Election thread

[cryopyre]

I think texting is a strong sign of a spoiled and doomed society.  Never tried it.  I think anything that can't be plugged into a printer is a toy.

I Hate Text Messaging 
(Language warning.)

Video embedding is back, and the Boondocks is teh awsome, and I wanted everyone to see this NSFW clip...

But texting is awesome.

[Buster's Uncle]

But you kids get off my lawn!

[Rusty Edge]

Well, I agree this is nonsense, and my brother-in-law would have a job offer with a defense contractor by now, if they weren't in limbo.

I think it takes two to tango.

Obama himself was denouncing the "Romney-Ryan budget " long before Mitt chose a running-mate. I understand that there were 33 budgets approved in the house the last couple of years, and the Senate has only acted on one.

It probably makes sense for strategic reasons for Obama to use it as a campaign tool, and it probably makes sense for the senate, with terms 3 times as long, and a tradition of fillibuster, to try and outlast the House rather than negotiate. Probably nobody envisioned virtually everyone re-elected.

That being said-

When I was a local gov guy, and sworn in to uphold my state constitution, I understood my first duty to be a timely balanced budget. it was our first responsibillity to hash that out. Anything less would be dereliction of duty. Anything else- like adding or rewriting rules, or hiring, or planning or investigating was extra- after we had our primary task completed.

People talk about the Buffet Rule, but they forget his other rule-

If the Congress doesn't pass a balanced budget on time, every member is inelegible for re-election.

Treason is a strong word.   I'd call it dereliction of duty.

[Rusty Edge]

But texting is awesome.

Why?

[Buster's Uncle]

Well, I agree this is nonsense, and my brother-in-law would have a job offer with a defense contractor by now, if they weren't in limbo.

I think it takes two to tango.

Obama himself was denouncing the "Romney-Ryan budget " long before Mitt chose a running-mate. I understand that there were 33 budgets approved in the house the last couple of years, and the Senate has only acted on one.

It probably makes sense for strategic reasons for Obama to use it as a campaign tool, and it probably makes sense for the senate, with terms 3 times as long, and a tradition of fillibuster, to try and outlast the House rather than negotiate. Probably nobody envisioned virtually everyone re-elected.

That being said-

When I was a local gov guy, and sworn in to uphold my state constitution, I understood my first duty to be a timely balanced budget. it was our first responsibillity to hash that out. Anything less would be dereliction of duty. Anything else- like adding or rewriting rules, or hiring, or planning or investigating was extra- after we had our primary task completed.

People talk about the Buffet Rule, but they forget his other rule-

If the Congress doesn't pass a balanced budget on time, every member is inelegible for re-election.

Treason is a strong word.   I'd call it dereliction of duty.

Do you remember back when they did balance the budget in the 90s, that congressmen on both sides were talking publicly about how they could spend the windfall?  My head was about to explode.

[Rusty Edge]

Well, the next logical step should have been to take Social Security out of the budget, and then work for balance again.

[Buster's Uncle]

Sure.  And why the Republicans were not talking about cutting taxes, yet didn't get kicked out of the Republicans, I'll never know.  We could have used the Republicans acting like they claim to believe that time.

[Rusty Edge]

Perot.

He went on national TV with a map and explained that every taxpayer west of the Missisippi was only serving the interest on the national debt.

That was a wake-up call.

[Buster's Uncle]

The government thinks like a perpetually broke person; if they come into some money, they spend it as quickly as possible.  That's no way to mange your finances.

[cryopyre]

But texting is awesome.

Why?

I think it's a very useful form of communication. But I'm a young'un. I actually don't like texting, but I generally feel like cell phones are a tether/leash, too often I like to have private time and not worry about constant communication with friends or family. However, I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority, and it has definitely provided a lot of benefits for people.

[Rusty Edge]

But texting is awesome.

Why?

I think it's a very useful form of communication. But I'm a young'un. I actually don't like texting, but I generally feel like cell phones are a tether/leash, too often I like to have private time and not worry about constant communication with friends or family. However, I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority, and it has definitely provided a lot of benefits for people.

I can certainly relate to a cell phone as a tether/leash. We used to have portable radios in my family business back in the days before cell phones. Same problem. Now I have a cell phone because my wife wants me to. The trouble with both is that people tend to use them as a substitute for planning and preparation.

I find the idea that I shall be able to type to people when my hearing is completely gone comforting. When that day comes I will probably agree that it is not only useful,  but awesome.

What I don't like is that many of my relatives/inlaws are constantly texting, usually earth-shattering things such as "I'm bored! " and "LOL" . But they are too busy texting to be bothered with an actual phone call, which is a more efficient means of Q&A, the type of communication I mostly use. I understand that many people communicate simply for the sake of connection.

It's really not the best medium for that, either. Telephone conveys emotional inflection and avoids misunderstandings.

Jay Leno once put the world's fastest texters against a pair of Morse Code operators,
It wasn't even  close.

