Only blind partisanship, extreme gullibility, or a full glass of the Kool-Aid could possibly lead someone to select satisfied. The only other explanation could be a true desire to see a fundamental shift in the very structure of our democracy.
"Government "help" to business is just as disastrous as government persecution... the only way a government can be of service to national prosperity is by keeping its hands off."
I voted "dissatisfied" but who really gives a darn. The politicians don't care what we think. Their only concern is THEIR pockets. We have Democrats on the left who want citizens beholding the HUGE government. How to pay for it, tax the rich. Of course the Democrats cry when the rich pick up their marbles and go somewhere else. The Republicans are TRYING to get things right but get beat up in trying. My thought are to H with it all and let this country go down the tubes.
Jeff, I would be more open to their ideas if they didn't include huge military spending and tax cuts without regard for a balanced budget. I think most of us could get behind something like Bowles/Simpson. While not liking everything, it’s a fair and balanced approach.
Reply to #5 and #6.
What budget/budgets has the Democratic controlled Senate passed?
000000000000.
It is time that we citizens grab our guns and march on to Washington as they used to do in the old days. The best thing to do is drag them out of the Congress and then tar and feather them as in the old days.
Well at least the current republican house actually passed budgets.
2009 - No budget DEM House DEM Senate
2010 - No budget DEM House DEM Senate
2011 - HOUSE BUDGET REP NO BUDGET SENATE DEM
2012 - HOUSE BUDGET REP NO BUDGET SENATE DEM
Incidently Jeff, you are only partially correct, true Repubs have not accomplished, but they have over 19 Bills through house most of them slashing big sections of spending, all stoopped dead in DEM controlled Senate
Charlie is right in the sense that spending prioties are different between parties, however, priorties are what the actual budget battle is about and is really the key issue.
...The same Ayn Rand who railed against social altruism, Christian concept of responsibility (love) for one's neighbor (religion in general), renounced social security and Medicare ("a hoodlum who robs and kills to acquire a yacht and champagne") and in the end collected both SSI and Medicare benefits?
Ayn Rand (Mike Wallace interview 1959) "I am primarily the creator of a new code of morality which has so far been believed impossible, namely a morality not based on faith, not on arbitrary whim, not on emotion, not on arbitrary edict, mystical or social, but on reason; a morality that can be proved by means of logic which can be demonstrated to be true and necessary.
Now may I define what my morality is? [I guess.] Since man's mind is his basic means of survival [...] he has to hold reason as an absolute, by which I mean that he has to hold reason as his only guide to action, and that he must live by the independent judgment of his own mind; that his highest moral purpose is the achievement of his own happiness [...] that each man must live as an end in himself, and follow his own rational self-interest."
One must wonder about Ayn Rand's (name borrowed from a Finnish author and the latter half of the label on her typewriter) future without government intervention. She graduated from the University of Petrograd in 1924 and studied screenwriting at the State Institute for Cinema Arts (both state sponsored). Her initial career in the U. S. was in Hollywood, marrying actor Frank O'Connor.
Ayn missed her era. Her detachment would have predisposed her to cast the pots used by ancient Greeks for neonaticide.
Interesting take CM, however, is there anyone that can be totally agreed with?
Incidently, Ayn Ran's father was a Pharmacist, he ran a drug store, she most likely would have been educated, though unlikely to have migrated to the US.
Her father's pharmacy was confiscated by the Soviets after the bolshivek revolution, thus her aversion to government's roots. I chose that quote not so much for what Rand believed, but more for what I believe. The assertion that she would not have been educated but for the government's intersesion, is absurd. No offense
"One must wonder about Ayn Rand's (name borrowed from a Finnish author and the latter half of the label on her typewriter) future without government intervention. She graduated from the University of Petrograd in 1924 and studied screenwriting at the State Institute for Cinema Arts (both state sponsored)."
