Did you all miss this? I didn't.

[DVS]

How does the waste of time by opening every day with a prayer by a new rotating chaplain (I wonder about money) NOT affect you, but a change in language that humanizes several million Americans somehow does?

Oh some of these prayers, pretty freaking amazing. Including prayers to stand with and guide OJ Simpson in his dark hour. Shit you not.

You voted them in, too, or don't you vote? You have to take the bad with the good. That doesn't mean I can't complain.

 

[Stella_Omega]

You voted them in, too, or don't you vote? You have to take the bad with the good. That doesn't mean I can't complain.

I voted in the ones that don't pray, but do vote on small civil rights issues.

 

[DVS]

I voted in the ones that don't pray, but do vote on small civil rights issues.

You vote for the ones that don't pray? But, that's a nice hat you're wearing.

 

[Betticus]

To suggest that the task of finding a resolution to the so-called fiscal cliff is not getting sufficient attention in Washington seems to be good evidence of not having read a newspaper in the last month.

It's not like we all don't already know what will happen.. they'll drag it to the last minute then for the good of the people they will vote to raise the debt ceiling again.

Then they will sell us all on the idea that they somehow saved us and that the answer to spending far more money than actually exists is to just spend even more money.

Maybe eventually our government will reach a breakover point where the speed of spending exceeds the speed of light and then spending will go back in time until we are completely out of debt.

 

[midwestyankee]

It's not like we all don't already know what will happen.. they'll drag it to the last minute then for the good of the people they will vote to raise the debt ceiling again.

Then they will sell us all on the idea that they somehow saved us and that the answer to spending far more money than actually exists is to just spend even more money.

Maybe eventually our government will reach a breakover point where the speed of spending exceeds the speed of light and then spending will go back in time until we are completely out of debt.

You are aware, aren't you, that the debt ceiling is artificial? That the real decisions about how much we spend are made by Congress and that the debt ceiling, if unchanged, would make the government unable to keep its already-made-into-law obligations?

And you're aware that the cost of borrowing, for the U.S. Government is less than 0% for debt held longer than 1 year, right? Because it would be truly stupid to borrow money when the cost of borrowing is negative.

 

[Stella_Omega]

You vote for the ones that don't pray? But, that's a nice hat you're wearing.

yes, it keeps my ears warm, and carries a certain amount of cultural recognition, implying a rollicking good time during the snowy winter months, and in my case, some sugar-plum licking, so to speak

It has zero religious significance. Also, fuckall to do with pious politicians that promote repressive policies.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Like I said, it might not seem the same for you, but it bothers me that they would even take the time for this issue, an issue that has no deadline, when they should have been dealing with something that has a time deadline and a deadline that affects many.

Enh. It's already been made pretty clear that the 'financial cliff' issue is going to be an exercise in brinkmanship. Which means that it's not going to get resolved until the eleventh hour, so they might as well find something worth doing in the meantime.

 

[lovecraft68]

I love this. The removal of freedom of speech one word at a time.

We have the right to speak freely, but only when we use words deemed acceptable.

Good thing they haven't put the word Disgrace up for vote or else we would have to find another way to describe the government

 

[DVS]

I don't know how congress could have proved my case any better. Back when they were deciding on the word lunatic before they left for an early weekend, they should have been deciding something about the fiscal cliff.

Of course, they did end up putting a band aid on the whole deal, which I was sure they would do, just like they did back in 2011. They will be back to haggle some more in March, because they couldn't come together before the end of the year. In fact, they took advantage of an extra day, because Tuesday January 1st was a holiday.

The name of the game is procrastinate, delay, posture and then procrastinate some more. Democrats and republicans played a part in this. And we voted these people in to represent us?

People say after this latest fiasco that it's good that this congress is leaving, and a new one is coming in. Unfortunately, this new group is going to be more of the same, because the democrats still rule the senate and republicans still rule the house. The November election had very little purpose other than to put in a few new faces. And those faces will have little impact, if any, in any big way.

Maybe, after seeing what the previous group looked like when they tried so miserably to get a deal done, this new congress will have second thoughts about voting against or for something that will only continue the delay, posture, procrastination a little longer.

