'Super Congress': Debt Ceiling Negotiators Aim To Create New Legislative Body

I thought The Onion had an interesting perspective. There needs to be something done to make the budget process less difficult. Their take:

Congress Continues Debate Over Whether Or Not Nation Should Be Economically Ruined

www.theonion.com...

WASHINGTON Members of the U.S. Congress reported Wednesday they were continuing to carefully debate the issue of whether or not they should allow the country to descend into a roiling economic meltdown of historically dire proportions. "It is a question that, I think, is worthy of serious consideration: Should we take steps to avoid a crippling, decades-long depression that would lead to disastrous consequences on a worldwide scale? Or should we not do that?" asked House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), adding that arguments could be made for both sides, and that the debate over ensuring America’s financial solvency versus allowing the nation to default on its debt, which would torpedo stock markets, cause mortgage and interests rates to skyrocket, and decimate the value of the U.S. dollar is “certainly a conversation worth having. "Obviously, we don't want to rush to consensus on whether it is or isn't a good idea to save the American economy and all our respective livelihoods from certain peril until we've examined this thorny dilemma from every angle. And if we’re still discussing this matter on Aug. 2, well, then, so be it.” At press time, President Obama said he personally believed the country should not be economically ruined.

This is priceless...

"Well... we can't sort it out the way we are supposed to... let's form a super-committee to handle it!"

While we're at it - why don't we just elect our representatives by drawing names out of hats?

Does anyone else see how ri-stupid all of this is? The -DEBT- Ceiling is in place for a reason... no? Perhaps it's a bad idea to print money like there's no tomorrow?

"But we'll not be able to pay on the bonds and other financial obligations!"

Ever heard of a thing called a budget - or financial management? You take your expenses and prioritize them according to your ability to pay them. I can't afford a $120/month cell-phone bill. Thus - I have gotten rid of features I don't use or can reasonably function without.

Thus - things like our bonds that need to be repaid should be toward the top of the list of important things.

The debt ceiling is in place for a reason. We are not supposed to spend into a deficit as a general course of habit - because it causes bad, bad things.

So - we can let the government shut down when it slams into that ceiling. I really don't care - and I am a federal employee - I have no idea if I'll be able to be reimbursed for my travel if the government shuts down (or when I will be able to be reimbursed - it may be unaffected - it may not). But the government can shut down until they figure out what is really worth spending money on - and what can be left to its own devices.

reply to post by Aim64C


Sounds like you and some others are fully aware of the consequences such an unprecedented default would have and are ready for all that may result. I myself was born in California so would probably be a citizen of the Republic of California in case the United States of American goes belly-up.

Congress used the Social Security Trust Fund to build 11 Aircraft Carrier Battle Groups, 21 Stealth B-2 Bombers...

Use them to fund Social Security. Go git some money with them boyz.

I got dibs on 20 acres in Canada.

reply to post by Pervius

Congress used the Social Security Trust Fund to build 11 Aircraft Carrier Battle Groups, 21 Stealth B-2 Bombers...

Or they used it to pay a bunch of meth and crack-addicted neighborhoods to 'feed their kids' (read: "tweak harder"). Or to pay five different 'healthcare companies' for a powered scooter for the same senior citizen.

You do realize that the entire U.S. military budget is only about 70% of the medicare budget, correct? That's with three wars going on.

Use them to fund Social Security. Go git some money with them boyz.

How about we start by eliminating our dead weight? Trim the fat - so to speak.

I got dibs on 20 acres in Canada.

.... Really? You want a bunch of military people to go seize you a ranch in Canada?

Sorry, buddy - what I take over, I am going to put to use to further my own goals and ambitions - which involve making the sensible among us space-faring. That really kind of excludes you from my plans.