Well like I said, I may have missread CM, take no offense, Ayn really isn't the issue anyway. I used her quote not because I am a rand groupie, but because that quote echoes much of how I see things government.
I have even used a qoute from your book once to make a point.
Ted, your comment about the Republicans are trying to get things right is hilarious! Both the Democrats and Republicans are to fault for the collapse of this country!
GOVERNMENT has become SELF-SERVING on both sides. I am not saying that there are not a select few on both sides that are trying but, lets face TRUTH! Our Government has become about themselves and their special interest!
Actually Tim, Islamic radicals believe that those who do not agree with them are infidels, not worthy of life.
We on the other hand believe that one can believe anything they want, even if it is in another's opinion foolish.
That said, I fear more than most things, that we have fallen into a society of emotion and unfortunately many vote that way rather than voting with sound reason.
Both satisfied AND dissatisfied. I can't remember a time when the parties were so opposed to compromise while serving the people who elected them. I'm especially disturbed with John Boehnor. He is all ready to have at it again with the budget. He is playing with fire. In the end, it will be the average citizen who will suffer.
Interesting that you blame Speaker Boehner Janice, it seems to me that the house has passed several bills to reduce spending and a budget with spending cuts, the Senate Democrats have not even allowed a bill to the floor.
The true compromise is supposed to come in conference after a Senate bill and a house bill is reconciled to become the final bill. Now if there is no Senate bill, there is no chance for compromise.
So why is the Senate not passing any budget bill or similar or even opposing bills to those of the house. It is simple, every politician up there knows that really tough choices are coming to us quickly. Last Sunday, our national debt reached 102% of GDP. And it;s an ELECTION YEAR!
John Boehner simply does not want to pass a resolution that enables us to borrow even more without facing the fiscal realities. What is wrong with that?
The true people playing with fire are those that keep insisting we keep spending and keep borrowing with out cutting. The battle isn't over cutting, it is about what priorities we establish to cut, Forget about increasing the taxes on the rich to make it up too, we passed the point where that would make a difference.
The only other immediate option would be printing more money, and I for one really don't feel like having to roll a wheelbarrow of money up to buy a loaf of bread, so we can skip that option
Mark, I'm positive you already know this but, John Boehner is just playing politics. His party controls the house so he passes things he knows the other side will not. Then he takes a hard line and refuses to negotiate. He believes it benefits his side politically. John Boehner isn't a good guy trying to fight for you, he's a politician trying to keep his party's power.
Mark, you really don't buy that party crap do you? I can understand if you like to debate but, please don't tow the line from those idiots in Washington. It's all spin.
I don't buy the party crap as a whole Charlie, and yes it is all politics, that said.
We do not have other party choices at this time, so it really boils down to which is closer to what we beleive. Currently, and specifically with issues economic and fiscal. I am not just closer with the GOP than the Dems, but way closer.
Two former Standards and Poors managers in the last week have gone on record stating our downgrade was not due to the quabling last year over raising the debt ceiling, rather was by our failure as a nation to address entitlement spending.
I know that you and I disagree on this, but fact is fact, 65% of our spending and by proxy debt is directly related to entitlements. So if we have no choice but the two parties, I will go with the one that at least attempts to address that.
I will conceed that Boehner was pressured by the 80 or so Freshman to take this tact, I happen to agree with the those freshmen on their approach.
Fact again 19 bills where passed by this new house attempting to reduce spending and two were actual budgets. You can dissagree with thier proposal all that you want, but the Dems in the senate have not even brought one to the floor. In fact, Sen Kent Conrad Demoicrat and Budget committe chair was asked monday what he has discussed with the President to try and deal with the budget, his response was ," I haven't spoken to the President about the Budget in Six Months." Yet the Highly Partisan dems like Dick Durbin, claim to speak to the President almost daily, so politics definately goes both ways.
Without a budget, all we will get is Omnibus Spending Bills that tend to increase borrowing rather than stop it.