Because there is no hard deadline this March, the fight could be a long one. People need to know what to expect before they can do their taxes, for crying out loud! We need these people to sit down, decide on something once and for all and move on with other things.

Like I said before, we shouldn't be retiring the word lunatic so soon, because we still need a way to describe our elected officials in Washington.

 

[Stella_Omega]

To compare this congress with lunatics is insulting to lunatics. This is malice, pure and simple.

 

[DVS]

It's started again. While I'm an independent with conservative leanings, I understand and agree with some of what Obama is saying. I don't think any of them, Obama or congress, are in tune with how the country is right now, financially.

While the republicans want to lower the debt and desire spending cuts, I think they are too soon with that, in such a weak economy.
"The American people do not support raising the debt ceiling without reducing government spending at the same time," Boehner said in a statement. This is true to a point, because we can't keep raising the debt ceiling for ever. But reducing too much of the government spending in the wrong areas is going to be bad, too.

Of course, I'm not an expert on just where spending could be cut without hurting the economy, but I do think cutting back on the stupid things like pork spending and the tax breaks that were voted in with the fiscal cliff vote would be a place to start. And Obama gave all government employees a small pay raise. I don't think the little bit they were given is going to hurt the economy but I wonder if it will even do them any good.

I think giving congress a raise was going too far. I think the token raise that congress got should be given back to taxpayers. They shouldn't be given raises when they failed so miserably and publicly.

I'm not a big fan of Biden, but he did help with getting a resolution to the bit of the cliff they did come together with. He got a nice little raise, too. I don't think anybody in government should accept a raise, until this economy gets more stable. We only pay when the job is done and done well.

And I also think Obama is being too strict with his side, too. While I think we still need to raise the debt ceiling, we really need to counter that with some kind of government spending cuts. There are government perks that can be cut so it doesn't hurt the tax payers or the economy. But will any of these perks be cut?

It's time our government got off the roller coaster and did the job they were hired for. Of course, I know we're in for some more of the posturing we saw at the end of the year. They are quite good at that part of their job.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Military spending. Could cut a lot back there.

 

[intothewoods]

I'd be fine with Biden skipping a raise but gov't employees aren't all or even mostly politicians. They're secretaries and computer tech guys and average working class people. I hate when people act like cutting government doesn't mean firing people or cutting their salaries.

Cutting the pork will not fix the deficit. It's insignificant in comparison to the military budget and social security.

 

[midwestyankee]

I'd be fine with Biden skipping a raise but gov't employees aren't all or even mostly politicians. They're secretaries and computer tech guys and average working class people. I hate when people act like cutting government doesn't mean firing people or cutting their salaries.

Cutting the pork will not fix the deficit. It's insignificant in comparison to the military budget and social security.

Further, one district's pork is another district's jobs. DVS, no doubt the state you live in has some military bases and some manufacturers that build stuff the government buys. To me here in Illinois, those bases might well seem to be a vast waste of money and the stuff your manufacturers build was obsolete before the end of the Cold War.

 

[DVS]

I'd be fine with Biden skipping a raise but gov't employees aren't all or even mostly politicians. They're secretaries and computer tech guys and average working class people. I hate when people act like cutting government doesn't mean firing people or cutting their salaries.

Cutting the pork will not fix the deficit. It's insignificant in comparison to the military budget and social security.

I didn't say government employees should give back their raise. In fact, they only got a $900 per year raise. Not much, if you ask me. Biden and congress should give theirs back, though, or give them to government workers.

By the way, I lost my government job because of government cut backs. You're preaching to the choir.

 

[DVS]

Further, one district's pork is another district's jobs. DVS, no doubt the state you live in has some military bases and some manufacturers that build stuff the government buys. To me here in Illinois, those bases might well seem to be a vast waste of money and the stuff your manufacturers build was obsolete before the end of the Cold War.

Pork is not military spending or is anything else that the federal government should be funding. Pork is the crap that gets tagged on the end of bills by members of congress to pay for their pet projects that otherwise might not get funded. The taxpayers end up paying the bill for something individual states should be paying for. With the latest fiscal cliff vote, I knew they would stick things onto the end of it, because they had to vote without time to look the whole bill over. There was over 70 million in pork added to a bill that was suppose to limit spending alone.

