The budget battle continues, but what lies behind it? Is America's political system fundamentally broken? And what does the ideal budget look like anyway?
Fareed Zakaria says solutions are out there, but they are not ideological ones. Posturing serves nobody's interests. What America needs is a pragmatic approach to getting its fiscal house in order. Here's the conversation:
Amar C. Bakshi: Does this potential shutdown prove our government is broken? If so, what should be done to fix it?
Fareed Zakaria: I think it proves that our political system is broken - the political parties are broken.
It used to be that in Congress you became famous by creating big, bipartisan deals and passing big, bipartisan legislation. There was an understanding that you were solving problems. You were never going to get exactly what you wanted but it’s a country of 300 million people and not everyone agrees with you and it was important to get some progress.
Right now the way you become famous in Congress seems to be to actually not do a deal - to show that you have stood up to the evil forces on the other side.
You can see that most vividly on the Tea Party. The Tea Party’s constituency, or its base, clearly seems to be more interested in them not actually doing a deal than in them doing a deal. This is ultimately puzzling because the Tea Party is real - I give them a lot of credit for raising the issues they have raised.
But they are one segment of the country. Unless they believe that they should have the ability to - by some kind of dictatorial fiat - impose their will on the rest of the country, then they’re going to have to give and that’s the part that seems to be lost here. That’s the part which says, “Okay, you know our preference is for 10; yours is for 50; so how about 25?” And you make a deal and you split the difference that way.
Is this a systemic problem?
Part of it is the political system where you have redistricting, which has meant that you have safer constituencies, which means that the only thing politicians worry about is primary challenges and not general election challenges. Ninety-percent of the House seats are safe in that sense.
You have fund-raising which now comes increasingly from the extremes of the parties rather than from the center. And you have the narrowcasting of media, so that if some Republican were to say something suspiciously moderate sounding, it would be denounced by Rush Limbaugh the next day; then, maybe, there would be a primary challenge the day after that; and then funding may start drying up the day after that.
This is not an imaginary situation. Friends of mine who are in Congress who are Republicans have told me this is precisely what happens and, of course, you see it with Orrin Hatch playing out in real life.
So I think that it’s a really serious, long-term problem that actually dwarfs the short-term gimmickry of the budget shutdown.
What would your plan for the budget look like?
I think that the solution to the budget is actually relatively straightforward, with one caveat. What I would do is this: I would eliminate almost all tax deductions, loopholes and what are called “tax expenditures,” which are effectively giveaways in the tax code that are almost always in return for campaign contributions.
The reason the American tax code is 14,000 pages long is that it is a series of giveaways to campaign contributors. And so if you get rid of that the Simpson-Bowles Commission estimates you can get almost a trillion and a half dollars, or you can reduce rates. I would rather, for now, just keep the money to pay down the debt.
I would put in a value-added tax because there’s simply no way you can sustain Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security when you’re going to have double the number of people on it in 10 years without some increased revenues.
Once you’ve done those two things I think you have to very significantly restructure American entitlements and cut government spending. I think that for Social Security, the retirement age needs to be raised. You need means testing. You need to index it in a different way than it is indexed now so that you don’t have ever-rising benefits. You need to look at discretionary spending very carefully. You need to cut defense spending. There’s no way around it.
And the caveat?
And then the big caveat I say is healthcare - Medicare in general. That’s the 800-pound gorilla. That’s the one that you really have to get right. And I’ll be honest with you: I don’t know. I don’t think anyone has a silver bullet.
I think that some of the stuff the Obama health plan does is very interesting - cost controls that should be looked at. I think some of the stuff that Paul Ryan talks about, which is effectively forcing the consumer to pay more and therefore to be more cost-conscious, is a good idea.
And why does it have to be one or the other? I think that any expert you talk to will tell you that probably the solution for healthcare will be some combination of a variety of efforts that are geared towards cost controls and that frankly it’ll be a trial-and-error process. We’ll find out what works and then we can do more of one and less of the other.
As I said, it’s a pretty simple set of solutions - that is to say you cannot have revenue at 18-percent of GDP and sustain the kind of government we have had for the last 50 years.
On the other hand you cannot have entitlements grow the way they’re growing. They’ll bankrupt the entire country. So you got to do a little of everything. You’ve got to raise some taxes. You’ve got to cut some spending and you’ve got to cut entitlements.
To try to find some kind of perfect ideological solution in the midst of what is a $1.5 trillion budget seems crazy. You’re going to have to be pragmatic and do a little bit of everything.
How dire is our budget problem?
I think it’s important for people to understand we have a long-term problem. The United States has a long-term economic crisis. It has an unemployment crisis. But it does not have a dire short-term crisis and people shouldn’t panic.
The United States is recovering rather nicely from a very bad recession. It is probably going to grow faster than almost any developed economy in the world this year. It has no trouble borrowing. American borrowing costs have declined over the last three years.
It has probably had the most effective Central Bank in the world over the last three or four years. The Federal Reserve has managed this crisis better than the European Central Bank or the Japanese Central Bank or any other Central Bank that had a crisis to deal with. The [U.S] Treasury has handled its banks much better than the Europeans did. Our stress tests were real. TARP [Troubled Asset Relief Program] is going to turn a profit, if we get lucky.
So you know the reality is that the United States is not in some kind of dire, short-term problem like Greece or Portugal. The U.S. has a significant long-term problem that has to be addressed. But right now I feel as though people think that we are already in the midst of the seventh circle of hell, whereas, in fact, if you look at the financial markets, they’re telling us is that the U.S. economy is surprisingly vibrant.
Do you think confidence could suddenly collapse in the United States and the dollar?
There would have to be some forcing event. Everything about Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, people know. The markets are not unaware that we have these long-term problems.
They’re also aware that most other countries and most other rich countries also face problems and that we have some advantages. We have huge demographic advantages that other countries don’t. We have the reality of a dollar that is the reserve currency of the world, which is going to persist for some foreseeable time in the future.
I’m not trying to say that this window will last forever. But we have five years, not five months to fix this.
 |
Post by: |
© 2011 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Contact us | Work for us | Help
"I think it proves that our political system is broken – the political parties are broken." So let's fix the system? WHAT IF voters got to VOTE on a revolution that would change the system of our government from an adversarial system to a cooperative system? Why should voters not be able to vote on a revolution? What would this look like to YOU? Here's my layperson's attempt at what it would look like to me: http://www.JeffBlock2012.com
They had to closed the federal government because the liberals are that out of touch with average Americans. Sad.
liberals AND conservatives. neither side is compromising. neither side is in touch with average Americans. I don't know about you, but every average American I know want a compromise. Sad
Tom, please! People who form opinions without honest, introspective, or open thinking behind them, are a much bigger part of the problem. Liberals *are* ordinary Americans. Conservatives *are* ordinary Americans. There are over 100-million of each! Hanging onto an ideological bubble, and refusing to understand or admit that ALL citizens have valid concerns and real stakes in what our legislators do, regardless of which party they belong to, is so unproductive!
Tom, really? Really? You are the problem. All you do is blame. How lame. And how is it that the party (DEMS) who tries to help the most Americans by creating jobs, offering social programs etc. are out of touch? I guess they are out of touch with the small number of rich Americans who get everything. Go away we don't need any more of your uninformed posts.
Obama always offers concessions before the negotiations begin and never walks away from his deals with anything to show for it.
It is republicans who screw up the economy and who go for unjustified wars.
Your post proves that conservatives are out of touch
Wow, did you even read the article above? What's sad is how out of touch that comment is. The liberals have control over nothing in this country. The reason we were threatened with a government shutdown is exactly because of what Zakaria said – the Tea Party idiots and Republicans have no idea how to compromise. The same can't be said about the Democrats, since they're pretty much willing to compromise on anything, apparently.
What's sad is your need to tell yourself the problem is "them," not "us."
I'm down for blaming Canada...I'm a member of the blame Canada first crowd.
Your post just reinforces how "average" you are. Proud "average" Americans are what the TeaTards/GOP count on to buy their BS since they think they have something in common. Yes, let's glorify the ordinary, ask no questions, and get poorer. It's insane when people continue to vote against their own interests in the name of paranoia, the Bible, or the myth of the American dream. You will always be "average", Tom. Good for you. Mull this over while your TV dinner heats up in the microwave.
So you're saying I'm not an average American. Please speak for yourself and stop acting like the country is on your side.
I think that both parties have forgotten they are supposed to represent AMERICANS not Republicans and Democrats. Things I'd like to see to happen to start fixing the system. 1) Outlaw proffesional lobiest. If a person or group wants to push a bill, they should do it themselves, not hire someone to do it. 2) Make it illegial to hide things in bills. If a bill is about the defense budget or energy, then it should be against the law to tack ANYTHING to it that does specifically apply to that subject. ie no more hiding bridges in the middle of nowhere in Defense bills or tax breaks for Joes Oil Supply in an education bill. If you want that tax break then put it on it's own bill. Make each piece of spending or legislature stand on it's own merits. Then when they have (rep or dem) has to take credit for the proposals they make instead of hiding them, we might see some responsible actions. just my two cents worth.
As Fareed Zakaria stated, both parties are to blame for facilitating an environment that discourages cooperation and bipartisanship in our political system.
For you to assert that "liberals are out of touch" is a baseless claim when both extreme ends of the spectrum are to blame.
Tom, maybe you should think before you write. Conservatives are the ideological group that wants to rid oil companies, millionaires and billionaires from paying taxes like the rest of us while complaining about the national debt, but "liberals are out of touch"? You are just as clueless as a newborn baby. Too much Fox "News" has dumped you down buddy.
@Tom
Brainwashed moron who only can see the bad ole Dems
but his wonderful Republicans can do no wrong.
Too many people like this destroy this country.
Tom, get your head out of the sand, did you not read the article? And the government isn't closed, they finally got it done. How does the crow taste?
The fact is, anybody who is an ideologue today is part of the problem. Anybody who doesn't base their ideas on pragmatic thinking is looking for simplistic, one-sided solutions to highly complex issues. Right now, most of the ideologues are on the right in the form of the Tea Party. Ideologues are notoriously unwilling to compromise because they are held hostage by rigidity and tunnel vision. They also tend to objectify people, which is why many on the right appear to have no compassion for the poor, disabled and elderly. Those on the left frequently get pushed even further to the left when confronted by extremism on the right. The only exception to that has been the President, who seems to be losing the tug-of-war with Republicans in Congress. He's too willing to compromise and, with this historically huge cut in spending during a severe recession, he has crossed the center line.
I agree that both sides are broken – it seems neither side listens to the people they are supposed to be serving! For the past couple of years the public has been suffering...many many lost jobs and so couldn't save for the future and did not add to their social security for the future either. These people are going to suffer more when they reach retirement age. Do you not care? You should care because no matter how you change the system and no matter how much you change Medicare/Medicaid if these people can't afford insurance they will undoubtedly show up in hospital emergency rooms and become an added burden on the taxpayers! Everyone wants to pay down the deficit yet we keep on borrowing for useless warss! We need to honestly prepare this country for the future...but this country has to do the one thing that ALL major countries have already done....national healthcare – whether you like the words or not it needs to be done in order to take care of your taxpaying base! Raise taxes, stop being the policemen of the world and stop giving tax breaks to the rich and the huge corporations – stop all the pet projects that serve nobody – stop spending foolishly! I'm just a retired gray haired old lady at the end of my path here. These are my honest opinions of what I see around me.
Zakaria's simplistic analysis fails to account for the effects of the last 70 plus years of so called compromise. If all there is left is to blame, blame ourselves for believing the elected will act in our interest. They haven't and they won't. We must stop being so reliant on their promises and more so on ourselves. Or, shall we just point the finger until it's way too late?
Did you read the article? It doesn't seem like you have actually learned anything.
are you claiming the "average americans" want to shut down government over funding for Planned Parenthood, and gut public education? I don't think so.
The comment that liberals are the cause of our current state shows a lack of intellect and understanding of history. Common idiots who make such statements are able to do so as a result of "liberals" who were at the signing of the Magna Carta, with Washington at Valley Forge, with the Blue at Gettsburg, etc. Possibly the author would have preferred to be with the conservatives in Berlin with Hitler.
Your an idiot!!
Difficult time keeping a civil tongue in my mouth, metaphorically speaking, with all the tripe posted above...
Why is it that Zakaria only thinks the system is broken only after Republicans prevail. Nothing wrong at all with the process and/or results in the passage of the healthcare legislation?!?
@Jen in Boston - Liberals are "ordinary people" who think the folks who've worked and taken risks, for the most part, owe everyone else a living by way of there tax payments. And by the way, 100M of each is, I think, a pretty significant overestimation in terms of liberal numbers.
@Scott - The only thing the Democrat Party offers is continued slavery by virtue of their social programs... Businesses/entreprenuers/risk-taker - those are the people who create jobs, not the Democrat Party. Continued dependency, akin to that provided by a drug dealer, is all the Democrats offer.
@VGII - You're just a moron.
@RG - and yet they were elected in droves in the last election. Must be just lotsa dumb voters out there.
@Jordan N. - Another moron! Apparently even when they controlled Congress and the Presidency they didn't control anything because they were unable to pass a simple budget controlling the House, 59 seats in the Senate and the White House.
@wasup - I'm with you!!
@Beau - This, coming from a representative of the fools who think the smart thing is to tax accomplishment into into oblivion. Your obvious elitism would be funny were it not so sad. We bow to your exceptionalism, moron.
@corporatism - Please, by all means, get your head out of your ass. You live in a country where the lower 47% of wage earners have their taxes paid by the rest of us. Do some research. Find out which percentile of taxpayers pay the majority of the income tax in this country. Stoopid!!
@DM - Are you even vaguely aware of the increase in future obligations the '08 crew of Democrats foisted on future generations?? Where were you when Obama, Reid and Pelosi were shoving ObamaCare down the country's throat. No problem with that I guess.
@JohnR - you almost had me there. Right up until you start blathering about Obama crossing the centerline. Incredibly rich.
@Patricia - How sad... If you think that being out of a job for 2 years should severely alter you're ability to live in retirement you are so terribly short-sighted. Over a lifetime anyone who is thinking or planning seriously for a comfortable retirement should already be planning for rough patches. I pay for my healthcare. I planned for it. I did without; I worked 2 and 3 jobs at a time. When I retire 2 years from now, I'll be doing just fine without Social Security, unless, of course, people like you are successful in stealing from me in taxes that which I've struggled to accumulate over the last 50 years.
@Bernie - Well Said!!!!!!!
@rker– You're assuming there's something there to be learned. There isn't.
-Dg
David,
HAHA!! You seriously think Hitler was a conservative? Anyone who thinks Hitler was a conservative is completely ignorant of any truth. Whoever the idiot was that tried to compare Bush and others to Hitler has no idea what Hitler tried to do. Hitler and Stalin tried to implement a society that was completely controlled by the government. If I remember correctly I thought the conservative "Tea Party" side was all about a smaller federal government.... Exactly the opposite of what Hitler did... Brush up on your history Dave.
Just to back up what John had to say to David...
Nazi - Member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party
Hardly a conservative outfit.
-Dg
@DeadGuy: "Liberals are "ordinary people" who think the folks who've worked and taken risks, for the most part, owe everyone else a living by way of there tax payments."
People who believe these kinds of stereotypes are just lying to themselves to avoid dealing with realities they don't like.
@ DeadGuy: The first think the Nazis did when they came to power was put the real socialists and communists in concentration camps. And how did Hitler come to be Chancellor? Conservatives and business leaders pressured Hindenburg to make Hitler Chancellor because they favored the Nazis over the communists and socialists.
Tom, unfortunately it was both parties that brought this mess with deregulation on the financial industry allowing for the CDOs and derivatives, in addition GW increased our debt to 10.6 trillion, from 5.6 trillion when he took office. Using the word liberal or conservative just shows your inability to understand either side. As an independent I can see that both parties spend too much time catering to the special interest instead of support the very people who voted them into office. Most liberals I know think they are serving and helping people lesser than themselves. However, most conservatives feel that everyone should pull their boot straps up and struggle along. Maybe there are times that people need help and deserve it from our government. That is why majority doesn't always rule on either party.
silvani
Your an idiot!!
SERIOUSLY?!?!? Who are you to call ANYONE an idiot? This is the problem with all our society. It has nothing to do with what party you are a part of, what social level you come from, or where you were born. It is the rude, condescending, boarish way we treat each other. I have looked at all the posts to Tom's comment, and it makes me sad for the future of our country.
Tom's post was out of line, I will conceed that, but there is no reason to call him an idiot. Before you disparage someone else's opinion (American RIGHT) look in the mirror and decide if you would appreciate the same treatment. ITS CALLED THE GOLDEN RULE!!! No one treats anyone like they want to be treated, so we have become a nation of @$$holes that the rest of the world hates. Get a clue. We are all humans, we all breathe the same air, we listen to the same sounds, we taste the same things, we see the same stuff. To call someone an idiot, or disparaging someone for expressing their opinions in a forum where that is encouraged, is the foremost obvious sign that you are part of the problem.
If you have a problem with comething someone has said, act like you have a brain, and point out what you think is wrong with the post, and offer an alternative that, i don't know, MAYBE the person hasn't thought of.
If all you have to say is that someone is an idiot, that is your right as a user of this site, but it also shows you have no solution to the issues at hand, and you should probably keep your comments to yourself.
"They had to closed?" What is truly sad is that you cannot write even one correct sentence.
As such a referendum must make it past both the GOP and the democrats to make it to the ballot, your wish is meaningless. The ONLY vote now would be for a full scale insurrection, something nobody in their right mind wishes for.
Many years ago, a civil war COULD be an option, but in this nuclear armed world, it is a calamity in the waiting.
As far as the "the left cannot compromise", NOBODY should compromise on RIDERS that pass something objectionable into law when it is TOTALLY unrelated.
A point that I WOULD raise arms up to back up.
Now, do you want to play? I can gather 350 SF personnel RIGHT NOW that'll back me. I can raise even more infantry, from our own Armed Forces or recent discharged personnel and retirees.
So, sonny, do you REALLY want to play? We'd have 10000 in three days. Add in the VFW and American Legion ranks, do you REALLY want to play?
I was TRAINED to do such things for OUR nation. I COULD bring that training out of retirement of a year to support our nation FOR REAL again.
It's something I've been arguing against myself for three days over.
So, do you REALLY want to play?
Are you married? Thank you for your service. You are a the light of wisdom and of truth in a sewer of ignorance.
wow! what a patriot you are...ready to strike down your fellow citizen because he exercised a little civil disobedience, or heaven forbid, spoke out against the governement...just remember who paid your salary all those years. it was that civilian taypayer that you so despise
obama scared !!!
Jesus, do you ever have delusions of grandeur. You might get your dog to back you up, but 10,000 retired VFW drunks? I highly doubt it.
Face it folks, this country is OVER. The middle class is dead.
The idiots are running wild & the stooges are calling all the shots. Your children's prospects & standard of living will be much worse than yours, and we haven't even hit bottom yet. Time for the smart people to get the hell out of here.
This is to Wzrd 1
Do you really think your friggin mouth and "bring it on attitude" is going to get you anywhere. You really sound like a gutless wonder, a barking poodle who runs and hides when someone is more than ready and willing to take you on. I am a Hawk of the worst kind. History has taught me one good lesson that served me well where ever I was fighting for this country. I could care less if the fight is justifiable or not. The object is to win, period. This country is up to it's eyeballs in DEBT to the Chinese. By some accounts we will not long in the future be spending up to 18-25 cents per each dollar on paying the INTEREST on our debt, and you have the huevos to complain about some bull crap RIDER. How honorable of you. You probably don't get it. Everyone, you, I and the man in the moon is going to get hit hard in the wallet to help straighten out this mess.
Am I crazy, or are threatening to start a rebellion? People who serve in the military deserve much respect, but that does not mean they have immunity from losing it. What does it matter how you serve our country in the past when you desire to betray it now?
Go back to your drink, sarge. Sure you could muster up a whole regiment of fat vets who I'm sure would just love to go play war again. Arm them all with popguns and turn 'em loose, right? Don't trip on your way to the can now!
What a nut job.
FtM... some of us haven't given up our country yet, but if you dislike it so much. Please, don't let the door hit you on the way out. I'm sure your attitude won't be missed.
Hey Wzrd
There is a difference between a patriot and a terrorist.
You sound like a terrorist.
Dont get your way so you take to weapons.
Sounds like you want a dictatorship.
Wzrd1 – from one vet to another, your words are disgraceful. You should be ashamed of yourself. And you severely overestimate the support you would get. I am one of the veterans who actually believed in the oath I took SIX times over the course of my career. You'd be fighting me and hundreds of thousands (millions?) just like me.
Somebody please call the crazymobile and have this one checked. Wzrd, you do NOT have the right to speak on behalf of any other service member or veteran and spew your hateful garbage. Get back to rehab and can it! You have no respect for yourself, service members, or our country. I don't know why I'm wasting my time, because you probably wrote from a brigg or nuthouse.
I want to thank you for your service....however, there's a better way to get a point across to the government. Collect all your friends and have them collect all their friends. Contact all the media and then go and silently stand in front of the Capitol with signs reading "I'm an American – I demand to be heard!" "This is my country too – I demand to be heard!" that would go much much farther than any revolution!
@Wzrd1, idiot, you are nothing but a keyboard punk hiding in your fat momma's basement. I am retired military and would work with our government to execute, hunt and exterminate your 10,000 morons. Just shut the hell up and take your meds. You never served and if you did you were a coward along with your so called army. If you even fantasize about the BS you posted you would be dealt with. Neocon punk.
Oh my @Wzrd1: To say you are the largest nut job to post on these boards is an understatement. You will be better off kicking the drug habbit and stop being in the land of illusions. I have a better suggestion for, since you are so strung out on killing people; start with yourself first and make sure your aim is dead on. Rid yourself of your ignorance, hate and selfish stupor; perhaps in your next life you will return as a snake.
Ftm would be right: This country is OVER. Also, that the "smart" people get the hell out. I did. I'm living in La Paz Mexico watching the USA unravel at a rather alarming rate. You don't have much time.
A professional military is capable of much mischief. We must bring back the draft, otherwise professional soldiers might be induced to providing arms for a military coup. Given the conservative nature of most military personnel, it will not be good for a progressive future. Previous military support for corporations and "order", have devastated societies and the legal system. Look no further than South and Central America.
The reason the ordinary Egyptian military soldiers supported or tolerated the civilian uprisings (at least in the immediate past) is that the ordinary soldier is not a professional and will not target citizens. Not so for the ideologically-driven professionals with their own separate "vision" for the country.
Fareed Zakaria knows nothing. Tea Party activists get a bad rap by the liberal media all the time because they are a breed of human that is no longer seen in todays younger generation. These people are upset because they're culture and way of life is being destroyed by those who object to the first and second amendments and to the increasing importance of political correctness in todays society. Noone is allowed to say whats on there mind for fear of persecution or assumptions that they are hate mongering racists. How would you like it if your little suburb was told to lower your apartment complex prices so that minorities can afford them. They are tired of being put on the back burner so that america can be a more fundamentally DIVERSE nation. Today thats the only IMPORTANT thing...DIVERSITY. It's rubbish, its not about the color of your skin, it should be about the content of your character aye? so why is there special legislation for minorities, and scholarships for only minorities. That does nothing but create more segregation, however its not degenerative to the minorities, but to whites. Nobody gives a shit i know but seriously people who are over 44 were alive when martin luther king was murdered. Life was different back then, just wait 30 years from now and we'll see how you feel about the newly correct american society. We might not even be allowed to say anything malicious about anyone, who knows. But the fact of the matter is this generation will be misunderstood by the next generation because of the societal changes. So moral of the story is quit condemning the tea party, quit calling people racists all the time, and maybe work towards making america a better place. Not by handing anything to everybody, but by teaching people who to fish for themselves.
Also Wzrd1 you are not tought, quit acting tough, quit acting like your special and quit acting high an mighty, time to mature up buddy
@ConcernedCitizen: "Fareed Zakaria knows nothing."
And I'm supposed to believe someone posting anonymously on the Internet as "ConcernedCitizen" knows a lot more. Yeah, right.
"Tea Party activists get a bad rap by the liberal media all the time because they are a breed of human that is no longer seen in todays younger generation."
Bulltooky.
"These people are upset because they're culture and way of life is being destroyed by those who object to the first and second amendments"
More bulltooky.
"Noone is allowed to say whats on there mind for fear of persecution or assumptions that they are hate mongering racists."
I say what's on mine all the time and don't fear any of that.
"How would you like it if your little suburb was told to lower your apartment complex prices so that minorities can afford them."
Oh no, no racism here. ROFLMAO
"They are tired of being put on the back burner so that america can be a more fundamentally DIVERSE nation. Today thats the only IMPORTANT thing...DIVERSITY."
Are you going hungry? Are you making less than the average minority person of your age and gender? Is your net worth lower than his? Please elaborate on your suffering. We just love to listen to people whine.
"It's rubbish, its not about the color of your skin, it should be about the content of your character aye? so why is there special legislation for minorities, and scholarships for only minorities."
Because the playing field isn't as level in practice as it is in theory.
"That does nothing but create more segregation, however its not degenerative to the minorities, but to whites."
Which must explain why whites have a lower unemployment rate, are more likely to have health insurance, have a greater net worth, live longer, have a wide range of better health care outcomes. Those white people are just so downtrodden, kind of like trickle "down" actually trickles income up.
"people who are over 44 were alive when martin luther king was murdered. Life was different back then,"
Different how? Blacks knew their place? Name any point in history in the past 200 years when life wasn't different than it was 30 years before. Time only moves forward. Even Queen Sarah can't make time go in reverse.
"just wait 30 years from now and we'll see how you feel about the newly correct american society. We might not even be allowed to say anything malicious about anyone, who knows."
Yes, I'm sure that's your big concern. Relax. I'm sure that if we have a black or Latino president in 30 years you'll be able to claim he doesn't have a birth certificate and was born in Kenya or Mexico.
"But the fact of the matter is this generation will be misunderstood by the next generation because of the societal changes. So moral of the story is quit condemning the tea party, quit calling people racists all the time, and maybe work towards making america a better place."
Has it ever occurred to you that your idea of a "better place" may not be everyone's?
"Not by handing anything to everybody, but by teaching people who to fish for themselves."
In my experience people like you think teaching someone to fish for himself consists of showing him all your fish and telling him he'll starve to death if he doesn't go catch some of his own.
"Also Wzrd1 you are not tought, quit acting tough, quit acting like your special and quit acting high an mighty, time to mature up buddy"
Dear clueless: Your entire comment is why people have such a bad opinion of people in the Tea Party. You don't need any help from the liberal media. You just need exposure.
You are so funny!
Oh come on, the only arms you'd raise is the one holding a can of beer.
Jeff, I admit I've only read through 2 1/2 of your tabs so far, but I love Love LOVE that you have taken the time to think a new idea out, put it up where people can share it, and continue to tinker with it "(originally written on July 4, 2009 – many edits since then"). Really, kudos to you! In answer to one of your website's questions, my triumvirate could be Warren Buffet, David Gergen, and David Petreus, I think. Or how about John McCain, Ed Markey, and Sandra Day O'Connor? That could be neat! By the way, have you read Larry Sabato's "A More Perfect Constitution"?
get a room , next to obama
Thanks for your reply. Larry Sabato, Paul Kennedy (Yale – The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers), Sanford Levinson (University of Texas- Our Undemocratic Constitution) and Fareed are all examples of people who hit the bullseye with their analysis of broken politics and it's core problem of our Constitution (Articles 1, 2, 3, 4), BUT none of them put forth a fix to the system other than one form or other of "politicians have to start behaving differently..."
I present a MECHANISM for fixing broken politics, and yes, it's a revolution. At this moment in time JeffBlock2012.com does not have "legs" – what it would take for example is one of the 4 I just mentioned and 10 to 25 high profile people with political interest to come on board...
Great book...should be read by everyone who has a serious interest in moving the country forward.
Hmm...By re-writing the Law book it's they only way no loop-hole can be expose changing it can be a problem Time have change my friends (-_-)
I agree that system is broke, it is total irresponsible that those in control of the system are not held accountable and ordinary government suffer the brunt of their decisions. I have a suggestion, change the elections dates for all congress men and senators to 15 days after the budget is due. If they are unwilling to compromise and do their job we can vote them out and find politicians who are willing to work together for the good of the country.
The only problem is that the current date for elections is already 30+ days after the budget is due on Sept. 30 of every year. Moving the date to mid-October from early November would make no difference. However, voting out the incumbents based on their failure to pass a budget is a great idea. WE just have to have the will to blame each and every member of Congress and hold each and every one of them accountable.
@jeffblock2012 Interesting ideas! Kudos for proposing true change, even if I'm not yet convinced it would solve all of the problems.
It would definitely not include any political party affiliation on the ballot or in candidate advertising. Oh no! People would have to actually vote on a candidate's individual platform without any easy, color-coded "answer key". The horror.
OBAMA
this article is a joke. He says he has friends and that are repubicans. I seriously doubt it. Obama and his looney's are so out of touch it is incredible how brain washed you are minions are.
Voters do get to vote on a revolution. Our entire system is capable of being changed by voting under current rules. People have essentially voted against a revolution so far but I think it's clear something's got to give.
Hi Mike – no, voters only get to vote on putting new people into a broken system. The system can only be changed by the system. For example, let's say voters wanted to go to a mono-cameral government, only one chamber, so close down the House of Representatives. How would voters do this? To close the House requires the vote of the House and Senate! Same with things like term limits and balanced budget amendment. Do you think ANY voter would vote against a balanced budget amendment? But voters don't get to vote on a balanced budget amendment.
Jeff, you keep leaving out the obvious method for changing the system – amendments! That's how citizens change (and have changed) the Constitution – and therefore the system – since it was signed. And there's a reason why it's not easy to do – you don't want to be able to change the way the government operates or the rights people have on a whim, or based on large states versus small states. If you don't like the Constitution, get enough people to form a Constitutional Convention and get it changed. Otherwise you must work within the system that has worked pretty damned well since the Constitution's ratification.
The only thing I ask of people is that they don't go to the voting booth with vehement hatred in their minds. We all need to vote pragmatically and for the person we each think will do the best job. Yes, stand up for what you believe in but at the same time you need to afford others a degree of respect...no matters how crazy their ideas might sound (or might be). This shouldn't be about "glory" or winning "political points." Sooner or later we're going to have to fix these problems....but it will impossible if we all take extreme stances and refer to one another as "repugs", or "democraps", or "teabaggers"....or "those other people"
Well, what good is that when the guy you vote for decides to block say the publc option that you and two thirds of the country want and probably need? The problem isnt vitriol, the problem is lawmakers going to Congress and not representing the people who elected them.
This is just silly. As long as we have elections why would we need a revolution? That's just stupid talk.
Our biggest problem is that the electorate by and large fails to educate itself about issues. People take all manner of positions about issues they don't understand and then pressure their representatives to pursue those positions. And since keeping constituents happy is the key to getting reelected politicians end up advocating radically different, often irrational positions to pander to their constituents. If you don't get the electorate to take their responsibility to educate themselves seriously it won't matter what changes you implement to government or if you replaced every single member of Congress.
People were VERY educated about Obama, but he has decided to try to play the game better rather than change the way Washington works. Record numbers of people decided to actually vote in 2008, but it has been three years and they simply do not have much to show for it. If any change is going to come it is almost certainly going to come from the states. I envision a governor by governor push to ratify a constitutional amendment to circumvent the ink blot which is Citizens United v. FEC.
Obama may be president, but there's only so much even the president can do to change how Washington works. He doesn't have magic powers.
That statement is true, but it sounds like a cop out answer. Sure Obama cant do everything or wave a magic wand to make everything better, but he certainly didnt help by going behind the scenes and making dubious backroom deals with insurance companies. Everybody hailed his meeting at the Chamber of Commerce as a diplomatic step toward the business community but we see that GE still has not paid any taxes in 2010. Did those business guys make anything better or propose any worthwhile initiatives? Obama cannot do everything nor should he. But there is one thing that he should be at the bare minimum and that is a leader.
"Sure Obama cant do everything or wave a magic wand to make everything better, but he certainly didnt help by going behind the scenes and making dubious backroom deals with insurance companies."
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, neither of us knows what went on in those negotiations.
"Everybody hailed his meeting at the Chamber of Commerce as a diplomatic step toward the business community"
Good. There are more than enough other people out to sabotage him political without antagonizing the CoC, one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington.
"but we see that GE still has not paid any taxes in 2010."
So? How is this relevant? Are you mad Obama didn't wave that magic wand you admit he doesn't have to enact fundamental changes to the tax code?
Obama's critics — left and right — are just unbelievable. I find it amusing how they seem to expect the president to focus all his energy on whatever is in front of their eyes at the moment. He's supposed to restore a $14 trillion dollar economy to health and then grow it significantly, fix our educational system, fight terrorism on a global scale, manage two armed conflicts, address our illegal immigration problem, create 8 million jobs, cut federal spending by $1.5 trillion, fulfill every one of more than 500 campaign promises to the letter, manage the affairs of a dozen or more other countries, oh, and rewrite the tax code. Any ideas for what he could do to occupy his afternoons?
"Did those business guys make anything better or propose any worthwhile initiatives?"
I feel so sorry for the president. The left is picketing him on one side of the street for being a sellout to the business community while the right pickets him on the other side of the street for being a socialist who wants to destroy capitalism and the free market.
- Are you so sure that nobody knows what went on in the negotiations? These articles suggest otherwise, especially the one from the Boston Globe highlighting a similar battle during his time as Illinois state senator.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/09/23/in_illinois_obama_dealt_with_lobbyists/?page=full
- Ok, you just broke that sentence up and took it wildly out of context. I dont think at this point I need to defend myself by explaining that big business is making record profits mostly by cutting payrolls rather than any upturn in consumer confidence. If you cant see the way corporations are gaming the system then there is no hope for you and the discussion ends here.
- As I already said, it is unrealistic to expect Obama to do everything and solve all problems ("Obama cannot do everything nor should he"), but you must concede that Obama's decision making is that more of a politician who likes to play it safe rather than a leader who may burn a few bridges or take risks. When you are vested with power by the people, you have a responsibility to exercise it on their behalf no matter what Joe Lieberman or Evan Bayh or Andrew Breibart or whoever squawk about. Again, the main point of contention here is that Obama campaigned on a promise to change or at least buck the way Washington works, but he ultimately became a part and parcel of the establishment. And nowhere did I accuse him of being a sellout to the business community. (By the way, small business is very different from big business, and small businesses are definitely feeling pinched).