So I say, no hard look at spending, no increase in borrowing limit, Boehner may be doing it for Political reasons, but I support his position for fiscal reasons
Great point Mark..........Charlie explain the first two years for Obama...as Mark stated..
2009 - No budget DEM House DEM Senate
2010 - No budget DEM House DEM Senate.......
Explain the Presidents budgets...99-0.......What so wrong with reducing spending.....
Where is the plan to reduce the debt......All i hear is unfunded mandates are ruining New York State......The whole federal government is run as a unfunded mandate.....Where is the money to pay for all this.......
Mark, I'm not going to defend obamas fiscal polices. In the same position, I would have embraced Simpson Bowles and pushed the freshman further down their rat hole. Fighting from a position of strength would have been a better move. The problem is we still wouldn't have had a budget, the GOP doesn't want one. They have one goal, eliminate obama.
You have mentioned that several times in the Past Charlie.....
It was Obama, Pelosi and Harry Ried however that failed to embrace Simpson/Bowles, it never even had a chance to even reach debate on the floors of either house of congress.
You can argue the theoretical all that you want, the issue at hand is what to do now. I can not under any cirrcummstance vote for a Democrat at this point, that only would restrengthen the current tract. While I have issues with many republicans, at least I see some that are making some semblance of move to the right direction fiscally.
Since I have been alive (1954) NOT ONE YEAR HAS FEDERAL SPENDING BEEN REDUCED. IN FACT EVERY YEAR IT INCREASED
I am going with the cutters this time, and I don't mean bogus cut the size of increase BS, I mean cuts. If they fail then I don't know.
Charlie i too liked the Simpson Bowles plan...Its to bad Obama didn't lead the charge on this..But as of right now there is no plan to lead us on some kind of path to stability....Obama dropped the ball ...Of course the GOP wants Obama gone..The same way the Democrats wanted to get rid of Bush,but couldn't....
Mark B, Good luck finding the "cutters". How much do you want to bet our deficit is larger after 4 years of Romney? Don't let yourself be fooled. People don't donate millions of dollars for nothing...
Mark, this comes down to social issues and war for me, Romney's is a non starter. At least we know what we have with Obama. I have no idea what Romney stands for and he doesn't either. Romney was the worst possible candidate for the GOP, he's nothing but Bush III. I already made the mistake of voting for the the last Bush, NEVER again...
Charlie, it is no secret we disagree on social issues, The is no at leats with me, I was willing to give Obama a chance in 2009 when he took office, it took 90 days before I regreted ever saying that. What we have is far from what I want, not even close.
As far as Romney goes, in 2004 I voted for Romney over Mc Cain in the primary. You state anything that you thing is fact about Romney, I will give you a fact in Romney's defense, I am appalled at outright lies I have been hearing out of the Obama camp about him so far.
I would not expect you to vote for Obama. Romney is socially more concervative than McCain as well. At the end of the day it really doesn't matter what they say about Romney, I could never get past the social issues. The rest is just politics to me, not a bit of difference between them. They will both increase the deficit, one will spend it on entitlements, the other on the military and unpaid for tax cuts. Neither canidates polices will benefit or hurt me personally.
Only blind partisanship,
Only blind partisanship, extreme gullibility, or a full glass of the Kool-Aid could possibly lead someone to select satisfied. The only other explanation could be a true desire to see a fundamental shift in the very structure of our democracy.
"Government "help" to
"Government "help" to business is just as disastrous as government persecution... the only way a government can be of service to national prosperity is by keeping its hands off."
Ayn Rand
I voted "dissatisfied" but
I voted "dissatisfied" but who really gives a darn. The politicians don't care what we think. Their only concern is THEIR pockets. We have Democrats on the left who want citizens beholding the HUGE government. How to pay for it, tax the rich. Of course the Democrats cry when the rich pick up their marbles and go somewhere else. The Republicans are TRYING to get things right but get beat up in trying. My thought are to H with it all and let this country go down the tubes.