Every bill has a certain amount of pork. All of congress knows it happens. They all do it. They only complain when the general public finds out about it. I don't like paying for some local bridge in Vermont, or somewhere else.

Sure, people don't like some of the military budget and I understand that. But that is federal. Anything federal, whether it's in my state or yours, the taxpayer should pay for.

Lobbyists also get pork added to bills. The pork that was tagged onto the back of the fiscal cliff vote seems kind of stupid, but right up the alley of our congressional members. You might find a good reason for some of this pork and there could be some small good in them, but was it really necessary in an economy as fragile as this one? The economy is suffering and they keep spending our money like we're swimming in cash.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I love that reasoning-- There might be some real good reason for some projects, but they aren't good reasons. We shouldn't spend our money there.

It's kind of like a financially strapped family deciding that although there are good reasons for feeding their children, they aren't good enough reasons. Kids go hungry so we can pay our credit card bills.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

I love that reasoning-- There might be some real good reason for some projects, but they aren't good reasons. We shouldn't spend our money there.

It's kind of like a financially strapped family deciding that although there are good reasons for feeding their children, they aren't good enough reasons. Kids go hungry so we can pay our credit card bills.

I don't quite get the same sense of DVS's post that you appear to have gotten.

*My* reading (of course, YMMV) was that DVS was saying that certain congresspersons (most of them, actually) add funding to federal budget items for projects that benefit only a certain state, county, city, etc., and that those items *should* be paid by that state's/county's/city's/etc.'s budget, not the federal budget which is taken from *everyone's* pockets. Yes, that "spreads the pain around," but the point is that people in Oregon don't want to - and shouldn't have to - pay for a project in Florida that only benefits people in that particular locality.

To carry that to your hypothetical "financially strapped family" above, do you personally want to help pay the food bills of a family eight states away from you? Or would you rather feed *your* family, and perhaps, when you have a spare dollar or three (or a few spare cans of soup and a couple of boxes of mac 'n cheese), make a donation to a *local* food bank to help financially strapped families in *your* community?

 

[Netzach]

Pork is not military spending or is anything else that the federal government should be funding. Pork is the crap that gets tagged on the end of bills by members of congress to pay for their pet projects that otherwise might not get funded. The taxpayers end up paying the bill for something individual states should be paying for. With the latest fiscal cliff vote, I knew they would stick things onto the end of it, because they had to vote without time to look the whole bill over. There was over 70 million in pork added to a bill that was suppose to limit spending alone.

Every bill has a certain amount of pork. All of congress knows it happens. They all do it. They only complain when the general public finds out about it. I don't like paying for some local bridge in Vermont, or somewhere else.

Sure, people don't like some of the military budget and I understand that. But that is federal. Anything federal, whether it's in my state or yours, the taxpayer should pay for.

Lobbyists also get pork added to bills. The pork that was tagged onto the back of the fiscal cliff vote seems kind of stupid, but right up the alley of our congressional members. You might find a good reason for some of this pork and there could be some small good in them, but was it really necessary in an economy as fragile as this one? The economy is suffering and they keep spending our money like we're swimming in cash.

All of those things have the potential to raise revenue in some other way, pretty much, or start the process of less fossil fuel dependence. There are a lot of reasons to have good relationships with PR and the BVI's.

Take NASCAR out of some of the places that it is, and holy shit, jobs bleed.

When those ex concessions/support people/ etc are out of work, it's not just the state paying their benefits and social services tab. It costs money to save money.

It's a series of business decisions. When you're right no one says "good job" and when you gambled wrong, everyone wants your head.

R's want to run a zero investment bootstrapped business with the lights off by candle-light, two people doing the job of twenty, and a closet full of bazookas.... unless it's THEIR pork, of course.

 

[DVS]

All of those things have the potential to raise revenue in some other way, pretty much, or start the process of less fossil fuel dependence. There are a lot of reasons to have good relationships with PR and the BVI's.

Take NASCAR out of some of the places that it is, and holy shit, jobs bleed.

