That legislation was passed for one reason - to protect the right wingers in their next election. They knew that legislation had zero chance of passing the Senate but they went ahead and passed it anyway. Now all those that voted for it can go into their next election and say, "See, I tried. It wasn't my fault." and point the finger elsewhere. That isn't working for me. If the US defaults, I will not vote for one single incumbent - period.

 

So would you have rather them not passed it? I don't think they can vote and ask to have an asterik placed next to their vote...

So would you have rather them not passed it? I don't think they can vote and ask to have an asterik placed next to their vote...

 

I would rather they make a good faith effort at compromise and pass a bill that had some real semblance of a chance of being enacted into law. I assure you that every representative that voted for that bill knew it had zero chance of becoming law. However, if passing that bill helps them get to a bill that becomes law, I am ok with it.

How much does the US give annually in aid to other countries? Any one?

After looking at more numbers and really thinking about it I think one of the first places we need to start is cutting into our defense budget. It's not at all what I'd like to do but I feel that it's what must be done. In the post 9/11 era we as a country have been all for defense spending and it's hard not to be, but when the defense spending accounts for over 2/3 of your annual GDP and about 1/4 of your budget then it seems pretty obvious that it's a good place to start. I'm all for defense funding and think our defense should get as much as they need, but certainly not as much as they feel they can ask for, which I feel has been the case over the last decade.

I would rather they make a good faith effort at compromise and pass a bill that had some real semblance of a chance of being enacted into law. I assure you that every representative that voted for that bill knew it had zero chance of becoming law. However, if passing that bill helps them get to a bill that becomes law, I am ok with it.

 

I was watching the news last night and heard in the same breathe a democratic representative say essentially that Republicans were not willing to compromise because if they were then they would accept Reid's proposal because it was the only one that would make it thru the senate. I was at a loss for words. I'm not saying both parties aren't at fault, or one more so than the other, but some people are certainly placing more blame on one side of the aisle and it's sad.

These clowns have had the compromise worked out for a while....the rest is political theatre.

 

Do you think we are going to talk about Harry Reid or John Boehner in the Summer if not for something like this. This whole process demonstrates what I believed before-our system is rife with corruption. People spend millions on campaigns for positions that pay hundreds of thousands of dollars-must be another payoff-and it isn't being a servant to the people.

^ The term "public servant" pretty much lost its meaning years ago.

^ The term "public servant" pretty much lost its meaning years ago.

 

For the most part, I unfortunately think you're right.

^ The term "public servant" pretty much lost its meaning years ago.

 

It depends on your definition. I'd say the pols are playing to who they think will vote them in regardless if it's the right thing for the country.

My wife and I just watched NBC's Dateline, and I was totally disgusted. This show and this network are no more than puppets for the Democrats at this time. The jest of the show is that Congress is broken....not Presidential leadership, not the Senate, only the Republican majority Congress, because "they have been unwilling to compromise. AND NBC, Brian, what's his name - tells us that the American people are fed up with Congress. Frankly, I don't think NBC speaks for the American people...IMO, WE are fed up with our government period....and two branches are still led by the Democrats.....that got very little mention.

My wife and I just watched NBC's Dateline, and I was totally disgusted. This show and this network are no more than puppets for the Democrats at this time. The jest of the show is that Congress is broken....not Presidential leadership, not the Senate, only the Republican majority Congress, because "they have been unwilling to compromise. AND NBC, Brian, what's his name - tells us that the American people are fed up with Congress. Frankly, I don't think NBC speaks for the American people...IMO, WE are fed up with our government period....and two branches are still led by the Democrats.....that got very little mention.

 

There are three branches:

Executive - Obama - Democrat

Judicial - Conservative 5-4

Legislative - Split. Not only that, do really get anything done in the senate it takes a 60 vote majority which the Dems. don't have so i would say the legislative is Republican.

All this means is the rich will get richer

Stock market will have a great day all around the world

Oil prices will start to climb again hitting the 100 plus a brl price before the week is ove

Price at the pump will start that climb to record prices.

 

 

Watch and see before you react to this post

Drum roll - POTUS was awful on this. I disagree completely with him.

 

How is that?

If I can pop my keyboard in to the forum for a minute, I read the posts about the disgust with Congress and wonder: are we being fair? Much scorn and distain has been directed at Congress for failing to compromise for such a long time on the deficit and for the extreme positions taken by some members of both parties. Is that fair?

 

I think this country and the voters have become more and more polarized over the last decade. Yes we still have a large bank of moderate, in the middle, Americans, but if you look at who is getting elected I think they are candidates appealing to the hard core party loyalists. For example, a fair number of very conservative candidates with Tea Party beliefs were recently elected to the House. They ran on a platform of extreme fiscal restraint. They told the voters that's what they believed in and how they would conduct themselves if elected. When they stuck to their guns, should we be upset with them? When the hard core liberals in Congress likewise campaigned on a entitlement, big government platform, were elected and stuck to their guns, should we be upset with them?

 

I know it's fashionable to bash Congress these days, but is it fair? If they are only doing what they told their voting constituents they would do if elected, should they get bashed? I don't think so. We do have a representative form of government in this country and members of Congress are to represent the political beliefs and philosophies of the people in their districts whom elected them. If the people in Ms. Pelosi's district are extremely liberal, I expect her to support extremely liberal philosophies and laws. Likewise, I expect the Tea Party members of Congress to be extremely fiscally conservative.

 

To me, the problem is more caused by this country becoming a country of two dramatically different and almost equal in popularity government philosophies. When such happens, "grid lock" or whatever you want to call it, is going to happen in Congress. There will be no easy, early agreements on tough issues. There will be more and more 11th hour agreements being negotiated by what is left of the middle. Unless you have a popular President able to stir and lead the American voters and Congress on the tough issues, more "grid lock" is to be expected. As I've stated before, President Obama severely and negatively impacted his ability to be the kind of President who could do just that when he pushed health care reform down the throats of Republicans and Americans (weren't something like 69% of Americans opposed to the reform?). He got a major part of his agenda passed, but I think it came at a great, great cost to his ability to strongly advocate a middle position and I think it played a major role in strong conservatives getting elected in 2010. As they say, you reap what you sow. When you have a country so evenly divided on issues, a President must be extremely careful not to push any legislation that is too slanted in either direction, even if he believes in that legislation. Unlike a member of Congress that is elected by a small percentage of America and thus is much more likely to be elected by voters with more extreme political beliefs, the President is elected by the entire country and thus must represent the desires and beliefs of all of America (particularly the moderates in the middle) if he is going to be capable of leading the entire country. I think President Obama has lost that ability. I hope I'm wrong on that however and he can regain the ability to lead. I'm not one that hopes he fails just to see a Republican regain the White House in 12. We have way too many struggles and tough issues to deal with between now and then. We need a strong and capable leader now. If President Obama can regain the ability to do so, I'd be just fine with it.

 

Who knows; I may be all wet about my above stated beliefs but that's how I see what's going on in DC.

There are three branches:

Executive - Obama - Democrat

Judicial - Conservative 5-4

Legislative - Split. Not only that, do really get anything done in the senate it takes a 60 vote majority which the Dems. don't have so i would say the legislative is Republican.

 

Senate has the majority in the Senate but Legislative is Republican??? Now THERE'S a creative way to try to avoid accountability.