@james2: "Are you so sure that nobody knows what went on in the negotiations? These articles suggest otherwise, especially the one from the Boston Globe highlighting a similar battle during his time as Illinois state senator."
I find neither article incriminating, and neither article reveals details of the relevant discussions. Here's my position on these kinds of issues. I wasn't there. And although I've spent time studying these issues I'm by no means enough of an authority on them and the politics involved to feel I can judge events like this. I didn't vote for Obama so I could micromanage him, so he could be a puppet for me, or because I expected him to do everything I wanted him to do. I too am a pragmatist.
For all your disappointments and complaints, he got a health care reform bill passed, didn't he? It's not perfect by a long shot, but people have been trying to do health care reform for almost 100 years and they've all failed until now. An effort at establishing national health insurance failed in 1915. An effort to establish national health insurance in the late 1940s failed. Nixon's attempt to reform our health care system failed. Clinton's attempt failed.
You're disappointed with Obama because he made some deals. I'm impressed that he got something passed and signed into law, and it barely happened. Without those deals it might not have happened. So while I'm not happy about the deals, I can live with them. Would you be happier with no deals and no bill? The bill is far from ideal, but it puts us on a good path.
"I dont think at this point I need to defend myself by explaining that big business is making record profits mostly by cutting payrolls rather than any upturn in consumer confidence. If you cant see the way corporations are gaming the system then there is no hope for you and the discussion ends here."
Of course I see, but what do you expect the guy with no magic wand to do? How many major battles do you really expect him to take on in two years? He doesn't have the power to force GE to restructure itself so that it pays taxes here, or to change the tax laws to avoid taxes here, so why the disappointment with Obama over GE paying no taxes here in 2010?
"but you must concede that Obama's decision making is that more of a politician who likes to play it safe rather than a leader who may burn a few bridges or take risks."
There are always a variety of ways to interpret someone's actions. What you call "a politician who likes to play it safe" I call someone with the political savvy to get things done. Besides, given the behavior of the right it should be obvious that even when he "plays it safe" he's not safe. Remember, this is the president that generated a story on Fox News for the mustard he requested on a hamburger and who more than 40% of Republicans believe was born in Kenya. Every time he breathes they call him a radical leftist who wants to socialize America and destroy free enterprise, and if he plays a game of golf he doesn't care about the country. Give the guy some slack.
"When you are vested with power by the people, you have a responsibility to exercise it on their behalf no matter what Joe Lieberman or Evan Bayh or Andrew Breibart or whoever squawk about."
He has a responsibility to do the best job he can, not please all 100 million people who voted for him.
"Again, the main point of contention here is that Obama campaigned on a promise to change or at least buck the way Washington works, but he ultimately became a part and parcel of the establishment."
I think he's getting things done the best he can given the climate within which he has to work.
- "I dont know" "I wasnt there" "Neither of us knows what went on in those negotiations" "Nobody could have seen it coming!" While you're at it why dont you just cover your eyes and wait for the system to crash again. Then you'll have an excuse not to know how it happened or who was behind it. The one who is naive is the guy who pretends he sees nothing and knows nothing. This point is nonarguable because it is a matter of the faith or lack thereof that you have in the NYT and BG. New York Times is a highly reputable news organization (except for a few ink blots like Judith Miller). And again, as I have stated Obama cannot do everything nor should he.
- Yes! Exactly as you said. He got a healthcare reform bill passed that did not go far enough to address the issue of rising premiums. In many ways it is historic. And there are more than enough other Democrats to blame for watering it down. And there is still hope to improve it in the future. The public's reaction was mixed because it did not go far enough. My problem isnt necessarily with the bill in of itself (who can say people with preexisting conditions should be denied care?). What people should worry about is the politics behind what happened because politics influences policy. There are two reasons to be worried:
1.) It is indicative of how Obama operates, which affects what kind policies he will try to push and how hard he will fight for them. Consider the fact that immediately after he got flak (from Lindsey Graham of all people) for showing some support for the workers in Wisconsin (largely by accident). His response was not to put on a comfortable pair of shoes but to back off and pretend like he had nothing to do with it. Why did he back off? Because he is No Drama Obama.
2.) It provides an answer to Fareed's question of Obama's character: he is just a politician rather than a leader. America is facing an enormous unemployment slump, a ballooning debt, and a losing technological competition with China, India, and Brazil. You can say that he is trying the best that he can, but it cannot be avoided America needs leaders not managers to pull it out of the pit of mediocrity.
- Of course he alone does not have the power to force GE to pay up or to change the tax structure. But he also has 0 chance of winning anything at all if he does not make his case before the public. Compromise should not be a dirty word... unless you are the only one compromising. Then it is just caving in for no reason. What Fareed said on Jay Leno the other night rings true here, that one of Obama's weaknesses is that he is too much of a cool kitty. Once again, I do not hate Obama or wish for him to fail. But he should not act so surprised when people get angry at his perceived lack of sympathy to the millions who are right now out of work and struggling to make ends meet.
- Political savvy? What part of political savvy involves offering concessions before the negotiations even begin? And thats also from when the Democrats had power from 2008-2010. As a young voter, I am amazed at how bad the Democrats are playing their politics at this juncture. You mentioned "even when he "plays it safe" he's not safe". Well that should be all the more reason to fight harder! (or, if you like, a reason that playing it safe is pointless, and therefore a liability) There is next to no harm in him fighting back because one, those people arent voting for him anyway so there is no harm in teeing them off a little, and two, they only make up a small sliver of the population. But look, the critical weakness in the Democrats' politics, apart from their compromising, is that they lack a central message, a concrete core set of values that they can readily tell the public they stand for. Here are a few that they could sign on to, as in keep off the negotiating table unless the Republicans offer theirs: education, income equality, Social Security, protecting the environment. Whenever you ask Republicans what they stand for they snap off a quick, simple list that usually includes something like "CUT SPENDING! REDUCE THE DEFICIT! SMALLER GOVERNMENT! JOBS, JOBS, JOBS!" Whenever you ask the Democrats its something like "Uh...jobs?"
"Give the guy some slack."
- And thats another thing. The Democratic electorate should recognize that they are not doing themselves any favors by "cutting him some slack". You dont have to be a Lyndon Johnson or a Ted Kennedy or some firebrand, but if you keep bowing your head and deciding to look the other way and not challenge your leadership, then rest assured your party will never pass priorities that you want and keep kicking you in the teeth.
I looked at your site. Sorry, but I see too many things with which I have an issue. Here's one:
"Health Care is a States issue. We have 50 of them. Each State becomes responsible for the health care of it's residents. 99% of all health care is provided to a patient in the State where the patient resides. What gets paid for health care within a State, stays in that State."
So you're going to tell Americans they can't go to another state to get care? Only people in three states can get care from a Mayo Clinic? Someone from Saudi Arabia can get care anywhere in America but I can't? I don't think so.
What about the fact that per capita income varies by almost 2-to-1 from the richest to the poorest states? People in poor states just have to get by with less care? Are you planning to change the name of the country from the United States of America to the Loosely Associated States of America?
Second issue: Term limits. Bad idea. People who don't really understand how government works and how complex the issues confronting Congress are think any well-meaning yahoo can show up and start being an effective legislator once he learns his way around the Capital building. In the real world it takes a new member of Congress at least a year to get up to speed, and an lot longer than that to become well versed in one or more policy areas.
People don't understand this. They think running a country of 308 million people, 50 states, and over 20 million businesses in a world of 200 countries is just like managing their home and family. It isn't, and it won't be, although you seem to believe you can make it just about that simple.
Term limits are not a magic bullet. In fact, they create more problems than they solve. Fact is, this notion people have that Congress is full of lifers is a myth. The average length of service for Representatives at the beginning of the 112th Congress was 9.8 years (4.9 terms); for Senators, 11.4 years (1.9 terms). Congress is not full of career politicians the way so many people seem to think.
New legislators end up relying heavily on staffers and lobbyists for their understanding of policy issues. The longer they serve the better informed they are, which is why most policy areas have one or a few members of Congress who are considered knowledgeable and to whom other members of Congress go for information. Term limits disrupt that.
One of the motivations to do a good job in Congress is so you can get reelected. If you tell people that in eight years they're out what your really telling them is that they should spend the last few years padding their resumes and making friends in the private sector so they can have good jobs waiting for them when their term is up.
Four states known for their current budget crises, California, Florida, Arizona, and one other whose name I can't remember, all have term-limited legislatures. There is no evidence of any kind that term-limited legislatures produce better legislation or more responsible budgets.
I think you have a lot of big ideas that sound fine on the surface but would not work out nearly as well in practice as they sound in theory.
Excellent – so you have no problems with a term limit of 6 for the House and 2 for the Senate? That's above your cited average figures, would still prevent the problem you describe, and get the career leeches out.
Again we have a math genius sharing with the rest of us. Setting a term limit that is a shade over the average deprives the Congress of half of their experience, on average. That is hardly the same thing. The second flaw in your argument, not that one is needed, is that the averages you are using represent a snapshot and not the norm. Given the turmoil in the last two elections and the turnover (both by the elections and through resignation or retirement), the average has dropped from what would be considered the norm. The fact is that the intent of the rules for capturing and keeping a Congressional seat are designed to insure that the rights of some states are not trampled by others and term limits actually make that more likely.
I agree that congress should have term limits, but my experience with politicians tells me that this will only force them to expedite their pushing thru of lobbiest " agendas' " to get rich before their term expires.
Politics should not be a difficult, secret system that only the sly can understand. I think our founding fathers would agree. Although many of them had experience as statesmen prior to the American Revolution, building a new nation into one of the most secure, free, and prosperous on earth surely did not have much precedent. Although I agree that a republic form of government is more beneficial than a total democracy (in which policy can be swayed by reaction rather than understanding), I believe that our current system has become more of an oligarchy controlled by our own bourgeoisie.
I believe that your post was well thought out and lucid, which is not the norm; I guess where I take acception mainly is on term limits. I believe the framers wanted citizen politicians. The house term is two years, these congressman are to represent the people. Therefor the short span of time in office before they must go before the people for reelection. This is to keep them in touch with the people. The Senate serves 6 year terms, originally the were to look out for the states interest, they were apointed, when this changed so did the complection of politics. The battles were to be between people=congress vs states=senate vs President=fed govt not Dems vs Repub conservative vs liberal.
@AGeek: "Excellent – so you have no problems with a term limit of 6 for the House and 2 for the Senate? That's above your cited average figures, would still prevent the problem you describe, and get the career leeches out."
This is a blatantly dishonest misrepresentation of what I said. Twisting what I said into the exact opposite tells me you have no intelligent response to the points I made. Duly noted.
@Greg: "I believe that your post was well thought out and lucid, which is not the norm"
Thank you.
"I guess where I take acception mainly is on term limits."
But you didn't offer any counter argument to my points. We have elections. That's how the founding fathers wanted terms limited. You want term limits because you have blind faith that they'll address the problems that frustrate you (and the rest of us for the most part), but there's no rational reason they would do so if you really think about it, and they'll create other problems. This is not religion. Positions should be based on evidence and data as much as possible, not blind faith that something that hasn't worked in similar situations will magically work in the one you're trying to address.
Read these. They're articles written by former legislators in states with term limits:
http://www.allbusiness.com/public-administration/executive-legislative-other-general/360734-1.html
http://www.allbusiness.com/public-administration/executive-legislative-other-general/360727-1.html
Broken Government? Are you kidding? To be broken you must deviate from the from the usual state of affairs. This is situation normal – not broken!
I think politics in general and the Ameriican politics in particular are an instrument for individual politicians to boost their ego and find a place in history. It has been going on for years. The political arena ressembles a circus. Many are hungry for publicity and make headlines for a moment, but are condemned to fall quickly into oblivion. The importance of media coverage since the Kennedy era marked the gradual decline of morale in American politcs.
Its all about the money! One other problem Fareed does not bring up is the "revolving door". Look at what happened to people like Evan Bayh, Peter Orzsag, and Joe Lieberman. Once they left their jobs at Washington they went right back to work for Wall Street! You think they decided to take these jobs out of the goodness of their hearts and their love of the people?
I don't get why they can't just agree on anything, when their duty is to serve the American people and in the end they still don't end up doing their job
How about when they say, '...the American people' this and '...the American people that'.
I don't get why they can't just agree on anything, when their duty is to serve the American people and in the end they still don't end up doing their job
Because when they elected to office they become part of a political party and their allegiance to the part supersedes their responsibility to their constituents.
Sometimes, and I believe this is currently the case, the minority party feels it needs to oppose the majority party to seem relevant. Republicans have brought forth no viable ideas for reducing the cost of health care, reforming immigration and so on, and if they agree with the Democrats then what's the point of electing Republicans at all?
Now they have a budget proposal that proposes draconian cuts that will hurt the poor, middle class, and elderly, but insulates the wealthy from any real sacrifice, so we'll see how well that goes over with their constituents.
If the Tea Prty want to be a political Party, then run as a third party. You cannot smudge or blur their ways into the Republicans in the backaground. The leaders of the Tea party (Mark Meckler) however it is spelled is not an elected official but seems to be a mouth in the back bushes. Get Michelle Bachman to be recognized as a Tea Party leader and run the Party with their own funding and Political agenda.
They are American citizens and are entitled to voice their opinion. Why do they need to get mired down in the crap that comes along with becoming an official "Party".
A few small fixes (of many) that could significantly reform our broken political/government system:
1.) Campaign finance reform: Only allow contributions to a political campaign from within the district in question, with a cap on campaign funding proportional to the mean income of the constituancy. This will eliminate large corporations and wealthy individuals from effectively purchasing political power.
2.) Term limits: Power corrupts, and while this could limit the influences of some very practical, beneficial, competent individuals, the benefits of eliminating the disconnect between politics and main street would be worth it.
3.) Open primaries: I live in Pennsylvania, which has a closed primary. In order to vote in the primary, I must be registered as either a Democrat or Republican. I would much prefer to be registered as an Independent, but I would lose a significant say in my government. Each person should have one vote for each office in their district. If they want to use that vote to vote for their ideal candidate regardless of party, or use that vote to vote for the competition of a candidate whom they wish not to be elected, that should be their choice.
4.) Congerssional pay: Congress (both federal and state) should not be allowed to approve thier own pay raises. Further, as seen in this situation, Congress should not continue to be paid in the event of a government shutdown. The pay for any politician should somehow be proportional to the average income of their constituancy. If they want their own pay to increase, they can work to bring greater economic conditions to their district in the form of creating new jobs, increasing the standard of living, etc.
An additional tweak on campaign financing - allow *ONLY* public financing. That's the only way to level the playing field and eliminate the incredible advantages enjoyed by the rich and influential.
I think Open Primaries are a bad idea, since it can used in really bad ways by party apparatchiks to unfairly get someone through the primary process that they know they can beat - witness what happened in South Carolina with Alvin Greene.
An excellent plan. I'd be interested to know how you would fix the inherent corruption which is gerrymandering and redistricting. I agree with Fareed that it makes Congressmen too complacent. I don't think term limits would be enough, it has to be a solution that attacks the very practice itself.
Term limits create at least as many problems as they solve.
@James2 Elect the representative from each state in an at-large configuration. Who really needs crazy gerrymandered districts anyway.
I dont agree with the at-large configuration. Despite the political corruption of gerrymandering, the reality is that you still need different districts because states are large and diverse and different political persuasions may exist in different areas. For example, Illinois. Cook County is almost entirely Democratic while DuPage County is Republican. What I think they ought to implement is an upper and lower boundary for an area to perimeter ratio. Divide the area of the state by the amount of Reps apportioned there and create districts equal to that quotient, with an upper and lower bound area to perimeter ratio. I dunno...
Like some of your points, but have reservations on how exactly we would implement in practice. For example, term limits of any kind are going to prove to be a problem, since we'll ultimately wind up electing some of the nuts that we now have, at the expense of "real" governing. The main problem as I see it is that the system is broken because we do not have a way of enforcing that which was promised during elections - what if we had a Council of Elders (representing the retired intellectual elite – ex-Presidents, ex-Judges, ex-CEOs, etc.) who would have public debates on the 10 *key* issues facing the country), and insisted that all persons running for elected office be required to discuss *specific* details about how they would address those issues. In the business that I am in currently, I would be fired if I were not able to analyze, discuss, provide specific actions on specific problems. Why can't we demand that of our elected officials? Unfortunately, we *always* give these jokers a pass and don't press them – the whole idea in my mind *IS* to make the election process uncomfortable for them by asking probing questions and then demanding real answers.
Many of the posts talk about not voting at all because the choices are bad and worse. That is a mistake.
Not voting is exactly what the narrow partisans want. So what happens is that only the few zealots wind up voting, thus skewing election results. I believe the way out is for ALL voters to get educated, spend some time researching viewpoints, don't take anything at face value from one source of "truth", and then form your own opinions. Of course that takes time and energy, and most Americans would rather be spoon fed some drivel and then pat themselves on their backs that they are participating in a representative democracy.
The lies that the democrats spouted to the world in this debate were disgusting! The tea Party (as C Schumer said) is to be demonized not respected, killing women???, Reids family can't get mammograms (please) and it made me want to puke. Now I know the liberals out there wont believe this but the only disrespectful party was the democrats and I am getting very sick of their duplicity. Please tell me what wrong with the Tea party stance compared to a democratic party that is so detached they have spent us into oblivion and don't have the statesmenship to recognize and fix the problem.
@ rla
You are right, i dont believe you.
I'd be happy to tell you what *I* think wrong with the Tea Party if I thought you were even the least bit open-minded, but based on your comment I see no reason to believe that so I won't waste the time.
Jeff – a cursory review of your web site turns up some significant issues, not the least of which is constitutionality, and the term "benevolent dictator". I didn't see where you resolved the unconstitutionality of your suggestions; the changes you want to implement would require amending the Constitution. How would you effect that?
The Founders discussed, and eventually dismissed, the idea of an office of the president with more than one person. They were right in doing so. Even as you discuss the "rule of three" you realize of course that at the top of the heap in the Marine Corps is a Commandant, who is one person. All the service Chiefs are one person. So much for the "rule of three".
You mention that it's not the people that are broken, it's the system. This may be. But of course, the first action in your "system" is to elect the "right" person, which just happens to be you.
To paraphrase Churchill, our system of government is not perfect. In fact, we have the worst system of government, except for all the other systems of government. It's pure genius if allowed to work as intended. People get in the way, which is why we have elections.
It's pretty rich to hear people whine about how our system is broken, but then out of the side of their mouths cast average Americans who formed their own movement (tea party) as nut jobs. I'm not saying every idea that has come out of the Tea Party is a great, but we should admire the grass roots activism that they represent. Instead of belittling people taking an active role in what their government we should be encouraging others to do the same. That's how things are going to get better.
I'm sure if Donald Trump gets elected he will fix it. That's all we need is another politician with a bad hairdo and an ego bigger than the federal deficit. If he gets elected will he change the name of the country to the Trump's United States of America.
With a reality showed aired weekly from the Oval Office.
There are two problems with the "compromise in the middle" solution. (1) It is only valid when both (all?) sides take a reasonable & responsible posture. However, when the players know that they'll have to give up something, they insert a bargaining premium in their position, with the goal of having the compromised result actually achieve their true end goal. Taken to it's extreme (where we are now?), the result is both sides taking absurdly extreme initial postures & thereby looking like fools. (2) There are some positions in which compromise isn't reasonably possible. E.g., abortion. If you believe that abortion is murder ... it's difficult to accept the notion that just a few murders are OK.
Interesting concept, Jeff. I think it bears some fleshing out, but it is certainly more appealing than a violent revolution. Maybe you could elucidate on it a bit.
The one area that few are speaking about, and Zakaria mentioned only in a sort of passing way, is cuts to defense spending. That is one place where the kind of revolution you speak about could have a real effect – to change the ways our government relates to others, to change our foreign policies more in line with the "ideals" we supposedly have as in the Declaration of Independence and the words on the Statue of Liberty. Defense is the real "entitlement program." It isn't only the Pentagon budgety but also the tnes of billions of dollars hidden in other agencies who do research and development for military purposes. We need to become the nation we claim to be rather than one which seeks its own "national interests" no matter what effect it has on relationships with the people of other nations.
Let's be real here. The corruption is too deep inside our system to ever return to viable sustainable democracy. The common plebian is left to vote for the canidate that they hate the least, meanwhile both parties in our nonsense two party system cannot compromise for a second to get anything done. Sadly as a cynic I forsee the slow decay of our republic and either a possible single party rule or a total collapse of society, sorry to ruin your day but this is my honest assesment, remember the Roman and Wiemar Republics to name just a few, we are not invincible we are only human. Idealism is great but usually it is detached from reality.
I am sooo tired of hearing the congress and the house wax poetic about how they don't want to 'kick the can down the road' to our children and grandchildren to pay. The baby boomers voted to pass all of this ridiculous legislation through the past years that now allows for loop holes and exploitation along with over-bloated city and state taxing and revenue models. Why don't we pull money from the programs that go to support their forever young, viagra popping lifestyles. Raise their working age, it is a reality all of us under 40 expect and anticipate. Babby boomers caused the problem, lets have them foot the bill not the younger generation. So until, I hear some Representatives and/or Senators start talking about who the real culprits of the budget mess are, I will assume I will have to bail out mine and your parents poor decisions with my hard work. Its not about republicans and democrats, its generational theft, the younger generation foots their bill. And if we continue on this path it only gets worse for our kids. They maxed out there cards for boats and timeshares and mortgaged the house to the hilt for pools and travel. I love my parents and no doubt my ideas will negatively impact them, but I would rather take my mother in and pay for her than pay for all of her generation...
Sorry baby boomers, you blew it.
I have news for you. The generations following the baby boomers have no room to talk. They bought their oversized homes, SUVs, and lived from paycheck to paycheck and thought they had the financial world by the tail. They've fatten up and spent their time playing video games and endlessly tweaking their Facebook pages while neglecting to study any issue facing this country. Save your smug superiority for someone else.
We do not have a democracy. We have an oligarchy. Two parties that are two sides of the same coin.
The american people are not in camp A or Camp B. Why do we only have two major parties? IT's about ,money and power. We should have a strong independent party. It doesn't exist. Why not?
That's the party we need. Not right, not left, but making the right decisions not based on politics.
We should have term limits. No one should be a "professional" politician.. In my mind that makes them the oldest profession.
The Block website reads like a Tea Party manifesto.
The first rule of war is to divide and conquer!!! I have seen the enemy and they are us! Those who refuse to learn from the past, are doomed to repeat the past!! Please learn and be willing to be teachable, all of us! Blessings!!!
In His Grace
michael
Why don't the Washington politicians of both parties make 2012 budget proposals THAT GO AGAINST THEIR OWN PARTY'S POLICIES??!! If the Democrats offer major cuts in government spending, they will be unpopular with their own party, but they will be offering a solution favoured by the Republicans. If, at the same time, the Republics suggest major tax hikes for the rich they will gain disfavour within their own party, but they will be presenting a program favoured by the Democrats. As the United States has a two-party system–and all of those running for future office will then be in equal disfavour–the electorate will have a choice of voting for the least-liked candidates come the next election. As well, a compromise will lead to a tough, but acceptable, budget, and the playing field would be equal in the next election. Thus the politicians themselves, both political parties and, ultimately, the American public will all benefit.
Will AZNs really give you a special massage for extra money?
As (almost) always, Fareed, you speak for me. Every single word of this, except the part about VAT, which I'm not convinced on yet, is spot on and exactly the points we have been raising at home. Bravo.
If you think about it, corporate taxes are just a VAT since they're included in the price of the products you buy. One nice thing about a VAT is that it's a tax you pay when you choose to pay it. Also, with modern technology it's easy to use for "social engineering." For example, if the government wants to encourage you to buy insulation for your home, you just don't get charged the VAT when you buy insulation instead keeping receipts and filling out tax forms for a tax credit or some such thing.
What's broken is complete control of our political process by corporations like the one Mr. Zakaria is working for. It wasn't enough that corporations were given the same rights as citizens but now they use their money and the influence it buys to have more rights than citizens. This country is awash in bribery and influence peddling - all of it coming from the top 1% of income earners and the corporations they control. Fix that and you fix the system.
Bleh, it's part and parcel for the process. Political campaign contributions were made and have been made in the past. Today, it's a science.
Let's review the LAST election for congress. 6 BILLION DOLLARS. Can you HONESTLY say that it came from the POPULACE?
Or corporations and special interest groups?
Let's face it, politicians are prostitutes. They go with the money.
Along with our country.
Sorry, America, but you royally screwed up. I'd admit to it too, but I was doing too many PCS's to get to vote for the last election. I was deployed. What is YOUR excuse?
Easy. I just couldn't stand either of the two platform choices, and there was no viable third option.
And I was PCSing.
Wzrd1 – I call shenanigans on your excuse. Every unit has a Unit Voting Officer and you could have voted if you were serious and intent on it. Absentee ballots are as easy to come by as excuses.
Well said, Paul.
I'm tired of pretending we have to give 50% of the blame to the Democrats. That's crap. they compromised more than they should have to the Tea Fruitloops and their corporate masters who are effectively domesitic terrorists, as one person noted, interjecting Riders that don't have one damned thing to do with the budget. Such fine Christian folk who will give yet another free lunch to the Gilded Masters on teh back of what's left of the American middle class. Indeed people WAKE UP and STAND UP.
Now Senator Ryan, that paragon of corporate courage, wants to effeictvely STEAL 25 years of my hard-earned payments that were squandered on the GOP's watch not some mythical liberal social program. And for what? The same elephant ears fought the Obama Admin kicking and screaming about death panels an other garbage on the presidents much needed healthcare reform of which the primary objective was to modernize healthcare systems and share records, saving more in 5 years than the Flea Party;s "plan" would in 25.
Wrong. If Mr. Mealy-Faced Sold-Out elephant dung wants to give his insurance corporate fatcat another injunction of public cash at the expense of my health he will be giving me and everyone else his despicable party stole from the present value of our payments first. Or else. Let him tax the uber- rich for once to do so instead of truckdrivers and engineers. Hey only knows Ryan's masters are not employing Americans.
Please, the Repos are the only problem? They are the only ones who have sold out to corporate interests? Both sides have. A pox on both your houses. We have the government we have been paying for through our obscene tax laws. A pox on both your houses. We have a problem because government has become big business for too many people. If you can spend a million dollars to save 10, what corporation or person wouldn't do it given the resources the rich have? And by rich I include unions which have vast sums of money to spend on the government worker that does their bidding just like corporations do.
A pox on both your houses. Until we reduce the size of government we will continue to have these fights.
obama hate paul ryan, paul ryan must go. bad paul ryan. me spoke.
Yeah, Paul makes a valid point. Clinton was as much of a corporate white as any Republican scumbag. He pushed through NAFTA and sold out this country's entire manufacturing base to the Chinese &their slave labor. Screw both parties.
I could not agree with anyone more. The Republican party,that at one time was half way normal is now being held hostage to the biggest bunch of dimwits I have ever seen, and wouldn't you love to knock the smirk off of that little know-nothing snot that always speaks for the Tea party. They remind me of a bunch of spoiled little brats playing grown up, waving their little flags and wearing their Halloween costumes. On a happier note, I think Fareed is one of the smartest people I have ever seen. I wish he could run for President of the USA after President Obama completes his two terms. I don't know if Fareed was born in the USA, but I think he would be a wonderful president.
OBAMA.
Politicians are elected by the masses, not corporations or the top 1% of anything. Blame voters.
Democrat or Republican.......
You can pick from column A
or from Column B
But does it matter when A or B
has been hand picked by those behind the curtain ?
There are 2 sides to a coin, but its the same coin.
When Lies Become Truth: Thanks. The solution to America's problems is more cynicism.
CNN relies on a partisan hack like Zakaria. No wonder CNN is sinking faster in the ratings than the Titanic.
That comment sounds like (a) sour grapes, and (b) something only a partisan hack would say. Interesting.
It's easy to throw around insults rather than actually make a useful contribution to the discussion. Case in point, the current logjam of "partisan hacks." Congress, in other words. No political partisan has America's best interests in mind...only the furtherance of a narrow-minded agenda.
My take on this is that the only way to discourage the current trend of ignorant partisanship is to stop voting for it. People may think that their particular partisan is some kind of hero, but in fact they only labor on their own behalf, and at everyone else's expense.
vote for me. paid for by the Obama 2012 campaign.
Not voting is exactly what the narrow partisans want. So what happens is that only the few zealots wind up voting, thus skewing election results. I believe the way out is for ALL voters to get educated, spend some time researching viewpoints, don't take anything at face value from one source of "truth", and then form your own opinions. Of course that takes time and energy, and most Americans would rather be spoon fed some drivel and then pat themselves on their backs that they are participating in a representative democracy.
Fareed is brilliant articulate and non partison. He is well informed and works diligently to keep abreast of important issues affecting our welfare. None of these characteristics in toto is exemplified by our Republican behaving president nor either branch of our bought and paid for congress. So be gratful for his contribution. I do recognize both with empathy and contempt that some of you may be missing Glen Beck.
Sorry your mom produced you, and you learnt to type
"learnt to type"? Really? Wow.
I didn't know who Zakaria is/was while reading this article so I kept a skeptical eye sharp and my mind open. I do not see this opinion article as partison, more like fair and honest. I agree with some of it, not all.
But most of all it is NOT a hatemongering, fear driven finger pointing, name calling partisan effort to make one belief look bad.
What are you saying? Farid Zakaria speaks logic which is so scarce today in today's politics.
All his solutions to the problem are the best. He expresses what most of the Americans want to say.
Ad hominem arguments like this just tell us you have no intelligent counter argument.
And 9/11 was an inside job.
Really? I thought it was outsourced to Saudi Arabians.
Think back to when America was at its best...tax rates were much higher for wealthier Americans. In the 50's and 60's, tax rates on income over 200K (about 2 million in today's money) was between 60-70%. We built interstates, ports, NASA, bridges, schools, public universities, etc. Today, we build nothing, the infrastructure is crumbling and the middle class is on life support. The reason is greed...The insatiable greed of those with money (power) and the slow but steady corruption of our political process has left the US looking more like a banana republic every day. Sadly, I do not see a reversal and the status quo is unsustainable. There will be lots of pain to go around as long as the GOP sees fit to serve the interests of a small but powerful elite...sad....we used to be great.
100% Agreed!
I'd be willing to got back to the tax-rates of the 50's & 60's if the Dems would be willing to go back to the relative size of the federal government during that period based on total government spending as a percentage of GDP. (Total spending, not just outlays) Total spending averaged around 27% -28% of GDP during that period. Today we're north of 35%. The other condition is that we spread the federal income tax burden like it was during that period. About 20%-21% of all filers had zero tax liability from 1950 -1970. Today that number is 47%. Still want to cut that deal?
Well, I always say that facts are a nice place for those who don't like science fiction. Per capita there's fewer federal workers than there ever has been. 800,000 to do everything from inspect meat, manage immigration, maintain roads and bridges, secure airports , keep planes in the sky, monitor water saftey,irs, pentagon, fbi, cia, facilities to pay the troops, pay social security and run the government is NOT a "big government" that is perhaps the biggest myth of all.
The USA has a smaller govt than any industrialized nation.
"we're north of...." Well, if you've noticed, we've got 3 (THREE) totally unnecessary wars going on now.
I'd def take that deal old man
@Sarah
I'm more concerned with the amount of money it takes to run the federal government than the raw # of employees, but since you brought it up...
According to current US Census data there are 2,823,777 total Federal Government civilian employees. 2,527,149 of them are full-time. Total monthly payroll = $15,105,511,892. http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/09fedfun.pdf
Note the above does not include the roughly 2.3 million full and part-time members of the military. http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2011/0211_fiscalbudget/SUMMARY_OF_THE_DOD_FISCAL_2012_BUDGET_PROPOSAL_with_Charts_Updated_1710_02.14.2011.pdf
So instead of 800,000 federal employees, we really have over 5,000,0000.
Are you willing to go back to health care as it was available in 1950? That would save us a ton of money.
"Total spending averaged around 27% -28% of GDP during that period. Today we're north of 35%."
We weren't coming out of the worst recession since the Great Depression, unemployment wasn't 9%, and the people hadn't lost $17 trillion in net worth from declining home values.
"The other condition is that we spread the federal income tax burden like it was during that period. About 20%-21% of all filers had zero tax liability from 1950 -1970. Today that number is 47%."
That's not true. Let me clarify that number. The bottom 47% pay no *net* income taxes. Some of them pay income tax, and some have a negative liability due to a variety deductions, exemptions, and credits. These people do pay other taxes though, including payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes such as taxes on gasoline, tobacco, and alcohol, and so on. In fact, they pay a higher percentage of their incomes into these taxes than the upper income crowd.
According to the IRS:
In 1980, the top 1% earned 8.46% of the total AGI, and the bottom 50% earned 17.68%.
In 2007, the top 1% earned 22.83% of the total AGI, and the bottom 50% earned 12.26%.
Do the math and you'll see the top 1% saw their share of total AGI grow by 170% while the bottom 50% saw their share decline by 30.7% between 1980 and 2007. That sure looks like income redistribution to me.
Furthermore, in 2007 the top 0.1% reported 11.93% of the AGI, which means the top 0.1% reported receiving almost as large a share of the total AGI as the bottom 50% combined and more than those in the top 0.1-0.9%.
(Today’s strange brand of conservative looks at this situation and thinks America’s problem is that the wealthy still don’t have enough money to hire new employees.)
What this means is that the top 1% are pretty much the sole beneficiaries of the growth in the American economy over the past 30 years, and that the people who do the real work of economic growth, the engineers, the workers, the educators, and so on, have not benefited equitably from their contribution.
In 2007, the bottom 50% paid 2.89% of the income taxes paid, and the top 1% paid 38.02%.
