Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RedKing]

Here's something that slipped completely under my radar: A proposal to create a new "Super Congress", composed of 12 members (6 D, 6 R, 6 from the Senate, 6 from the House) which would fast-track legislation and make it unamendable by mere mortal Congresscritters.

I....I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, it definitely could help keep asshat House members from delaying and sidetracking crucial legislation by trying to kill it with poison pills or load it up on pork. It could have allowed some reasonable compromise on the debt ceiling to hit the floor by now, for instance.

On the other hand....it's essentially creating an oligarchy within the legislature. Any bill that the Super Congress signed off on would be untouchable. Which means that lobbyists now have a much narrower basket of people they really need to bribe. Get those 12 on your side, get a friendly Congresscritter to introduce a bill to your industry's liking, under a friendly name like the "Save Baby Seals Act of 2011", then get it fast-tracked. The rest of Congress is then left with voting for an industry-friendly bill, or facing the next election with their opponent able to run ads saying "My opponent voted AGAINST the Save Baby Seals Act. Do we really need to say more?"

There is also another problem with that. It would legally ensure the two party system for an indefinite period of time. If one party starts to lose support, then this would not be properly reflected in the government. In addition, it would provide yet another difficulty for other political parties.

True dat. In general, it feels like a way for the "establishment" within both parties to safeguard their power against insurgencies within their own ranks, such as the Tea Party, or conversely against a real progressive caucus, were it to arise within the Democratic Party. The effect on 3rd parties is negligible considering that they effectively have no representation at the Federal level anyways.

[ed boy]

The effect on 3rd parties is negligible considering that they effectively have no representation at the Federal level anyways.

They might not now, but in the future they might. It's unlikely that the two-party system is replaced, but one of the current parties could be replaced (as happened in the uk with the labour party/liberal party in the first half of the 20th century). This super congress proposal would impede such things.

[mainiac]

5th page - Preface
This Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report examines the pressures on the federal budget by presenting the agency’s projections of federal spending and revenues over the coming decades. ...

Yes, if you were to say what the effect of something in the future we're, that would be called a projection.  This is a projection of current law.  What would you rather it be called?

For some funny reason, I get the idea that you dont read CBO forecasts all the often.  Am I right here?

[counting]

5th page - Preface
This Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report examines the pressures on the federal budget by presenting the agency’s projections of federal spending and revenues over the coming decades. ...

Yes, if you were to say what the effect of something in the future we're, that would be called a projection.  This is a projection of current law.  What would you rather it be called?

For some funny reason, I get the idea that you dont read CBO forecasts all the often.  Am I right here?

Just Projection.

As I am not a native English user, I don't understand the difference between THE PROJECTION and a projection made from something in semantic meanings. They are all just predictions/projections in my minds, regardless what the assumptions are.

And no, I don't read CBO forecast very often (probably just once a year is enough). I don't think it's necessary. But I DO know that predicting the future are often bias by people who made the prediction as my original post means. And the fact that regardless the prediction in mid 2010 were, they are clearly not the case what really happens in 2010, and 2011. The reality is future are not that predictable, and people always wish and look what they wanted. And if politicians make choices base on projections, it will be very dangerous.

[RedKing]

Well...except that projections are what virtually every policy decision, be it public or private, are made on. If the model is good and the data is good, then the projection is good. I gather what you are saying, that projections can be inherently flawed if the models are constructed with biases (even unconscious ones). And that's a frequent problem when you're modeling something new or poorly understood. But the CBO has been modeling Federal outlays and revenues for decades. I'd say they probably have most of the bugs worked out of that model.

Now, granted, there's no way to account for what Congress adds or subtracts in the future, or external shocks to the system. CBO couldn't have predicted two long, draining wars back in 2000. They couldn't have predicted a giant financial collapse back in say, 2006. That's why it's a projection of current law. Which is as good a baseline as any to work from.