Texting would apparently be faster if one learned morse code and used one key for "." and another for "-" .

Well, apparently texting is cool, because one of my sister-in-laws is doing it, and she likes to be cool.

Well, if I were young, and single, I'd want to be cool myself. I always did.


Like they say in the cartoon, "Ladies love texts".









s

[Buster's Uncle]

Ha.  Kids.

I can't even stand cell phones.

[cryopyre]

Ha.  Kids.

I can't even stand cell phones.

I'm actually with you, lifestyle wise. I personally hate them. BUT, other people benefit from it, and some cultures find it beyond useful to *necessary* to maintain healthy relationships. Because I know others find it very useful, I do not condemn *them* using it to help their social lives.

[Buster's Uncle]

I don't want to be THAT easy to bother.

[Buster's Uncle]

Our Message to Washington: Time Balance the Budget
By Philip Moeller | U.S.News & World Report LP – 3 hrs ago.. .

 
It's way past time to take a giant step back in the federal fiscal debate. What we have here, as Paul Newman was famously told in the movie Cool Hand Luke, is a failure to communicate. In contemporary lingo, what we have is a huge framing problem.

Republicans are fixated on spending cuts and reducing tax rates that are at historic lows. Democrats are tethered to the idea of protecting and even strengthening the social safety net, even as all forecasts show that entitlement spending is bankrupting the nation. Each camp is packed with its respective interest groups. It's nice that President Obama and Congressional leaders had a friendly meeting last Friday and say they finally are willing to compromise.

But what's needed is a different way of looking at the problem. What is the single long-term achievement that would put the United States on the right path and be a huge confidence boost to businesses, consumers, foreign trading partners, and other governments? It's not the marginal tax rate on wealthy Americans. Nor is it the retirement age for Medicare benefits.

[Read: 3 Post-Election Tax Changes You Need to Know.]

It is, instead, one of the oldest ideas in the book and a return to the days when America was respected for its responsible leadership. It is called a balanced budget. Shoot me for being naive, but creating a binding agreement to close the gap between federal revenues and spending over the next 10 years would provide the certainty that businesses need and the clarity that everyone craves. It would re-frame the arguments in Washington and give both sides an opportunity to seek a higher road in their partisan efforts.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, federal spending in the 2012 fiscal year that ended last September was 22.8 percent of the nation's gross domestic product (GDP). That's above historical trends, mostly because of the recession and government efforts to help cushion people from its effects. Meanwhile, federal revenues were only 15.8 percent of GDP last year. They, too, have been affected by the recession and, yes, they would have been higher if the Bush-era tax cuts had not been extended. But let's shelve that ideological argument for now.

The nation's spending gap, then, is 7 percent of GDP. Whatever your politics, that's simply an unsustainable number. Ever since the United States began running regular deficits decades ago, most economists argued that the United States could run manageable deficits without harming long-term economic growth. That's owing mostly to our unique ability to print money and fund our deficits by selling U.S. securities to investors around the world. Greece, Spain, and other ailing European economies don't have this luxury. Without going off on too much of a tangent, it's not clear how much longer the United States can continue to fund its deficits this way.

[Read: Fiscal Cliff Shouldn't Change Your Financial Plans.]

More practically, the idea of spending more than you take in just doesn't fly with the balanced-budget reality that confronts American families as well as state and local governments. It especially doesn't play well with younger audiences who have more than enough reason to think their financial futures have already been mortgaged to the hilt. Balancing the federal budget would provide a tremendously reassuring message to them.

Closing a 7 percent budget gap will be painful. But we have no choice. American voters understood this when they went to the polls earlier this month. They want leaders in Washington willing to compromise and make tough decisions.

On the brighter side, closing a 7 percent gap in 10 years can be achieved in annual gradual steps. It could even include a near-term stimulus to help create more jobs and push the economy onto a higher-growth trajectory. And an improving economy would naturally help close a fair amount of the gap, unless Congress and the White House trigger another recession by their continued failure to deal with this issue.

[Read: Are Second Terms Good for Stocks?]

If President Obama and leaders of both parties in Congress together embraced a 10-year balanced budget agreement, they know they'd still have the arduous work of figuring out how much of the gap should be reduced through higher revenues and how much through spending cuts (more likely, such "cuts" actually would come in the form of reduced spending growth in future years). There then would be brutal negotiations on the specific tax and spending changes to be adopted.

But a binding balanced-budget framework--with optional triggers to deal with unforeseen events--would force decisions and prevent us from yet again kicking the can down the road. Make it 12 or 15 years if the CBO and other independent experts say that's the fastest we can get there. Is there any doubt that business confidence and stock markets would soar? Or that people would once again be able to make longer-term plans?

Just imagine. A government that acted like an adult, and behaved as a reliable and predictable partner. What a concept!

http://news.yahoo.com/message-washington-time-balance-budget-170022820.html