But we tax income, not wealth, and despite the supposedly unfair share of taxes the highest income earners pay, in 2007, the bottom 50% controlled 2.5% of the wealth, while the top 1% controlled 33.8% of the wealth. That is, bottom 50% controlled 2.5% of the wealth and paid 2.89% of the taxes, while the top 1% controlled 33.8% of the wealth and paid 38.2% of the income tax paid.
So when taxes paid are compared to wealth, they're not that far out of line. You might note that the top 1%'s effective tax rate is lower now that it was 30 years and ask yourself if with our large deficit it makes sense to be taxing the top 1% less than we were 30 years ago.
In 1965 the ratio of CEO pay to average worker pay was 24-to-1. Today it's around 200-to-1. Real income has stagnated and even declined for the people at the bottom and in the middle while the those at the top have seen theirs grow significantly. Instead of worrying about how little tax the people making under $30K are paying maybe you should be worrying about how their real income has not benefited from growth in the economy.
Oldguy . . .
I'd take that deal too!
Double Ditto
obama obama
Alan, agreed, but I drew the line when swarmy Paul Ryan announced the rightwings intention to steal my medical care I've paid into for 25 years. Then the GOP owned press lauds this clown as "courageous" as if it took courage to give another windfall to the uber-wealthy at the expense of the working class. Try to buy health insurance when your over 60 for 8000 a year that even comes CLOSE to medicare coverage.
If he wants to end it he can give me and everyone else the present value of what was stolen from us. If this doesn't wake up the Dancing with the STarts tuned-out America, then they deserve it. I don't thiough and I'll run against him myself if I have to.
Actually, you paid for seniors benefits when you were younger. As in, people that were ALREADY seniors at that time. It's not SSI. I don't like Ryan's medicare plan, I think it's to one-sided. It needs more of a balanced approach. However, if you are a senior, why should I pay for your life-saving surgery and emergency treatment? You're just going to die soon any ways. It's simply not cost-effective to continue to help you.
Sorry, that's life. And you're in your final chapters.
S1N, why should you pay for care for the elderly? Because one day YOU will be elderly and, unless you are very lucky, you will be unable to meet the financial burdens of YOUR care. Medicare and Social Secrurity are what you call a social compact and are some of the greatest accomplishments of our country. They are old age insurance. Once upon a time, getting old meant moving to an old folks' ghetto and dying in a doorway. Should that be something the USA allows? Let's have the stars and stripes wave over the corpses of old people who lacked sufficient care at the end of their lives because younger people were too cheap and greedy to take care of them.
@ Sarah
Well put !
@lord pet... LUCKY? How is it lucky to spend your money wisely and save up for your inevitable old age? That's called being responsible and not expecting other people to pay for you. Of course, it would have been nice for that health care reform act passed to actually have reformed the system so that the big 3 pillars of the healthcare industry couldn't price gouge American consumers. Imagine that...Americans being able to responsibly pay for medical services without the need of subsidies from the government or health insurance companies. All we got instead of reform was mandatory insurance enrollment.
S1N: Wow. That's just surreal.
...thank the military-industrial complex for our current situation.
OBAMA..
What *is* that? You spend an amazing amount of time responding to posts with "Obama". Is there a point?
Yes PJ.
You are absolutely right. Why do rich people want to be richer and the country is becoming poorer, or rather sinking in debt? I think no progress will be made unless the richer, including businesses do NOT get tax cuts, and the tax percentages increase with the increase of income. Why would you give multi-billionaires tax cuts? It is simply not logic. This is the first big hole in the ship that has to be fixed. Farid Zakaria, you speak wisdom.
In my opinion, a fair solution to the budget problem is incredibly
simple and obvious: If they can't agree to raise taxes (especially for
the rich who do not pay their fair share by a very wide margin–because we have a plutocracy, here, not a democracy as so popularly believed and as the plutocrats wish us to believe), then
cut ALL budget items by the SAME PERCENTAGE, whatever percentage is
needed to solve the problem. That means cut EVERYTHING across the board by that needed percentage:
military, SS, Medicare, congressional pay and benefits, all goverment
employee pay and benefits, military appropriations, pay and benefits, planned
parenthood, NPR, etc., etc., etc. numbering into the tens of thousands
of items.
THAT effectively exiles our military, as their budget would not permit repatriation, but abandon them in every land that they're in. Germany, not too bad. Korea, not too bad. Japan, not too bad. Qatar, not too bad. Saudi, not so hot. Afghanistan, total suckage unto death, which would be rapidly coming, lacking resupply that isn't in the budget.
there's no margin in that approach. it's like switching to sheet toilet paper when you can't pay yoru mortgage. At some point you have to fess up and just admit you don't make enough money.
William Jefferson Clinton reduced Reagan/Bush 1's deficits every year he was in office long before the Congress was GOP controlled (who only fought him tooth and nail) and handed Bush 2 a 3 trillion dollar national surplus. Within 2 years Bush 2 had 500 billion dollars of annual red ink and that was 1.8 trillion in his final budget. One wonders where those Flea Party pargons of fiscal stewardism were THEN. They're such hypocrites to the core.
By the time Bush 2 left office almost 1/3 of every tax dollar you pay was just servicing debt. The military is only about 20 cents of that – a small amount for troops fighting a three front war. The military spending should not be cut (granted wasted programs should and supporting beauracracies streamlined).
It's time to face the fact that the lion's share of red ink is from 35 years of the Repugs changing tax codes to shift the burden from big corporations and the very wealthy square onto the backs of the working class ... all while doing all they could to launch war on the American worker and put him out of work or working for pennies on the dolllars.
What we have here is a revenue problem, not a spending problem.
@Sara – Congress (during Clinton's administration and Clinton) did a great job with the budget. However, you are seriously misquoting things. There was NEVER an overall surplus. Clinton-era budgets made money each year, which is where the much-touted surplus line comes from. The actual federal deficit never disappeared (or even got cut in half). Overall, the nation has had a deficit for well over a century.
OBAMA...
Yeah. How come I never see the Teabaggers, most of whom are independently wealthy, volunteering to give up their Congressional salaries to reduce the deficit? Or to tax their corporate masters to reduce the deficit? Or to give the billionaires what MANY HAVE ASKED FOR ....higher taxes so that they pay their fair share to reduce the deficit. It is because the Teabaggers and Repubs don't give a rat's behind about the deficit. It is just a talking point to monger fear....which is all Republicans know how to do. They never have any real solutions. They just want to blame "Liberals" for the problem.
This makes as much sense as cutting your family budget 10% by cutting your dining out budget and your rent payment by 10%.
Couple of muslims fighting over what us Americans should be doing. Please.
You fool!! Fareed is a brilliant analyst and is definitely worth listening to. To discredit this genius because you think he's a Muslim is bizzare. It's obvious he's a patriot which is not apparent in your case.
what an incredibly constructive comment.
This is an excellent example of why the GOP is trying to gut our educational system, to get more and more people out there like this guy! Zakaria is one of the most level headed and intelligent commentators I've seen and he is most definitely not partisan. The problem is he's far too intelligent for his critics to comprehend so they are left with inane statements like Mr I won't listen"s.
Yup. It's far easy for the fruit loops to parrot a b.s two liner from Limbaugh all over the internet with not the slightest ability to decode it or interest in fact checkign it.
Regardless, if you've been tuning in to am radio to be told how to vote and think for 10-25 years and 25 years later your far worse shape than your parents, it's time for anybody with an ounce of sense to wake up and smell the coffee.
obama teach children too. no need for education system. obama will provide.
What? Are you that little snot nosed brat in kindergarten with his fingers in his ears screaming "LA LA LA, I can't Hear you! LA! La! La!"
Grow up.
oba oba obammma.
@ Jennifer
Say happy birthday to PJinChicago
He just turned four.
Thanks, bunghole. You'd made my decision for me. DUE to your intolerance, your illiteracy and idiocy, I'm leaving.
I'm taking my Army pension of over 27 years of service, retired last year. I'm taking my social security with me, as it IS an insurance and is, by law, portable.
And I'm taking my knowledge and experience with me. Experience in how to bring down governments, how to garner military support. How to sabotage. How to form cells that can NEVER compromise the whole or even segment.
If and when I DO leave, the US will shortly have an ultimatum from the WORLD, courtesy of the UN. Disarm the nuclear arsenal or be isolated on ALL borders. In short, no food, no fuel, no electronics, no car parts, no drugs. The US will become what the US wished for Cuba, but lacked the ability to enforce.
In short, the GOP and tea party will get what the wished for, the US as a third world nation.
The Reformed States of America can request membership to the UN.
Now, do you have the scrotal content to try me on that one, sonny?
OooooBAMA
You'd better take it with you if you can, brain-dead. It's about enough to starve to death on if you try to retire here. You can thank your pal Ronnie Reagan, you flag waving idiot, for undoing everything that FDR – the only great president of the 20th century – had put in place to ensure that this country had a stable & sustainable middle class. Not anymore.
I don't want to try you... I just want to know if I can roll with you. I have quite an extensive skill set and could be of use.
your posts are so ridiculous i can't help but laugh. sorry but no matter what you claim you couldn't back up any of the crap your putting on here.
Do you know how to make tinfoil hats that can hold water?
Wzrd should be arrested for treason.
Oh I have more scrotal control BELIEVE ME... just ask your wife.
Didn't the government paid traitor benifits.
Wizard, you actually come off sounding like a teenager. Are you? How is it down there in Mom's basement?
Don't leave, Wzrd1. You're practically the only intelligent one here.
i second that.
and obama
Only one is a muslim. The other one is a hindu. BTW there is nothing wrong in 2 muslims discussing america's problems
OBAMA....
they are both muslim, but that should not be a part of this discussion. I agree with 90% of what he said.
[Standard redneck disclaimer]
The comments and opinions expressed by "I won't listen" are solely those of "I won't listen" and are not necessarily the views of White People (TM). White People(TM) realize that Christian faith and White People(TM) ancestors are not a prerequisite for American Citizenship, born or naturalized. Not even in the Bible Belt.
No animals were harmed in the making of "I won't listen"'s comments. However, one sheep was molested, and possibly penetrated. It's okay though, both the sheep and "I won't listen" liked it. Special thanks to Jack Daniels and the Alabama Department of Education and Alabama public schools for making "I won't listen"'s comments possible.
He's actually from India so I doubt he's a muslim. I am sicked by seeing foreign-born try to dicate what goes on in this country though. I guess India sucked so bad he decided not to go back.
Anyone from India is considered Hindu. Because you don't call them Indian. You will just confuse those of what you are referring to as in Native Americans which you aren't...just Hindu.
But as for religions in India: According to the 2001 census,[2] Hinduism accounted for 80.5% of the population of India. Islam (13.4%), Christianity (2.3%) and Sikhism (1.9%) are the other major religions followed by the people of India.
Fareed really nails it. This country is in real trouble from a political standpoint. There isn't one element that has a lock on what's right for the country as a whole, and everyone is too busy trying to win a pi$$ing contest.
pssssssObama
Here is a budget helper. If you have sufficient resources to be able to spend (on anything) money at the rate of three times the poverty level for the remainder of your life expectancy, then your social security and medicare/madicaid benifits should be reduced by twenty percent. As your resources increase to the point of sustaining a living level of five times the poverty level, your benifits should gradually drop to zero. The exact multiples can be adjusted some, but the concept is: if you don't need it, you don't get it.
I think you plagiarized a refrain first attributed to Louis Blanc, popularized by Karl Marx and endorsed by President Obama.
i'd heard that people think obama's a socialist. since when did it turn to communism? get your facts straight.
@Truth
I can't comment on who you hear what from. However, in his 1875 Critique of Gotha Program, Karl Marx wrote;
"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"
Seems like the pretty much sums up the President's thoughts on income tax rates and social programs.
Oldguy...nice try but Obama has yet to actually raise income taxes.
obamaism
PJinChicago, Go away, Idiot!!!!!!!
Fareed Zakaria: I think it proves that our political system is broken – the political parties are broken.
Disagree. It proves that the citizens of our country are at odds over the fundamental role the federal government should play in our society and personal lives. While we've seen this philosophical debate before, it's been a long time since the divide was this deep and this time it coincides with a really lousy economy. Add in the 'flattening' of the political discourse via technology and the 24 hour news cycle, and you have a more aware (but not necessarily better informed), vocal and active citizenry.
All of the policy debates eventually distill down to what you think the proper role of the federal government should be. Until we get more of a consensus on the solution to the underlying question, we'll continue to waste time, money and personal liberty treating the symptoms.
To elaborate on the role of the federal govt would take a book. But whatever the role it should be done with competence. Thats not happening now. You want to save 100s of billions? Withdraw from our futile losing wars. Re foreign policy: the feds should war at the right time and place and more importantly we should win quickly.. the opposite is true in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are self destructing. Our govt is bankrupt financially, morally and most importantly in the competence dept. I don't think you are in touch with this reality. Only those in the know should be voting in this next election. Our president and Congress needs to be replaced in TOTO.
Yuri, sorry, wrong. The right does not want a more limited govt. They simply want more of the govt they like. After all, consider that they nearly shut our govt down over planned parenthood, which is .001 percent of the budget. Their goal was to shut down planned parenthood, and their long-term goal is, of course, to ban abortion. There is also the fact that the right wont even entertain the idea of downsizing our military, despite the fact we can't afford to fund such a large military force for offense anymore. Clearly the right doesnt want limited govt, they just want the govt they want.
I read message boards frequently, but I NEVER comment because I find the level of vitriol to be far too high. Oldguy, you have inspired me to comment because in my opinion what you have said in those few lines is the absolute truth and the core issue that this country needs to deal with. Our country is bi-polar at this moment. Many wish for a much more limited federal government, and many wish for a much more active federal government. This is the choice that we must address or we will never solve our budget issues. I would prefer a more limited federal government, but I do not believe that those who would have a more far-reaching federal government are stupid, evil, etc.
@Younger Old Guy
Thank you for your kind words. CNN used to host civil forums but those days are gone. Though I frequently disagree with most posters, the NPR and the NYT's sites seem to be a little less caustic. Hop into the fray and help balance out some of the maniacal rhetoric.
obama not broken, me shiny like new penny.
We are an all volunteer Military, but not volunteers, and expect pay for our services. Many Military Service members are thinking about shutting down the WARS, by not performing our DUTY. and let the Chinese/ Iranians/ Terrorist come and knock on our door, and see if Congress is going to open it.
Our duty should be shutting down the wars. They are futile and self destructive. We are incompetant and we are losing. The last war we won: Kosovo. And before that WWII. We are a nation of LOSERS.
According to Merriam-Webster's:
Origin of SOLDIER
Middle English soudeour, from Anglo-French soudeer, soudeour mercenary, from soudee shilling's worth, wage, from sou, soud shilling, from Late Latin solidus solidus
First Known Use: 14th century
Soldiers, by definition, are paid.
knock knock, who's there? obama...
When the CNN's, Fox News's & MSNBC's of the world stop with the infotainment and sensationalism, and stop rewarding the yahoo's that care more about their notoriety and start giving air time to those that are responsible stewards and moving this country forward we'll start seeing some positive movement. I say for every media outlet to carry an hour of news, as part of a public service for using the public airwaves, commercial free – no more corporate funding and instead offer them a break on their license comesurate with their viewership as a percentage to keep it fair for the smaller outlet and lets see what happens then...
obamanation
PJ – does your Mommy know you're plying with the computer?
Or one could argue that we're finally beginning to debate issues that should have been seriously addresed years ago, so we're finally making some progress.
praise Obama mama.
The government has been broken for years. Some will deny, while others will pin problems on one party of the other, but the truth is we keep electing a bunch of politicians. Notice that I didn't call them leaders or public servants. Politicians, folks.
agreed – we really don't have Democrats and Republicans. We have Politicians and Citizen/Voters. While nobody conciously planned it this way, Politicians have successfully used the wartime strategy of "divide and conquer", splitting the 50% of the population who do vote into 2 groups pretty much 50/50. Then the "opposing" party is demonized, blamed for all the problems and the Citizen/Voters buy into it, while the Politicians go on to win for their special interests...every time.
It is a slap in the face to every taxpayer for our lawmakers to continue to pay themselves and not the taxpayers who pay their salaries. If the lawmakers can not do their jobs, they should be the ones to lose their pay.
Our lawmakers spend billions of dollars of our money to feed, clothe, and help other countries in need, but somehow justify letting children in our country go hungry.
Our political leaders spend the taxes we pay to give themselves and their families the highest quality medical care, while millions of Americans do without even the basic health care.
This is not serving the people, it is picking the pockets of the people.
America, WAKE UP. We should let our elected officials know we have had enough and it is past the time for change. Spend our money on Americans first, themselves second, and the rest of the world third. If not, let's recall every one of them and elect lawmakers that will actually put you an I first. If they lie to us, recall them and elect new ones. Eventually they will figure it out.
Our own government treats us like we are less important than the government itself. And we are letting them do it to us.
Let your elected official know, in no uncertain terms, they have 2 choices...Take care of our needs first, or we will find others that will.
obamaDNA
Amen.
Not only the Congress has become dysfunctional , the entire political system is corrupt and responds only to special interests . We should consider that besides these two problems this system is very expensive and outdated . It is about time to have an e Congress . Each of the 435 existing Congressional District could have 10 not one Representative in conference by satellite 24/7 , no travel to Washington D. C required and etc . The new Congress members will be paid stipends . Should this issue not be looked into soon by a national bipartisan commission ?
I can't believe my favorite journalist has been snowed. The Tea Party is demanding practically nothing compared to what needs to be done with the budget. The dens have prevented entitlements from being touched by going with CR's after refusing to put out a budget last fall. Now the Tea Part is unreasonable?
I see we have someone on here wanting to bring back the tax code of the 50's, thinking they were higher then. You're not taking into account the myriad taxes and fees we add on now we didn't then. Our overall tax burden is higher now which just stifles growth.
50s tax code predates obama. me not understand 50s tax code. only hope and change me understand.
PJinChicago, you are an idiot!
@oldguy from a root cause perspective you are right on. I would add another cause at least for the poor quality of our elected representatives, stems from campaign financing. Our elected officials spend entirely too much time pandering and being influenced by the largest campaign contributors. These donors usually come from very narrow interests and the lunatic fringe. Politics has become a millionaires game severely restricting opportunities for sincere leadership. And of course, "Political Scientists were worried about wide spread ignorance and apathy among the American voter. So they took a poll (imagine that). 90% of the respondents replied they didn't know and didn't care." In a democracy it ultimately falls back to us, the voter. I have faith that eventually when the the situation is dire we will rise up, but regrettably not until then.
@Mr. Zakaria, as usual, dispassionate logic, clarity and balance, thank you!
zakaria try to steal obama thunder. me no like thunder thief. booooo.
for some perspective – the government shutdown a combined 10 times between the Carter and Reagan administrations. so while this is frustrating and sad to watch unfold, i don't believe this potential shutdown is reflective of a new trend of dysfunctional or broken politics
Why are you people surprised?
Politicians are all lairs and cheats.The only way to fix this problem is to support candidates that have some integrity and honesty, all of which you idiot voters blow off for a popular candidate that lies through his/her teeth.
Pull you head out of your arses. I, for one, am sick of you ruining this country and my way of life because of stupidity. This isnt a tea party thing, its a American Citizen pissed of at others who shouldnt have the right to vote because they are idiots. You people disgust me.
obama no liar, me hope and change, remember?
"Politicians are all lairs and cheats.The only way to fix this problem is to support candidates that have some integrity and honesty"
Every politician is, pretty much by definition, a candidate who has been elected. This stereotype that all politicians are all lairs and cheats is as useless as any other stereotype. Why should I think someone who is so quick to malign the character of people based on a stereotype is so honest himself?
I read Zakaria's piece on Ryan's budget yesterday and was surprised at a piece which seemed strangely out of place. It seemed that he has not read the proposal and like many of us, he was spinning it based on reading press reports. It was oddly worded article where he came across as congratulating Ryan just for trying. It sounded lot like a Professor giving a student an A just for turnning in an assignment even if it is rubbish.
I am still scratching my head to understand why he wrote this piece. May be he after some retrospection Mr. Zakaria will write a follow up piece one of these days.
obama professor. me give zakaria C+
Zacharia has gotten everything he has been speaking for. The media is a great source of lack of accountability in our society.... The politicians which are just the lowest rung and the human ladder are a bunch of takers.. Just ask Joe Biden he graduated low in law school yet he made millions off the backs of those that support him. Politician give nothing back to us... The righties and lefties here... knowing...knowing...
obama winning winning winning. like charley.
SHUT UP YOU IDIOT! Stop giving every Chicagoan a bad name....are you really as stupid as you sound....nobody is laughing at your inane attempts at being the class clown, this is serious business for serious times. Enough!
Fareed is right the political system in the USA is broken, I would add how can two political parties answer all the needs of Americans, there must be more than two opinions in the USA?
What I cannot understand with the fuss of immediate shotdown of the Government, why the problems of sending cheques to military personnel and others? As a Canadian citizen I have not seen a government cheque be it federal or provincial in years, everything is down by direct deposit. Direct deposit compared to sending out cheques are a great saving to the Government, if US agencies are not using this method of payments its time to start and save millions of dollars every year. Government can shut down but electronic payments will continue to flow in and out without the help of employees.
obama no like canada. too cold. don't like cheques either. like check$, just as good as cash.
I read an article somewhere that stated over the years, both parties had become more polarized. Democrats more Liberal and Republicans more Conservative. But all the experts could not explain this polarization. And that made me laugh, as the explaination is so simple. Polarization is a natural outgrowth to the the democratic process when the system starts trying to apply social engineering to society. You see, the process starts when any type of social welfare plans are passed. When such a package passes, there will be those who oppose the package and those who support it. This package creates a small portion of the population that becomes more dependent on the social welfare. Now some who opposed the plan will naturally start campigning stating this is something they plan to adjust once elected. Those who supported the plan will see there is a natural support form those now depending on this welfare service, and they will campaign to support and protect the item. Now when just a few such items are out there, the effect is small. Overall campaign issues will still be far larger than the dependent population. But as time goes on, more social welfare programs are put into effect. As more such programs are put into effect, the population dependent on government services grow. Politicians pander to this group to get their votes to win elections.. On the other side, supporting these services requires the government to gather more funds. And this fund search spurs more on the other side to work to resist and reverse the programs. As more programs go in, this gap between those pandering to people dependent on the programs, and those forced to pay the taxes to support the programs begins to grow. Polarization increases. And eventually the whole system simply starts to collapse (as we see in Europe).
writer full of green house gas. obama no like writer. just like gore since planet cools down.
What is the fundamental difference between a dictator for life (like he ones in the Middle East who seem to be on the hot seat from their people these days) and a two party system for life where both parties are selfish and ineffective morons who try to sound different to make us think switching back and forth is some kind of "change"? At some point Americans will figure out they need to apply the same kind of heat Tunisians and Egyptians are applying today. I just hope it is sooner rather than later.
Tom I think there is an uprising and it is the Tea Party movement. Like any movement you have some outliers and some politically greedy people that are parasitical to any movement. But these folks are real and are hear to stay for some time to come.
The Tea Party has proven itself, ever since billionaires like the Koch Brothers provided them with buses and cash to do their bidding, to be a bunch of stooges being led around by a carrot on a string.
Conservative religious right wing nuts (Koch Brothers) start losing the Republican party
so fund the Tea Party to force Republicans back to far right.
But it doesnt work, America is now too diverse for them to reclaim that thone.
They scream they want a smaller government
yet are willing to stick thier noses into other peoples lives,
Planned Parenthood
Dont Ask Dont Tell
Defense Of Marriage Act
Gay Marriages
Abortion.
I will never accept somebody using thier religion to tell me how to live my life.
I am an "AMERICAN" !!!
NO De ath Benefits to Fallen Heroes..??...After Refusing Military pay..that is Horrendous to Military families...It is OBVIOUS.....The "Real " Block to an agreement...is Obama..his Obsession for Abortion..Proven with his Record..Including the Only Senator in Ill. to vote for Partial Birth Abortion...Obama's infanticide...pathological Obsession to Mur der Babies...is Astounding...Our Military Units May Stand Down..with More Necessary Action to come...
Wrong Teddy.
When we get rid of PACs and we end up voting in responsible members of Congress we may stand a chance. But, I want to say that we, as Americans, vote those di*kbrains into office. Let's remember why the 2nd amendment exists and when those butthe*ds stop featherbedding their own self interests we may stand a chance. Boehner's ego is bigger than his IQ, Palin doesn't have an IQ and Obama's IQ barely is registering. Let's get it together for a responsible government that doesn't blur the line between self aggrandized morality and functional government.
you can't comprehend obama with normal brain. me rock star from chicago, uh, kansas, uh uh...oahu, maybe kenya. ask great-grandma.
Tough problem but fixable. Make all financing for political campaigns publicly funded and put a limit on it. Not one dollar of contributions. Not one dollar. That ends all of the special interest B.S. Politicians serve the citizens not some bank or corporation. Start terms limits immediately. Politicans who are elected serve the citizens and do the right thing instead of worrying about getting re-elected. That solves two huge problems right away. Don't like it, don't run. That's it for now. I just had s-e-x and I'm tired and not a bit worried about the F--- government.
too bad all alone tonight. obama have michelle, hot, revolutionary position, bump.
I think the everyone knows that the answer is what Fareed is stating, but this is politics. Politics has become an occupation not something you do as a duty for your country. So to stay in politics you must feed your constituents and contributors. This is down with spending (tax cuts or cash layout) So it ultimately comes down to the old chicken and egg adage. Which comes first spending cuts to programs or tax increases ? Those with left leaning constituents say taxes must go up on everyone, but lets start with the upper income folks. Once this happens we will look at programs. Those with right leaning constituents say once I see the structural spending cuts, we can look at increasing taxes. If we give you money, you will just spend it. In the Bush II years you had the worst of both. Both types of spending.
If the spoils are going to the ones paying the taxes, then maybe we need to increase the number of people paying taxes.
obama tired, but like idea of more taxes. obama need sandwich and bedtime. nighty night.
I call plagiarism. What did Zakaria plagiarize? Every one of “his solutions” came from The Economist two weeks ago “Taming the Leviathan” special series. He is a partisan fraud.
It sounds as though someone was sold the bill of goods from the Republican side that our government is broken. Our President has been ridiculed, disrespected and accused of all kinds of untrue stores, consistently for three years. Such behavior is imature, ignorant, and ugly. That is how I now perceive the Republican Party, that I have in the past voted for, and can't even recognize in 2011.
Carol pretend to vote GOP, make obama laugh. you go Carol.
As long as a few people are running it while pretending it belongs to the people, the government will always be broken.
wake up America and realize this is all a tactic perpetuated by both sides to tire out the public and make them lose even more faith in government. How many people do you know who say "what can i do about it?" or "my vote won't change anything" and other various statements of apathy and feelings of powerlessness. this is what they want!
The less people who care about what the government is doing or even know about it, the easier it is for them to rob us blind while lining their own pockets and the pockets of those who "donated" them the largest sums. There is no such thing as a "donation" to a politician, everything given to them is expected to be paid back somehow, usually not to the benefit of the majority of those who voted them in. money doesnt always back the best causes.
its time to hold our elected officials accountable for their actions, and that begins with cutting their salaries, at least in half, and the next step is REAL campaign finance reform, to really take the power of money out of our politics.
Until this happens, our governance will be up for sale to the highest bidders and only to the benefit of those rich and connected enough
This is how much we pay for congress:
$174,000 a year starting pay, plus all the perks, plus LIFETIME benefits, all for a 3 day a week part-time job? wake up america and realize we have allowed a parasitic class to develop and fester right here in our backyard, the biggest threat to freedom, the politician.
Obama only makes $400k a year, and HE'S the one who actually has the tough job!
Please everyone go sign this petition and let these bloodsuckers know the free ride is over! if we all have to tighten our belts, we ALL have to tighten our belts.
http://www.petitiononline.com/RCP2011/petition.html
i'm sure economically not many of them will suffer, as most of them have 2, 3, 4 or even more other part time jobs, which is completely legal as long as they disclose it (check on it people! find out where your money is going!)
174k a year for each member, there is 551 of them total (441 house 100 senate) 1 of them makes $223,500 (speaker of the house) and 5 more make $193,400 (party leaders and the president pro tempore of the senate) – all from wikipedia
for a grand total of $94,280,500 a year, just on base wages.
add in approx $1 million per member for office and staff expenses (also from wikipedia)
add in the costs for their food, lodging, transport, security
add in their benefits, which are lifetime after serving at least 5 years (3 terms for a representative, which is not unheard of, and only one for a senator)
add in the physical costs of running congress (which thankfully, after all their "breaks", holidays, "conference days" and such, is only about half of the year)
WHY, in all of this talk of budget cutting and fiscal restraint and responsibility, no one, especially not the congress, is really looking at what is a very significant expense to the American taxpayers?
i am fiscally conservative and socially liberal, i am disgusted by both current parties, but especially the republicans. For all their talk of fiscal constraint, the only things they want to cut are mostly programs they don't agree with, and the last thing they would ever cut is their own salaries and benefits, even though all of them are rich to begin with! Even if i do not like all the things you stand for, i will at least respect you if you really stand up for your principals, especially your core ones, and the GOP and its members are the biggest hypocrits to ever inhabit the realm of American politics.
Cut government spending! (except for programs that benefit our "constituants")
Protect unborn life! (but dont give a crap about it once its out of the womb)
We need to have a MASSIVE overhaul of the entire federal system to shine daylight on and expose to the public every aspect of federal spending, INCLUDING the military, so there can be a real and transparent open and frank "adult" discussion (as the GOP likes to say) about what programs warrant funding and actually give a measurable return to the country as a whole relevant to the amount of money spent on them.
$174,500 is not a lot of money by today's standards, and they work more than three days a week. It's not all in Washington and it's not all on camera. They often maintain homes in their districts or states and the cost of living in the DC area is high.
In 2009 the CEO of McDonald's received compensation totaling 100 times that amount. Quibbling about congressional pay is silly, and as for "lifetime benefits" you might want to actually look them up. The less you pay them the harder it will be for people who aren't independently wealthy to serve. Is that really what you want, a Congress full of independently wealthy people running the country?
Most of congress IS independently wealthy. But I'll agree with Larry... Fix the incentives that cause corrupt behavior. Not pay that is commensurate to the job. 174K for quite a bit of responsibility isn't really too much in my estimation.
The problem is the lack of oversight. The checks and balances are all checks. And most of the checks are going into campaign accounts and other perks (not to mention those that have good friends that are going to take very good care of them once they leave office). We need to change the game. Politicians do what they want while in office. Most of the time the actions of our representatives result in campaign contributions or support. This is an incentive problem. Consistently, EVERY TIME there is an incentive problem, bad things happen. The savings and loan debacle of the 20th century. The subprime crisis. There are many examples. If people see benefits and the consequences are minuscule or non-existent... You are going to see what looks quite a bit like ugly corruption and evil behavior. Human nature. Change those incentives and crank up the consequences... and the problem will fix itself. What we have here is a crisis of trust and it's eroding the power of our nation.
I'm saddened to think that our populace is so fragmented and so terribly influenced by the media that we'll never be able to change the game.
I can appreciate the goals of the Tea Party (I agree with many of them), but I disagree that a one sided ideology should drive change from an extreme. I can't in good conscience exchange a corrupt GOP with an even more extreme conservative cause, most of which are just repeating sound bytes from their favorite political commentator. I'm not impressed with many of the vocal TP folks. Which is too bad...
I'm fairly conservative. But I'm not so foolish to think that everyone in the country thinks like I do. The middle ground is the only hope we have for balance. Chasing unwinnable arguments is the wrong strategy. So is thinking that everyone that doesn't believe as you do is wrong or stupid. Balance. Trust. These are the goals we should be pushing for.
@Steve: "Most of congress IS independently wealthy."
Not really that surprising given the pay.
"The problem is the lack of oversight.
We are the oversight committee.
"The subprime crisis."
Was a private sector crisis. Government's only role was in failing to regulate adequately.
"If people see benefits and the consequences are minuscule or non-existent... You are going to see what looks quite a bit like ugly corruption and evil behavior."
You really have no argument here, just a string of phrases one after another, and we're all supposed to accept that what you imply is obvious is in fact true. That's not an argument. People don't see the benefits of government because when government works well there's really not much to see. It just works keeping society running smoothly.
On the whole our government works pretty well. Our food is safe to eat (and we know what's in it), our water is safe to drink, our air is safe to breathe, tens of thousands of flights take place daily without incident, paint and toys are free of lead, our houses are wired to codes that keep us safe, our tires don't blow out on the road — the list of ways in which our lives are better, safer, and more secure because of government is long and varied. You just never see a story on the nightly news that says 40,000 planes didn't fall out of the sky today because the FAA strictly regulates air traffic and mandates inspections and maintenance intervals.
The stories that get people's attention involve the failures of government, so people assume government is just incompetent and useless because the stories are always about the problems. But if you think about, for all that goes on in this country of 308 million people you really don't see very many of those stories.
"Change those incentives and crank up the consequences... and the problem will fix itself."
*This* is the problem. Everyone is looking for the magic bullet that will just fix the problem so they can go back to watching American Idol and forget about government while it runs smoothly on autopilot. That magic bullet doesn't exist, and that government doesn't exist.
We are the oversight committee. We are the ethics committee. We are the ones the founding fathers expected to hold our representatives accountable. Government isn't failing us, we're failing ourselves. With rights come responsibilities, and the responsibility that comes with the right to vote is to educate ourselves about issues. We refuse to accept that responsibility, hoping instead to find a way to tweak government with term limits, campaign spending limits, a complete overhaul of government, firing them all, or some such thing so that once the tweaking is done it will just work without requiring our attention.
But the fact of the matter is that there simply is no substitute for an informed electorate. The sooner we accept that, assuming we ever do, the sooner we can work to make our government function more like it should.
Or, we can just spend a few minutes whining and grousing on the Internet once in a while to tell complete strangers how corrupt all politicians are, how government is broken, how this party or that party of both parties are to blame ad nauseum, and *then* go back to watching American Idol.
obama no care about salary. obama have book deal money stashed in sasha's donkey bank.
agreed – we really don't have Democrats and Republicans. We have Politicians and Citizen/Voters. While nobody conciously planned it this way, Politicians have successfully used the wartime strategy of "divide and conquer", splitting the 50% of the population who do vote into 2 groups pretty much 50/50. Then the "opposing" party is demonized, blamed for all the problems and the Citizen/Voters buy into it, while the Politicians go on to win for their special interests...every time.