If our legislative body does attempt anything stupid, as this, my own Congressman and Senator will have to answer to me and the rest of the constituents. Then we will hang them for treason.

public’s unwillingness to let go of benefits such as Medicare and Social Security that have been earned over a lifetime of work

It is time to string them up! Public's unwillingness??!! It is our money!!! Social Security is not a benefit. It is directly funded by the tax payers, or confiscated. The government started all these programs, they can answer for them as well!

reply to post by mugger

Well said I sure know I have well paid for what I am getting back now.I have done the math and I will need to live till 70 to recoup without interest. LOL @ that one! somebody here said military was "only" 70% of social services. I sure would like to see where those numbers are from. Also I read on an old rag once ( rag that if you had the original would be illegal) that the government was to promote the general welfare, provide for a common defense.....See the order of importance written, think it might still mean something?


Oh crap I am a CONSTITUTIONALIST ! Lawdy,lawdy. Always just figured I was American till lately, I mean crap they made us memorize it in 8th grade and now I am on the watch list cause I know what it says?
sorry had a "moment of realization"
seed

Originally posted by mugger
If our legislative body does attempt anything stupid, as this, my own Congressman and Senator will have to answer to me and the rest of the constituents. Then we will hang them for treason.

Treason is defined in your constitution - and unfortunately for your sentiment, being stupid in Government ain't part of it!!

reply to post by mugger

It is time to string them up! Public's unwillingness??!! It is our money!!! Social Security is not a benefit. It is directly funded by the tax payers, or confiscated. The government started all these programs, they can answer for them as well!

You start by declaring Social Security "our money", then turn right around and admit it has been "confiscated". It is one or the other, but it ain't both.

If the money was taking from you without your ability to opt out, then rest assured that isn't your money, and is instead a tax liability. Of course, I am not arguing you are, or ever were liable for that tax, but if it was collected by tax collectors then it was money taken from you to pay what they believed was your debt.

Just because the Social Security Department has paid out benefits for a number of years doesn't mean that it is "your money". If it was "your money" the question becomes why were you so imprudent in your decision to allow the government to hold it for you?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


One can opt out Railroad workers are an example, however look at how much a quagmire for YOU it would b to "take the reigns" and come back again.Confiscated,taxed whatever the checks I sent went to the same outfit and with that came the government backing of a social safety net and limited retirement savings.Now because those who were in charge of managing that system have screwed it up along with the economy.All those left in a lurch are stupid or "entitled" or some such derogatory B.S. I have paid into this for (53-14=39 yrs ,not enough fingers)39 yrs and am not out of line for using it now
seed

I heard about this today, and it seemed like a temporary comittee

if this is permanent, and they have powers above the constitution, I'm ama gonna be pissed

reply to post by mustard seed


Calm down. I never even implied, let alone expressly stated, that people are out of line for accepting Social Security checks. I am speaking to the notion that the money belongs to you as if it were some sort of private investment of yours. This is just not the case, and if the federal government at some point decides they can no longer continue to pay out Social Security checks it is very unlikely any individual could find a remedy in the courts for this redress of grievance. If a bank refuses to pay out on your investment, you can most assuredly rely on the courts to find remedy.

Of course, it is not at all politically expedient for politicians to simply decide that Social Security benefits can longer be paid out. The threat of such a thing was a reckless political maneuver by a reckless politician, nothing more.

Amazing just amazing !

The very same people who are to blame for destroying this country want to further elevate themselves with a congressional power grab ! .....who woulda thunk it ?

Perhaps an appropriate name for these career criminals should be "The Dirty Dozen" ?

Well , the good news is,
when it comes time to "water the tree of liberty" we'll know exactly where to start

Cenk commenting on the Legion of Doom.!

Dangerous GOP Super Committee

reply to post by mustard seed

Well said I sure know I have well paid for what I am getting back now.I have done the math and I will need to live till 70 to recoup without interest.

That leaves about ten years of getting back more than what you paid into the system.

Social security was not intended to be your retirement. It really wasn't intended to last as long as it has.

somebody here said military was "only" 70% of social services. I sure would like to see where those numbers are from.

From that thing called the budget.