Ted, your only problem is
Ted, your only problem is thinking the Republicans don't want HUGE government as well. They just want to spend your money on other things...
I have to agree with you
I have to agree with you Charlie, Republicans have neither accomplished nor even proposed signifigant spending reductions..
Jeff, I would be more open to
Jeff, I would be more open to their ideas if they didn't include huge military spending and tax cuts without regard for a balanced budget. I think most of us could get behind something like Bowles/Simpson. While not liking everything, it’s a fair and balanced approach.
Reply to #5 and #6. What
Reply to #5 and #6.
What budget/budgets has the Democratic controlled Senate passed?
000000000000.
It is time that we citizens grab our guns and march on to Washington as they used to do in the old days. The best thing to do is drag them out of the Congress and then tar and feather them as in the old days.
Well at least the current
Well at least the current republican house actually passed budgets.
2009 - No budget DEM House DEM Senate
2010 - No budget DEM House DEM Senate
2011 - HOUSE BUDGET REP NO BUDGET SENATE DEM
2012 - HOUSE BUDGET REP NO BUDGET SENATE DEM
Incidently Jeff, you are only partially correct, true Repubs have not accomplished, but they have over 19 Bills through house most of them slashing big sections of spending, all stoopped dead in DEM controlled Senate
Charlie is right in the sense that spending prioties are different between parties, however, priorties are what the actual budget battle is about and is really the key issue.
...The same Ayn Rand who
...The same Ayn Rand who railed against social altruism, Christian concept of responsibility (love) for one's neighbor (religion in general), renounced social security and Medicare ("a hoodlum who robs and kills to acquire a yacht and champagne") and in the end collected both SSI and Medicare benefits?
Ayn Rand (Mike Wallace interview 1959) "I am primarily the creator of a new code of morality which has so far been believed impossible, namely a morality not based on faith, not on arbitrary whim, not on emotion, not on arbitrary edict, mystical or social, but on reason; a morality that can be proved by means of logic which can be demonstrated to be true and necessary.
Now may I define what my morality is? [I guess.] Since man's mind is his basic means of survival [...] he has to hold reason as an absolute, by which I mean that he has to hold reason as his only guide to action, and that he must live by the independent judgment of his own mind; that his highest moral purpose is the achievement of his own happiness [...] that each man must live as an end in himself, and follow his own rational self-interest."
One must wonder about Ayn Rand's (name borrowed from a Finnish author and the latter half of the label on her typewriter) future without government intervention. She graduated from the University of Petrograd in 1924 and studied screenwriting at the State Institute for Cinema Arts (both state sponsored). Her initial career in the U. S. was in Hollywood, marrying actor Frank O'Connor.
Ayn missed her era. Her detachment would have predisposed her to cast the pots used by ancient Greeks for neonaticide.
Interesting take CM, however,
Interesting take CM, however, is there anyone that can be totally agreed with?
Incidently, Ayn Ran's father was a Pharmacist, he ran a drug store, she most likely would have been educated, though unlikely to have migrated to the US.
Her father's pharmacy was confiscated by the Soviets after the bolshivek revolution, thus her aversion to government's roots. I chose that quote not so much for what Rand believed, but more for what I believe. The assertion that she would not have been educated but for the government's intersesion, is absurd. No offense
I never asserted any such
I never asserted any such thing.
OH? "One must wonder about
OH?
"One must wonder about Ayn Rand's (name borrowed from a Finnish author and the latter half of the label on her typewriter) future without government intervention. She graduated from the University of Petrograd in 1924 and studied screenwriting at the State Institute for Cinema Arts (both state sponsored)."
Perhaps I misread
You invest a great deal in
You invest a great deal in the word 'wonder.'
Well like I said, I may have
Well like I said, I may have missread CM, take no offense, Ayn really isn't the issue anyway. I used her quote not because I am a rand groupie, but because that quote echoes much of how I see things government.