Interesting perspective Mr. Zakaria – suggesting partisanship demonstrates the brokenness of the govt by pointing to the TEA Party...oh i see, partisanship hmmmm....very neutral and analytical of you...I bow to your even-handed wisdom.
Term limits would be a step in the right direction. When I watch Congress on television it's like visiting a nursing home. Some congressmen look like walking antiques.
Term limits are not a magic bullet. They create at least as many problems as they solve.
Fareed has given Republicans way too much credit for what they are worth, and it is long past time to call them for what they are: a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America. The Democrats lost their seats in November because they did not distinguish themselves enough from Republicans, sold out the middle class, and ran from their own proposals (though unfortunately a few worth keeping got caught in the firestorm and lost their seats as well). Remember the "enthusiasm gap"? Well, how the hell do you expect people who voted for you to support you when you push initiatives that work against their interests? But I'd add a third thing to Fareed's systemic problem which is the ineptitude of the Democratic Party. This comes down to three basic parts:
1. It seems they have turned into Washington Generals and forgotten how to play smart politics.
2. Some Democrats have begun swooning toward big business in the hopes of raising campaign cash, in effect ensuring that corporations have smartly put money into both parties in order to game the system.
3. As to that test of Obama's character, it should be apparent by now that our President is JUST A POLITICIAN AND NOT A LEADER, a very disheartening thing at a time when leadership could not be needed more.
james2 no love obama anymore? .... hmmmm.... james2 a jerkwad.
Are any of your posts higher than a second grade reading level?
No, because Ima Moron!
Maybe the democrats lost because common sense Americans understood the folly of their proposals.
You only need to look at the Senate race in Arkansas to show that I am right on this point. Not only did Blanche Lincoln get her ass handed to her against John Boozman, the union members, who I guess the Democratic Party assumed would vote for her, decided to run a primary candidate against her and to by and large not vote. Blanche Lincoln initially proposed lowering the estate tax, voted against the public option, opposed the Employee Free Choice Act, and decided it was not in her interest to push initiatives that her labor supporters wanted. If that primary didnt happen theres absolutely no way she would have push for tighter regulation of derivatives. If Republicans actually had the mandate they claim they do then they would have had the Senate in November. If you recall, that gaffe was the result of the millstone which is the Tea Party.
@Glen Wilson: "Maybe the democrats lost because common sense Americans understood the folly of their proposals."
Maybe you're just a right-wing drone brainwashed by Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck making stuff up to make Democrats look bad. Democrats lost because they were taken in by the fear-mongering and propaganda of the far right.
GOP before November 2010:
Jobs and deficit reduction.
GOP after being sworn in:
Read Constitution on floor of the House like a junior high civics class.
Preserve crappy health care status quo.
Restrict abortion rights.
Bust unions.
Pursue strategies to reduce the deficit that only ask the lower and middle classes to sacrifice and shield the top 1% from any semblance of sacrifice.
Cut funding for health care.
Go after Muslims.
Here's a great compromise: right now we spend tax-dollars to kill 38 babies per hour (er i mean to support women's health), how bout we just kill 19 per hour (er i mean support the health of 19 women per hour.)
hey, last time i checked, killing babies (er i mean, abortions) are still LEGAL, instead of b**ching and moaning about it on a website you right wing nuts should get out there and change the law.. OH WAIT, i forgot, a majority of the american public doesnt support your viewpoint!!! ooo im sure that hurts lol.
personally, my only complaint with abortion laws is that they don't yet apply to children up to the age of 10... i know i would of been a heck of a lot better of a kid if i really believed it when my mother said "Boy, i brought you into this world and i'll take you back out of it"
It's against the law to use tax dollars for abortions. If they are breaking the law, fix that. ENFORCE the laws that are already on the books... Don't pull funding for the other activities.
It's easy to argue that the government shouldn't be helping the disadvantaged yet in the same breath think it's OK to bail out banks and send troop$ / bomb$ into a foreign country and follow that with huge contract$ for security and rebuild. Every day, more and more people in America lose jobs and benefits as those who run big business take a larger slice of the pie by outsourcing or simply cutting hours / benefits. The middle class is eroding away as those in the top income brackets double their income. It's the golden rule. Those with the gold make the rules.
To talk about those that need help as if they are lazy or not ambitious is ridiculous. Perhaps America does offer equal opportunity once you subtract those that 1) already had money, 2) those that are lucky and 3) those with enough contempt for others to do anything to climb the ladder and make more money. Frankly, most Americans are content having a small house and feeding their families. Those at the top of the pyramid have systematically been removing even the expectation of survival. It's maddening to hear the contortions of argument from extreme conservatives as they parrot the script from the corporate shills that fill their pockets will ill gotten gains. I'm a conservative but I'm also a realist. There is a middle ground...
Prove it.
We keep voting these idiot politicians in office, and they have bankrupted America. It took 200 years to get 6 Trillion dollars in debt, and it took only 6 years for the democratic controlled house and senate to double it to 13 Trillion..
@David: "It took 200 years to get 6 Trillion dollars in debt, and it took only 6 years for the democratic controlled house and senate to double it to 13 Trillion."
I swear, I think the whole lot of you right-wing drones have been brainwashed to be pathological liars.
- The national debt on Jan 5, 2007, the day the Democrats were sworn in, was $8,673,152,446,066.83.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
- The unemployment rate started rising in May 2007 and was already at 8% when Obama was inaugurated, and we both know you can't pin that on anything the Democrats did. That "they were there when it happened so it must be their fault" post hoc argument might fool Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck listeners, but not people with any sense.
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000
Ultimately we lost more jobs as a result of the recession that started in Dec 2007 — also due to no fault of the Democrats who took control in January — than we did in the past four recessions combined, almost 7.5 million. As happy as I was to see Bush go, part of me wishes he would have stuck around for what he allowed to happen instead of passing it off on Obama so weasels like you could blame Obama and the Democrats.
- The problems that ultimately led to our current problems were all at work when Bush took office and his administration ignored all of them. Bush didn't cause them, as so many allege, but he was asleep at the wheel while we careened toward an economic abyss until it was too late to avoid disaster.
Please go peddle your anti-Democrat fairy tales at your next Tea Party gathering where they'll no doubt elicit giggles and nods.
"{I think that for Social Security, the retirement age needs to be raised." And where, Mr. Rich Zakaria are people over 62 supposed to find jobs, when corporations and their sociopath executives are outsourcing jobs to third world countries? What we really need to do is break apart every single Fortune 500 company. The more competition, the more jobs, the more tax revenue. But you Mr. Rich Zakaria work for one of those corporations that are sucking the blood out of this country. All you corporate whores can think of is to place the burden on the middle class. Go to hell.
obama hear big sucking sound. Uh oh, economy make big sucking sound. blame last president for big sucking sound.
"obama hear big sucking sound"
That's easy enough to fix, just close your mouth.
By the way, just so you know, I've been seeing your posts. You message: "Republicans have nothing to sell."
Message received, loud and clear. Keep it up. It's a message everyone needs to hear.
The U.S. government was broken long before Obama became President.
He merely serves as part of the catalyst. From day 1, the Republicans chose not to work with him and
his administration on any level – and largely because of racism and his color – make NO mistake.
Obama campaigned on a promise to change the way Washington works and instead has chosen to try to play the game better. Solving America's problems requires a leader and Obama is just a politician.
obama say... curse you james2. turn in your hope and change t-shirt... NOW.
The reason you're disappointed in Obama is that your expectations were unrealistic, and that's because you were naive. I never expected him to be able to change Washington. Come on, 535 members of Congress and countless departments and agencies and you thought he could magically change all that with the Republicans railing about his "socialist" agenda, questioning his birth certificate, calling him a liar in a joint session of Congress and hoping to make health care reform his "Waterloo?" Really?
The entire country is stressed over the economy, the deficit, and the debt. No matter what he does people are not going to be happy with him. They're never happy with a president when the economy's bad, regardless of the reasons it's bad. They like having someone to blame and what easier target than the president?
The Republicans have capitalized on this to undermine his political capital and hence his ability to get things done. Look at how many people post comments claiming Obama's spending is the reason the deficit is so high when we all know that's bunk. Mitch McConnell, Senate minority leader said the Republicans' #1 priority is ensuring Obama is not reelected. You really thought Obama could change Washington in the face of that? You were soooo naive.
Was it unrealistic to expect Obama not to fire Van Jones, not to throw Shirley Sherrod under the bus, not to defund ACORN, not to throw the EPA under the bus, nor to freeze federal pay for no reason whatsoever? I think you already know my position on the “magic wand” thing, but that shouldn’t be a shield for not putting up any kind of resistance. You’re right that a fundamental rule in politics is that incumbents tend to do poorly when the economy goes south, but I think the people would tolerate it a bit more and be much more appreciative of the President if they saw him fighting instead of hedging. Consider the fact that polling shows the American people are becoming more liberal. What sense then does it make to cower in the face of criticism from conservatives? If they can attack him, can’t he attack them back? His party largely lost because they ran from their own proposals and decided to play it safe by adopting Republican talking points. It shouldn’t be that complicated or unrealistic to expect your base to decide not to vote then. What people respond to more than the economy is confidence and projection, and running like scared rabbits accomplishes neither.
Well let's see if CNN will allow this to stay up. It obeys all their guidlines, or will they be another Fox and take it down. A true lesson on our Economic/Political system and why it is broken.
OK to all you so called Christian's or any person who would dare call themselves a GOOD, STRONG person of any faith or creed, it's time for a history lesson and why if you profess to be a GOOD person you would not be a Capitalist. Adam Smith, the man credited with being the father of capitalism, first gave the world the theory of capitalism in 1776 in a book called "An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations". Don't worry if you don't know it, the Gov (a lot of it Repub's) have been killing our educational system for so long its not a surprise many of you are ignorant of this fact. Anyways, the following is a quote from that book.
"But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of."
This is the basic tenant of Capitalism. GREED, from the creator of Capitalism's own words. What Smith is saying here is that any person will always be acting in their own self interest, and as such, seek out an economic activity that provided the greatest financial gain, which then would maximize the society’s economic well-being. Therefore, we now have an economic system based on one of the worst aspects of human behavior; greed. Since people are acting solely out of greed it only makes sense to make products inferior to what they could be to bring back business to either buy the same product over or have it repaired, a trend many have seen in today’s westernized society. Greedy people also have another desire that usually coincides with the greed aspect, the desire to always have more no matter how much they already have; gluttony. As long as we are betting against the goodness of our race, we might as well throw lying into the mix, for what better way is there to gain more economic growth for an individual, organization, or society than to fool his customer into paying even more for the service or good offered. Most any individual can tell you another list which greed, gluttony, and lying are also listed in. Now let’s pose this question: if you have unruly individuals that need managing, such as in a prison system, or even an educational system, is it wise to mange them with a system that rewards behavior you are trying to diminish or find offensive? To this author, that system of logic seems very backwards. Not only is it backwards, but it is a self-repeating destructive cycle. People learn how to behave partially from socialization and enculturalization, and being raised in such a society. So to all you so-called GOOD STRONG people, tell me, how do you practice 3 Deadly Sins on an everyday basis and still think that your are GOOD people? This is not Obama's fault. IF YOU WANT TO SEE WHO IS TO BLAME, LOOK IN THE MIRROR! LOOK AT YOUR PARENTS, AND THEIR PARENTS AND ALL THE GENERATIONS THAT HAVE LIED TO THEMSELVES OVER AND OVER! We need to make a change, change our economic system, possibly even our political one. Yes there will be a transition period like when anything changes. It can be bloody or it can be not-bloody. But even if it has to become bloody... what makes us too good to get dirty. Were our fore-fathers too good to get dirty to fight to make this country? Were any mans fore-fathers of any nation too good to get dirty to fight for freedom and what was right?! Yes there will blood, pain and tears. Such is a transition state. The only real question is do you have the strength, are you a MAN who will stand up as his ancestors to fight for what is right? Or will you continue to hide behind the lies?
obama lecture. you no lecture. make obama MAD.
Dear PJ in Chicago,
I have stayed up way too late to scroll down way too far to read your way too funny quips. Keep coming back to CNN forums, please.
kudos on your 20th century communist manifesto. i agree with everything you said, and i will cry with you when it never comes to pass because those 3 sins are the central parts of human nature, due to biology itself.
it is nice to aspire to something better though, isnt it?
Lies are not intrisic to human nature. I work in the biological medical field. So right there you are only wrong. Greed and glutony to an extent are. But if you prefess to be a thinking rational human, then you know when your nature leads you down a bad path. Like a drug addict getting clean, yes they crave the drug, but they do not do it because they know it is bad for them. So are you a thinking, rational human, or just another dumb beast that can do nothing besides run off of instinct?
By the way, your ignorance is showing. Nothing I posted was even close to communistic.
I have a two serious questions for Fareed, and I'd be interested in hearing his opinion. First, between having a two party system and a deeply corrupt campaign finance system which do you think is a bigger threat to our democracy? Second, what steps would you take to "unbreak" the American political system? If you could, please answer within this forum.
Don't forget fixing our political system too. Our current political system was crafted in the days where a groups ability to influence elections was based on the number of votes it could throw behind a candidate, not how much money it spent. That was a powerful tool to keep tool in keeping the elected officials listening to the actual people and not just whoever could buy their vote. It was also created with the expectation that the people voting would be too well educated to be easily fooled with smoke-and-mirrors tricks and too principled to be bought with the "bread and circuses" routine. Finally, it was created on the assumption that those who were eligible to vote would consistently vote.
What we have now is a system where 10 people who can throw $1 million dollars each into an election have more influence over the outcome of elections than 1,000 people who can only put $100 dollars each. We have more people going through schools than in early 1800's, but those people are no longer required to understand things like logic, debate, ethics, or the actual workings of government. And we have an electorate that simply does not get out and vote; in some areas getting a 50% turnout of eligible voters in a presidential election is a major achievement, and it is not uncommon for off-year elections to have turnouts of 20 or 30% instead of the 70% or more we used to have. The result is a government where well-financed groups who have are only a tiny fraction of the electorate, unwilling and unable to question their leaders dogma, wield a disproportionate amount of power.
If we want to fix this system for the long term, we need to make it so that pandering to the extremes becomes politically dangerous instead of the "safe bet". Cap the maximum donation and require that all campaign donations be tracable directly to an eligible voter and not just an organization. Stop worrying about teaching students obscure & mostly useless equations (that any scientist, doctor, or engineer knows to pull out a reference book when needed) and put back teaching students to evaluate someones claims for consistency, a basis in facts, etc so they aren't so easily fooled by emotional appeals and intimidation. Require that people vote or face a stiff fine if they repeatedly fail to vote, and overhaul our election system so that tradition no longer gives particular states a voice completely out or proportion to their actual representation. Maybe then we can start fixing the problems for the long term instead of rehashing the same issues every time a new crop of extremists gets voted in.
Don't disparage the value of teaching mathematics. The real value of teaching mathematics, if taught as it should be, is to teach people to think logically and rigorously.
This whole process is hardly a win for the country. The political process in this country is broken for precisely the major reasons cited in this article. Congrats to CNN and the author for raising these important issues.
This is all being done by design from the elite to destroy the dollar, our soverignty and bring in a new world order. From our broken budget to the price of a gallon of gas and food prices rising to the conflict in the middle east with us supporting rebels to force democracy down the muslims throat. All while we amuse the elite with what could be done, but wont! New world order is coming. Its not a conspiracy theroy anymore. Its at the door
With how things are, a New World Order sounds like a good cure... as long as truely good people are leading it. Otherwise it would just revert back to what we have now or could be even worse. Only time will tell... and we should still be ready to get dirty.
@ Keitaro
The Federal reserve is probably the biggest scam ever pulled off in History
and most people dont even know what it is.
You are in debt from the moment you are born.
So, why are scumbag Tea Begger politicians still getting paid duirng a ahutdown. These maggots don't deserve salary and benefits, let alone the pay they are getting. I say make these monkeys work for minimum wage and make then live in homeless shelters instead of "shacking up" in the people's house. It's time to get serious people. If they want to reduce the size of govmint, start with your wallets first!!
obama say you drink too much tonight. sleep now.
I know nearly 5,000 american soldiers have died in Iraq alone. Do you know how many Iraqi have died? What about if the anti-abortion advocates really were pro-life instead of anti-woman? If they were pro-life they would be horrified that some estimates put the number of Iraqi civilian deaths since the US invasion at 1.5 million. I am pro-choice. And I am horrified.
bob t go have sex with your family member like a typical good lil tea bag member.
It's odd that the 800 lb gorilla of healthcare is mentined but not the proper solution. Ever since healthcare was made into a "for profit" system, the cost increases have far exceeded inflation. The proper answer befor e reform was single payeruniversal healthcare, like so any other countries have utilized. This 800 lb gorilla that was forced on the backs of American businesses is mostly responsible for sending jobs off-shore, to countries like China where the government covers healthcare.
obama know about 800 lb. gorilla. what's that? ok, in a minute honey. obama gotta go now.
I know bout 800lb gorilla too – I see em in the reglecting wall evry day
i see typical ignorant poor excuse of so called republican humor from a inbread tea bagger named P jchicago.
Not funny Crack, not at all.
you say crack, make obama laugh.
Go ahead PjinChicago make us laugh with low brow ignorant tea trash so called humor.
obama blink, ... what just happen?
Really budget cuts, lets talk about politicians flying first class, or private jets. 5 star catered meals, high end hotels. If they eant the perks pay out of pocket, take your wages spend your own money. Average people dont have these extras, why should our elected officals, get perks WE out selves can not afford. Stop giving 7000 tax refunds to families that pay 200 a year in tax and can't manage wgat they earn cause they have toi many kids. Welfare should not be used on junk food, chips, candy, icecream, but real food nutrious meals.
This kind of stuff is just stupid. If my government officials are traveling I want them rested and on top of their game, not recovering from being cramped into economy class seats and a night at a Motel 6. Quibbling about this kind of stuff really is just stupid. Have you ever been on a plane? Was there no one sitting in first class but politicians?
Try to spend some time studying issues so you can post something more than a rant. Rants on the Internet are a dime-a-dozen noise in cyberspace.
The price of a gallon of gas here in the U.S is supposed to be 60 cents a gallon. Gas and food prices are being raised by design by the elite so you wont be able to afford to protest. While everyone is bickering, The US WILL default! The system WILL colapse and millions depending on the government resources will go hungry and beg for New World Order and a new currency. What you're seeing now is an all out attack on our way of life. Like a cavity which slowly rots and decays painfully until the patient begs to have it removed and replaced. The trillions of dollars that went to offshore banks after both Bush and Obama put the martial law gun to the heads of congress is being used to build a dream system for the elitist designed to give them complete power and control while oppressing all of man kind. Need proof? Look at the signs.
Keitaro
PNAC – Plan For The New American century.
Just a blue print for world domination
Using American Money and Muscle.
So far the plan is working well because most people dont believe it.
> I would eliminate almost all tax deductions, loopholes and what are called “tax expenditures
I won't disagreewith you here.
> And so if you get rid of that the Simpson-Bowles Commission estimates you can get almost a trillion and a
>half dollars, or you can reduce rates. I would rather, for now, just keep the money to pay down the debt
And you insure the housing market and economy takes many more years to recover, if we don't go into a recession, and you slam the middle class. The mortgage deduction, and I have no problem eliminating it, was to help create home ownership. It's one that many middle class rely on. Eliminating that and not lowering rates, as with Simpson-Bowles, is a real tax increase for huge numbers of the middle class. Yoy not only destroy them, but sap money out of the economy.
> I think that for Social Security, the retirement age needs to be raised. You need means testing.
>You need to index it in a different way than it is indexed now so that you don’t have ever-rising benefits.
Every raising benefits? If you didn't notice, there haven't been ANY in the past couple years.
Entitlement? Means testing? You have Daniel Patrick Moynihan rolling in his grave. And he's one I person I DID respect. He correctly roiled at anyone who called Social Security an entitlement. -
>It used to be that in Congress you became famous by creating big, bipartisan deals and passing big, bipartisan
>legislation. There was an understanding that you were solving problems.
Amd that was part of the problem. To get support from here or there, you simply added billions and billions to the cost of legislation to get support fot those 'big' programs; effectively buying support and costing taxpayers needlessly. I wouldn't call that a 'positive'.
You seem to have the same problem as the tea party. You easily toss out your opinion – do this, do that. Yet it seems hardly well thought out. Stick with politics. When it gets to the economy I really don't think you have a clue.
"The mortgage deduction, and I have no problem eliminating it, was to help create home ownership. It's one that many middle class rely on. Eliminating that and not lowering rates, as with Simpson-Bowles, is a real tax increase for huge numbers of the middle class. Yoy not only destroy them, but sap money out of the economy."
It would need to be eliminated gradually, for obvious reasons, but it's an upside down incentive, providing the most incentive and help to the people who have the least need for it — high income earners, because income tax rates are progressive. Home mortgage interest isn't deductible in Canada and they have comparable rates of home ownership. What the deduction does in my opinion is inflate the price of homes and encourages those with higher incomes to buy bigger, more expensive homes than they otherwise would.
"Entitlement? Means testing?"
Absolutely.
"You have Daniel Patrick Moynihan rolling in his grave. And he's one I person I DID respect. He correctly roiled at anyone who called Social Security an entitlement."
Social Security is an entitlement. It's not a retirement account. Benefits are funded by current contributions, not the retiree's contributions. Your Social Security contributions pay for the checks your parents or grandparents get. It was designed to be a safety net, not a primary retirement account. As such it should be viewed as something that ensures seniors are not destitute if they don't have other retirement income. Those who can live comfortably without it shouldn't get it, in my opinion. The government has an obligation to ensure no citizen goes without the basics, but no obligation to ensure you can pay your country club dues.
I often agree with Fareed but not on this one. I do not agree that members of either party not wanting to do a deal is a sign that things are broken. I believe too many sweetheart deals are done with special interest groups that cost taxpayers money. Both parties are guilty. Government has become the self appointed solver of all problems and we can't afford it. I say less deals, less spending and less influence from special interest groups are a welcome.
Love it. It’s amazing how many people still believe the democrat vs. republican, liberal vs. conservative nonsense. The 2 sides pretend not to get along by playing a giant game of ping pong to entertain the masses while they conspire together in the back rooms where all the dirty deals are made. I see the complacency and slumbering that is all around me particulary working in an environment with folks like myself with advanced degrees. Engaging in any type meaningful conversation associated with the economy or state of affairs in the U.S or the globe is a lost cause. The state of mass denial is absolutely amazing. Many of my colleagues are part of the mass distraction. To them it is either about some party, sporting event or what is on TV. Interestingly, if they do engage in conversation they fall into my all time favorite category, “It is the democrats fault… no its the Republicans fault”. The true puppet masters use the 2-party system and talking heads on MSM to continually confuse and distract Americans. And boy does it work.
agreed – we really don't have Democrats and Republicans. We have Politicians and Citizen/Voters. While nobody conciously planned it this way, Politicians have successfully used the wartime strategy of "divide and conquer", splitting the 50% of the population who do vote into 2 groups pretty much 50/50. Then the "opposing" party is demonized, blamed for all the problems and the Citizen/Voters buy into it, while the Politicians go on to win for their special interests...every time.
http://www.JeffBlock2012.com
FZ makes some good points here, but didn't anybody read the defeatist crap he was cranking out a few years ago re: the Iraq war? To put it mildly, I'm not a fan.
@ anthony. Good stuff. Greed, the desire for more and more and lying to get it. Thats whats destroying society. Yes, it will take blood and tears. The problem is, even after that, there still will be the greedy among us who will rise up. There needs to be an event that brings a massive mindset change, similar to the son on the throne making his return. The messiah of the elite is to create a system where the entire resources of the world will be to themselves. All we need to do is expose them and bring them to the light and punish them. They fear the voice of the middle class and righteous hard working citizens who have a common purpose and voice.
Amen brother. I think a very important issue is transparency in the political system. If the citizens of this country made it their responsibility to track every dollar that is spent on campaign contributions and lobbying efforts, we would be able to hold the ultra greedy predatory unethical financial capitalists in check, just as we should hold politicians in check.
Mr Zakaria, it clearly shows your choice of party. The party who is opposing the government is doing a favor to the current government to mend their ways and be known as a successful government. If I were in politics, I would let them do the mistakes and when the election time comes , I could blame the government, the way democrats have been doing for last decade or so. Then your assessment would be that opposition is not accountable, I guess.
One thing is for sure that you will have material to write either way. Way to go.
Nonsense. The oarty, the people you are refering to are the same people who should take much of the responisbility for the current situation. Is a consequence of 8 years Bush. Teabaggers are taking his policies even further and you claim that is going to help anyone? If you want to competely ruin the country, not only financially butnalso its credibility, morale and right don to its values then you're wth extremiss like the teabaggers.
obama go from 1st to worst in 18 months. obama confused.
this alone says it all – "Right now the way you become famous in Congress seems to be to actually not do a deal – to show that you have stood up to the evil forces on the other side."
*claps in approval over nick the quick's comment*
It's our fault as Americans. We vote for reality celebrities now instead of qualified politicians. We are relatively uneducated. Fox News and MSNBC might as well be called "news entertainment", it's certainly not news. The big corporations and the very rich have pretty much created the country in their best interest and make sure the proper officials are elected to keep it that way.
shame.
AJ: Not to put too fine a point on it. You've pretty much said it all in one paragraph. Thanks.
Let me see. The markets are doing vibrantly well because all of the QE money is being invested by the banks. The banks are buying stocks with your tax paying dollars and also buying some T Bonds as well. The money is staying at the top 1% of this nation while we bury ourselves in a hole so deep you can smell hell. Whatever...this country is a lost cause..because main stream media is LYING every day to the American people. Our country is built on borrowed money and fake printed money and some point we can not keep borrowing exponential dollars from a world that is much more hungrier then we are. I often wonder why the whole world puts up with our bull. Seriously...please for once tell the truth. WE HAVE A VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM!
Yep!
I agree with most items here except the timeline of....we have 5 years to fix this. The debt is already tremendous and there are usually catalysts that affect major moves in markets. For example the market was topping out in the summer of 2001 and already weak when the 9/11 event occurred. So, in already negative circumstances, a negative catalyst will cause havoc. There are regularly negative events that rock the markets, but our dollar, standard of living, and financial and military power in the world are all in jeopardy. At the rate we're going, we probably only have about 3 years left before the dollar is worthless. Any number of things can happen to speed up this progress, but inactivity to resolve the problem would be the worst thing. Gold is skyrocketing, Costco is selling survival food supplies on their web site, and some of the financial savvy are moving to Singapore as they are seeing all of this coming. Time to be as independent as possible at as many things as possible....income (converting much paper to silver and gold), and food sources. This isn't the time to be thinking of selling the farm.....putting a bobwire fence around it maybe, but not selling it.
Mr Zakaria mentioned that the system should survive another 5 years unless some kind of "event" happens. Do you think the puppet masters behind the curtain who are uneffect by all this will pay to initiate this event which could crash the us government if it meant more money and power. In the words of Sarah Palin – "you becha!"
Here's the silver bullet. If yo need it you get it if you don't. no way. my father pays his golf cours dues with social security. there needs to be a means test for social securiy and medicate so only those who need it get it
But now you have a fairness problem. You father was "forced" to pay into Social Security, expecting this money back at retirement time. He's there, he's getting it back, and he should be able to do whatever he wants with it....you don't change the rules like that after you've been paying into something all your life. That's just about like the government taking your 401K money because the "mean test" says that you don't need it.
And all these compromises have to be made in the face of a looming energy and environmental crisis. We are at the end of cheap, easy to obtain oil. There may be oil left in the ground, but what's left is going to cost more and more to get out, in terms of the energy needed, risk, cost, and environmental impact – keeping up what we have now would essentially require poisoning our air, land, and water for generations to come.
There's not an answer to oil (and coal) right now. Not solar, not wind, not bio-fuels, and certainly not nuclear. (Even if we can make the reactors "safe" there's still that problem of spent fuel and radioactive waste we haven't solved, and Japan is proving that a supposedly "safe" reactor can have the worst happen to it.). Everything else has significantly lower energy output.
The only answer at this point that can work, is to use the few years of (relatively) cheap oil we have left to retool our economy, society, and entire civilization to be less wasteful, and less obsessed with consumption. There are a lot of financial interests that will be hurt by that – there are three ways to get there – congress somehow gets the courage to make a stand and push us on the path to real reform, a revolution happens, or ... most likely, we keep exploiting the little bit of resources we have until nothing is left, while a handful of rich people stuff their pockets until they realize the world is falling apart around them, and civilization collapses – just as happened numerous times throughout history.
The budget crisis pales in comparison to this energy crisis. We are so dependent on all this energy from oil to run everything, our population is larger than the land along can support – it's only through mechanization and industrial-scale farming that we manage to feed the global population. 10, 20, 40, 50 years from now, depending on who you ask, a lot of people are going to literally starve to death.
Check the facts for yourselves – these aren't new revelations or some secret truth, but rather what many scientists and economists have been trying to tell us for years now. After you do, then remind congress that they have a bigger mess on their hands than all this partisan bickering – what we do now determines how bad the "later" is going to be.
The top 5 percent of income earners paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes. I guess the rich don't pay their fair share
You've conveniently left out one rather import element in this equation.
I'm amazed by how many people think one statistic tells the whole story. How much of the total income do they earn? More important, how much of the wealth do they control?
The top 5% paid 58.7% of the income taxes paid, but the top 1% paid 38%. The 95-99% group only paid 20.2%. The real money is in top 1%.
In 2007 the top 1% earned 23% of the AGI and controlled 34% of the wealth, while the bottom 50% earned 12.26% of the income and controlled 2.5% of the wealth. While you may feel those at the top are having to pay too much, somehow they still manage to get richer and see their net worth grow substantially faster than those in the bottom 90%.
Just so you know, taxes are not about fair share. That's a notion that has no reasonable basis, probably because people are obsessed with the idea that everything in life has to somehow be fair. The people who can afford to pay the taxes pay them. When income distribution becomes fair then you can talk to me about wanting fair taxation.
People who pay no taxes have little right to demand more benefits from those who do pay. Most people that make good money work very hard for a long period of time to get to that point. Many people that make little money are in that situation because they have not made enough effort to move ahead. They want the benefits without making the effort to get the benefits.
@Glen – if you still think hard work is enough to "get ahead", you are delusional. The gap between the lowest earners and the highest is so wide that hard work won't ever close that gap. A 40 hour work week used to get you somewhere. It doesn't anymore, in fact – the middle class is disappearing. It's not that people don't have the drive and ambition, it's that the economic control of the rich and powerful is now so complete that you can't get to their level without basically becoming their slaves through debt.
I'm all for honest work and honest pay, and for people that work harder to have more, but it really isn't that way when the people who have it all manipulate the system to make sure that only a select few can join them at the top.
@Glen Wilson: "People who pay no taxes have little right to demand more benefits from those who do pay."
The notion that they pay no taxes is a myth. Even those who pay no income tax pay payroll taxes, sales tax, property tax (even if it's just included in their rents), excise taxes such as the taxes on gasoline, alcohol and tobacco, and so on. In fact, they pay a higher percentage of their income by far into these taxes than high income earners.
The cutoff AGI for the bottom 50% is $34K. The cutoff for the top 1% is just under $400K. Just how much more do you think people making $20K and $30K should pay in taxes? The more they pay in taxes the less they have to save or get ahead, and given that they already control a whopping 2.5% of the wealth in this country what do you think will happen to that percentage if they pay more of their income into taxes?
"Most people that make good money work very hard for a long period of time to get to that point. Many people that make little money are in that situation because they have not made enough effort to move ahead. They want the benefits without making the effort to get the benefits."
This is a myth propagated by people trying to justify keeping as much of their money as they can. People work hard at all income levels. The natural order of things precludes the possibility that everyone can "move ahead" for a variety of reasons.
People are not all the same. They have different talents, intelligence, personalities, and life situations that affect their potential to succeed in life. Every really wealthy person will tell you he was lucky. Hard work isn't enough. It's necessary, but not sufficient. I'm willing to bet just from this comment that you're a white male with above average IQ, raised in a reasonably stable two-parent home, who went to predominantly white schools, and probably has a college education from a public university.
Am I close? Because every person I've met who talks the way you do has all of these advantages going for him and is clueless to the idea that he did nothing to earn those advantages, and everyone one of them is an advantage that makes it easier to succeed in this country. None of them are *required*, but they all make the way easier. Men earn more than women. Whites earn more than non-whites. People with above average IQs earn more than people with below average IQs. (In fact, tall men earn more than short men, and the average CEO of a Fortune 500 company is 3" taller than the population average.) And if you attended public schools and a public university you have an education paid for in part by people who owe you nothing, which makes you one of those people getting handouts. Come on, tell me you're a black woman raised by a single mom in the projects who went to private schools her whole life.
And as for getting ahead, you should look at the data. The bottom 60% or so haven't seen their real income rise at all in the past three decades while the real income of the top 1% has grown by leaps and bounds. Where's your incentive to work hard if your real income is less today than it was 10 years ago, as it is for those at the bottom?
Furthermore, it's the nature of every economy that there are limits to the number of people who can get those good jobs needed to "move ahead" because there's a limited demand for people in those jobs. In the Army, only a limited number of privates can ever work their way up to general because the Army has a lot more privates than generals. An economy is the same way. Disregarding for the moment that not everyone is able to succeed in college or running a business, if every low wage worker in America were suddenly smart and had a college degree it wouldn't create a demand for all of them in the workforce.
We'd just have a lot of smart college-educated cashiers at Wal*Mart, a lot of smart college-educated working at 7-11s, washing dishes in restaurants, cleaning our public toilets and so on. And the pay for all those good-paying jobs would drop like a rock because the supply of people for them would far outweigh demand. How could a software engineer demand $100K when there's a guy with the same qualifications bagging groceries for $7 an hour willing to take his job?
Any rational assessment of the human race and the job market tells you that this notion everyone can be well off if he just works hard enough is nonsense. Not to say hard work isn't important, but this notion that the rich are rich because they work harder than everyone else and somehow deserve to be rich has no rational basis.
