasury securities. Normally, of course, Treasury securities are the safest thing you can hold in a retirement account. But Social Security's Treasuries won't help cover the program's cash shortfall, because Social Security is part of the federal government. Having one arm of the government (Social Security) own IOUs from another arm (the Treasury) doesn't help the government as a whole cover its bills.
Here's why the trust fund has no financial value. Say that Social Security calls the Treasury sometime in 2017 and says it needs to cash in $20 billion of securities to cover benefit checks. The only way for the Treasury to get that money is for the rest of the government to spend $20 billion less than it otherwise would (fat chance!), collect more in taxes (ditto), or borrow $20 billion more (which is what would happen). The spend-less, collect-more, and borrow-more options are exactly what they would be if there were no trust fund. Thus, the trust fund doesn't make it any easier for the government to cover Social Security's cash shortfalls than if there were no trust fund.
Social Security's negative cash flow becomes so horrendous - hundreds of billions of dollars a year - that our nation's twenty- and thirtysomethings aren't going to let the government cover it, regardless of how many Treasuries the trust fund holds. So forget about 2039 or whenever. Starting worrying about 2016 or 2017.

Source - not from FoxNews but very liberal CNN = http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/18/news/economy/sloan_socialsecurity.fortune/index.htm

BTW, that story was in 2008, I am pretty sure the situation is even worse now.

@craig - yup, your idea is just tax them rich, aka distribution the wealth = good in your world. You need to tell that to many members of this current administration because a lot of them forgot to pay taxes. What happens to "paying taxes is patriot duty"? Do as I said and not as I do, heh?

 

[Bowfinger]

It seems like this is how the popular wishes work:

1) Bush is president. He and Cheney ignore the public's wishes and opinions on Iraq War, because that's leadership and they have the balls

2) Obama becomes President, leads the Healthcare Reform that he campaigned on, 40% of the public likes it, 20% don't like because it doesn't go far enough, 40% just dont' like it because they are Republicans, then he is a socialist fascist islamist Kenyan dictator who shoves down our throats evil legislation that's 2500 pages

3) Republicans take the House, Boner becomes speaker, "ad populum arguments are idiotic no matter the slant"

Got it

Exactly, but good luck getting the righties (and particularly the tea party crowd) to acknowledge your point. It would require acknowledging their own hypocrisy. They're quite shrill about government following the will of We, the People ... as long as We agree with them. Otherwise it's, "But, but, but ... the People are wrong, do it my way."

 

[Zebo]

http://crfb.org/stabilizethedebt/

Try to win the game without touching Medicare or Social Security.

Pretty lame. You are boxed in with narrow choices.

Reduce troops by 30,000? That's it? That's all? Where is the choice to eliminate 187 foreign military bases and pull out 100% form Iraq and Afghanistan?

I'd run a surplus of 500 Billion given latitude. (study Eisenhower who did exactly that with crushing WW2 debt)

 

[matt0611]

Exactly, but good luck getting the righties (and particularly the tea party crowd) to acknowledge your point. It would require acknowledging their own hypocrisy. They're quite shrill about government following the will of We, the People ... as long as We agree with them. Otherwise it's, "But, but, but ... the People are wrong, do it my way."

As opposed to "Oh the american people just elected the republicans because we didn't get our message out effectively" yeah, thats it democrats, thats exactly why compared to you even the republicans seemed like a better choice...even when people vote republicans it means they support the democrat agenda

 

[bamacre]

http://crfb.org/stabilizethedebt/

Try to win the game without touching Medicare or Social Security.

I don't like that game. Too many answers that fall short, and some false choices. But interesting nonetheless.

 

[bamacre]

But we can do critical things for the good of society and increasing productivity by that.

Bankrupting the government so that no one gets a dime isn't good for society. Too bad the Democrats didn't get rid of Medicare D. They strongly opposed it, but then when they got the opportunity to actually do something about it, they didn't. Craig, if we don't fix Medicare, and health care in general, we'll go belly up, and all those people who are dependent on government will be taken off their titty overnight. You don't want that, no one does, but that's the reality of the situation.

 

[Bowfinger]

As opposed to "Oh the american people just elected the republicans because we didn't get our message out effectively" yeah, thats it democrats, thats exactly why compared to you even the republicans seemed like a better choice...even when people vote republicans it means they support the democrat agenda

That whistling sound you heard was the point flying far over your head.

(BTW, I'm not a Democrat. I think they suck too. Not as bad as Republicans, but both parties are first and foremost whores for special interests. I'm just amused at the unmitigated hypocrisy of those Tea Baggers who shriek about "We, the People" and "the will of the people" ... yet immediately reject "the People" when We have the temerity to stray from their party line.)

 

[matt0611]

That whistling sound you heard was the point flying far over your head.

(BTW, I'm not a Democrat. I think they suck too. Not as bad as Republicans, but both parties are first and foremost whores for special interests. I'm just amused at the unmitigated hypocrisy of those Tea Baggers who shriek about "We, the People" and "the will of the people" ... yet immediately reject "the People" when We have the temerity to stray from their party line.)

My point is, the shit that you're talking about, the democrats do the same bullshit, don't act like the democrats of innocent of it either. They just did it. Both sides do it and its pretty dumb.