I have even used a qoute from your book once to make a point.
If you are going to attack
If you are going to attack Rand for being a hypocrit explain this
If you want taxes to be raised, why are you not paying more in taxes then you a required too?
In other word - "those who do
In other word - "those who do not believe exactly as I do are fools, as only I am qualified to make this type of judgement."
Funny, islamists act using the same "logic"...
Ted, your comment about the
Ted, your comment about the Republicans are trying to get things right is hilarious! Both the Democrats and Republicans are to fault for the collapse of this country!
GOVERNMENT has become SELF-SERVING on both sides. I am not saying that there are not a select few on both sides that are trying but, lets face TRUTH! Our Government has become about themselves and their special interest!
Actually Tim, Islamic
Actually Tim, Islamic radicals believe that those who do not agree with them are infidels, not worthy of life.
We on the other hand believe that one can believe anything they want, even if it is in another's opinion foolish.
That said, I fear more than most things, that we have fallen into a society of emotion and unfortunately many vote that way rather than voting with sound reason.
Both satisfied AND
Both satisfied AND dissatisfied. I can't remember a time when the parties were so opposed to compromise while serving the people who elected them. I'm especially disturbed with John Boehnor. He is all ready to have at it again with the budget. He is playing with fire. In the end, it will be the average citizen who will suffer.
Interesting that you blame
Interesting that you blame Speaker Boehner Janice, it seems to me that the house has passed several bills to reduce spending and a budget with spending cuts, the Senate Democrats have not even allowed a bill to the floor.
The true compromise is supposed to come in conference after a Senate bill and a house bill is reconciled to become the final bill. Now if there is no Senate bill, there is no chance for compromise.
So why is the Senate not passing any budget bill or similar or even opposing bills to those of the house. It is simple, every politician up there knows that really tough choices are coming to us quickly. Last Sunday, our national debt reached 102% of GDP. And it;s an ELECTION YEAR!
John Boehner simply does not want to pass a resolution that enables us to borrow even more without facing the fiscal realities. What is wrong with that?
The true people playing with fire are those that keep insisting we keep spending and keep borrowing with out cutting. The battle isn't over cutting, it is about what priorities we establish to cut, Forget about increasing the taxes on the rich to make it up too, we passed the point where that would make a difference.
The only other immediate option would be printing more money, and I for one really don't feel like having to roll a wheelbarrow of money up to buy a loaf of bread, so we can skip that option
Mark, I'm positive you
Mark, I'm positive you already know this but, John Boehner is just playing politics. His party controls the house so he passes things he knows the other side will not. Then he takes a hard line and refuses to negotiate. He believes it benefits his side politically. John Boehner isn't a good guy trying to fight for you, he's a politician trying to keep his party's power.
Mark, you really don't buy that party crap do you? I can understand if you like to debate but, please don't tow the line from those idiots in Washington. It's all spin.
I don't buy the party crap as
I don't buy the party crap as a whole Charlie, and yes it is all politics, that said.
We do not have other party choices at this time, so it really boils down to which is closer to what we beleive. Currently, and specifically with issues economic and fiscal. I am not just closer with the GOP than the Dems, but way closer.
Two former Standards and Poors managers in the last week have gone on record stating our downgrade was not due to the quabling last year over raising the debt ceiling, rather was by our failure as a nation to address entitlement spending.
I know that you and I disagree on this, but fact is fact, 65% of our spending and by proxy debt is directly related to entitlements. So if we have no choice but the two parties, I will go with the one that at least attempts to address that.
I will conceed that Boehner was pressured by the 80 or so Freshman to take this tact, I happen to agree with the those freshmen on their approach.