"Wealth is something that happens to you as a result of circumstances over which you have absolutely no control." — William H. Gates, Sr.
http://video.forbes.com/fvn/forbes400-10/jay-z-buffett-on-power-of-luck
But what is their effective tax rate on an individual basis. The statistic you quote is meaningless, because that percentage may only be 10% of their income, when the tax rate those of us that don't resort to tax evasion pay is anywhere from 28% and up. Saying this group as a whole pays X% doesn't tell us if they as individuals pay a reasonable portion of their income, since their income is so disproportionate to what 90% of the population makes.
As a friend of yours to the north, and if thats not a big enough clue its Canada. NO its not Canada speaking its [1] of its citizens. I hope there is more sane people i n the U.S.A than what has put there mark to form an opinion; With some degree of Inteligence. Can you imagine 6.5Billion people around the world, There heart droped threw there ass whole Knowing that your country has nukes. The combined population of America of some 300 million.I will point out only a hand full have the ability to realy use them. THE NUKES ; OOOOOHHHH.. ..SHIT Ihope thay can read and write. .TEA -baggers go back to school and check if the damage is perminent. If I,ve angered you enough by my comments,Then imagine the retorric you have put forward.in this set of replies. One says he can raise an army.Another saysTO go have SEX with a family member.One talks of a new world order.If you belive for a nano second {lenght of time},the rest of the world takes you with any thing but disdane.you are wrong U.S.A has not led since2nd world war and even then they took credit for other sacrufices.TO start by tearing down your constitution.put the same value of life on the Iraqies as you put on un born children. Slap karzia in the face before you turn him over to the Haig. did I mention banking it must be taken away from private handelers as greed is to over powering to people with no morals, Lots to say but I don,t want to stick my nose in anybodys busness. your nervous friend;)herb
"If you look to the financial markets ..."
We do this each time Fareed. They steal the money from the economy with failing companies and insider trading and golden parachutes, and they do it more often than they used to do it.
The long term problem is that the USA cannot stop antibiotic-resistant bacteria in other countries, so superbugs will be the next global endemic.
But at least drunks can go to college to buy paper.
OK to all you so called Christian's or any person who would dare call themselves a GOOD, STRONG person of any faith or creed, it's time for a history lesson and why if you profess to be a GOOD person you would not be a Capitalist. Adam Smith, the man credited with being the father of capitalism, first gave the world the theory of capitalism in 1776 in a book called "An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations". Don't worry if you don't know it, the Gov (a lot of it Repub's) have been killing our educational system for so long its not a surprise many of you are ignorant of this fact. Anyways, the following is a quote from that book.
"But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of."
This is the basic tenant of Capitalism. GREED, from the creator of Capitalism's own words. What Smith is saying here is that any person will always be acting in their own self interest, and as such, seek out an economic activity that provided the greatest financial gain, which then would maximize the society’s economic well-being. Therefore, we now have an economic system based on one of the worst aspects of human behavior; greed. Since people are acting solely out of greed it only makes sense to make products inferior to what they could be to bring back business to either buy the same product over or have it repaired, a trend many have seen in today’s westernized society. Greedy people also have another desire that usually coincides with the greed aspect, the desire to always have more no matter how much they already have; gluttony. As long as we are betting against the goodness of our race, we might as well throw lying into the mix, for what better way is there to gain more economic growth for an individual, organization, or society than to fool his customer into paying even more for the service or good offered. Most any individual can tell you another list which greed, gluttony, and lying are also listed in. Now let’s pose this question: if you have unruly individuals that need managing, such as in a prison system, or even an educational system, is it wise to mange them with a system that rewards behavior you are trying to diminish or find offensive? To this author, that system of logic seems very backwards. Not only is it backwards, but it is a self-repeating destructive cycle. People learn how to behave partially from socialization and enculturalization, and being raised in such a society. So to all you so-called GOOD STRONG people, tell me, how do you practice 3 Deadly Sins on an everyday basis and still think that your are GOOD people?
Some might try to argue that these are basic human traits. Well coming from someone who has a biological/medical background... LIES are not. Greed and gluttony are to an extent. But we have gone beyond the days of cave men and now like a see-saw, we have crossed over that middle balance point and weighed down the other end so we are going down with it. But to be human is to atleast try to be a rational thinking creature. Like a drug addict getting clean, they still have the desire for the drug, but they don't take it because they know it is bad for them. So are we to be true humans or just more dumb beasts running off our instinct?
Don't forget that this entire system was also designed around an agricultural society. Are we that any more? It was also designed around a human populace that had a much more even "workers needed : total jobs" ratio. That is no longer nearly the case. Without even bringing outsourcing into the picture we have a major problem.
Industrilization + computerization + efficiency techniques = less human jobs
More humans then ever before + booming birth rates + longer life span = more human jobs needed
More human jobs needed + Less human jobs availble = We are screwed.
Hrmmm... maybe an update is needed?
And why all this? For TOYS???! TOYS! Really you "adults". Face it, if it not FOOD, AIR, WATER, the planet EARTH, and SHELTER (depending on the climate you live in of course) it is not a NECESSITY, it is a TOY. You DON'T need it, you merely WANT it. Last I knew of it was children that threw temper tantrums when they didn't get their toys. or put their toys ahead of humans.
Face it this is a sickness of our mentality. And like any sickness, if we sit here and quable over the SYMPTOMS and keep putting band-aids on our boo-boos, the true infection will continue to fester. We must treat the disease, not the symptoms!
This is not Obama's fault. IF YOU WANT TO SEE WHO IS TO BLAME, LOOK IN THE MIRROR! LOOK AT YOUR PARENTS, AND THEIR PARENTS AND ALL THE GENERATIONS THAT HAVE LIED TO THEMSELVES OVER AND OVER! We need to make a change, change our economic system, possibly even our political one. Yes there will be a
transition period like when anything changes. It can be bloody or it can be not-bloody. But even if it has to become bloody... what makes us too good to get dirty. Were our fore-fathers too good to get dirty to fight to make this country? Were any mans fore-fathers of any nation too good to get dirty to fight for freedom and what was right?! Yes there will blood, pain and tears. Such is a transition state. The only real question is do you have the strength, are you a
MAN who will stand up as his ancestors to fight for what is right? Or will you continue to hide behind the lies?
What Adam Smith describes is not greed. He's saying you should expect to have to offer fair compensation to someone to get something from him. Greed is what motivates you to take advantage of other people, to not compensate them fairly, to cheat them, and so on.
Capitalism can only work if it's restrained – that is, if there are checks to make sure that it doesn't result in too much accumulation of power – when corporations can have the power of governments, it's out of control.
As bad as the problems of capitalism are, up until a certain point, greed and profit do more to provide a functional economy than other systems do, but that's only while it's possible to raise or lower one's status significantly within a fraction of one's lifetime by working within that system, and with reasonable checks to make sure that one is not exploiting others to get ahead (labor standards, wage standards, antitrust, environmental regulations, etc).
Some systems however don't lend well to being managed by greed. Healthcare, utilities, energy production, all seem to be examples, and some of the world's most successful economies are really "mixed economies" – a mix of socialism and capitalism that balances the best and worst of human nature to create a system that really does work.
You think we have five years to solve the problem before the US dollar ceases to be the reserve currency of the world? I think we have 5 to 12 months before that changes, and when it does we will become a third world economy overnight.
The problem is the two party system. As long as we have only two choices (and are stuck with the "lesser of two evils"), they can gridlock and play brinksmanship and there is no alternative. On change that would provide alternative, while otherwise fitting well with our system, instant-runoff voting. Wikipedia has a nice article on it.
Kudos on this, as its the only likely way we can turn a firmly entrenched two-party system into one where coalitions and compromise are the way of government.
WOW!!! I think Fareed read all that right out of the Democratic Stratigist Manual.
Point for point, that is pretty much what we have heard proposed out of almost every Democratic Politician and Strategist for the past 3 years.
And here we are with a budget that is 7 months overdue, with the Democrats proposing the same tired schtick and a hack for CNN, pushing the same thing.
Raise taxes on the rich, raise taxes on everyone else (see VAT) to save massive entitlement programs and cut the defense budget.
Real original there Fareed, you are such a genius and original thinker, what's going to come out next?
Social Justice, Tolerance for Sharia Law or Bush's Fault?
I've got and idea. How about stop spending our money on garbage legislation and politician accountability?
Since all you seem to have is sarcasm and nonsense I don't see where you're in any position to belittle Fareed's ideas. Furthermore, you rant isn't even honest. He's not saying what *I've* been hearing from Democrats for three years and he clearly say we need to scale back entitlements.
Your message is what I've been hearing from the right for three years: no ideas and dishonest criticisms.
Now who's being dishonest here?
Once you’ve done those two things I think you have to very significantly restructure American entitlements and cut government spending. I think that for Social Security, the retirement age needs to be raised. You need means testing. You need to index it in a different way than it is indexed now so that you don’t have ever-rising benefits.
There is no talk of scaling back entitlements besides raising retirement age. All he is talking about is "restructure", "Means Testing" and "re-indexing". Which is BS hack-speak meaning. The same level of entitlements are going to get out there, we are just going to white-wash it with shinola, and try some cost saving measures like buying cheaper meds, generic products, and lower quality services.
At the end of the day it comes down to two groups of idiots arguing about the differance between not spending $5 or $10 while they are still going to go and borrow $450 from people who they owe $14,000...
Larry in every post on this board you have done nothing but carried the status quo for the Democrats and business as usual. Anything that anybody has proposed sarcastic to serious, you have waved off and poo-poo'd because it was against the ideals of the Democratic Party. You have zero original thoughts of your own and you keep regurgitating the sad tired mantra of a Liberal Socialist Democrat.
First of all, you need to get it through your head that government jobs unlike private sector jobs, don't create revenue, they use it. Counting the tax revenue gained from them paying taxes are "false profits" because that is money you paid them out of your revenue in the first place. You have to tax the private sector to pay for them. Counting government jobs as lowering your national unemployment rate is false economy.
You are right, we need to provide jobs, but not government jobs. They only suck up revenue, not create it.
VAT is not something that you can "chose" to pay, when it is applied to everything. Sure it starts off low and only on certain items, like imports or luxeries, but politicians are never happy with that. In short order it climbs to 10-15% and it is applied to almost everything. When I lived in Germany if I remember correctly, it was 20% and it was on nearly every item including food. Again, Democrats solutions aren't to cut spending and put money back into the pockets of the people. It's to create another tax, so now, we have Income tax, sales tax, and now VAT tax. If it were up to Democrats and Socialists, we would be paying more than 50% of our income in some sort of tax, like in Europe, to be spent by them, wasted and squandered. With no choice in the matter.
At what point does over taxation become slavery?
@Jace: "Now who's being dishonest here?"
Find something I've said that's dishonest.
"Once you’ve done those two things"
Which two things?
"I think you have to very significantly restructure American entitlements"
I have no problem with that in concept. The devil is in the details, as they say.
"cut government spending."
I'm all for cutting spending, but not until we get the unemployment rate down. When we *should* have been cutting spending was in early 2001 and then in 2006 when the unemployment rate was below 5% so people who lose their jobs due to spending cuts can find new ones relatively quickly, not when it's 9% and the economy is trying to grow. Cut spending significantly now and you'll add millions to the unemployment rolls, which makes for a bigger deficit.
Look, I was warning people about the the national debt five years ago, before it was a national pastime, before the recession, before I'd even heard of Barack Obama. So save your lectures about the need for spending cuts for someone who doesn't get the need for them. I'm just saying that now is not a good time for big cuts, not with the unemployment rate so high.
"I think that for Social Security, the retirement age needs to be raised."
Raised some. The challenge here as I see it is that although medical advances allow us to live longer, they don't add as many years to our productivity. Age takes a toll on people. They can't do the physical labor they did when they were younger and mental deterioration becomes a bigger issue as people get older. Adding 10 years to life expectancy doesn't mean people can be as productive at 75 as they used to be at 65. Furthermore, the reality is that as you get older it gets harder to find a job if you don't have one or want to change employers.
So raising it a year or two is fine, but raising it five or more would be problematic in my opinion. Raising it also keeps more people in the workforce who would otherwise retire, making it harder for people entering the workforce to find jobs.
"You need means testing."
I agree. We should have always had means testing for entitlement programs. It was silly not to.
"You need to index it in a different way than it is indexed now so that you don’t have ever-rising benefits."
Ever-rising in what sense? Beyond what's needed to maintain the same benefit after accounting for inflation?
"There is no talk of scaling back entitlements besides raising retirement age."
I've heard some talk of means testing.
"Larry in every post on this board you have done nothing but carried the status quo for the Democrats and business as usual."
That's simply not true. What I've done is attack the idiotic ideas of people who clearly haven't studied any of the relevant issues or given two seconds of thought to the full ramifications of what they're advocating. I've never been a Democrat and I used to be a Republican. But all I hear from the Republican side is a lot of nonsense and lies, and I am opposed in principle to lies and sabotaging legitimate discussion with nonsense rooted in ignorance. What you have here is an ad hominem argument, an attempt to disparage my credibility by claiming I just support the Democrats. By and large I think the Democrats are incompetent, but I think they are sincere in their intentions, whereas the Republicans, at least the far right Republicans who get the most attention are either power-seeking pathological liars or mindless ideologues who actually believe the stuff they say even when it has no connection to reality.
"Anything that anybody has proposed sarcastic to serious, you have waved off and poo-poo'd because it was against the ideals of the Democratic Party."
Now you're just telling lies about me. I have explained why I oppose what I oppose with logical arguments, often supported with hard data, none of which you people attempt to address, and "against the ideals of the Democratic Party" has never been one of my arguments. As I see, all of the arguments from your side are Republican talking points never supported with real data or historical evidence.
You people never even attempt to address my points. You always go for the personal attacks, which speaks far more about your arguments than mine. As for sarcastic suggestions, they're nothing more than narcissistic noise that lowers the quality of discourse. Not to condemn sarcasm, but if it's al you have you don't have anything substantive to contribute.
"You have zero original thoughts of your own and you keep regurgitating the sad tired mantra of a Liberal Socialist Democrat."
Rubbish. All this says is that you have no substantive rebuttal to my arguments.
"First of all, you need to get it through your head"
You need to get it through your head that you aren't the intellectual wizard you think you are.
"that government jobs unlike private sector jobs, don't create revenue, they use it."
This is not some grand revelation, and it doesn't prove anything. Government provides services and protections and we pay for those services with taxes. It's intellectually dishonest to talk of government as if it just "uses" revenues as if government employees just operate large cash incinerators. Most businesses pay accounts. Are accounts producing anything or just consuming resources?
Would you be so foolish as to suggest that people employed in the VA health care system provide no value? Or air traffic controllers, or employees of the FBI or CDC?
"Counting the tax revenue gained from them paying taxes are "false profits" because that is money you paid them out of your revenue in the first place."
Then claiming a spending cut is a deficit reduction is also less than truthful. Suppose the government spends $100K to employ someone, and $30K of that goes to income taxes and payroll taxes. Then cutting that person's job only reduces the deficit by $70K. If that person can't find a job quickly he's going to draw unemployment, which will be an expense to the government that *increases* the deficit. At this point you have a good bit less than $70K in net deficit reduction from this $100K spending cut. Now, repeat 6,000 times in the same area, as will be the case if the Joint Forces Command is eliminated. That's a lot of income lost to the local economy. Businesses will make less money. They'll pay less in taxes. They'll lay people off or reduce their hours, further reducing income and payroll tax revenues, which translates into even less net deficit reduction from your $100K spending cut.
"You have to tax the private sector to pay for them. Counting government jobs as lowering your national unemployment rate is false economy."
I haven't advocated providing government jobs. I've said spending cuts will cost jobs. Some of those will be government jobs but many of them won't. The government is the largest consumer of goods and services in the economy. Cut spending and it will hurt contractors, suppliers, vendors, as well as government employees. This is just a fact.
That said, when you pay a government worker he takes that money and makes his house payment, his car payment, buys food, clothing, furniture, electricity, insurance, and so on *after* he pays income tax and payroll taxes. That spending supports other jobs in the economy and generates tax revenues from sales taxes and excise taxes. Cut his job when unemployment is high and he'll stop paying taxes, draw unemployment, and reduce income to the businesses he would otherwise support.
On the private sector front, the government buys goods and services from the economy, because as you realize the government doesn't actually produce anything so it has to buy everything it uses, be that planes and missiles or paper for printers. So the more spending you cut the more money you take out of the economy. And since no one is advocating we cut taxes, there will be no increase in money in the private sector to compensate.
The upshot of all this is that the net deficit reduction from say, $1 trillion in spending cuts won't be anywhere near $1 trillion, which is why no economist on either side of the aisle is calling for large reductions in spending at this time. Not one.
The federal budget is not analogous to your household budget. If you cut $100 out of your monthly food budget your local grocery store isn't going to notice. But if everyone within 50 miles of you cuts $100 out of his monthly food budget your local grocery store will be lay people off, shorten hours, buy less from their suppliers, and so on. This is not a "Democratic" position, this is just common sense, something you people *claim* to have in abundance.
"You are right, we need to provide jobs, but not government jobs. They only suck up revenue, not create it."
The flaw in your argument is the implication that only jobs that "create revenue" have no value to the economy and to society in general, and that's just silly. Furthermore, I haven't advocating creating government jobs.
"VAT is not something that you can "chose" to pay, when it is applied to everything."
True, but you control if and when you pay it for any optional purchase, and as I understand it it's not usually charge on what would generally be considered essentials such as food.
"When I lived in Germany if I remember correctly, it was 20% and it was on nearly every item including food."
So? Germany has the fourth largest economy in the world and provides high quality health care to all its citizens. They've had universal health care since 1883. The raw amount of tax paid is not the issue, it's the value a country's citizens get from their tax dollar that matters. The intelligent goal is effective government, not small government.
"Again, Democrats solutions aren't to cut spending and put money back into the pockets of the people."
New flash: If you cut spending and don't cut taxes commensurately, which no one is advocating, then you aren't putting any money "back" in anyone's pocket, you're just taking money out of the economy.
"It's to create another tax, so now, we have Income tax, sales tax, and now VAT tax."
We have a $1.6 trillion deficit. We can spend all day analyzing how we ended up where we are, but we are where we are and we need to deal with that deficit as if we're serious about it, and if you're willing to put anything viable off the table you aren't serious.
"If it were up to Democrats and Socialists"
Gee, don't you want to mention Sharia law again? Once you stoop to using scary words like "Socialists" you really make it clear you don't have an argument.
"we would be paying more than 50% of our income in some sort of tax, like in Europe, to be spent by them, wasted and squandered. With no choice in the matter."
Ditto for claims that are nothing more than fabrications you pulled out of thin air. They are not arguments, they're a propaganda tactic.
"At what point does over taxation become slavery?"
At what point do these kinds of loaded questions become helpful?
"I think some of the stuff that Paul Ryan talks about, which is effectively forcing the consumer to pay more and therefore to be more cost-conscious, is a good idea."
I respect Fareed as a political commentator, but he obviously hasn't studied health care issues. Health care is not a normal consumer market. It's the ultimate seller's market. I know this is a popular idea, and it's one I supported until I spent some time studying health care issues. Here are some problems with it:
- It will exacerbate the inequity in health care delivered to people based on their financial status. The more people are expected to pay for care out-of-pocket the more the poor will forego care or postpone it as long as possible to save money while the wealthy will not hesitate to seek care.
- The belief that this will lower health care spending is a myth contradicted by all the evidence. The vast majority of countries with universal health care systems require little or no out-of-pocket spending for care and their per capita spending is all much lower than ours, even in systems that produce generally better health care outcomes than ours.
Singapore implemented a system based on HSAs and catastrophic insurance expecting it to bring down health care system and it didn't work. It's never worked anywhere and it won't work here.
- Health care is not a normal consumer good. As a "product" is is far too complex and requires too much specialized knowledge to expect ordinary people to be able to be "smart shoppers" for health care.
If your doctor says you need test you've never heard of for a potentially life-threatening condition you've never heard of and it will cost X dollars and you are tired and anxious because you’re in pain, are you going to know if you really need that test? Will you know if $X is a fair price? No, you're just going to trust your doctor. What other choice do most people have? How many people use multiple primary care physicians so they can get second opinions on basic diagnoses?
Furthermore, the bulk of health care spending occurs in response to events that are not conducive to being cost-conscious. When your kid can’t breathe in the middle of the night, when you’re practically in tears from the pain of a kidney stone, when you’ve been in a serious accident, when you aren’t even sure what’s wrong with you, few people will feel they have the option to just pass on care because they can’t negotiate an acceptable price for the required care, or be in a sound mental state to do so even if they wanted to.
And heaven forbid you end up in a hospital, as then there's no shopping around at all. All the medication, tests, and care you receive will be provided by that hospital.
Short version: Health care is the ultimate seller's market. The average person has little or no negotiating power.
- It will discourage people from getting care to save money:
"The 2007 version of Commonwealth’s survey did indeed find that 45 percent of adults aged 19 to 64 had one of four “access problems” related to cost — not filling a prescription; not seeing a specialist when needed; skipping a recommended medical test, treatment or followup; or not visiting a doctor or a clinic when they had a medical problem. That rate is notably higher than the 29 percent who reported similar actions in the 2001 survey.
[...]
These are the most recent numbers available from Commonwealth — and it’s hard to imagine that the rates of access problems would have dropped precipitously since the 2007 poll was taken. Back then, the national unemployment rate was averaging 4.7 percent. Today, it’s almost twice that."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/30/bill-pascrell/pascrell-says-45-percent-americans-went-without-ne/
- It creates a system in which ordinary people with no medical training are expected to diagnose their own symptoms to decide if a trip to the doctor is worth the cost. You’ve been tired a lot recently. Are you just working too late and not getting enough sleep? Or do you have leukemia, severe anemia, a defective heart valve, or any of a number of serious and even potentially fatal medical conditions that present as chronic fatigue? Does your tiredness warrant spending $75 to visit the doctor, or will he just tell you to get more sleep?
Tens of thousands of Americans die every year in this country because they fail to seek treatment for potentially fatal problems thinking their symptoms didn’t indicate anything that serious. This is inevitable in a system where people must bear the cost of routine care, and it’s why we compare so poorly to many other countries in deaths due to treatable conditions.
My daughter is in a Ph.D. program in Canada. She has to buy insurance because she isn't Canadian, but she has the same coverage as Canadians. A while back she had a kidney infection, which was being treated. Somehow (I don't recall the reason) she allowed herself to become dehydrated, and she started feeling nauseous. Since it doesn't cost her anything to go to the doctor she figured she'd go and see what they said, and what they said was that her kidneys had shut down. They put her in the hospital for four days, got everything fixed up, and she went home with working kidneys. Total out of pocket costs: $0.
If she's had to pay $50 for that initial doctor visit she might have waited until it was too late to save her kidneys. That's what happens in practice when people have to pay out-of-pocket for basic care. The poor put off getting it to save money and those who have money go for care more readily. We already have that in this country, which is why there's a big disparity in the health care outcomes and life expectancy between low- and high-income people.
This sounds like a fine idea on the surface, but in practice it's deeply flawed.
I work in the medical field as well. All the information you present is absolutly correct, I live it on a daily basis, except for one thing. It does not even sound like a fine idea on the surface. Seriously... trying to make a profit off of the sick and dying? That is jsut a twisted mentallity of the overly greedy and narcasistic. Hell lets face it, you can barely die in this country for free. You can't even will youself to be thrown in a ditch and covered over so you can decompose naturally and give back w/o who ever would be willing to take on your burial becoming a criminal.
I'm not in the medical field, I've just spent a lot of time studying these issues. As for "making a profit" off sick people, people in the health care industry need to be compensated and I have no problem with that. But fee-for-services encourages maximal care instead of minimal care and expecting people to pay for basic care is just a way of rationing care to people with money to spend on it.
Great post, very informative, thanks. I tell people that any free-market solution to health care would require us to accept people dying in the streets – does that sound about right?
Pretty much. Name any product whose distribution is governed solely by free market principles, as in, if you can afford it you can have, that isn't limited in its distribution. If you plan to treat health care like iPods, just remember there people don't have iPods because they can't afford them, and health care can cost a whole lot more than iPods.
"One in eight people with advanced cancer turned down recommended care because of the cost, according to a new analysis from Thomson Reuters, which provides news and business information. Among patients with incomes under $40,000, one in four in advanced stages of the disease refused treatment."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-10-12-cancer-costs_N.htm
Wonderful analysis. The civilized countries... Canada,European states spend a third to one half less on medical care...with the same or better results. Our present system is driven by greed and fear. I am for single payer ala Canada. When that was off table I was for public option. When that didn't fly I supportrd extending Medicare to the 55 and older group. Obama supported none of that. The present "reform" is a giveaway to insurance and pharmaceutical industries.
And that's how I learned that Obama is the ultimate flim flam man. Guantanamo, Afghanistan, the czy relation with Wall Street, Geitner Summers etc, tax policy for millionaire billionaires are other examples.
We've been had!!
Obama is a pragmatist. In the past I think he's supported single payer, but Americans have been brainwashed to believe government can't do anything right and just wants to control your life. It's a silly notion, but it resonates with a lot of Americans because they've been bamboozled by the propaganda put out by our $2.4 trillion health care industry.
We have a $2.4 trillion health care industry that fears government because it knows government is the only thing that can bring about the reforms we need, and that will cost them hundreds of billions dollars of revenue annually. So they've worked tirelessly to make people afraid of government having any role in our health care system. They want you to believe the free market is the answer because they know that in a market like health care, the seller is in control, and they're the sellers. Health care is not a normal consumer product and doesn't respond to competition the way normal consumer markets do.
It's this irrational fear of government that kept single payer from even getting serious consideration, and eventually caused the public option to be dropped. But fear not, with the proper regulation we can have a system like Switzerland's which is based on mandated all-private insurance. That's probably our best hope given the political realities in this country.
Have you seen The Language of Healthcare 2009? It's a 28-page guide to making people afraid of government in health care written for Republicans. Seriously:
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/frank-luntz-the-language-of-healthcare-20091.pdf
In every example you cite, Obama has compromised what he wanted to get something done and get something else he wanted. Remember, the Republicans have opposed him at every turn and their rhetoric, lies, and fear-mongering has even cost him support from the Democrats. There's a limit to what the president can do. He's not a dictator, and he needs the cooperation of Congress to accomplish a lot of his goals.
Is the political system broken? I guess that depends on your point of view. From the point of view of a Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan exec I would say they more than likely think it is working out just fine.
It's the media's job to inform us so we can make decisions on how to vote. Unfortunately, news doesn't get put out for free, so money talks and controls the media. It all comes to money, money, money, and until that changes don't expect reason, common sense, justice, or anything that isn't spelled p.r.o.f.i.t.
It's your responsibility to educate yourself. Don't expect "the media" to spoon feed it to you.
Its incredibly disingenuous to place the burden of gathering accurate information on viewers because people are working more, are engaged in more activities, and simply do not have enough time to sift through all that information. Besides, the media should be doing all that anyway! Its their damn job!
Anthony;;;You are on the write track, Lets look at it with vision with long term answers.Tear down what has been built over the last 300 to 350 years . Start fresh. WE no longer live in times of fudelism we no longer burn people to the stake. We no longer allow our cleargy to molest our childern.Religion is an option. Lets burn the constitution Then we put together panels send them to Cities, Villages, Rural areas, All over America, Thare sole job would be to brain storm.From the Bible we could pull some of the more reasonable morals to live bye. Thou shall not kill Or be apart of illigitamate wars. Steeling is a good one.as well I,m sure there are more .The Koran has lots of well intensioned laws budda has great eco rules to live bye. Democracy is an absolute... Not to be confused byU.S.A counting of ballots.By having a democ; We could take the best things from Communism ,socialism , Capitalism. We would start bye International Banks If banks are private... Greed becomes a factor and cant be resisted. Social values are a sticker to people who are gready Eg. Drug Companeys Claim they spend x amount of money in investments and need time to recoupe there investments. But what thay want is gread.The true meaning of Conservetism isYou drill for oil you cap 25% of what you find .I,m sorry to say people we have to have ,Nuke Power Include people who are sientests from around the world an to take in as much info before putting a nuke plant up.throw ideas up on the wall see which stick.Also be able to have agov.that is flexible so when thing have to be done, they can be. keep the talk going today clean rivers and lakes tommorow the Oceans Educate your selfs and kick those Tea partiers soft dems and lieing conservitives..New life for all man kind if the will is there.. HERB
The problem is that these parties are both putting the burden of this government on the working people of America. They're both taking money from working people and redistributing it. They just don't agree who should get the money. Democrats want to take money from working people and redistribute it to the poor. Some of these people such as the truly disabled may deserve assistance but I find too many lazy people who really are not entitled to assistance taking advantage of the system. I know an 18 year old kid who collects SSI for anger management issues. When I was growing up, they called this kid a brat and his parents provided the necessary discipline to correct the situation. These people refuse to work because the difference between what you get for SSI and what you get for working at minimum wage is so small. The Republicans want to redistribute wealth to corporations. Companies like General Electric and Exxon-Mobil make billions of dollars but actually pay no taxes. In fact, General Electric gets tax refunds every year. They have a whold department of about 900 people that are tasked with finding ways to exploit our tax system. Until we address the minimum wage issue, reform entitlements so that only those who truly need help get it, and the corporations start paying their fair share, we will continue on this downward spiral. Reforming entitlements doesn't require reduction of benefits to retirees. We need to reform the system to weed out the abuse of able bodied people who manipulate the system to collect SSI. If the government hadn't raided the Social Security trust fund to use the money for the General Fund, we wouldn't even be talking about this today so I have a little difficulty listening to people who use entitlements as a four letter word. That was our money. I've paid into Social Security since I was 14 years old. Now that I'm 48 years old, you're going to tell me that I'm not entitled to benefits after I've paid into the system most of my life?
"If the government hadn't raided the Social Security trust fund to use the money for the General Fund"
This is highly misleading. The funds in the Trust Fund are invested in government securities, just as your money is if you buy U.S. Savings Bonds or China's is when they buy our bonds. It's invested in government securities because they're considered the safest investment. You can argue it wasn't the best idea, but I haven't heard anyone with a better idea of what to do with that money. Storing 26 billion $100 bills in a warehouse doesn't seem very practical.
"That was our money. I've paid into Social Security since I was 14 years old. Now that I'm 48 years old, you're going to tell me that I'm not entitled to benefits after I've paid into the system most of my life?"
You apparently don't understand how Social Security works. Your contributions have always funded payments to current beneficiaries. Social Security is not an investment account, never has been, and has never been described as such. Your contributions fund benefits received by your parents, grandparents, and other beneficiaries.
The Trust Fund is the accumulation of surpluses built up over the years, but the bulk of contributions went to pay benefits with only a relative small portion of them going into the fund. At this point little or none of your contribution is going into the fund as right now contributions are pretty much all going out to pay benefits.
The purpose of the Trust Fund is to supplement current contributions when they drop below obligations. When you retire your benefits will be primarily funded by current worker contributions with some supplementation from the Trust Fund.
If we were to cut off contributions today and pay benefits exclusively from the fund it would be depleted in less than four years. Used to supplement current contributions it will obviously last much longer than that, after which benefits will be paid exclusively from contributions from current workers, so there will always be money, even if benefits have to be reduced at some point.
I get the impression you didn't understand this, but it's how it's always been. No one has suggested you won't be entitled to benefits, so I have no idea where you got that idea, but you will probably have to wait until you're 66 or 67 to start drawing Social Security, and you may draw less in terms of real dollars than your parents or grandparents are getting.
As Ross Perot once said, in corporate america you go to jail if you spend your employee's retirement funds. I understand the system is a pay as you go system. However, our government collected excess funds for the past 25 years under the guise of being ready to keep benefits in place when the boomer population retired. The money was not set aside and the government has little ability to repay the funds that were "borrowed"
@Glen Wilson: This is popular rhetoric. The money was invested in government bonds. As I said, I haven't heard anyone come up with a better way to invest it, and I didn't see you offer one either.
"The money was not set aside"
Set aside how? Are you a fan of the "26 billion $100 bills in a warehouse" plan?
"and the government has little ability to repay the funds that were "borrowed" "
It has the same ability to repay these funds as it does securities it sells China or U.S. Savings Bonds. We're going to have to figure this out, but cynicism and rhetoric will not be part of that process.
Terrific. And I thought I was insane. Masturbating while sniffing my mother's shoes is very normal compared to these folks in Stupid Land . I once shoved a whole polish sausage up my bum. I could almost taste it. I need to experiment more on this. I will post as I learn more. In the mean time, check out my website, http://www.ve7kfm.com. Enjoy and may gerbils build a habitat in my anus. I hate ALL Americans.
Really? Nothing AmeriKa? You have nothing to say to me from "Stupid Land"? That's what I thought! If any of you develops the "boots" to say anthing, feel free to email me at ve7kfm@gmail.com. Wmps!
I believe one of the true problems is not being addressed here. The issue is that we have many of the same people who caused this problem trying to solve it. Lack of forsight by multi_terms politicians is bringing our great country down. Reid, McCain and others, although fine people are the problem. They brought us to this point. We have to many people in congress experienced in getting nothing done.
how about making lobbying illegal.....unless it is done primarily for the help of communities.....and their common needs...not individual corporate concerns....
i was unhappy to see that congress receives pay regardless of a shutdown.... if some of them really want to show how much they cared.... they should've stood ready to give up their pay....to prove it...... also..... i think in such times....we could do without the national parks..... give them back to the Indians....(you know) those people we stole the whole country from in the first place... as for the stupid sports mentality that seems to dominate any type negotiation process..... grow up....!!!! and just for me a bit of poetry..... " Democrats try to help people survive....Republicans want to punish you for being alive" i am neither
I agree with many points except for the references to the Central Bank and your assessment of growth rates. Canada is expected to grow at 5.2%, USA 3.1%. Our TCanadian) banking system is one of the ONLY in the world that has not collapsed and has become a model for the developed world. I am visiting Maui right now and having the time of my life because you have devalued your dollar by approx 40% in the past 5 years. There are some SERIOUS financial problems in the USA, and I agree, you need to figure out how to pay for them.
