Congressional Supercommittee

FireWeatherMet said:
Good point.
Maybe the biggest problem is the Fed may not be strong enough. I guess what I mean is that they are too closely linked to whoever is their political appointee at the time.
Because of that...if the gov't in power at the time wants to run huge deficits, the Fed just obliges and prints the money. It would be nice for the Fed to be strong enough to tell any administration, or Congress "Unless its a national Emergency, we cannot print any money unless you come up with a cut in spending in other areas to keep the budget balanced".

Maybe we have some common ground on this philosphy?
Click to expand...
Implication of a fourth branch of government... just a little too much power there AND not in the Constitution. Maybe you could support a constitutional amendment?
 
FireWeatherMet said:
Funny,

If you read the reasons for establishing the Federal Reserve, was that before 1913 we had incredible instability in our banking system, much, much worse than today.
There were frequent runs on the banks, as people never knew if there money was going to be there.
This Federal Reserve Act of 1913 largely stabalized this, which was listed in the link you provided.

Luckily for us, the crazies who support disbandaning the Fed, are largely seen as..well...crazies. (lol)
However, the main drawback of the Fed is its ability to print money whenever it wants, especially to cover never ending deficits. Its become a bad habit that needs to be fixed.
The fix...would be balancing the budget as quickly as possible.
That quickest solution...will kick in automatically in 13 months. Huge cuts to Medicare and Pentagon, as well as expiration of Bush Tax Cuts.
Click to expand...
I just posted a link didn't express my opinion, but do think they have too much power and no effective oversight.:suspicious:
 
Right now the IMF is the one that wants the Good Old USA to help Bail out the EU. The USA contributes 1/3 of the total funds owned by the IMF. this has to be stopped.
 
ILoveTDs said:
I think their is a solution. Move the purse string to the states - closer to home, the power is with the purse string. Prior to 1913 the Fed begged the state for funding, now it is the other way around. Were was our national debt in 1900?

If your state had all the say in your taxes, you'd be a lot more interested in your state election then the federal election, you'd have a lot more say in your government as a individual, and if you didn't like it it's easier to move states then it is to move countries.
Click to expand...

+1 here
 
I think their is a solution. Move the purse string to the states - closer to home, the power is with the purse string. Prior to 1913 the Fed begged the state for funding, now it is the other way around. Were was our national debt in 1900?

If your state had all the say in your taxes, you'd be a lot more interested in your state election then the federal election, you'd have a lot more say in your government as a individual, and if you didn't like it it's easier to move states then it is to move countries.
 
nasa1974 said:
...Congress was not set up to be a career, but that is what it has become. I think that's why we need to put in term limits.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, term limits don't solve the issue- it makes things worse. They did term limits for my state legislature, and now none of the politicians know what they are doing, so they rely on their special interest think tank guys to tell them what bills to pass. I kid you not. Here is a link- if you read the email, you'll see what I am talking about.
http://www.mea.org/emails-expose-mackinac-centers-true-purpose


I just don't think there is a solution, as long as money plays into the process. Greed - that's the driver.
 
sdouglas3 said:
Super Committee was joke and just pulled the wool over the eyes of Americans to buy more time for the election.
Click to expand...

I don't think the supper committee was a joke and it could have worked. The problem was that the committee, just like all of congress, couldn't get past their party bs instead of trying to do what is right for the country. Congress was not set up to be a career, but that is what it has become. I think that's why we need to put in term limits.
 
FireWeatherMet said:
I think we agree here. It was one of the reasons (not all) that I chose to work for the National Weather Service. Agree with you on your CSRS point and especially on many of our TSP ears ending during a long term bear cycle.

I was just playing devils advocate and pointing out that conditions for our benefits from 20-30 years ago were under much different circumstances than today. 15-20 years ago a much higher percentage of private employees had health coverage. A much higher percentage had a defined pension, or a combo of pension and 401K. When I got into the NWS decades ago, most Fortune 500 companies had much better benefits than fed employees. That's no longer the case...as we're all being herded into a mindless race to the bottom.
Click to expand...

"I was just playing devils advocate" is not really needed. We're getting too much negativity and people trying to tweak others into a responce as it is. We shouldn't keep pushing things to limits for just a responce. Used to be this site was for sharing investing ideas and maybe a breif comment of how the news may effect the market. The need for pressing each others biases is becoming a detractor and less and less posting by the investment wise people. I have seen a decrease from day to day post market trading thoughts. It may just be the bad market enviroment. I think we should get back to the team concept and start helping each other out. I think more promoting of fellowship and less pushing the political stuff is needed. JMHO:D
 
FireWeatherMet said:
You (nor I) work for a privately funded corporation. You (and the rest of us) are public servants.
Click to expand...
LOL Know before you post. :) I hold corporate director positions. And, I am an employee of another corporation. And, I also perform independent professional services to clients. Retirement is grand.
 
FireWeatherMet said:
Hate to be "Captain Obvious" here, but you cannot compare yourself to a "corporate board". You (nor I) work for a privately funded corporation. You (and the rest of us) are public servants. Your "return" on your talents in providing a service to the people is your salary. Any "benefits" we get are also suppose to be in line with the taxpayer. All I was trying to point out inititially was your hypocrasy. But if you want to believe that somehow you are part of a corporation that is "entitled" to prime gov't benefits while you advocate stripping down other entitlement programs like Medicare, or the Affordable Health Care Act then I just don't understand your logic.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with you here. The bennifits were one of the main reasons I went into civil service (FERS). The bennifits were offered to encurage higher educated people to enter the public service. I took a pay cut to get in. The retirement and medical benifits had a better cost to reward than the outside. You must remember that pay isn't everything. That is why cities are in such a problem. They had to offer too much to get the quality people they needed when the economy was booming. The contract is made when you sign up, not as you leave. Even companies whould offer high signing bonuses and a high salary to get people in good times. The government employment came with a 30 year contract and you had to weigh heavyly on your desision. Times were even better while CSRS was started. The end of our 30 years just happen to be during bad times. When the economy turns the government will have a hard time hiring with the fear of how they could cut pay and benifits during you 30 years. A lot of people won't want to take a 30 year chance or if there is a 62 year MRA.
 
FireWeatherMet said:
But if you want to believe that somehow you are part of a corporation that is "entitled" to prime gov't benefits while you advocate stripping down other entitlement programs like Medicare, or the Affordable Health Care Act then I just don't understand your logic.
Click to expand...
Your logic compares apple to oranges as usual, so you have no room to talk...
 
FireWeatherMet said:
I saw the video, (1st one) and all I saw was Toomey try to support cutting the top tax rate from 36% down to 28%, and pay for it by taking out various deductions which he didn't specify but are known to include mortgage interest deduction and tax deductions on health insurance premiums...aka hitting the middle class even harder while using a failed policy of cutting taxes for the ultra wealthy in the hopes that they'll create jobs here instead of China or Mexico.

And towards the end Tommey started to get his a$$ handed to him by some of the other panelists when he was asked why going back to 1999 tax rates was so bad when we flourished during that time. He had no answer to that, and his stuttering and sidestepping that question showed him to be the polished liar for the corporate country club that he really is.
Click to expand...

Mischaracterization bolded and as usual. Amazing how the mind's eye can work. Need glasses. He did not stutter at all but answered the questions truthfully and at the end Sorkin was left looking like a novice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top