Fact again 19 bills where passed by this new house attempting to reduce spending and two were actual budgets. You can dissagree with thier proposal all that you want, but the Dems in the senate have not even brought one to the floor. In fact, Sen Kent Conrad Demoicrat and Budget committe chair was asked monday what he has discussed with the President to try and deal with the budget, his response was ," I haven't spoken to the President about the Budget in Six Months." Yet the Highly Partisan dems like Dick Durbin, claim to speak to the President almost daily, so politics definately goes both ways.
Without a budget, all we will get is Omnibus Spending Bills that tend to increase borrowing rather than stop it.
So I say, no hard look at spending, no increase in borrowing limit, Boehner may be doing it for Political reasons, but I support his position for fiscal reasons
Great point
Great point Mark..........Charlie explain the first two years for Obama...as Mark stated..
2009 - No budget DEM House DEM Senate
2010 - No budget DEM House DEM Senate.......
Explain the Presidents budgets...99-0.......What so wrong with reducing spending.....
Where is the plan to reduce the debt......All i hear is unfunded mandates are ruining New York State......The whole federal government is run as a unfunded mandate.....Where is the money to pay for all this.......
Mark, I'm not going to defend
Mark, I'm not going to defend obamas fiscal polices. In the same position, I would have embraced Simpson Bowles and pushed the freshman further down their rat hole. Fighting from a position of strength would have been a better move. The problem is we still wouldn't have had a budget, the GOP doesn't want one. They have one goal, eliminate obama.
You have mentioned that
You have mentioned that several times in the Past Charlie.....
It was Obama, Pelosi and Harry Ried however that failed to embrace Simpson/Bowles, it never even had a chance to even reach debate on the floors of either house of congress.
You can argue the theoretical all that you want, the issue at hand is what to do now. I can not under any cirrcummstance vote for a Democrat at this point, that only would restrengthen the current tract. While I have issues with many republicans, at least I see some that are making some semblance of move to the right direction fiscally.
Since I have been alive (1954) NOT ONE YEAR HAS FEDERAL SPENDING BEEN REDUCED. IN FACT EVERY YEAR IT INCREASED
I am going with the cutters this time, and I don't mean bogus cut the size of increase BS, I mean cuts. If they fail then I don't know.
Charlie i too liked the
Charlie i too liked the Simpson Bowles plan...Its to bad Obama didn't lead the charge on this..But as of right now there is no plan to lead us on some kind of path to stability....Obama dropped the ball ...Of course the GOP wants Obama gone..The same way the Democrats wanted to get rid of Bush,but couldn't....
Mark B, Good luck finding the
Mark B, Good luck finding the "cutters". How much do you want to bet our deficit is larger after 4 years of Romney? Don't let yourself be fooled. People don't donate millions of dollars for nothing...
So instead I should support
So instead I should support the college professor that I disagree with about 98% on policy? No one has ever called you synical have they Charlie;)
Mark, this comes down to
Mark, this comes down to social issues and war for me, Romney's is a non starter. At least we know what we have with Obama. I have no idea what Romney stands for and he doesn't either. Romney was the worst possible candidate for the GOP, he's nothing but Bush III. I already made the mistake of voting for the the last Bush, NEVER again...
Charlie, it is no secret we
Charlie, it is no secret we disagree on social issues, The is no at leats with me, I was willing to give Obama a chance in 2009 when he took office, it took 90 days before I regreted ever saying that. What we have is far from what I want, not even close.
As far as Romney goes, in 2004 I voted for Romney over Mc Cain in the primary. You state anything that you thing is fact about Romney, I will give you a fact in Romney's defense, I am appalled at outright lies I have been hearing out of the Obama camp about him so far.
I would not expect you to
I would not expect you to vote for Obama. Romney is socially more concervative than McCain as well. At the end of the day it really doesn't matter what they say about Romney, I could never get past the social issues. The rest is just politics to me, not a bit of difference between them. They will both increase the deficit, one will spend it on entitlements, the other on the military and unpaid for tax cuts. Neither canidates polices will benefit or hurt me personally.