"Big bipartisan deals" are what got us into this mess. That phrase in practice translates into you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. Fareed shows his true colors in his solution, RAISE TAXES. The government already takes plenty of our money. The problem is spending, cut spending at every level until you balance the budget. That's how the rest of the human race operates.
We may need to raise taxes to solve this problem. I already pay a lot in taxes. I am willing to listen to the argument for more taxes only if congress actually makes significant spending cuts. The baseline for cuts needs to exclude the funds in the budget for TARP and the stimulus. In other words, 2008 spending levels. Great Britain is in the process of reducing its spending b y 25% over a 4 year period. It can be done
@Glen Wilson: "Great Britain is in the process of reducing its spending b y 25% over a 4 year period. It can be done"
"Portugal’s government has just fallen in a dispute over austerity proposals. Irish bond yields have topped 10 percent for the first time. And the British government has just marked its economic forecast down and its deficit forecast up.
What do these events have in common? They’re all evidence that slashing spending in the face of high unemployment is a mistake. Austerity advocates predicted that spending cuts would bring quick dividends in the form of rising confidence, and that there would be few, if any, adverse effects on growth and jobs; but they were wrong.
[...]
Why not slash deficits immediately? Because tax increases and cuts in government spending would depress economies further, worsening unemployment. And cutting spending in a deeply depressed economy is largely self-defeating even in purely fiscal terms: any savings achieved at the front end are partly offset by lower revenue, as the economy shrinks.
So jobs now, deficits later was and is the right strategy."
The Austerity Delusion
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/opinion/25krugman.html
"The government already takes plenty of our money."
These kinds of claims are meaningless. Taxes as a percentage of GDP are lower than their historical average, and we have bills to pay.
"The problem is spending"
Deficit = Spending – Revenues
Acting like deficits are exclusively about spending is just silly.
"cut spending at every level until you balance the budget. That's how the rest of the human race operates."
Only idiots believe a country can operate just like an individual. You haven't given two seconds though to the effects on the economy of cutting $1.6 trillion in spending out of it when unemployment is almost 9%, have you? If you had you'd have realized you're advocating devastating the economy with millions of lost jobs which would have a huge negative impact on the deficit.
Why is everyone "tap dancing" around the fact that all these supposed wars are literally more crippling to our finances than Planned Parenthood, which, by the way does about 10% abortions, and 90% female healthcare procedures (pap smears, std testing, breast exams, routine blood work....etc).
According to Planned Parenthood abortions account for 2-3% of what they do.
These politicians are a joke. Vote them all out and get people elected in that have common sense and no alliegences to big bussiness, oil, lobbyist. These guy's just care about themselve and their pocket. We need people in office that have morals and common sense.stop the outrageous spending,seal our southern borderand stop giving the store away to illegals and get out of bed with lbbyist and special interest.
So, Fareed and Amar from the Middle East, where most of our budget is being WASTED, have something to say?
It is great to see strong positioning by both parties but some how rightists feel that it is their job to cut with out having responsibility to be clear on what to cut with out affecting average american – sad GOP has become such a week party. I want to see more considerate and intelligent GOP.
Well said, but what about the democratic party? Pelosi, Reid??? They are just as extreme and unrealistic as some of the people on the far right. They refuse to acknowledge that we have a serious fiscal problem in our government. They lead many people to believe that a few "rich" people could pay more and fix the problem. It is not true and they know it. We cannot solve our issues if we refuse to deal with the reality of the situation.
Glen: "They lead many people to believe that a few "rich" people could pay more and fix the problem.'
I don't think anyone is saying that or believes it. But what bothers a lot of people, myself included, is that all of the proposed strategies for dealing with the deficit and addressing the solvency of Medicare and Social Security up to this point ask the bottom 90% to make all the sacrifices.
The cutoff for the top 1% is about $400,000. It won’t be people making over $400,000 a year who will worry how a reduction in Social Security and Medicare benefits will affect their twilight years, or postpone retirement because the retirement age is increased. The people who lose their jobs as a result of spending cuts by and large won’t be the folks making over $400,000 a year. It won’t be people making over $400,000 a year who have to figure out how they’re going to send their kids to college because Pell grants are reduced.
So basically the Republican strategy for addressing the deficit and restoring solvency to Medicare and Social Security is to ask the lower-, middle-, and upper-middle classes to make all the sacrifices while ensuring the top 1% are well-insulated from having to make any sacrifices at all as they accumulate increasing shares of the nation's income and wealth.
And don't even think about telling me the rich are already paying most of the taxes. That's not a sacrifice to deal with this deficit, that's business as usual and has been since the first days of the country. That's how all successful societies work.
They're paying less in taxes than they were 10 years ago. How is that a sacrifice to deal with our deficit? We're cutting spending on nutrition for children. Ryan wants to cut funding for Medicaid, which provides medical care for the disabled, but the top 1% aren't expected to sacrifice squat. Apparently their sacrifice is creating jobs that will make their companies more money. (Companies don't "create jobs" to help the economy. They hire people when it makes economic sense to do so.)
The budget issue is unsolvable because both parties and both houses of Congress are forced to pander to a very avaricious and capricious public that demands money from the treasury. This problem exists because of the seventeenth amendment. Originally Senators served six year terms and were appointed by their respective state legislatures. Senators were free from pressure from the mob. States were better represented too. Senators could be very judicious, and contemplative, and not be campaigning all the time like the lower house. The founders were right. Democracy is mob rule. The seventeenth amendment changed us from a republic to a democracy. A committee of 303 million people can not solve problems demanding tough decisions. In the end everyone will always vote to support themselves and their families not matter what the consequences are for the group as a whole.
Any objective look at how our government worked originally makes it clear the founding fathers never intended for the citizenry to have the influence it has now on policy. The 17th Amendment is just one of many causes of this change.
The FBI and DEA fabricate evidence, steal from suspects and use murder to close their bad cases.
It has been since the 70-80's when DoJ employees used to shot farm animals of "dead-beat" farmers during the seizing of property.
Today FBI and DEA are poisoning the pets of problem suspects. In the San Francisco bay area, DoJ employees poisoned the pets of several suspects that complained to the US attorneys office that they where fabricating evidence and stealing from them.
The FBI and DEA have stepped it up a notch, they are using trace amounts of Arsenic to poison suspects, with the goal of slowly damaging vital organs.
Want It mean Is The Tea party People can't be Trusted , and they what to do a way with anything Program that has to do with the POOR OR THE OLD. They TEA PARTY can't be trusted. I read Michele Bachmann was one of the people who wanted to get rid of Planned Parenthood , After on Cnn she say the only reason she was voted no was It didn't attack Obamacare. And she say she didn't want to shut down the Government , but really she was one of the people In the Republican side that was making It Go down too the last minute. That mean everything she say on CNN was a LIE.
The problem is being over complicated. Congress was supposed to have a budget in place by September 30 in time for the start of the government's fiscal year on October 1. They didn't do their job and haven't done it in a long time. Here we sit, halfway into the fiscal year and we still don't have a budget and many of the congressmen that are trying to put one together weren't even elected to do this budget. Their predecessor failed to do their job, just as these congressmen are likely to fail to do theirs. Rather than waste time now trying to shove political ideology down each others throat while holding our nation hostage, they should be working on next year's budget, which is due in six months. I would suggest that we need an amendment to the constitution that simply states that if a budget has not been submitted and accepted by September 30 of each year, that the last year's budget automatically goes into effect without cost of living changes or adjustments to reflect changing requirements. Then Congress will have a whole year to try and put together a new budget while the country continues on at the same rate as the preceding year less inflation, which is certainly manageable at today's levels.
We should also be implementing the line item veto so that all of the "pork" that gets added can be stricken from the budget and we can stop building bridges to nowhere, museums designed to regale the visitors with the different kinds of dirt in Iowa, studies of the sexual habits of three legged reptiles and any other use for the money that does not have national benefit. Period.
Then, and only then, will we have an environment where Congress can only have an impact if they are willing to compromise and no longer feel the need to ram their beliefs down the other citizens' throats. Its not who we are and it isn't productive.
"We should also be implementing the line item veto so that all of the "pork" that gets added can be stricken from the budget and we can stop building bridges to nowhere, museums designed to regale the visitors with the different kinds of dirt in Iowa, studies of the sexual habits of three legged reptiles and any other use for the money that does not have national benefit. Period."
You're thinking a line item veto would give the president the power to veto wasteful spending measures. But it would also give him the power to veto measures to retaliate against members of Congress with whom he is unhappy, or even the opposition party, and to use it to coerce them to support him and his ideas. It would give him the power to shape legislation to his liking for any reason he chose. For example, the Democrats could have allowed all manner of Republican amendments to the health care bill knowing the president could just veto any and all of them without vetoing the provisions he liked. Do you really want the president to have that much power over the legislative process?
It's one of those things that sounds good in theory, but in practice would be too susceptible to abuse. It would significantly upset the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. The pork projects to which you refer represent a tiny fraction of the budget. Changing the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches with a line item veto is not the right way to deal with it.
Government is definitly broken.Western Democracy has become wholly elitest on both sides of the aisle.Big Business(banks and other financial institutions,insurance companies,pharmaceuical firms,oil and auto companies and we can't forget Wall Street are the steering wheel for what used to be a democratic system for and by the people.These and the myriad of thousands of offshoot lobbyists are who controls government especially in the U.S.Any country that allows the legislation of something as outrageously corrupt as redistricting to be legally justifiable without even a whimper deserves everything they get or don't get.For ordinary Americans,how totally ,miserably gullible can we be.Take this Budget controversy and the miraculous last hour reprieve to shutdown.To listen to Obama,Reid,Boehner and McConnell,they have saved the American population from total decimation by agreeing to 78 Billion dollars in cuts to keep the government open for business.HELLO,you don't really think that these cuts are going to be for your benefit do you?After bailing out every conceivable failing institution and corporation because they were too big to fail,it will be the ordinary people who bear the brunt.Cuts to Medicaid,Healthcare,Social Security and probably a few other entitlements,this to go along with the soaring cost of essential commodities across the board.The big but in the scenario is "Has the Government made these institutions and Wall Street accountable,are they made to suffer the fate of the masses.What kind of hit will these millionaire Congressmen and Senators take?Are they going to lose any of their mountainous entitlements.Is anybody other than the lowly middle class which is now in truth the poverty line going to suffer from these wonderful achievements?I think not,wake up America.
Imagine a large business that had ineffective oversight mechanisms in place. Budgets did not really have to be created. Making a profit or at least breaking even were not required. The senior management team is allowed to complain without presenting solutions. No one is accountable for ensuring the company has the funds to remain a viable entity. No one is required to present a budget that allows the company to stay out of fiscal trouble. Managers can give favorite employees pay raises that are not funded. Managers can give discounts to customers that are not funded. That is our federal congress.
I don't know if a balanced budget amendment is viable, but we need some type of constitutional restraints that require spending and debt limits. I am in a finance profession. I see first hand the burden placed on business due to our 14000 page tax code. Your analysis that this exists due to political favoritism is absolutely correct. Congress could address these issues is they wanted to. I hope we are getting closer to having a congress with the will to change
Members of Congress are elected and reelected by their constituents. Everyone is outraged at what someone else's representative is doing, but by a wide margin people reelect their own representatives because they're happy with them. As Alan Simpson said, they elect these people to bring home the bacon, and they do. Then everyone whines because someone else's representatives brought home some bacon for *his* constituents.
This problem is never going to be addressed as long as people foster the "us" versus "them" mindset that seems to pervade our thinking in this country these days. Everyone seems to be obsessed about the idea that someone else is getting something he doesn't deserve, whether it's handouts to lazy people or excess profits for greedy rich people.
You can't have a well functioning society when the people in it see themselves as competing with everyone else for resources instead of all being in the same boat together. Unfortunately, history shows us that economically stressful times cause people in societies to turn on one another. If you think this is bad you should study 1930s Germany where the economy was far worse, as was the division within the society.
We'd all be a lot better off if we started thinking of what we could do to help the country instead of obsessing over how we can be sure to get our "fair share" and how to get someone else to give his "fair share."
You don't want to pay more in taxes until you see spending cuts that will impose a sacrifice on others. Others, such as teachers, don't want to see their pay and benefits cut until you pay more in taxes. Tell us how successful companies are when the various departments within the company resent and fight the other departments instead of working together to form a stronger company. What happens to companies when the owners think their partners are trying to cheat them all the time?
Are you part of the solution or part of the problem?
Remove Corporate finacnes from Congressional pocketbooks and the Politcial system is fixed. Since the Supreme Court acknowledged a coproration is equal to a citizen, herein lies the broken nature of our legilsative and judicial branches, they are for sale to the Highest Corporations. America REAL security risk si teh selling out of American interests by Capitalists and Wall Street Investment bamnkers ,that have sold our debts to our mortal enemies, the Chineese, along with our jobs and homes. Corporate GREED bought our Politicians and America is broke from selling out to foreign interests. Arab Money just like Buster Rhymers says, "Your American money ain't s**t!"
All you have here is a bunch of rhetoric.
Quite an experience to live in fear isnt it...thats what it like to be a slave America..
US treasury department has no problem borrowing, FROM THE FED. That is the reason borrowing cost has been low. When will the liberals wake up from this fantasy? Printing money does not equal to borrowing. I am surprised that Fareed is also fooled to believe all is good in the short term.
Zakaria takes the approach of the left – raise taxes (eliminate loopholes and VAT) and then look at controlling spending. He ignores all evidence that the problem is not a revenue problem but a spending problem. At one time the government did have the revenue to match spending. Spending increased without exacting the revenue. Show that spending is under control then ask for money to support any spending beyond current revenues. Zakaria has it backwards and that is exactly why the Tea Party erupted from the citizenry.
The tea party erupted from the citizenry the way pus erupts from an abscess. Lenin would call them useful idiots. Palin Bachmann Beck Limbaugh. Are you serious?
Revenues are below historical averages, and significant spending cuts will put millions out of work, depressing the economy even further, wiping out most of the deficit reduction accomplished by the cuts. Jobs first, then cuts. When the unemployment rate is low the people put out of work by spending cuts can find new jobs relatively quickly instead of being on the unemployment rolls for a long time paying no taxes and getting benefits.
Just so you know:
Deficit = Spending – Revenues
It makes no sense to act as if revenues are not part of that equation.
so we raise taxes without modifying our spending habits. then a couple years down the roads our spending gets out of hand and we have to raise taxes again. when does the vicious cycle stop? when america is bankrupt?
come on people. none of you could run a family or business spending more money than you make.
Yes, broken is the word. The services that our Government provides are not just paid for by tax revenue, but by borrowing, borrowing, and borrowing. Which makes it seem that the Government is spending far more than it is taking in from tax revenue. How long can this continue? If this were a business, it would have gone under by now.
You liberals are amazing. We have a 1.6 Trillion dollar deficit, a 3.3+ Trillion dollar budget and you claim the Republicans are 'draconian' for wanting to cut 1% of the budget?? If the gov't can't provide essential services, and trim 1%, then the whole system is a colossal failure and we should fire everyone in the gov't. I've been in the military 16 years and the waste in gov't is obscene. Anyone with an ounce of common sense could cut 10% easily. The problem is the Democrats think the solution to ANY problem is more spending...which is clearly not true, because if it were the amount of spending by the Dems should have solved all our problems. You CANNOT keep spending like this, it is untenable.
Yes Brenda, we Liberals are amazing.
For 8 years you Republicans in the white house spending
like a bunch of drunken sailors and you didnt complain.
In front of the camera Republicans and Democrats fight like cats
behind closed doors they buy each other a drink and laugh at our stupidity
And you buy into lock stock and barrell.
"Anyone with an ounce of common sense could cut 10% easily."
Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows this would put a large number of people out of work, and with unemployment near 9% they would stay out of work for a while, depressing the economy, costing loss tax revenues, and increasing spending for unemployment benefits. As a result most of the deficit reduction accomplished by those cuts would be lost. Jobs first, then cuts.
People need to quit playing the "race" card, meaning right-left politics. There is good and bad in all parties. People need to quit voting based on someones name, or by straight party, but by informed truths about the politician and what they stand for. The main problem is our politicians don't vote on ONE issue. Every darn Bill is comprised of giving something while taking away something else. Then its a fight to meet in the middle. Half the time the give & take don't have a darn thing to do with each other. Its no wonder nobody agrees on anything. Its not voting on Bills, its making deals. But we all know politicians are known for "deals". They promise deals to get donations and get elected. It has corrupted our entire government because even the "good guys" have to play the game or nothing gets done.
I'd love to hear what Paul Krugman would have to say about this article.
None of this is by the people for the people. Elect normal citizens that have a sense of responsibility and a lot more common sense and get rid of these career politicians or as I call them legalized crooks
Yeah, they have so much common sense they couldn't understand their mortgages, 2/3 of them are overweight and 1/3 of them are obese. They bought gas-guzzling SUVs, didn't save money for emergencies, bought much larger, more expensive homes than they needed, lived from paycheck to paycheck, they lack any depth of understanding of any issue *and* they elected the politicians you don't like. Yeah, they'd be great, what with all that "common sense" they have.
Brenda, if you want to lose weight, you don't gouge out your eyes. Sure, you'll lose some weight, but you'll also be blind.
The huge cuts to discretionary spending are badly targeted. We don't have a discretionary spending problem. We have a problem with too much spending on defense and entitlements, and not enough taxation. Any serious solution to the deficit is going to focus on those three areas: Cut defense spending, lower the cost of entitlements, and raise tax revenue.
It's easy to get mad at "liberals" but as long as "conservatives" are trying to make the problem WORSE by cutting taxes, and only focusing on cutting spending on entitlements, they are not really part of a real solution,
We had an opportunity, and still have an opportunity, to lower health care costs by transitioning to a single payer, Canadian style health care system. This would provide high quality care for every American at less than the current cost of Medicare and Medicaid. This would not completely solve our budget woes, but it would be a first step. Then perhaps the next step would be to roll back the Bush tax cuts and eliminate the various tax give backs and "incentives." Social security retirement age could be raised, and benefits tied to need, in order to lower costs.
Finally, let us not forget that we CAN and MUST cut defense spending. We must learn, if we have not learned already, that we cannot afford to fight all of the world's wars for it. We cannot be the unpaid sheriff of Earth. A billion dollar aircraft does NOT make sense financially when a 20 million dollar aircraft could do the job that's required. A dozen aircraft carrier task forces do not make sense in a world without the looming threat of the Soviet Union. We need to stop spending so much on expensive military hardware that serves no purpose but to make the military industrial complex fat on tax dollars.
Every aspect of government needs to be brought in line and reformed. That means lower costs through entitlement reforms, higher taxes to cover the shortfall, and yes, much less military spending.
Well said. We're paying for a military...the use of which is destroying our country. Because we are spending trillions in wars that are losing and, beyond doubt will ultimately lose. And we all know it but will need to spend another trillion to "get out with honor"
I don't think our enormous military made sense even when the Soviet Union was at its height. I never saw them as seeking world domination. Instead, I think they were just overzealous in wanting to feel secure after seeing 20 million of their people wiped out in WWII.
As for single payer, I just don't see it happening here. We have a $2.4 trillion health care industry that fears government because it knows government is the only thing that can bring about the reforms we need, and that will cost them hundreds of billions dollars of revenue annually. So they've worked tirelessly to make people afraid of government having any role in our health care system. They want you to believe the free market is the answer because they know that in a market like health care, the seller is in control, and they're the sellers. Health care is not a normal consumer product and doesn't respond to competition the way normal consumer markets do.
So they, with the willing assistance of Republicans, have convinced Americans that government involvement in health care will have us all dying in the street waiting for death panels staffed by DMV workers to decide what medical care we should be allowed to get after waiting in line for six months.
What has passed for a health care debate in this country would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic.
My fellow Americans,
Our Government has been broken a long time ago. For the last 50 years or so, each President and Administration failed to lead us towards progress, instead the politicians have gradually become corrupt and evil. Today, it does not matter Republican or Democrat, they are both incapable to lead thios nation. Greed, corruption and power has turned our so called public servants into self serving and self enriching parasites. My fellow Americans, there is not hope for improvement on this track. We spend almost a billion dollars to elect our Presidnet, yet this should be done at the 100K level. We no longer elect the most capable people instead we are given a choice between totally corrupt people who want nothing more than power, privilliges and bedcome famous by going on TV and lie.
Yes, we need a fresh start and elect people of good will, honest and relaly interested in making this society a model for the rest of the world. May God help us in achieving this goal.
time to stop calling mexico corrupt. dig?
We need term limits. The Founders never intended elected office to become a career path. Freedom of Informations has provided proof that every member of the House and Senate receives millions of dollars, every year, from corporate lobbyists. Our elected officials are controlled by corporate lobbyists, not the American Electorate. The solution, "Term Limits", coupled with a criminal charge for payment from any lobby, PAC, or wealthy donor. The United States Government is no different from countries like Libya, where all of the wealth is controlled by less than 3% of the population, and that control is impacting how Washington operates. Send them all home. Let's start over.
@Terry – Indiana: "We need term limits. The Founders never intended elected office to become a career path."
Term limits are a bad idea. They don't solve the problems people naively believe they'll solve and they create other problems that are just as bad or worse. The fact is that several states have term-limited legislatures and there is no evidence whatsoever that they produce better legislation. In fact, some of the biggest opponents of term limits live in such states.
California, Florida, Arizona and one other state whose name I can't recall off the top of my head have some of the worse budget crises in the country, and all of them have term-limited legislatures.
People advocate term limits because they blindly believe they will fix problems, but they haven't studied what the full effects of term limits really are. Furthermore, this notion that everyone in Congress is a career politician is a myth. The average length of service for Representatives at the beginning of the 112th Congress was 9.8 years (4.9 terms); for Senators, 11.4 years (1.9 terms). Congress is not full of career politicians the way so many people seem to think. The good ones get to stick around because their constituents like them and the bad ones get voted out of office.
The "Founders" intended for terms to be limited by voters using their right to vote responsibly. The Articles of Confederation had term limits and the founders rejected them for the Constitution.
"Freedom of Informations has provided proof that every member of the House and Senate receives millions of dollars, every year, from corporate lobbyists."
Then it shouldn't be too hard to provide that information.
Fareed makes many goog points. I've also enjoyed many of the comments posted. Good for some info but also for chuckles. The one point I contest is the vibrancy of the economy and that the bond and financial markets support this assertion. The economy is currently kept afloat by very loose Fed policy and QE. Financial markets will turn on a dime ... look at any stock or market chart from sept 2008. When things go bad, they do so suddenly and unexpectedly but always due to known exigent and festering circumstances.
The country no longer has any leaders. Obama is a failing organizer who couldn't even organize a competent White House team. The Democrat Fat Cats talk about helping the poor and have accomplished that by making more people poor! The highest poverty level in US history is Obama and his Democrat Party legacy. The longest recession recovery in US history! This is beyond incompetence! This is criminal!
Yup Ken,
The longest recovery in US history
handed to us by the Bush White House.
Thanks for playing.
Reminds me of a moron negotiating with an idiot. Neither has enough intelligence to understand the subject matter, much less find grounds for agreement.
When you have a government(both parties) who place so much importance and spend so much time raising money for election campaigns,how can we expect anything from government.These bufoons spend so much time fundraising right from the moment they're elected it's sickening and the amounts of money spent is totally out of bounds.Has anything of substance been done with respect to campaign reform or has there been anything really done with respect to the right kind of regulation of the financial industry?Nada.From the moment they get into office their primary mandate is to spend as much time as they can ensuring another term and we swallow the whole process as "that's the way things are done"So sad.
I do not trust anyone in Congress or the President to do what is right on spending taxpayer money. That includes the ones I voted for.
I think Congress is broken. If Congress had not mandated home loans to people who could not pay them and if Congress had decent oversight over Frannie, Freddie and Wall St regulators – my bet is we would not have had the housing bust.
I do not want to see the debt limit raised till Congress gets rid of the duplication in the Federal Workforce as indicated by CBO. I do not want to see the debt limit raised until the Congress cuts trillions out of the budget by reduction in work force.
I would love to see an amendment to the Constitution that said Congress could not budget for more money than came in the last fiscal year. And, Congress had to have a budget on schedule.
Giving Congress more money to waste till they get federal spending down to federal income is stupid in my opinion.
Congress and the President have long records of blowing taxpayer money. They need to prove they have the guts to cut run away spending before they get more money to blow on pork.
"If Congress had not mandated home loans to people who could not pay them"
This is total and complete nonsense. Congress never did any such thing. Not even close. This is just a lie people tell to put the blame on government and poor people for the crisis.
"and if Congress had decent oversight over... Wall St regulators – my bet is we would not have had the housing bust."
This part is true. Here's a nice summary posted in another forum a while back that ties this all together:
"Nobody from either party was responsible for creating the sub-prime mortgage market. Let me try to bulletize this to help people understand:
1. The congress created Fannie and Freddie many years ago to encourage home ownership. They weren't direct lenders, but would buy loans from S&Ls (remember them?) and banks who originated home loans on fairly conservative terms. The terms under which Fannie and Freddy were willing to purchase required hefty income ratios and down payments, and also limited the amount that could be borrowed.
2. This created a market for borrowers who could not qualify for conventional loans. The first big group were "jumbo loans", loans that exceeded the upper limit of what Fanny and Freddie would accept. They also had "no documentation" loans, loans that had substantial down payments but didn't require borrowers to prove income and assets. These carried marginally higher interest rates, due to the higher risk involved. World Savings and Countrywide Financial led the field in originating these loans.
3. Since the originators of those loans couldn't sell them to Fannie and Freddie, they had to find a way to sell them to other investors. Sombody came up with the idea of bundling these loans, all of various levels of risk, into an investment pool, and then selling securities from that pool of money. They were able to get Standard and Poor's, the investment rating agency, to rate these as triple-A investments. Investment banks, seeing high yield securities with AAA ratings, gobbled them up.
4. This created a demand for even more of these securities, which encouraged the banks to orignate more loans. As they wrote more loans, the terms they accepted in originating the loans became looser and looser. "No-documentation" loans became known as "liar loans". Underwriters were encouraged to look the other way more and more. Why? Because the banks knew they would have no problem unloading the bad paper. The market for these securities was almost unquenchable. Even though the loans coming in the front door were getting riskier and riskier, they were still going out the back door faster and faster in the form of AAA securities.
5. Then the recession hit. The houses backing the loans they had floated, with inflated prices driven up by easy financing, started losing value. A lot of the loans, written as adjustable rate mortgages, started hitting the higher rates that were inherent in the loans, and the people who borrowed the money couldn't sell the house for what they paid for it, nor could they afford the payments. The loans went into default. All those securities, which were backed by the bad loans, which were backed by the devalued houses, lost their value. Since the banks were carrying these securities as assets, they themselves had borrowed money against those assets, and so were now in a position to default. The whole house of cards came tumbling down.
6. How was fannie and Freddie involved? Not really that much. They pretty much ignored the sub-prime market until 2004, and then started buying the securities. They took a hit on the securities, and, although the loans that made up the majority of their business were fairly conservative, the housing that backed those conservative loans was devalued by the crash of housing prices. Consequently, they ended up needing a bailout, but haven't had to pull as much money as they originally thought they needed.
Now, people should pay attention here. This was all done without any government agency encouraging anybody to buy those houses or any bank to write those loans. Government was NOT the culprit in this part of the story.
Was there a failure of government? Yes. As far back as 1999, community groups were complaining to the Federal Reserve about the predatory lending practices of these lenders. The fed did nothing about the problem. They were only paying attention to conventional lenders, and pretty much ignoring banks like World Savings and Countrywide. Further, Congress abolished the Glass Steagal act in 1999, which basically deregulated the investment banks who were buying up the securities and borrowing against them. Some of the banks were leveraged by as much as 40-1 against those securities. AIG, the insurance company had gotten in the business of selling insurance policies called "credit-default-swaps" against the failure of those securities. When the securities failed, AIG lost billions. That exacerbated the collapse. The upshot was the massive bailout engineered a year ago.
So, this isn't about any special effort on the part of congress to expand lending by offering stupid loans to stupid people. This was strictly a private sector generated crisis. It might have been avoided by proper regulatory oversight by the federal reserve and the SEC, but anybody who says it's the result of some sort of scheme by Fannie or Freddie doesn't know what he's talking about." — Author's name unknown
Mr. Fareed is incapable of understanding the real issue in America today.
Our strength as a nation came from our christian beliefs, and our personal independence.
Now, since we are no longer a christian nation, we need more regulations, more programs, and more spending
The result of all of this is less freedom, more control, more agencies, and more deserving gov't workers.
At this same time, our private sector that must pay the bills, is just as "broke" as our gov't, since most of
the REAL jobs ( tax base ) has gone to China. So, exactly how do you get blood out of a turnip ?
Without a thriving private sector, why do we need to pay for a gov't ruling deserving class ?
Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty.
Rod – psst...we've never been a "Christian nation". It's a myth.
@ Rod
Please keep your religion out of my Bedroom and out of my Government.
This is not a Christian country.
Its a country for all Americans of all faiths.
Its your right wing Conservative religion that is tearing this country apart.
It's true that changes in society have necessitated more government to replace some of the restraints placed on behavior by religion, a sense of community, and the desire to maintain one's reputation, but these changes are an inevitable consequence of having much larger communities and technology that decreases our reliance on our neighbors and communities. It's not really a religion issue, and certainly not a Christian issue.
All religions are narratives choose to believe because they like that narrative better than the alternatives. Religions do tend to aid in promoting morality and ethical behavior, and without them, especially in a large, technically advanced society you will need more structure imposed to replace them, but they are still myths. The "spirit" has nothing to do with it. All you need is for people to believe, just as you can get children to behave better with stories about Santa Clause and lumps of coal in their stockings.
The UK has a Value Added tax plus an onerous Income Tax and they are still in a mess from trying to be all things to all people. Also their equivalent to our property taxe is out of sight. Politicians are the same all over, spend it all and ask for more.
Good read. Fareed is a breath of fresh air in an otherwise plasticized media, particularly in light of our vaudeville politics.
I hope the right-wing twits will read this article...those that CAN read and comprehend. They are NOT the majority.
It's all a joke, Fareed, and the joke's on us. The system is crashing and nobody cares to notice it. We no longer have a representative form of government.
fareed was a big supporter of obamacare. there is nothing that he can say now that makes me think he is any less corrupt than Pelosi and Obama.
and fareed, my friend, can we get your assurances that you will fight to end the practice of issuing birth certificates for newborns ? it is such an old fashioned concept. would you think all the documentation that the newborn would need are the parents names, date of birth, and nothing else ?
The ship is afloat, for how long we have no clue. The rudder is broken, the sails have been torn away, and we have Democrats and Republicans grandstanding over a budget for reelection purposes. These are the same guys and gals that don't have to pay into Social Security, don't have the same mecical coverages the rest of us have to pay into, and we have a would be president that really has no clue what he's doing other than making speeches utilizing a teleprompter, married to a woman that is ashamed of her country.
We have let the media tell us who to elect since LBJ left office, and the public follows. Our government is broke, the people are broke, jobs have gone elsewhere at H Ross Perot predicted they would, and we sit here discussing tearing up the Constitution. We should be marching on DC and holding politicians accountable for their actions and if they are unwilling to be held accountable, physically pull them from their offices and toss their do nothing fanny's out on the street.
We have a career welfare class where family members are living off the public tit of those that work on a daily basis, pay their taxes, lose their jobs if their urine doesn't come up clean, but yet this same welfare class is responsible for the majority of drug and crime related violence. Enough already. Get a job, contribute or starve.
Illegals, come in the front door, file your papers in a timely fashion or b-bye, go home, no schooling, no medical coverage, no driver's license, nothing~
The US is so sick with apathy that the average citizen is ashamed of his own country. Disheartening to those of us who are able to "remember when."
It seems our elected officials have forgotten (or are blatantly ignoring) the reason(s) for which the people have elected them: to take care of business for the american PEOPLE. I think we need a new party in America called the "common sense" party. Speaking as an average law-abiding, tax-paying citizen, i'd really like to see our leaders come together, be able to respectfully compromise and get things DONE without having to regularly face the brink of disaster! I wish folks would reflect a bit and take this to heart when heading to the polls...
OK, with the full knowledge that many people have no interest in listening to anyone or anything that they don’t agree with and old people are often dismissed-–here is my take. First of all, I fully believe the average American does not have a clue how Washington really works, and thinks more about sports and entertainment than anything else. When I was first involved in politics in the 60/70’s as a president of a local NAHB (home builders) and a national director, I was in Washington and saw how it worked. At that time, Republicans and Democrats disagreed mostly on social issues but would meet behind close doors and come to agreement. Then along came the Great Society, Vietnam, Dr. King, Nixon, and things began to get very ugly.
Now our inheritance has become special interest groups that buy legislators, greed beyond anything one could imagine, religious groups that have tried to merge religion with politics, and the necessity for members of congress to raise huge amounts of money, causing them to start campaigning the day after election. All the time the majority of the population ignoring what is going on and getting their news from Fox and Rush Limbaugh, who appeal to their anger. Americans are divided on different issues, religion, race, labor, education, social issues, and maybe the most evil, the “haves and have not’s”.
The solutions to consider: revision of the tax code and ALL loop holes closed and the wealthy no longer paying less than you and me. Remove the money from politics and let their be set amounts a candidate can spend. A serious rework of SS that sees people maybe like me, getting less and people still making over 250,000 getting nothing. A huge new emphasis on education like Corporations giving total scholarships for students that might not go to education and that student signing a contract to work for that company for 5 years after graduation. This just scratches the surface but what stops everything is the special interest that simply have no interest in changing the game. Finally, if we had a reissue of our currency, all the illegal money being held that cannot be turned in without consequence, would then become worthless and that much would be removed from the debt.
Broken? I think the system is working just fine, thank you. We are at the crossroads of great political and social change in this country. 150 years ago we were at another great crossroads in this country and we went to war over it. Haven't seen that happen yet and don't expect to. The steady march of "creeping socialism" is being tripped up by the tea partiers. Three cheers to them. Oh there'll be posturing, lies, opportunism, inuendos and all sorts of political fun and games. The media and political commentators will exploit all this to increase their ratings and make more money. Didn't the newspapers from the Civil War era do the same thing? Don't sell us short. We are a wise but rather messy people. We love a good fight. But we also know how to deal with the aftermath when the fighting is over. How many nations in the history of the world could have survived a civil war like ours? We'll eventially make the tough decisions and figure this out just fine in the long run.