[counting]

I don't doubt it may be based on good assumptions. But old prediction always changes with every new data gathered. (it even draw the difference between 2009 and 2010 predictions itself) And in my original post, I add links with new reports this year. Most economic situations are impossible to predict at all, especially regarding policy makers may change the laws at will. And as described, no matter how long a group is making prediction, there are always things you didn't expect will happen. (as saying goes when a prediction is made public, the prediction itself stops been true)

I am just saying base on certain assumptions, and then make predictions to say the level of deficit will not be critical in the future, is not a sound argument. Things do go south, and in a time lacking of faith, with volatility increases, projections are mostly a reference at best. And things do go wrong in 2010. And they go wrong this year. And dare I may add my own "perdition", that things are going to go wrong next year. This uncertainty are building up. And if politicians just look at the predictions and said "hey everything will be alright", and they keep making decisions that upset the situation even more, then it will be like adding fuel to the fire. And one thing never change is that everything changes, especially at a time of recession, where an accident occurs may be deadly.

And the 2010 reports only said one thing to me - stop deficit in budget (somehow), the piling debts will stop growing. If not and keep the trends, new debts will drown you. Which is pretty clear to me that most people already understand this simple implications. But instead some politicians will use them as weapons to facilitate their own agendas, which will be very dangerous.

[GlyphGryph]

Yeah, but there is elasticity built INTO the projections. They assume there will be bad years, but the US can take out debt to cover their risk and pay it back when things are good. The Projections only need to be true on average and somewhat positive in order to be worth using as a base for economic plans and targets.

The problem is that people DON'T follow the projects - instead, they say "oh we got a ton of money this year lets give it all back" even though the projections make clear thats an exceptionally stupid thing to do.

As always with politics in this stupid country, they are socializing the negative externalities of risk management and privatizing the profits.

It doesn't even MATTER how little the government spent - they could be spending a dollar a year and STILL find a way to come up short, because they love shooting themselves in the foot that much.

[Saint]

I should hope so, that was one century ago. I'll ask a simple question : Do YOU have a car, two TV, a big house , and one playstation? If so, are you entitled to a governmental help program?

Fuck no, I live is a small house, I have one older first gen xbox 360's I bought my self with my job, my family have two cars, both from before 2000, ONE tv, not even a big one.
I also help pay bills. I live not even close to what is considered poverty in America, and I still feel my life is luxurious.

So don't you wonder where those poor live? Because If you listen to them it seems like , given your family low income, surely they should be entitled to some government aid. Yet they don't.

And I take it you're not the worst off the people you know. Do you know anyone who really live comfortably off government aid? (Without doing anything illegal, that's another problem)

No, fuck government aid, I don't need their help to live my life. And yes, a lot of people I know that get wellfare checks live better than I do.
Unlike them I'm willing to work for a living and have a work ethic.

What people with the "tax the fuck out of the rich, tax corperate jets and all this other rich people stuff" state of mind don't get.
THE RICH ARE THOSE WHO CREATE JOBS!
That corperate jet?
Builders
Designers
Flyers
Stewardouses
Airport workers (the air traffic control, runway guys, luggage people, etc...)
The people who make the fuel
The people that build the hangers for christ sake

Hell, if you tax the rich more, they can't pay their workers as much, same with government health care that taxes the company for not giving it to their workers, you take away from the business, you take away from those poor people that work for a living like I do.

[Nadaka]

No, fuck government aid, I don't need their help to live my life. And yes, a lot of people I know that get wellfare checks live better than I do.
Unlike them I'm willing to work for a living and have a work ethic.

It is no longer the case that you just don't know what you are talking about. You are just making shit up now.

[Aqizzar]

Last night at work, we had to move a couple pallet-loads of those "20 Year Shelf Life - Just Add Water" powdered-food survival buckets.  That they were all going to one guy reminds me that it's just some crazy dude and not a trend.

Hell, if you tax the rich more, they can't pay their workers as much, same with government health care that taxes the company for not giving it to their workers, you take away from the business, you take away from those poor people that work for a living like I do.

I'll never understand how anyone who isn't paid to say stuff like this could actually espouse it.

[Bauglir]

Hell, if you tax the rich more, they can't pay their workers as much, same with government health care that taxes the company for not giving it to their workers, you take away from the business, you take away from those poor people that work for a living like I do.

Funny story, experience has shown that if you give them anything they don't give it to the poor people that work for a living.

[PTTG??]

THE RICH ARE THOSE WHO CREATE JOBS!

The actual numbers prove you wrong. When the wealthy get money, they spend some of it and save some of it. When the poor and middle class get money, the spend far more of it and save less.