When those ex concessions/support people/ etc are out of work, it's not just the state paying their benefits and social services tab. It costs money to save money.

It's a series of business decisions. When you're right no one says "good job" and when you gambled wrong, everyone wants your head.

R's want to run a zero investment bootstrapped business with the lights off by candle-light, two people doing the job of twenty, and a closet full of bazookas.... unless it's THEIR pork, of course.

I'm sure there are ways that this pork could be seen as creating jobs or revenue. I really wonder if Hollywood is going to film a movie in a specific spot just because they get a tax break to do so.

If an area doesn't provide the needed scenery, they would have to create it. That costs money, too. I think they might use the tax breaks when an area has the required scenery, but I don't think they will sway their location to a less advantageous spot just to get the tax break. I know they will take the money and run, when the area does fit the necessary scene requirements, though I seriously doubt they need it.

Kansas City has had a NASCAR track for quite a few years now, and the local government said it would lower our taxes. I think we got sucked into their spiel. We now have a hotel there on racetrack property, about 40 restaurants of various tastes, LARGE name brand shopping stores that weren't there before as well as the track with a brand new surface put down this year. That racetrack is gorgeous and always sold out and the tickets aren't cheap. This has become a large NASCAR state, even drawing fans from nearby states.

Before all of this, the land was mostly vacant pasture, except for a few homes that were bought up. This track is in the smallest county of the state so we all thought our taxes would show a benefit very soon, but so far we have only seen our taxes go up...some years by a lot. With all of the commerce going on in that one little area, who's getting the benefit of it? It's not showing on my tax bill.

Sure, you can say they would have gone up a lot more if the track wasn't there, but I seriously doubt taxpayers could have handled that, because it's not only the smallest county, it's also the poorest.

Whatever you want to call these things, perks, pork or incentives for commerce and revenue, these things need to be limited, until we can afford them. Just like any company, you limit spending until you have more income. By spending more than we have, we just raise the debt level and fight among ourselves over who's to blame.

If this post seems like I'm mad at anybody, I'm only mad because the people we voted into office can't control their spending. Somebody needs to grab their credit cards and cut them up!

 

[midwestyankee]

I don't quite get the same sense of DVS's post that you appear to have gotten.

*My* reading (of course, YMMV) was that DVS was saying that certain congresspersons (most of them, actually) add funding to federal budget items for projects that benefit only a certain state, county, city, etc., and that those items *should* be paid by that state's/county's/city's/etc.'s budget, not the federal budget which is taken from *everyone's* pockets. Yes, that "spreads the pain around," but the point is that people in Oregon don't want to - and shouldn't have to - pay for a project in Florida that only benefits people in that particular locality.

To carry that to your hypothetical "financially strapped family" above, do you personally want to help pay the food bills of a family eight states away from you? Or would you rather feed *your* family, and perhaps, when you have a spare dollar or three (or a few spare cans of soup and a couple of boxes of mac 'n cheese), make a donation to a *local* food bank to help financially strapped families in *your* community?

This misses the point, I think, and so did DVS, at least my point. The fact is that ALL federal spending spreads money from my state to yours and then from yours to California and from there to Arizona and so on. And no matter where you live, someone else's congress critter appears to be spending your money on a pet project in their home state. But those pet projects are happening in your state too. And some of those pet projects are unneeded defense spending as well as minor infrastructure builds and so forth. What DVS is complaining about are usually called "earmarks" and they represent something like 1/1000 of 1% of the federal budget. Sure, we could eliminate them but that's like trying to balance a family budget by cutting Junior's allowance down from a quarter to twenty cents. That ain't going to make it much easier to cover the mortgage, yanno? And at the federal level, the mortgage goes to a five-sided building.

 

[Netzach]

I'm sure there are ways that this pork could be seen as creating jobs or revenue. I really wonder if Hollywood is going to film a movie in a specific spot just because they get a tax break to do so.

If an area doesn't provide the needed scenery, they would have to create it. That costs money, too. I think they might use the tax breaks when an area has the required scenery, but I don't think they will sway their location to a less advantageous spot just to get the tax break. I know they will take the money and run, when the area does fit the necessary scene requirements, though I seriously doubt they need it.