Yup Windee............Socialism
We pay taxes.
Our taxes are then used to build schools, roads
police force, fireman, ect
This is also socialism.
Guess we should do away with it, huh ?
Fareed, your plan is well meaning but short on practicality. An elected body shouldn't raise revenues before cutting spending-that is a disaster in the making. The difficult truth is that the budget crisis (not really a crisis as you rightly stated) is the only leverage that the American people have over both parties to get them to enact more responsible budgets. One more comment: I would gladly give up any tax deductions I have, in exchange for a more just tax code; in particular a flat rate applied to every income stream regardless of marital status. And the requirement, once again specific to an elected body, is the tax code should be simplified before a VAT is enabled, otherwise you just created a seesaw battle where one interest, claiming VAT is hurtful, creates more loopholes and deductions and gimmes in the tax code favoring their constituency, at the expense of the "other" interest's constituency. This is just wealth shifting in disguise and it has really been hurting the middle class.
During this budget quarrel America portrayed its inherent weaknesses which are mounting since the days of George Bush’s presidency. The great images of a great nation have been shattered by the mean political squabbles among the Republicans and the Democrats. At times it looks like a third world nation scenario, mean, self destructing and parochial. May be history is right, all great powers are supposed to see their demise sooner or later.
I was going to say something along those lines, although not so pointed and personal, I'm still fairly pessimistic. The system is not 'broke'. We have the best 'system' in the world. The simpletons say things like "outlaw lobbiest", etc..But that is not the problem.
I THINK ALL THE PEOPLE IN CONGRESS SHOULD BE FIRED, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM. MOST OF THEM HAVE BEEN IN OFFICE WAY TOO LONG. IT'S TIME FOR A CHANGE, CLEAN THE HOUSE....
Leonel
And replace them with who ???
The next batch of morons.
Dont throw the baby out with the bath water.
Fix the system.
Am surprised to find myself agreeing with Zakaria, but he is absolutely right. The federal government is both broken and bloated. It is a sick joke that both parties are haggling over less than 100 billion in cuts when we have in excess of 1000 billion in annual red ink. Uncle Sam is mordidly obese, largely due to out of control entitlement programs and an out of control military machine.
Good News for the Status Quo Mongers – a budget deal was passed by the Democrats and Republicans.
But, of course, the Status Quo got us here – But will never get us out.
Status Quo = tax cuts for the wealthiest, a broken tax code, lack of health care reform, a MIC costing nearly 2,000 Million per day – every day – so we can fight for our freedom. In short, Washington DC is infested with those that carry water for their special interests – Wall Street, Military Industrial Complex, Insurance Companies, Big Pharma, Big Oil, and on and on.
The Status Quo Liberal, Conservative, Democrat, Republican Paradigm is alive and well. We are way past tweaking Planned Parenthood to get out of this mess.
Michael, if you mean: we had an historic opportunity to cut 61B in spending from the budge, but we FAILED, then YES I agree with you. Everything that could have been done should have been done.
..one of the sanest discussions of the problem I've seen...
but
"closing loopholes" means not taking account of differences between the needs of different people with the same income...for example, the disabled...do you really want to do that and call the result fair?
so it isn't as simple as it seems..
the good ole usa is going down the toilet. corruption in our government? but how could that be? for all the dummies living in lala land.
A SPLIT OF DIFFFERANCE IN 10 & 50 IS NOT 25................................EVAN I kNOW THAT!!!!!!!!!1
It's obvious this whole system and this gov is F.U.B.A.R the problem can be fixed, just replace everyone that has no interest in identifying the problem and make the right adjustments to fix them.. Starting with Prez. Obama on down the food chain. Most of our Reps. are crooks and everyone knows it. If need be, fire them all and install true AMERICANS that care more about this country than how to screw the people around, AMERICANS that will follow our constitution to the letter and quit making changes just to make the forengnors feel welcome here. Because most of the AMERICANS don't want them here anyway. Start with the Mexican on down the list of hundreds of thousands that don't belong here collecting the benefits the AMERICANS have worked for all their lives. These insects are a major drain on our recources and are here for no other reason than to destroy our country as they did their own.. Bring our troops home and secure our borders so tight that an ant can't get thru. Mexico is a real threat to our country and needs to be dealt with quickly before they completely destroy the country.. This would save billions and billions of tax dollars that could be put to better use than to support them and their herds of little cockroachs..
i knew it wouldn't be long for a bigot to open his mouth. usa is corrupt from the inside out. stopping blaming others for our own problems. besides i see alot of white trash men not working, hmmm. lazy
what a paranoid moron
Uh...well, there is a mote of truth in there. It is true that illegal aliens are receiving many medicaid benefits in Texas and it is a drain on the system and it is unfair that Americans have to compete with that. But, I think the overall gist of your comment is over the top and insensitive. We don't need boots on foreign soil, ever? Why can't we all just get along? If we leave them alone they'll leave us alone? Too much flower-power in your tea.
On health care, start with tort reform. If Congress was serious, they would have addressed this first. This is an example of special interests. The lawyers are piling money into the Democrats pockets. On the other side, when Bush passed the prescription drug plan, it had a provision where the government could not negotiate prices with the drug companies. Is that unbelievable or what? So here, the drug companies were piling money into the Republican pockets.
These are two examples from both side of how our government is broken. As the article states, our tax code is a reward for campaign contributors and our regulation system to some extent as well. Eliminate all of the tax deductions, even mortgage interest, and simplify the tax brackets; or go to a consumption tax. Around 50% of Americans do do pay federal income tax (and many get credits) – this must end.
And with a simplified tax code and increased revenues, don't cut taxes!!! Cut spending. The Democrats want to raise taxes and spending; the Republicans want to cut taxes and spending. Leave taxes along (they would generate more revenue with the changes above) and cut spending. That is the only solution, but the politicians are to afraid to tell the American people that and most of the American people are to accustomed to entitlements.
Wait a second. Tort reform is another of those gimmicks that are easily fallen for and mistaken for a quick fix. Kind of like an advertisement for how you can stay home and earn millions. I don't disagree with your sentiment, if its costing then fix it, but dangling tort reform as a fix-it is just deflecting the bigger issue, which is, our government is spending more money than they are incoming, by a long long shot. The amount of goods/services/entitlements that Americans expect from washington needs to be level set and reduced, drastically.
You said about the Tea Party: "Unless they believe that they should have the ability to – by some kind of dictatorial fiat – impose their will on the rest of the country, then they’re going to have to give and that’s the part that seems to be lost here. That’s the part which says, “Okay, you know our preference is for 10; yours is for 50; so how about 25?” And you make a deal and you split the difference that way."
what do you mean they didn't budge? the Tea Party wants to live within our means. Dems want to go $1.7 Trillion further into debt in this ONE YEAR. Seems to me, the Tea Party moved over $1.6 Trillion, while the Dems (and Repubs, I might add) hardly moved at all. You got the "who's budging and who isn't" backwards.
It's laughable that, when this year's deficit can now be rounded up to $2 Trillion, Dems and Reps are arguing about a few $Billion. And now Obama is touting this as being responsible and "living within our means"????? I'd like to know just what dictionary he is getting his definition of "means" from.
DAMMIT!!! Obama offered $30 billion before the negotiations even began, and it still was never good enough! So what in the hell was the point in offering anything to the Tea Party?! The people still left the Senate and the White House to the Democrats so the Tea Party has no mandate from anybody and certainly no right to demand anything!
Funny, but the things Mr. Zakaria says need to be done for the budget sound almost exactly like Ryan's proposal. Ryan even says his proposal isn't an all or nothing deal, but a starting point for negotiation. Yet we see many in the media caught up in fabricated hysteria trying to demonize his proposal has some insidious plot to kill old people and enslave the poor.
I have been a contributor to the Social Security program, as well as my employer. Therefore, why is SS called an entitlement. I was set up by the FDR admin. to make sure that the working elderly had some revenue when they no longer worked. I paid for that, no one entitled me to that. So why the fluck is everyone screaming that seniors are getting ENTITLEMENT! The distribution of wealth is very skewed in the U.S., if the wealth were more even distributed, SS would be better funded as more people received a higher income. A Walll Street Guy making millions only pays SS up to $106,000.00 the rest of his money is not taxed by SS.
Build a border fence that can't be penitrated, plant mine out 200 yards on their side of the fence, put a 60 cal. Machine gun every 100 yards, have rovers in between the guns, have motion detectors every 50 yards apart, and give the orders to fire one warnig salvoe then shot to scare if they continue advanceing then shot to kill... After-all they are killing their own people so why not help them out, they'll get the hint sooner or later.. God only knows(besides D.O.H.S.) who or what is crossing these borders.. This will stop the flood of Mexicans,Syrians,Iranins, and all terrorists groups from being able to reach the citizen of the US in order to harm or kill our people. We all know that this is a real danger to us all.
You are a total MORON
Helen
The brown acid is bad.
Dont take anymore.
Good heavens. I'm all for controlling illegal immigration and allowing for much more LEGAL immigration. But, Helen, you're just crazy.
Like the ex- President Vincente Fox (of Mexico) said in the USA a few days ago " Why are we fighting this war?" The problem is, was and always will be the demand for drugs in the USA. Buying drugs, selling guns, laundering money is the American way of life.
One of the definitions of Parisite-a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others. This is the best description of both political parties>
All the problems the government does not know how to fix were caused by the same government. The average American citizen did not create our national debt crisis. They did not vote these congressmen into office with a mandate to run our country into the ground. The politicians did that all on their own.
personally, i think everyone that posted here is part of the problem, perhaps myself included!
all the people here that pointed fingers at "the other side" or said "their" side is right missed the whole point of this article. the parties are broken and by identifying yourselves as one side or the other you perpetuate the problem!
It seems to me that both parties plus the tea party are no longer working for the future of this country, but rather for themselves to stay in office and have a long term carreer in politics. This creates essentially huge special interest groups with 100,000,000 plus people on either side of the isle.
Personally, what I would like to see is someone like Ross Perot (remember the charts?) run for office and explain (not only the problem in a way that unifies us all as Americans) but a solution that we all agree benefits the nation as a whole. Unfortunately that will never happen so long as the unemployed believe they are "owed" unemployment benefits, the sick believe the government "owes" them medical coverage, etc... While everyone agrees someone else has to pay for what they believe they are owed.
I do firmly believe that if JFK were in office today he would not be a democrat, he would be a republican. "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Only then, when those words ares realized and people put their country as a whole before their own greed will the United States be returned to greatness.
I think YOU missed the point of the article by clinging to the "rise above the politics and lead from the center" and the "both sides are equally at fault" narrative. Obama has tried that for three years and has very little to show for it.
no, i didn't miss the point at all. you landed exactly where i lead you, you just didn't make the implied connection.
My quoting JFK was a snipe aimed directly at Obama and his health care reform as an example of the government giving something to the people that nobody could afford, and exactly why i think JFK would be a republican now.
I love the way the "average" American posting here keeps referring to the government as an entity separate from themselves. Let me make this clear: 90% of all Democrats and Republicans and all other political party members would vote for a jackass, by which I mean draft animal, if the jackass came with party endorsement. The people you continually send to congress are YOUR responsibility; you elected them. If you don't like what the jackass does, don't join the jackass platform, stop voting for them, stop wrapping yourselves up in their politics to the exclusion of all others. I am tired of political parties; I am tired of "isms"; I am tired of indifferent government. I am tired of a few individuals determining what is in America's interest, simply because it is in theirs. I am tired of political parties that rail against something on one hand, and quietly take kickbacks with the other. As far as I'm concerned, we ought to pass a law banning political parties as detrimental to free speech and true democracy. Violation of the proposed law should be a shooting offense. We could start when the emergency measures that were passed to get the budget balanced expire. The guy writing this piece of trash is basically clueless. No sooner had the country been formed than we had division and political bickering, every bit as nasty as it is now; look at the division between Adams and Jefferson. There has never been a time where a bipartisan deal has been brokered without someone getting a political knife in the back. The system is broken; to put something together, so many compromises were made that the thing was never right to begin with. The most obvious historical manifestation of this was the Civil War; the result of long and bitter political differences between parties and regions deriving from the perception of unfairness in representation. Sound familiar? When we elected our representatives, we made the debt; by supporting them, we supported and ideology and an agenda; we essentially obviated our responsibility so that we could put the blame for failure in accountability on someone else. And now we're so afraid that someone is going to get just a little bit more than us, that someone who views America differently represents a dire threat to us, that we are bickering and squabbling over peanuts, while all the while countries that are not our friends, including the bulk of our "economic allies", look on in amusement. Fly, you fools!
Anyone with any serious math skills and any serious understanding of the government knows beyond a doubt that tax increases are necessary. Such people also know the top 1% pays 5% LOWER rates than the Middle Class because their primary income is based on muni bonds (0% tax), stock dividends (15% tax), and capital gains (15% tax). I had no trouble paying regular income tax rates on dividends and short term capital gains and 20% on long-term capital gains pre-Bush. Why are people like Ryan trying to LOWER their rates, but allowing the tax breaks for the Middle Class to expire – like the Make Work tax break did in January?
We need term limits. When I watch Congress on television it's like visiting a nursing home. Some Congressmen look like walking antiques. We also need to find a way to limit the influence of lobbyists. Most laws passed by Congress are the result of industry lobbying. Most professional lobbyists are lawyers and they know how to work the system. The result of all this is that this country is run by unelected corporations.
Zakaria's analysis fails to account for the effects of the last 70 plus years of so called compromise. If all we are able to do now is blame, then lay it at our own feet for believing the promises of the elected that they will act in our best interest. It's time we were less reliant on them and more on ourselves. Or is it too late for anything but fingerpointing?
Eventually, the system is going to collapse. What we get after that depends on who picks up the pieces.
Part of the problem is that this country is not a democracy. It's a republic. If we want democracy we will have to get rid of the Senate, the Supreme Court and the Electoral College.
The Problem is HUGE....but can be fixed if we seriously want to....but we have to realize two things
1. Corporations are taxed "LESS" than people yet they "DO NOT" produce many jobs in our country they keep producing
in other countries and we "ALLOW" them tax loopholes for doing it...SOLUTION:HEAVILY TAX those corporations that employ primarily outside our country and provide "LOOPHOLES" for those that employ and invest here.
example:General Electric pays "ZERO" taxes on hundreds of billions in income because we allow them to screw us.
2.LIKE IT OR NOT.....we have to SOCIALIZE medicine...we have to get rid of HEALTH INSURANCE...how can it be cost effective to pay an Insurance Company (who make Giant profits) to maintain our health.
The health care provider are our Doctors..hospitals..pharmacists...nurses ect...everyone should be paid on a scale a
"SALARY" ...are not Police,Firefighters,Judges,Military,City Attorneys, paid by us? by our taxes? yes!!! do we have to pay Firefighter insurance in order to have our property attended when in need?NO we paid our taxes and that was taken care of....So why does our health care have to be different? we should EMBRACE socialized medicine....
NO IT'S NOT PERFECT!!! but if we don't do that MEDICARE-MEDICAID will BANKRUPT this country!!!wait till more BABY-BOOMERS enlist in it...we have no choice..most of Europe has socialized medicine....they did it to SAVE MONEY
not because they are "COMMUNISTS" like the EXTREME-RIGHT want's everyone to think...who do you think are BRAIN-WASHING them? the Insurance companies
3. everything else we need to cut.....Military ect will not amount to much as HEALTHCARE reform....we need to do this first....
Fareed offers some good sounding "pragmatic" advise ... but doesn't address the biggest problem -"politics" and the biased, self-interests supporting and pressuring politicians. When American politics provides an answer as to how to control and minimize those problems, solutions will be easier, or I should say, possible. Until then .... ??
True! We do not need Politicans! We need experts in Finance! Not self-serving Idiots!
How about the government stop paying for the chick/guy (insert abusers name here) down the street to live life on their butt for the last 2 decades getting government checks for 1) doing nothing 2) popping out kids and getting more $$$ for them 3) government paying for her kids to eat and go to school....etc etc etc I see it everywhere.
I pay my taxes and I work hard, but I am the one who suffers living paycheck to paycheck, while this chick can sit on her butt, do nothing, talk on her cellphone all day watching her big free flat screen TV compliments of you and I??????
Americans are too uneducated, politically immature and partisan to deserve participatory electoral democracy. In addition, big business has too much influence. Some, of course, is warranted but not disproportionately so. Lastly, they are abandoning compromise, the heart and soul of being a united United States. My-way-or-the-highway has replaced our way together. Shame on Americans.
Fareed is once again right on the money on his assessment, except he's underestimating the effect that a Value Added Tax (VAT) will have on the economy. Germany uses a VAT to level the playing field for their industries. If an industry in another country wants to get its goods into our country, that does have the financial overhead of our environmental standards or employs child and prison labor, or manipulates their currency, their goods should have a VAT slapped on them. Nothing would boost employment, spur the return of our lost industries and bring our money home than the idea of a VAT.
A revolution is what we NEED. I'm only 18 and I am already tired of this government. Not because of local, state or federal laws, so don't pull that BS on me, but because the system in which this government is based upon is a total wreck. I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't want to have to deal with sh*t like this for the rest of my life. This so called "democracy" that is supposed to be for the PEOPLE is really just a dictatorship with liberties. When it all adds up, our opinions and our votes never really matter to this government. They only care about their interests and not about ours. It's time "we the people" make things right.
The tax code definitely needs some streamlining no doubt. Not are there too many loopholes for citizens to take advantage of, but there are entirely too many subsidies to corporations who absolutely do not need them... Hello record profit oil industry... There are others as well that need to be eliminated.
However, if Medicare is the 800 pound gorilla, then military spending is his significantly larger brother. All the pundits and politicians talk about entitlements when the US is mired in 2 exceedingly costly wars that are 'not wars' (some 'slam dunk' those were). Spending cannot truely be reigned in until ALL aspects of the budget are addressed and this includes our military spending. We need to stop being the world's cop/vigilante and spend that money within our borders. Additionally, we should be cutting foreign aid across the board. If we can't keep our internal spending in order, why should we be handing out money to other coutnries?
Continuing to financially favor corporations and the wealthy is only going to further the ruin the US is experiencing now. Cutting programs like SS/Meidcare/caid are not going to be the be all end all fix, addressing those will only hurt those who can least afford it.
Hey, like Zakariah said – you let me monkey with SS/Medicare/aid, I'll let you monkey with the military budget and the tax code. It's got to be a two-way street. Actually, it should be a one-way street, with all of us moving toward the same goal – fixing the budget mess.
Honestly, if things were "normal" – if we weren't trillions of dollars in debt – I'd say let's fight. But our situation isn't normal anymore. Everyone will have to pay. Sure, we want to make it as painless as possible. But it's going to hurt no matter what.
WE owe this debt to ourselves basically, but a private banking cartel has taken over money creation; so the solution is simply to reclaim the creation of money back where it belongs–with The Government!! No private hands that drain off productivity through Interest on Money THEY created out of THIN AIR!! With NO Consideration!! Then a new currency can pay off all debt and without 14.29 Trillion dollars of debt We They People would have An Honest Money system again (per The Constitution!!!)
I have to agree with most of what Mr. Z says. The solution is not "tax the rich." The solution is not "cut entitlements." It's doing BOTH – wisely, not ideologically. As it is now, liberal and conservative Congress critters have staked out their ideological territorites: "big government" and "little government." They're thinking like two opposing religious sects, not like people managing the public's business. Yes, I said "business" because that's what it comes down to – the fundamentals of managing a complete budget. Not managing a charity for the poor. Not managing a hedge fund for the rich. It's a budget. They need to start thinking of it as a budget and not merely as a source of funds for their special interests. Everybody's going to feel the pinch.
The two party system is the root of the problem. Be done with it and be done with the majority of the problems. As long as there are two sides there will be bickering and fighting rather than solutions.
As a country we are so divided right now; divided in our political system, divided by race, divided by religion, and divided by economics. How the heck are we supposed to move forward when we are a country so horribly fragmented?
By following The Constitution! President Adams said: "Loyalty to party would supersede loyalty to country a couple hundred years ago. Franklin said: "We have given you A Republic if you can keep it!" The rule of Law supersedes Democracy, which is Mob Rule!
Mr. Z forgets this is A Republic ruled by The Law Of The Land (The Constitution) and there is no compromise against it except Amendment!!!!!!!
How about speaking The Truth about how far from Legal our Government has moved in it's attempt to use the mob-rule of Democracy to change us from A Republic??????
The TEA PARTY wants a return to The Constitutional Legal constraints of LAW! Not the back door, under the table deals of Democracy!
There's just one problem with your solutions: there isn't enough money in the entire country. You would need to tax people at a 50% rate or higher. If you do that, then you turn America into exactly what we were fighting against two hundred years ago.
If every citizen gave every dollar they earn this year, you still could not balance the budget! The solution is to reclaim The Federal Reserve and print money at zero cost to the government, not padding the private pockets of the banking cartel. Pay off the National debt and the new currency would expand and contract to and from the Governmental Treasury as Ben Franklins Bank of Philly did. No inflation occurs if the Government retires money as productivity is paid off. The interests to cover the loans can be added as public works and No private citizens would be running up a debt that We The People would owe!!
There is PLENTY of money in the country, the problem is the wrong people have that money... Donald Trump suggested we tax 13% of anyone who has more than $10,000,000 in assets in America, which would generate $5.7 TRILLION dollars... That would eliminate the country's entire deficit in one swift blow... That would generate $100 Billion a year in interest that we are not paying... That could be used to refill the dwindling Social Security Fund... We would still need to readjust the budget to prevent creating another deficit, but at least we wouldn't have Trillions in debt... I say Trump for president...
This entire problem was created when the creation of money was stolen from The Federal Governmnet by a Private Banking Cartel! If you want a Real Solution, the Government must reclaim it's Constitutional Attority to create the Money of The Country again! All problems are solvable then!!!
To say the system is broken is an understatement. To call it a recession is also an understatement. In 50 years the history books will call it a turning point for the USA, something so far they have failed to direct to the positive side of the population. I forsee many conflicts in the streets of America, people unhappy, hungry and tired of working 2 jobs to save their house and family. Until people take to the streets in vast numbers nothing will change, there is no incentive for change if the price can be paid by "giving them cake".
The war on drugs in America was and is a failure, outsourcing it out of country. Allowing arms to be bought and sent to Mexico, breaking not only the laws of Mexico but the laws of the USA. The people in Washington have lost control of not only the economy, the banking system and Wall street but their own departments of ATF and DEA. Such a sad state of affairs and all we end up with is bickering over NPR radio and other programs that amount to nothing in the long term.
The system is Broken and probably not reparable, because We The People are not involed in Defending The Constitution! All Empires are born, mature, peek, decline and DIE! The U S A is in decline headed for DEATH!
"Unless they [the Tea Parties] believe that they should have the ability to – by some kind of dictatorial fiat – impose their will on the rest of the country, then they’re going to have to give and that’s the part that seems to be lost here."
Actually, much of what motivates the Tea Parties is that document of dictatorial fiat called "the Constitution." And, sorry, but that's non-negotiable. Either the country operates in accordance with the Constitution, or there might as well be no Constitution, and that's what will result in governance by "dictatorial fiat."
As far as many of us are concerned, the protections given citizens by the constitution are under attack by those who twist its words to suit their purposes. The Commerce Clause is a legacy of literal near-warfare between States under the Articles of Confederation and was intended to prevent such warfare. But now, using a truly Byzantine perversion of its intent, it's being used to try to justify forcing people to doing something that it's blatantly unconstitutional for the federal government to do. The General Welfare clause, intended to identify an objective to be achieved by the exercise of the powers given Congress, and a justification for granting those powers, is now being abused to justify the exercise of any power Congress chooses to grant itself.
We need the "dictatorial fiat" of the Constitution, and we need people like those of the Tea Parties to defend that "fiat."
Completely TRUE! However, when a mojority of We The People discover they can get a minority to give them everything they want, even The Constitution is DOOMED!
The problem in this country is that it is TOO FREE... There should be a cap on how much you can earn... NO ONE, NO ONE AT ALL deserves to earn over $1,000,000 per year... Its DISGUSTING... Yet people earn Billions... You wonder why the country is broke, why everyone is in debt? Turn on MTV Cribs... Follow someone from Wall Street home... There is PLENTY of money in the country, the problem is the wrong people have that money... Donald Trump suggested we tax 13% of anyone who has more than $10,000,000 in assets in America, which would generate $5.7 TRILLION dollars... That would eliminate the country's entire deficit in one swift blow... That would generate $100 Billion a year in interest that we are not paying... That could be used to refill the dwindling Social Security Fund... We would still need to readjust the budget to prevent creating another deficit, but at least we wouldn't have Trillions in debt... I say Trump for president...
....A Military Takeover of America may be the Only Solution...until we get the Sc um cleaned out...The Military would do this and run America on Judeo -Christian Principals...Stay out of A rab wars..Force the A rabs..especially Iraq and Kuwait to PAY for our costs..take over oil fields if necessary..China only has our products Because We sent them there...Pull them back by Enforcing U.S. Mfrs. to pay Huge tariffs....I'm Sure there are Flag and Senior Officers Prepared to Step in Now...As a Military Officer...the Military would Certainly Stand Behind them...Our First Allegiance is to the U.S. Constitution ..NOT President...America is under Dire Threat from Enemies DOMESTIC...an We CAN take Over and Save our Country...Pray for America and our Military...
Our Government was taken over in 1913 by A Private Banking Cartel and A Private I R S to collect taxes to pay the interest created out of thin air by The Private Banking System!
The problem lies not only in the political system but Also in the hands of the people. We continue to vote based on very narrow ideas, try to interject religious dogma into law, economics, and individual freedoms. The dumbest suggestion is to extend the retirement age, I'm sorry but the average American works more hours then most other industrialized nations. I'd like to retire early not later.. You can't be for family first and expect us to work to the day we die. Also everyone needs to deal with cuts from all areas. Raise taxes on the rich by 10% , close all loopholes, if a company sends job over seas they must pay a extra tax or fine.
You could fund all entitlement programs by removing the tax ceiling. This bs about taxing only the first $100,000 or whatever it is just completely retarded. If I pay a true % on my whole income so should everyone else.
the difference between 10 and 50 is not 25.
Everyone that gets bogged down in 2 party politics is WRONG!! dont you see there is no difference between the two parties Republicans uner bush took us to IRAQ and Afghanistan created the problem of massive debt and burrowing and in 2008 offered bailouts to the BANKS. And under Obama the supposed "CHANGE" continued wars brought us into libya and even created Obamacare which is a mandatory socialsit healthcare initiative designed to cut off fundidng or starve out the undesirables. all the while the media tells us the problem is healthcare!! something is wrong here people wake up!!
Americans are addicted to overspending and putting our financial house in order will be incredibly painful. You won't see Tea Party members willing to bargain because the Washington beltway is filled with addicts dependant on big spending to buy votes. Nothing productive comes from making bargains with addicts.
dictatorial ? You seem to look at Tea Party supporters the same way we look at the health care law.
It has to stop soon. One more tax or energy increase moves me into bankruptcy. The only solution that is offered by Democrats over the last 30 years has been to increase taxes in some fashion or another. Republicans haven’t been much better. It is time to let other people with a lot more common sense take the helm, and if that means it appears to the more sensitive palates as dictatorial , then so be it.
the american people are not cheering.obama has to go now!
I just love it when people who don't and will never have to scramble for rent money, or stay awake at night wondering whether they'll have a job next week start discussions of how to fix the economy by suggesting that our lives need to be more expensive and less certain. More people will die from preventable conditions because they can't afford care under the new healthcare order than now, and while they don't admit it in polite conversation, it's a hallmark of the program. Underutilization saves money, death saves money. Do the math.
The comment at the end wondering why the public is still running around like the sky is falling is just outright asinine. The sky IS falling – It's jobs, stupid. Beyond the sheer number and availability of jobs, Congress needs to take action to stop employers from their current practice of creating classes of unemployable citizens out of those who most need the work. The satisfaction of the moneyed claaes and those for whom the robustness of the market recovery are meaningful in this instance is irrelevant to the rank and file Unfortunately, I don't see a solution since Republican strategies will tend to make life more difficult for those without substantial assets and wages, and Democrats see the silver lining in this by building constituencies dependent on the government to live..
Fareed, this is one of the most objective, insightful and optimistic pieces to appear in recent days. It is of course ironic that Nixon initiatives, the EPA and Planned Parenthood are those that most rankle republicans. The GOP used to have room for compassionate conservatives like Charles Percy, Edward Brooke, Margaret Chase Smith and all the Rockefeller republicans who pragmatically set out to solve problems and strengthen our economy. Dixiecrats, like Phil Gramm, who jumped parties did much to evangelize the GOP's message and intrude on American's religious privacy. It wasn't long before the party's potential big tent shrank and independents were left out in the cold. The economic debacle President Obama inherited from President Bush, and a republican dominated Congress, who practiced exactly what Tea Party conservatives yearn to repeat suddenly makes President Obama appear moderate. Shutting down government in the midst of war is as appalling as Coburn's smug refusal of benefits to 9/11 first responders. Republican-controlled congressional hearings that deride witnesses and ignore testimony that contradicts their views, and budget riders that cut Border Patrol funds while shouting we need to secure our border are inane. The democratic party's dysfunction is obvious as well. The mean-spirited nature of the primaries, the unfocused stimulus, the shady deals on health care (which also delayed passage until after Ted Kennedy's death) and the inability to pass the budget in the fallI all made me cringe. I am no democrat but the current slate of candidates lining up to challenge the President make it clear the GOP's inept buffoonery is far from over. I'll take the intellect and decency of President Obama and hope he'll be respectfully challenged when he's wrong. I keep waiting for people like you, David Gergen and David Brooks to stop being apologists for recalcitrant and mean-spirited conservatives and promote real candidates who talk positively about ideas and solutions instead of denigrating their opponent. Your honest appraisal is a wonderful step in that direction. Thank you.
Yes, the government is broken, but that's because two parties agreed to only cut 38 billion from a 1.8 Trillion dollar budget deficit. I'd hardly call that a cut. I'd call it a waste of time.
It's easy to say we have five more years to solve the problem. We've been ignoring a problem of overspending for decades. So if we don't go for a balanced budget amendment now, when will it happen?
My guess is, with both the Repubs and Dems in power, it's never going to happen.
Perhaps if the country gets behind a third party ("The Tea Party") some President, some day, will have the balls to veto any budget that isnt balanced (ie. no deficit spending).
We need to cut Federal spending by at least 40 percent. We can reduce tax loopholes and try to make a fairer, flatter tax system where more people participate in pulling their fair share. However higher taxes should not be part of the solution.
"We need to cut Federal spending by at least 40 percent."
Please estimate the number of jobs that will cost.
Get ready for AntiChrist...He is on the way...America is done...
Fareed makes good points. Our politians don't know the meaning of compromise. Plus, they have lost there individuality; it's the party lune or contributors line not what's good for the country/individual.
The Tragi-Comedians of Capitol Hill have created an act of farce theatre that equals that of Charlie Sheen’s parenting qualifications, Donald Trump’s rabid squirrel hair thing, Lady GaGa’s wardrobe, and Lindsey Lohan’s arrest record. Theatre that has nothing to do with the security, health or welfare of our Republic, and everything to do with ego, status, wealth, power, visibility and electability.
The agony of hearing these people speak with their monumentally bloated sense of self-importance and glamour-shot makeup could be, and has been, considered pathetically poor comedy in more appropriate context. Tragically, the current context is critical to the survival of a society. Until these posers, and the constituencies they’ve entranced, acknowledge the fact that they are government employees, and not vacuous celebrities, we will continue as a nation to descend into reality show irrelevance.
Who won? The question itself is a humiliating reflection of what this charade we call Congress has become. This isn't a high school football game – this is the well-being of a nation. ‘He said/she said’ in such an environment is beyond sophomoric – utterly in opposition to what one should expect from intelligent adults, indeed intelligent children.
Therein lies the problem – we haven’t elected intelligent adults – We’ve elected an embarrassing gaggle of self-absorbed charlatans having no concept of, let alone any interest in, the responsibilities of their office. We’ve allowed this sideshow to fester into a world-class joke, and the time has come to use the means at our disposal to put an end to it. It isn’t entertaining, and it isn’t funny.
I was disappointed that campaign finance reform was not mentioned. We need elected officials who are free and able to work for the voters. It is clearly missing and clearly needed.
Zakaria needs to STFU – and go back where he belongs.
CUT CUT CUT If it is duplicated in any way on a state level of government then that federal agency needs to go! Dept of education buh bye. Home land security buh bye, (FBI NSA CIA)can get it done. dept of energy and interior BUH BYE! Have a complete six sigma over hual of all medicare\ medicade, Social Security and every other cabinet level agency. The United states should never have a federal reserve bank a private bank corp running amok as it is controling finance the way it does. Balanced budget just like every home in america does. The Monitizing of federal Debt and selling it like Crack to anyone who want to buy this POISON is the root of all the problems with the Government today. The IRS need not have a code that would take a team of lawyers a decade to fix, can you say flat rate taxs, corporate taxes 18% you would see all of the jobs shipped over seas come back.
The biggest waste of money is the military.
No touch hole, I think I just came across an even bigger waste!!
I agree that the military budget is a big part of the problem! The "military industrial complex" and bankers that fund it all have had the lion's share of the pie far too long at the expense of taxpayers.
I also take exception to social security being thrown in as an "entitlement" program. Social Security was funded by taxpayers for retirement by deductions from their paycheck. This is not the case with Medicare. Fareed Zakaria shows great ignorance by including Social Security in the "entiltement" list. This is putting gross misinformation out as fact when nothing could be further from the truth. Why are foreign anchors put in positions where they can state such outlandish opinions on national television as if it were fact!? Where are the editors and managers of this poorly researched program... asleep at the switch!?
"Social Security was funded by taxpayers for retirement by deductions from their paycheck."
Social Security outlays have always been funded by current contributions. It's not a retirement account.
American politics is "broken" because American people have become ignorant, extremely partisan, arrogant and intolerant of differences. Don't blame the politicians. They represent those who elected them.
Go back to India and pray to your monkey, rat, cow, elephant God Zakaria!!