Saved money in this case helps noone- the whole problem is that less money is moving.

We have been following the policy of Reganomics for the past decade. Has the wealth "trickled down" to you yet?

If you insist on repeating what you hear on Fox- which has abandoned all pretence and is now nothing more than a blatant propaganda network- then I'd like to ask you to please leave this discussion until you are willing to debate like an adult.

[Saint]

No, fuck government aid, I don't need their help to live my life. And yes, a lot of people I know that get wellfare checks live better than I do.
Unlike them I'm willing to work for a living and have a work ethic.

It is no longer the case that you just don't know what you are talking about. You are just making shit up now.

"hey guys, this guy is poor and actually not willing to want to mooch off the government, oh shit really? yeah, well obviously we should deny that it's even true, I mean poor people NEED our help, they can't get out of being poor on their own, no, we HAVE to do it for them."

Seriously, I don't think you get it. I don't want to be poor, but I don't want to use other people's money that I didn't earn to get out of poverty.

I mean would you rather take everyone's money and put it in a big pot, then equaly devide that pot out to everyone?
Guess how well that worked for Soviet-era Russia, oh yeah, not well.
Oh and guess where in a few weeks people would be again, WHERE THEY WERE BEFORE! You know why? because some people are better at making and saving money than others. Plus have you ever figured that the rich were rich because they have multi-billion $ corperations.
You know what the business expense is on a multi-billion dollar corperation? A FUCKING LOT. Honestly, taxing people MORE isn't going to help me get OUT of poverty like you want, hell if you don't make taxes really fucking high so I can afford the cost of living without the government having to give me money to do so.
It's pointless to take my money than give me money because I'm poor, I'm poor because you took half of it before asshole.
If you paid taxes you'd understand how shitty they are, out of my last paycheck I lost about 150$ to taxes, that pays most of the electric bill.

THE RICH ARE THOSE WHO CREATE JOBS!

The actual numbers prove you wrong. When the wealthy get money, they spend some of it and save some of it. When the poor and middle class get money, the spend far more of it and save less.

Saved money in this case helps noone- the whole problem is that less money is moving.

We have been following the policy of Reganomics for the past decade. Has the wealth "trickled down" to you yet?

If you insist on repeating what you hear on Fox- which has abandoned all pretence and is now nothing more than a blatant propaganda network- then I'd like to ask you to please leave this discussion until you are willing to debate like an adult.

Where the fuck did I say I watch fox news?
Beyond that, them saving money makes them smart, I think you're just mad that you don't have any saved.
I save a good part of my paycheck when I can because it's a smart thing to do, I'm not going to place more luxury into my life for the cost of my entire paycheck, I like having money saved to protect my family in the event of shit hitting the fan, without having saved money I couldn't have saved my dog's life this week. I fail to see how you can say that all poor people spend all their money, maybe if you didn't ask all those who try to live like white trash millionares and dead beat drunks for how much they spend, you'd get a nice little answer.

Beyond that I'm sure those of us that don't have jobs are too high and mighty to get one, honestly I walked into a movie theatre to get a job application yesterday, they had one two people working and were desperatly looking for help. Well if we're having such a problem with no one having jobs, WHY is that movie theatre so understaffed? The great part about Illegal immigrants or any immigrant, they arn't as snobby and high and mighty as half of the natural born citizens are, I've never met one who's not willing to work or is too good for a job, they understand how hard it is to get a job and how much a job means.
Maybe if the rest of the U.S had that mindset they wouldn't have no job or need wellfare checks. Personaly I think that Fox and any other network that bitches about immigrants are just jealous that they're willing to work unlike their following bitchy media brain-washed cultist followers.

[Bauglir]

I don't think you understand the difference between what you need and what others need.

[Vector]

Dear Saint,

Fear-mongering about communism--particularly Soviet communism--will not get you very far here.

There is not in fact a scale with Democracy, Freedom, America, and Pure Capitalism sitting on one side of a scale, mascoted by the heavenly Adam Smith and Reagan love affair, with Doom, Gloom, State Control, Poverty, and Communism on the other.

There's this thing called a sliding scale, and it means that we don't take an extreme as a representative of a middle-road idea.

I understand that you're proud of your ability to provide for yourself, but that doesn't mean that everyone has the same ability.