That absolutely DOES work. And when you have to change a location's look, it's done by employed people, not money pixies.

My state had a slush fund for filming incentivization, and a rash of films were made here, in the Grumpy Old Men era. People employed.

It's gone and only the Coen Brothers have bothered in years.

I was very opposed to the Target Field taxes, because I'd seen the total fail of the 'dome to bring any economic stimulus to its area. I was outraged because TWO failed referendi were overshot by the mayor to build it anyway and keep the Twins when everyone wanted to cut the bums loose.

We were wrong. I was wrong. It's definitely a success. It's making money, it's making jobs, it's making life downtown. If federal money went into something like that, it's not going into unemployment benefits for the people who would be out of work if it wasn't there, and who knows what other social services.

The cost of a blighted neighborhood versus the cost of a tax break for a build seems to balance out.

 

[Dyslexicea]

If this post seems like I'm mad at anybody, I'm only mad because the people we voted into office can't control their spending. Somebody needs to grab their credit cards and cut them up!

Maybe it's us, we did vote for them. Maybe it's our priorities, I want to give food to those who don't have enough, somebody else wants to buy a tank. I want to help a single mother who's child's dead beat dad doesn't pay his child support, someone else wants a new football stadium.

It seems to me we care more about, things, wars and what's in it for me than we do about those who really need help.

 

[DVS]

This misses the point, I think, and so did DVS, at least my point. The fact is that ALL federal spending spreads money from my state to yours and then from yours to California and from there to Arizona and so on. And no matter where you live, someone else's congress critter appears to be spending your money on a pet project in their home state. But those pet projects are happening in your state too. And some of those pet projects are unneeded defense spending as well as minor infrastructure builds and so forth. What DVS is complaining about are usually called "earmarks" and they represent something like 1/1000 of 1% of the federal budget. Sure, we could eliminate them but that's like trying to balance a family budget by cutting Junior's allowance down from a quarter to twenty cents. That ain't going to make it much easier to cover the mortgage, yanno? And at the federal level, the mortgage goes to a five-sided building.

I've already said I don't care what the spending is labeled. Earmarks, pork, perks, it's all coming out of the same pocketbook. We have to start this somewhere. It doesn't seem like anybody cares.

 

[DVS]

That absolutely DOES work. And when you have to change a location's look, it's done by employed people, not money pixies.

My state had a slush fund for filming incentivization, and a rash of films were made here, in the Grumpy Old Men era. People employed.

It's gone and only the Coen Brothers have bothered in years.

I was very opposed to the Target Field taxes, because I'd seen the total fail of the 'dome to bring any economic stimulus to its area. I was outraged because TWO failed referendi were overshot by the mayor to build it anyway and keep the Twins when everyone wanted to cut the bums loose.

We were wrong. I was wrong. It's definitely a success. It's making money, it's making jobs, it's making life downtown. If federal money went into something like that, it's not going into unemployment benefits for the people who would be out of work if it wasn't there, and who knows what other social services.

The cost of a blighted neighborhood versus the cost of a tax break for a build seems to balance out.

I've been wrong, too. While I don't live in Missouri, the largest part of Kansas City is there. Of course, we have the richest suburbs in our state.

Anyway, the former mayor of KCMO started this new downtown renovation thing in the last couple years of her term and everybody thought it was just another money sucking project of hers, because she had "friends" who could benefit. While the friends did benefit and still are benefiting, downtown is also benefiting. I think it's slower than it should be, but there is a new district in an area that was not blighted, but it needed help. Now, the area is growing, and there are other businesses moving downtown.

Companies started renovating old textile district buildings into lofts and yuppy types are moving in. They are great spaces with 14 foot ceilings. Only the rich can afford them, but that seems to work, because they have money to spend in the other new businesses that are moving in. They still need some of the necessary things to live like in the suburbs but there is now at least one food market in operation. A few years ago, downtown was dying. Now, it's coming back.

One advantage to the new renovation downtown is it includes a lot of drinking and eating establishments. They are all within walking distance to and from the lofts, so people can go out, eat and drink and not have to worry about driving home. For some it can be a chore to walk home, though. They tend to drink more, because they don't have to worry about driving.