Gee, is that the Right Wing Christian ethic they taught you? Lousy attitude even for a vet.
The government is only broken when your party isn't pulling the strings. These processes SHOULD take time, there SHOULD be discussion. This notion that laws should just speed through with little friction is ludicrous and completely antithesis to the way this country is supposed to work. If you don't like it, find a country that does it the way you want and live there... or just suck it up and get your voice heard at the ballot box like everyone else.
No. Proof of a new radical party with a selfish voracious appetite, for getting their way all the time, rather that playing nice in the system by negotiating with others as they should.
How to fix the deficit without devouring each other.
http://johnrj08.wordpress.com/2011/04/09/how-to-slash-the-deficit-without-slashing-our-own-throats/
Untangling the hairball of right-wing non-profits is a job worthy of the DuPont family genealogist. First cousins, second cousins, intermarrying, charities that aren't really charitable, you name it, you'll find it in the dark recesses of the back pages of federal disclosures. But if you look long enough, and take the time to get to know the various families and their incestuous patterns, a picture emerges. If I had Glenn Beck's blackboard I might be able to even illustrate it, but since I don't, I'll just use pictures. Up to now, most of the focus on funding has been on Koch Industries, and rightly so. You should all download and read this comprehensive report by the Center for American Progress. It gives a great high-level overview of their political and business dealings. But the Koch family is only one of several just like them. They're not on the Dow Jones exchange, and if you aren't living in their state or within their direct sphere of influence, you won't really be aware of what they're doing. There's no better state to begin to shed light on them than Wisconsin. In Wisconsin, the descendants and keepers of the Bradley Brothers' legacy – Lynde and Harry – are who you need to know if you want to get ahead in state and/or national conservative politics. Wisconsin's Conservative Powerhouse A 2004 report prepared by the National Committee on Responsible Philanthropy (NCRP) about the conservative funding network ranked the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation second on their list of top conservative funders, with the Sarah Scaife Foundation at the top. That was 2004. Like Fred Koch, Harry Bradley was a founding member of the John Birch Society. The asset value of the Bradley Foundation skyrocketed after the Allen-Bradley Co. was sold to Rockwell International Corp. in 1985. The report also notes that Wisconsin was third in a list of top recipient states for conservative philanthropy. Bradley Foundation Grants The 2004 NCRP report listed total foundation grants from 1999-2001 as $38,858,118. For the years 2007-2009, total Bradley Foundation grants were $98,154,552, a 252% increase. The president of the Bradley Foundation is Michael Grebe. From the NCRP report: Grebe views Milwaukee as a "laboratory" in which it generates and funds various public policy programs that ultimately serve as models for national programs. School choice and welfare reform have been longstanding issues of interest to the Bradley Foundation, and its work on these issues began at the local level but continues at the state and national levels. Specific grants support that claim. The Bradley Foundation is one of the biggest donors to the State Policy Network, which funds and creates state-based think tanks to influence policy. The Wisconsin Policy Research Institute received a grant of $400,000 in 2009 and another $1,075,000 in 2010, earmarked for "a project on Wisconsin policymaking." In 2009, the Employment Policies Institute received $250,000 with a follow-up payment in 2010 of $750,000. The Employment Policies Institute is currently active in the area of opposing minimum wage laws, among other things. Donors' Trust received $500,000 in 2009 to support the "Health Freedom Fund". Most notably in the context of current Wisconsin politics, the Center for Union Facts has received $1,250,000 from 2007-2009 from the foundation for "public education programs." The Center for Union Facts is responsible for spreading the false claim that public employees earn more than private employees, attacks on public school teachers, and other anti-union talking points and public relations. It is a Rick Berman production. Berman is a favorite front guy for astroturf groups funded by the Bradley Foundation and others, including the Walmart dynasty. In 2009, the Bradley Foundation hired Robert E. Norton, II to fill a newly-created position: Vice President of Donor Relations. Here's his job description: In 2009, Robert Norton was named Vice President for Donor Relations at the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. In this role he serves as the primary interface to create collaborative giving options with other foundations, entities and individuals whose mission is similar to that of The Foundation’s efforts. About Michael Grebe Michael Grebe is not only the director of the Bradley Foundation. Here are his other associations: Chairman, Scott Walker Transition Team Chairman, Scott Walker Campaign Board Member, Oshkosh Truck Company Board Member, Donors Trust Chairman, Philanthropy Roundtable Board Member, Church Mutual Insurance Company CEO, Foley and Lardner (now retired) The Philanthropy Roundtable and Donors Trust connections enable Grebe to be at the heartbeat of national right-wing giving efforts and campaigns. Adam Meyerson, President of Donors Capital Fund (a donor-advised fund), also sits on the Board of Directors of the State Policy Network and is President of Philanthropy Roundtable. How Scott Walker got elected This post began because two questions kept sticking in my head. First, how did a preacher's kid with no college degree manage such a meteoric rise from county executive to Governor? And second, what is it about Wisconsin that has made it such a hotbed of controversy and policy fights? How is it that a state can be so deeply divided, ideologically? It seems to me that the divide is created by systematically investing huge sums of money in policy "research", media influence, and political causes over a long period of time. This is to say that I think Wisconsin was inherently progressive-leaning and has been pushed right by the institutions funded with conservative, far-right wing money. Look at Scott Walker. Scott Walker is a face. He's a guy carrying out the orders of his keepers. He's got the look and he's got the ambition. Scott Walker is the face of the John Birch society writ large in Wisconsin. With Mike Grebe at the helm of Walker's campaign, $11.3 million was spent to elect him. Outside donors included the Republican Governors' Association and Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, who spent millions on independent expenditures. Here's a breakdown of individual donors by industry. Scott Walker, like the policy institutes the Bradley Foundation funds, is another "laboratory". The formula goes like this. Get a guy with the right bio to appeal to independents. The conservative vote is a given, so it's the independent vote they're going after. Walker had the right populist blend for Wisconsin. Son of a preacher who gave up the education for "hard work", he presented himself as an 'ordinary guy' who had trouble even paying for a suit. Put a ton of money into his campaign. Inundate the state. Get him elected. Then start putting the policy issues so heavily funded, researched and publicized into effect. Bust unions? No problem, because the WPRI laid the foundation with a series of "research papers" on union-busting. Same with tax cuts and the rest. Walker's just the puppet. But don't assume it's the Koch family pulling the strings. They hold one. The Bradley Foundation holds two or three. There are other players too, but that's a topic for another post. less
commented on Lawmakers react to budget deal
Of course, there nothing such as thing happening on the liberal left. NOT!! Be fair. It happens on both sides, so be honest and admit the truth that both sides (right-wing/left-wing, liberals/conservatives, Demagogues/Repulican'ts) are wrong and ideological and not good for America.
Fareed, you're simply using conservative talking points. You're supposed to be a journalist, but instead you spew nonsense. Social Security is solvent through 2037, but you want to raise the retirement age. Consumers are already paying astronomical healthcare costs, and you suggest that we pay more. Your solutions proposed are to burden the middle class and the poor even more that we are, and we're already strecthed to the max. The simple solution is to take away the welfare for the rich and make them pay taxes like everyone else. The only real solition for healthcare system is to switch to single payer. You drank the Washington cool-aid. Very sad...
Americans are too uneducated, politically immature and partisan to deserve participatory electoral democracy. In addition, big business has too much influence. Some, of course, is warranted but not disproportionately so. Lastly, they are abandoning compromise, the heart and soul of being a united United States. My-way-or-the-highway has replaced our way together. Shame on Americans....@volkans I finally managed to get my iPad2, it was $281. Look they cost $829 and the site claims 90% off so it was a lot more than they said but with a $548 saving it was still awesome…But I think the offer is only in US and Canada. SnagBids.com
LET the Constitutionally required* "Accounting from time to time"* begin; Start w/ the FRB,Inc. (Delaware Corp., the same as thier collection arm; Both in July 1913.)
If there's nothing to hide (But, those most informed & researched know this is the case, not limited to to R. Paul, Ventura, Grassley, 7 100's of others, whether you like them or not has nothing to do w/ party affiliation. It has to do w/ Mismanagement of MONEY, & FAR WORSE, that the American Public finally needs to know the truth about, that Bush, Obama, & every other PRESIDENT HAS KNOWN & HAVE ALL FAILED TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT,
SOMETHING ONLY THE LATE FORMER PRESIDENT REAGAN had the COURAGE (I hv NEVER been a REPUBLICAN or Democrat, so scratch that angle.) who ever made the REAL FACTS about our Economic System known to the Public, that has nothing to do with Party affiliation for 8 (eight) STRAIGHT YEARS including on National TV.
LET the PUBLIC know and force the END to this INSANITY that A SMALL # of PSH's of each of the 12 for-Profit Banks reap the benefits from, as it is the not only REQUIRED, but is NON-POLITICAL, & IS THE ONLY WAY TO REVEAL BY FOLLOWING THE "PAPER & ELECTRONIC TRAIL" as to EXACTLY WHO these ill-gotten gains have GONE TO.
BESIDES, IT'S ALSO the ONLY WAY TO DISCONTINUE THE INACCURATE, ARBITRARYtotal # OF DOLLARS PUT on the SO-CALLED NATIONAL DEBT.
JUST LIKE THE WORD A-U-D-U-T, it's ALL about another 5-(FIVE)-LETTER WORD that everybody inclduing Congress has always EVADED 7 AVOIDED.
The U.S. cannot wait another almost 98 (ninety-eight) YEARS to know what's really been going on.
P.S. The letter "U" in the deliberate mispelling of the word AUDIT is your strarting letter, CLUE. Now do Ur own research
& homework on the subject.
The US has a 14 trillion dollar debt, the Feds pay 40 cents in interest on every dollar spent, and Congress has yet to pass an annual budget. It looks very bleak for US!
usa down the drain. probably make people to be more racists against illegals
I hate you cry baby AmeriKans. Canada is the greatest country and we will take over the United States soon enough. I will pleasure myself on the White House lawn. The gerbils are coming with me! Tell me what you think on 14.272 mhz!
compromise so that there is some bit of progress .... but then who gets to define progress? Pres Clinton said get on the train or be left behind. I preferred to be left behind that get on a train going where Clinton wanted to go. Pres Obama essentially says the same thing ... get on the socialism train/boat or be left behind and considered enemies. Well, ok I prefer to stay on the side of our founding fathers and capitalism than get on the train with Obama. So, I won't want to compromise and go half way with him either.
I'm not sure it's so much about the system as the people driving the system. It's like getting somewhere you don't want to be and thinking "This car is broken." Check the driver(s).
No, our government is certain not broken – quite to the contrary – the debating, wrangling and compromises going on show our political system is alive and well. The delay in passing a budget is unfortunate, but I'm much more worried when a single party controls the White House, House of Reps and Senate, and things get passed without a hitch. Both parties have agendas that range from good (moderate) to bad (ideological extremes), and if both parties have partial control, more good than bad stuff is going to get passed. Things work best when members of of both parties are forced to compromise to get anything done.
Greg
I am from Canada and I will be visiting NYC in May. I just hope that when I pay with Canadian money, they don't give me that worthless American money as change. Just kidding. I do think the US has some huge problems, and I generally agree with the article, either reduce spending/benefits or raise money by introducing a value added tax.
I think where government is really broken is the 4th estate. Journalism has collapsed and with it our government. Democracy cannot survive without a strong press. Its time we stop bickering about political parties and start to have the discussion on how to save journalism, how to revive investigative reporting.
Zacharia and many posting about lack of compromise from Tea Party. Folks, "compromise" is what is taking us nowhere. Follow a proven system running for centuries – the Constitution – and there are few compromises to worry about. Compromise on what? Obamacare? We are broke. The government has no money to give you. Immigration? We bring over 1 million a year. Stop allowing sanctuaries please. Taxes? Institute a flat tax and that is it. Gay rights? Give them peace and give them rights for same tax breaks and that is it. Marriage is terminology associated with God and religion. Leave marriage alone please. See, at certain point compromises go nowhere.
"It used to be that in Congress you became famous by creating big, bipartisan deals and passing big, bipartisan legislation."
That's why we are bankrupt, and you make it sound like a good thing.
Your American money is worthless. I wipe my pasty white bum with it. I cannot wait for your country to fold so we Canadians can take it (your crappy country) over. I am so sick of hearing Hamerekans (Americans) whine over their spoiled milk. For more information, go to my blog at http://members.shaw.ca/karolus/karol.htm and my website at http://www.ve7kfm.com for all of my anti-American postings. You don't want to upset me. I will hurt you.
Will you use a silk scarf to tie my hands and feet first? Will you whip me with a leather strap?
If our military was not south of your border to cover your butts, you wouldn't even have a country ... be careful what you wish for and ask your parents to put all sharp objects out of your reach.
Damn, Canada still exists? I forgot that toilet was a country. I thought it was long ago taken over by grizzlies and yaks.
The system is somewhat broken because it condones greed. If we weren't capitalist to the extreme, then this wouldn't happen. It isn't our political system, it is our economic system.
It's not broken, it works EXACTLY the way the politicians WANT it to work. There can be no "us" if there is no "them". "We" can't be "helping" you, if "they" were not trying to "destroy" you. "Our" side can't be everything AMERICA STANDS FOR, if "they" weren't trying to destroy THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE! There can be no wolves if there are no sheep. YOU are sheep, not only do you LET them steal from you, but you HELP THEM steal from you.
The simple fact is that, for all their faults, the Tea Party are 100% right about one thing: entitlements have to be cut heavily. In fact they're more right than they know, because the items they'd rather not cut (like defense) will have to be cut. The point is, they are ahead of the curve and speaking the truth about the necessary curbing of the state. As long as they continue to be right about this (which may be many many years) then the rest of the country is going to have to work with them and, yes, sometimes bow to their demands even when they are at their most petulant. This is the price the country must pay for years of living beyond its means. Get used to it.
OK, folks, STOP REACTING TO THE GAME! That's jsut what the government wants you to do. They play this game every year lately and I, for one, am tired of it. They will never shut the government down toa point of endangering our military or national security, so don't over react.
No VAT
The Gov't of the US is broken! It has been broken for years. It broke with the Ascendency of what Dwight D Eisenhower called the Military Industrial Complex. He quite vocally warned what would happen if the military and contractors became too clse in bed together. It broke with theovergrowth of dependence of business dictating foreign policy. It broke with the foreign policy that placed access to oil above the ideals of this nation ( freedom, justice, and basic democratic principles). It broke with the alignment of one party with a group of narrow minded religious bigots that place their views above those of the nation as a whole, and who dictate that they alone have the truth. It broke with the rise of news groups that place one view or party above the impartiality of the press to deliver news, than control it. It broke with the rise of talking heads who espouse one and only one view, without regard for any truth honesty, let alone intergrity.It broke with the constant view of liberal as evil ( since when did freedom become such an ugly word or concept here ). It broke with the control of one party by social conservatives who arae right at all times, even when theri view is contrary to the book they espouse as their life guide.
Is the go't broken, yes.
To repair: control the lobbyists, reduce the military and american adventurism, the military is for defense, not for Halliburton to make billions in profit. Remember rights have responsibility. Education, education, education, and I do not mean home schools which weaken the ability of this country to compete on the world market. Tell the evangelicals we are happy for their personal religious faith, make sure you keep it YOUR personal religious faith, Shove it NOT down my throat. Remeber the constitution is for all, not just if you are a WASP. That is a start!
tom
Ayn Rand called it too – check out YouTube for her interviews with Mike Wallace – specifically Part 2 ...
Waaaahhhhhh.... I am an American. Look at me. Cry Cry Cry... You make me sick. I hope you all die... My country is wonderful! You all suck! Hosers.
Wow...almost sounds like you had your heart broken by an American....Aaaw...its ok...we're sending more GIs to your country with some of our Navy on shore leave...you'll get a new date so don't feel so lonely
Full of holes. 1. No-one doing the work of getting something big passed? What about the Health Reform Act and the Economic stimulus? 2. No-one working to build bipartisan support for needed legislation? Anyone notice how Obama consistently gets it done. When he had the support in Congress, he got the big stuff above done. Since he hasn't, he's avoided shutdowns twice now. Compare his record to Clinton's at the same point in their Presidency. Obama's gotten it done. Clinton didn't. 3. The solutions he proposed and the assumptions underlying them are, at best, debatable. His solutions likely would not solve much of anything. Krugman's much better on this.
I have the answer to the Tea Baggers high jacking our country. RECALL every politician that claims to be a tea bagger! Especially Paul Rand!
Keep the money to pay down the debt? Not if you want to see the economy show signs of life in your lifetime. Create a VAT? Ha, these people already waste my tax dollars – I absolutely WILL NOT pay a dime more in taxes. Period. They can squeeze VAT out of me on purchases butI will simply deduct it from my Income Tax bottom line. I am sure I am not alone in my sentiment – I waste 51% of my income paying taxes – in my opinion, it should be a flat tax and capped at 20% for families making 250,000 a year or less. The rate should increase sharply from there – an equitable tax structure has to be formed – the corporate loopholes need to be closed – if they want to outsource because of the taxes. charge a HUGE import tariff on their goods when they come back in the country. I am tired of paying for "the elite" and big business and the bankers ... freeze the assets of the FED and then audit them – punish those in charge for treason and absorb the trillions in holdings – that should pay down a chunk of the debt. They have stolen from the people and I personally want my money back. Now.
Considering your bright assessment of American's overall position, it could easily be argued that we don't have a debt problem, not even a long-term debt problem.
The Federal Government is a monetary sovereign with a fiat currency (a currency that is created from nothing - no gold standard, etc...). The DU contries are not sovereign over their currency, they do not issue it themselves. America's States also do not issue their own currency. Nor do households. But if a household COULD issue it's own currencey, if we all had a money making machine in our kitchen, then we could not go broke. We could always pay off any debt of any size. Thus, debt is never the problem. The only constraint on spending is inflation. All this talk of a debt crises is either innocently ill-informed or is some wierd way to scare the people into thinking they must sacrifice now in order to head off a future disaster. However, since inflation is low, the dollar is relatively healthy internationally, there's no need to worry about devistating inflation. Once people (and especially commentators) understand our monetary system perhaps we can begin the more important questions - like where is the best place for a govenment to invest, how do we close the gap between rich and poor, and how do we create jobs, etc....?
I love how you Americans blame your politicians when you are the true problem. This is why you will not last as a country. Look at what I mean on my website at http://www.ve7kfm.com. I have the perfect examples on this site. America sucks! ve7kfm@gmail.com
Funny, there is no more pathetic person on the planet than a troll ... go reevaluate your life.
I dont fallow links to site I dont know however I agree with you to a point. Americans are part of the problem. How can we expect our poiltitians fo balance the budget if we cant do the same in our personal lives? But not all americans are like that. In my whole live the most debt ive ever had was $500. And I only took out that loan to improve my credit rating. Im willing to bet there are alot more Americans like me.
Then stay out and STFU. You can generalize and act as if all Americans are the same, or that a country is made only of its flawed gov't (not its people) if you want, but America WAS a great country, still IS, and will continue to be no matter what problems we face. That's why most countries emulate America. So haters, get out and stay out.
Fareed I have to barrow money to see the doctor as it is how is it a good Idea to force me to pay more for medical care?
I agree with many points that Fareed makes, especially the idea that seeing those who disagree with my views is the enemy or at least the opponent is destroying our political discourse. BUT, the press hasn't covered itself with glory in the last decade either. In regard to the US–and the budget is merely one example–there is a false equivalency mentality that says: If I have someone on espousing position A, then I have to find someone to espouse "Not-A"...even if 98% of people, and virtually the entire scholarly community on that topic, agree with position A. And further, that I have to present them as of equal validity. Two of the most egregious examples are: Evolution/vs creationism, and global warming issues. This leads to an assumption that there IS no common wisdom out there; and people become uncertain of everything they hear.
But the second failing is even more important to our budget problem: The failure to explain the science of economics. No one is pointing out that there is a fundamental relationship between supply, demand and price, among other relationships. In some recessions, a lack of materials, for instance may prevent demand for a product from being met; fixing the supply issues will tend to increase demand. In THIS recession, the problem is a lack of demand for product...no employer, if s/he cannot sell what they already have for sale are going to hire more people. Giving money to millionaires will NOT increase jobs. Creating demand, through stimulus is what is needed. The big problem is that we didn't get enough people back to work quickly, through WPA type programs, if necessary, so they would have money to buy things to create demand, and thus lead to more jobs. All that is happening is a reverse Robin Hood narrative that says taking from the poor and giving to millionaires is the solution to our problem. and it is NOT. Come on; schools don't teach economics; so don't any journalists understand this either??? We have lost hundreds of millions of man-years of production that we cannot get back.
Pr Chris
Why does everyone talk so "PC" when it comes to making comments about these issues. It's about alleviating financial burdens, correct? Blue collars used to be the back bone of this country, yet there's able bodies living of the free rides that tax money has provided (welfare reform would be really nice). Another cruel fact is how many criminals we house, feed, and give medical attention too. I'm not referring to inmates that are in due to substance abuse problems or petty crimes of the sort but the ones that take the innocence of a child, mutilate woman, or destroy families. Do we really have any use for these individuals. How much federal money is allocated for those people. Also another problem is the illegals working in America and the sending most their money back home to their families, which is a honorable act, the whole wanting better for your family. At the same time if you want to come to America and work then you should go through the right process to do so. That's a lot of lost jobs for are fellow americans and it also it puts a crunch on the pay scale for tradesman jobs. Seems to me that all these things significantly increase the federal debt to income ratio.
Yes, Nicholas, but that is only part of the list. There is also ... loans and grants to foreign governments including those which later proved to be after non-American interests, huge tax breaks for companies that don't need them, bank bailouts, airline bailouts, auto company bailouts, increases in government union pensions, money set aside for political party payouts, funding wars by taking out huge Chinese loans, and printing more money. I know there are others, but you get the idea. BOTH PARTIES AND ALL 3 BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT ARE AT FAULT.
This might be a good time to send this oversized head figure Fareed Zakaria back to the middle East.
I can't wait for the tea party ANd the republicans to get here way, and the middle class looks around, poor and broke with no jobs and say "what happened"?
It's gonna be hilarious.
I remember in collage we called him Fareed "The Freak" Zakaria. Allah be praised but the boy could pound down the ice tea! And what a good dancer! Fareed the Freak grew up as a batchi boy – so he know how to move the hips like the woman. and now assisting the jihad on the cnn! peace be upon botchi boy Fareed "The Freak" Zakaria!
How about limiting the child tax write offs to 2 or 3 children max. I get pretty irritated with the families with 5 or more children that have the gall to gripe about paying what paltry sum in taxes they do pay. When everyone else has to pay to send there brood to school and feed them their free lunches. Because their parents can't afford to feed that many children.
Obama has always been interested in a bipartisan approach and having a true meeting of the minds. But, since day one of the Obama administration republicans have only been interested in ranting about marxism and bla bla bla. They considered "negotiaion" to be getting theri teabaggerish rants on the evening news. Of course when democrats would forge ahead, republicans would SCREAM about being shut out of the process. You're invited, but, if all you're going to do is snipe and proclaim that no matter what the president says, you're going to oppose any and everything he proposes. In fact, you're just going to oppose him as a human being, period.
Nothing leaves me more dissapointed in people and sad than reading the posts on cnn and Fox...
I just listened to your rah rah speech defending the Ryan budget... are you insane? Because if you're not, then the only other conclusion is that either no one in your family is elderly, or disabled, or you're just rich enough that things like Medicare don't matter in your world.
Fareed, I think you do the budget issue disservice. On your show you applauded that Paul Ryan proposed a budget but did not mention that President Obama had a task force come up with a proposal as well. In fact, Paul served on that committee. Paul's proposal is a libertarian one which you did not also mentioned. This means he and his financial benefactors want to privatize as much as possible so they benefit financially and reduce revenue by giving more tax breaks to the wealthy. If you are going to comment on US issues, you need to give the whole picture instead of distorting it. You are great at international issues but you need to do more research on US ones.
After today's program I have removed GPS from my video recording schedule.
Giving so much time to an old political partisan like Baker brings no information to the current debate. His references to his recent participation in Washington Senate meetings with more old politicians while suggesting that today's problems with the budget have nothing to do with Iraq or Afghanistan is ludicrous. Reminiscing about Reagan when that administration first tripled the debt which set the long term trend we see continued today while suggesting that those polcies would remedy the current situation are both contradictory and inane.
I first turned to GPS for NEW information from NEW minds that had been overlooked by the current media coverage of the discussions both defining and analyzing today's key issues and NEW solutions.
As of this morning it reminds me of a history channel rerun.
Sorry Fareed. You are now part of the problem.
We are Egyptians who have not developed the courage to act.
. In time we will take to the streets and hopefully our military will be sophisticated enough that when the time comes they will help us restore our representation in our future.
Terminally ill patients would be given hospice treatment, if they were arrested on the Mall. Homeless people would be given shelter....if they were arrested on the Mall. Any sick person would be given medical care – if arrested on the Mall. Any child in need of help would be given help – if arrested on the Mall. Any uninsured persons would be given medical care, any homeless person would be given shelter. HUNGRY PEOPLE WOULD BE GIVEN FOOD – PEOPLE WITH NO LEGAL REPRESENTATION, JOBLESS WITH NO PLACE TO GO, MENTALLY ILL INDIVIDUALS WITH NO WAY OF GETTING TREATMENT – CANCER PATIENTS WHO CANNOT AFFORD MEDICATION – ON AND ON – ANY AMERICAN WHO NEEDS ANY BASIC SERVICE WOULD RECEIVE IT – if arrested on the mall!
There will be a revolution with 10 years.
Television is losing its effect on our minds and the military is becoming a sophisticated force more experienced in social issues that the D.C triad of hydrogenous, paid infomercial hosts.
IF every unemployed person, uninsured person, unrepresented person went to D.C. and sat down on the Mall they would be too numerous to be arrested, if arrested they would need to be fed, given medical assistance, legal representation, in short – if we were to protest in D.C. no matter what happened top us we would receive the very services as indicted criminals that our government says we do not deserve as citizens in our own towns.
The logic of this is inescapable. We MUST be accused of breaking the law in order to be treated as we have the right to be treated. Only by being accused of breaking the law can we be fed, receive medical treatment, housing, safety.....only by breaking the law can we bring down the system that treats us like criminals. We must no longer be LIKE criminals, we must become them.
"The logic of this is inescapable."
The logic of this is just stupid. As long as we have free and open elections, which we do, talk of a revolution is just silly. Egypt hasn't had free elections. Libya doesn't have elections. We do.
The only thing that cannot be escaped by this post is the fact that is complete and utter nonsense. Seriously what are you thinking? That idea makes Charles Manson look sane.
Fareed Zakari starts his response to the ‘Systematic Problem’ question with a comment on why redistricting cause politics to be too bipartisan. Most things that FZ and all the commenters address are very real and very serious consequences of politics that is responsible to only the back room participants in the party base.
I saw ‘redistricting’ as a bit of new insight, it’s the cause while everything else is a symptom. However, when I thought about how to fix the redistricting problem I had no idea about ‘how’. In all the 350+ comments only Dave308’s point ‘3) we need to have open primaries’ even came close to addressing that question. Paraphrasing and extending FZ, redistricting with closed primaries means that politicians must always satisfy the party core because only the party core votes in primaries and general elections are unimportant. Change that so that independents can vote in either or both the Democratic or Republican primary and suddenly politicians would have to appeal to more than just the party core to get elected. We govern by checks and balances but we seem to have no check or balance in the redistricting process. If there are no ideas to fix redistricting, could we make district gerrymandering irrelevant by adding a balance for party member’s right to nominate primary candidates with a right for independents to vote in any or all primaries? Obviously we should not allow Republicans to vote in Democratic primaries or vice versa as t would allow sabotaging the other guy’s nomination process. But giving the independents a special power might be a small change that has some element of fairness and could actually accomplish something.
Why USA use his weapon to help the rebel in Libya, but no money for American people?
Trust me, the American people are getting lots of money spent on them.
- "I dont know" "I wasnt there" "Neither of us knows what went on in those negotiations" "Nobody could have seen it coming!" While you're at it why dont you just cover your eyes and wait for the system to crash again. Then you'll have an excuse not to know how it happened or who was behind it. The one who is naive is the guy who pretends he sees nothing and knows nothing. This point is nonarguable because it is a matter of the faith or lack thereof that you have in the NYT and BG. New York Times is a highly reputable news organization (except for a few ink blots like Judith Miller). And again, as I have stated Obama cannot do everything nor should he.
- Yes! Exactly as you said. He got a healthcare reform bill passed that did not go far enough to address the issue of rising premiums. In many ways it is historic. And there are more than enough other Democrats to blame for watering it down. And there is still hope to improve it in the future. The public's reaction was mixed because it did not go far enough. My problem isnt necessarily with the bill in of itself (who can say people with preexisting conditions should be denied care?). What people should worry about is the politics behind what happened because politics influences policy. There are two reasons to be worried:
1.) It is indicative of how Obama operates, which affects what kind policies he will try to push and how hard he will fight for them. Consider the fact that immediately after he got flak (from Lindsey Graham of all people) for showing some support for the workers in Wisconsin (largely by accident). His response was not to put on a comfortable pair of shoes but to back off and pretend like he had nothing to do with it. Why did he back off? Because he is No Drama Obama.
2.) It provides an answer to Fareed's question of Obama's character: he is just a politician rather than a leader. America is facing an enormous unemployment slump, a ballooning debt, and a losing technological competition with China, India, and Brazil. You can say that he is trying the best that he can, but it cannot be avoided America needs leaders not managers to pull it out of the pit of mediocrity.
- Of course he alone does not have the power to force GE to pay up or to change the tax structure. But he also has 0 chance of winning anything at all if he does not make his case before the public. Compromise should not be a dirty word... unless you are the only one compromising. Then it is just caving in for no reason. What Fareed said on Jay Leno the other night rings true here, that one of Obama's weaknesses is that he is too much of a cool kitty. Once again, I do not hate Obama or wish for him to fail. But he should not act so surprised when people get angry at his perceived lack of sympathy to the millions who are right now out of work and struggling to make ends meet.
- Political savvy? What part of political savvy involves offering concessions before the negotiations even begin? And thats also from when the Democrats had power from 2008-2010. As a young voter, I am amazed at how bad the Democrats are playing their politics at this juncture. You mentioned "even when he "plays it safe" he's not safe". Well that should be all the more reason to fight harder! (or, if you like, a reason that playing it safe is pointless, and therefore a liability) There is next to no harm in him fighting back because one, those people arent voting for him anyway so there is no harm in teeing them off a little, and two, they only make up a small sliver of the population. But look, the critical weakness in the Democrats' politics, apart from their compromising, is that they lack a central message, a concrete core set of values that they can readily tell the public they stand for. Here are a few that they could sign on to, as in keep off the negotiating table unless the Republicans offer theirs: education, income equality, Social Security, protecting the environment. Whenever you ask Republicans what they stand for they snap off a quick, simple list that usually includes something like "CUT SPENDING! REDUCE THE DEFICIT! SMALLER GOVERNMENT! JOBS, JOBS, JOBS!" Whenever you ask the Democrats its something like "Uh...jobs?"
"Give the guy some slack."
- And thats another thing. The Democratic electorate should recognize that they are not doing themselves any favors by "cutting him some slack". You dont have to be a Lyndon Johnson or a Ted Kennedy or some firebrand, but if you keep bowing your head and deciding to look the other way and not challenge your leadership, then rest assured your party will never pass priorities that you want and keep kicking you in the teeth.
democracy is dead, capitalism has been deformed from its true definition
it does not matter who is at fault, only because all of this has been
done by many individuals
what does matter is that this Republic (America) is now on a path
much like the Roman Empire... there is no going back
Hi,
Lot of global tensions is going on at this time. Japan is expected to pull out its money from the global market as they want to revamp their country now. In current scenario anything can happen in the Share market Investors are advised not to panic and stay invested only safe traders and investors should exit their long positions on every high and one can use every decline as an opportunity to enter market again.
Regards
SHARETIPSINFO TEAM
Greetings Fareed:
My name is Karol MADERA.
Among other things, I am a retired Canadian and radio-amateur, call-sign VE7KFM – but I did NOT post the above comment in my name/call-sign on 9 Apr ‘11....
Since I just tripped across the comment, I reply as of Right.
BTW I often watch your GPS - and Christiane AMANPOUR on Sun. mornings - and have recently seen you on Charlie ROSE, whom I watch ~regularly during the week….
FYI I have every reason to believe that the comment FRAUDulently made in my name/call-sign was posted by Brian CROW [US CB/HAM call-sign K3VR], after I briefly positively opined on one of your segments in a conversation on-air….
Brian CROW is a demonstrated Cyberpath and arguably a very adept Socio/Psychopath - who together with his partner Tom WHATLEY [call-sign N1FM instructively the former N1SOB], who is a BAD, BULLY ex-COP from the cess-pool of South Florida - have been STALKING and HARASSING me and peripheral others on amateur radio, on the WWW and otherwise for over five years.
The object of the impugned comment/exercise, as ~usual, was to give their ANONymous, UNattributed, Cloaked and substantially FRAUDulent website ‘as if mine’ - but N.B. NOT mine - more exposure on the WWW….
For why I aver so strongly about Brian CROW and Tom WHATLEY listen to/peruse:
http://members.shaw.ca/ve7kfm/n1fm.mp3
http://members.shaw.ca/henricius/N1FM.htm
http://members.shaw.ca/henricius/k3vr.htm
http://members.shaw.ca/ve7kfm/
Or, contact me via VE7KFM@Gmail.com
Good Luck.
Congratulations tea party on saving the tax increases. Unfortunately, the increases due to the downgrade are monies coming out of folks pockets, just not going to the US Treasury. Brilliant move! Don't be surprised if they think of it as a tax, anyway.
I can only guess it doesn't affect the staunch supports this policy favors. On the down side, I doubt if the corporations are going to spend any of the cash they are hoarding. No new jobs -no new tax revenues. But wait, that is in keeping with the tea parties policy. YEA!
Thanks Guy, that's great praise, much appreciated.
I cant see the Like button with IE All Versions.. Any idea why?
Hi there, you got a pretty fine stuff now! I love a lot a damn well updated site.