Total military spending does not exceed 900 Billion dollars. We are 1.4 Trillion dollars in deficit spending this year. We spend about 1.2-1.3 Trillion dollars on medicare/medicaid and another 30 Billion (or more) on "income security" programs - such as extending unemployment benefits, subsidizing state-run welfare programs, and federal welfare programs. None of that includes things like education grants and the like. The actual portion of the federal budget that is used for public infrastructure is infinitesimally small - something that barely makes 100 billion if you get creative and start including facility subsidies from medicare/medicaid spending. Social Security is a separate issue, entirely, and not really even part of the variable budget.

Also I read on an old rag once ( rag that if you had the original would be illegal) that the government was to promote the general welfare, provide for a common defense.....See the order of importance written, think it might still mean something?

Notice that it says -Promote- the general welfare and -Provide- for a common defense. It doesn't say "to promote the general welfare and common defense" - nor does it say "to provide the general welfare and common defense." I think you should look up the definition of each of those words - preferably with a dictionary from the time period - and use that under-utilized piece of material between your ears to figure out why those two words were chosen for, and applied separately to, those priorities.

No one with an intellectual capability worth respecting would ever suggest the government provide people with a living. Which is exactly what you are suggesting.

Oh crap I am a CONSTITUTIONALIST ! Lawdy,lawdy. Always just figured I was American till lately, I mean crap they made us memorize it in 8th grade and now I am on the watch list cause I know what it says?
sorry had a "moment of realization"
seed

No, you're neither. Not quite sure what you are - but you're nothing meriting the term "constitution" - or "American" - Americans don't look for other people to give them a handout.

Look - I'm in the military - I see what kind of wastes go on there. I get paid more effective pay than my father did as a plant manager for a facility that employed well over 150 people (he wasn't getting industry-standard pay for that position... but he never was very good at throwing his weight around in that regard - but he knew how to make a factory run) - to sit in a shop with less than ten total 'employees' and do a whole lot of nothing the entire day (because there is nothing for us to do on the aircraft we service).

The air framers, however, take all god damned day to make a patch for a firewall panel on the engine and don't ever seem to get what they need to get done - done. It's a lack of management on their part... no one saying "Here's what needs to be done - you; E-5, you're in charge of getting x and y done - grab a couple juniors and supervise" - which is a command issue that exists in some places and not in others.

Meanwhile - contractors are outside mowing the grass.

Honestly - the military needs to get rid of those who can't score or perform at a 70+ ASVAAB level and consolidate rates. I know electronics, am trained for avionics (and am training for a platform - what little avionics are on it), and have work experience in metal working and assembly... a dozen or so guys/gals with similar experience, education, and training across those fields should be able to provide more than enough support to the squadron - unless all the birds have to come in at once for major repairs or something - but you'll wait on the parts longer than you'll wait on the personnel to handle the work load. I think, between all of us, there might be a few who know how to cut the damned grass, too.

Believe me - I'm a critic of the way the military spends money and utilizes its manpower. I grew up with a factory manager as a father and have worked in a separate factory... being idle on the job makes me feel criminal. And as I make rank and take on more positions of authority - I'll do what I can to correct things at my level ... but it has to be done at a policy level.

But the same can be said for a lot of government contracts and positions. Medicare has something like 600 BILLION in wasted spending: www.economist.com...

That's one massive chunk of change - only about 20-30% smaller than the military's budget.

So - it would be a mistake to, while spending 1.4 trillion into the hole, take these cuts and turn around to apply them to various hand-out programs we have.

What it all boils down to is that we have become far too dependent upon the federal government's spending - something that none of the constitution's framers intended to happen. One of the driving factors behind creating the government, as it was, centered around the fact that the continental congress had virtually no purchasing power and currency that was no more valuable than the paper it was printed on. None would have supported a government as centralized and powerful as today's.

The bill was tabled in the Senate yesterday, but will be brought back for another vote today at around 1pm est.

TheBorg