SpendObama

Oh My! Little too much time with the Flying J's satellite internet connection, hmmmm? Making up your own game shows? Think you've been in SoCal a bit too long as well.

Fred - you pretty much nailed it. Takes one to know one.

Justin - Thanks for the kind words

I have been very concerned about the debt load of our country for many years now and have been amazed at how people's eyes would just glaze over when I tried to make the point that we are heading for disaster. The uncontrolled spending really started in the early 80's and has only continued to get worse through successive administrations. Government officials would always say..."as a percentage of our gross nation product the debt is not as issue". Of course as disconnected Americans we just listened to their nonsense and went about our daily functions oblivious to this time bomb just waiting to blow up. Shame on us!

I don't have the answer now and frankly I don't think the government does either. I know the American people expect something to be done but what is it that the government can do? Do we not do anything and just let this economic meltdown run its course? Do we spend a trillion dollars trying to jump start the economy? I do know that 70% of our economy is consumer spending and that is not healthy. It should be around 50% consumer spending and 50% manufacturing and other economice activity.

With Nafta and other free trade agreements, supported by politicians on both sides of the aisle, much of our manufacturing base has moved overseas and most people think we can never recover what has been lost since Transnational corporations will always seek out the cheapest labor regardless of the impact on their country of origin.

I would like to hear some serious ideas on what people think should be done given the seriousness of the problem facing not only our country but economies around the world. The one subject I rarely hear politicians, or average Americans for that matter, discuss is cutting Pentagon spending. Why is this subject so taboo? Eisenhower warned us to be aware of and vigilant about the "military industrial complex". Can we afford to continue uncontrolled spending in the Pentagon or can we put this subject on the table for serious discussion?

"The Proposal"

When a company falls on difficult times, one of the things that seems to happen is they reduce their staff and workers. The remaining workers need to find ways to continue to do a good job or risk that their job would be eliminated as well. Wall street, and the media normally congratulate the CEO for making this type of "tough decision", and his board of directors gives him a big bonus.

Our government should not be immune from similar risks.

Therefore: Reduce the House of Representatives from the current 435 members to 218 members and Senate members from 100 to 50 (one per State). Also reduce remaining staff by 25%.

Accomplish this over the next 8 years. (two steps / two elections) and of course this would require some redistricting.

Some Yearly Monetary Gains Include:

$44,108,400 for elimination of base pay for congress. (267 members X $165,200 pay / member / yr.)

$97,175,000 for elimination of the above people's staff. (estimate $1.3 Million in staff per each member of the House, and $3 Million in staff per each member of the Senate every year)

$240,294 for the reduction in remaining staff by 25%.

$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork barrel ear-marks each year. (those members whose jobs are gone. Current estimates for total government pork earmarks are at $15 Billion / yr)

The remaining representatives would need to work smarter and would need to improve efficiencies. It might even be in their best interests to work together for the good of our country!

We may also expect that smaller committees might lead to a more efficient resolution of issues as well. It might even be easier to keep track of what your representative is doing.

Congress has more tools available to do their jobs than it had back in 1911 when the current number of representatives was established. (telephone, computers, cell phones to name a few)

Note:

Congress did not hesitate to head home when it was a holiday, when the nation needed a real fix to the economic problems. Also, we had 3 senators that were not doing their jobs for the past 18+ months (on the campaign trail) and still they all had been accepting full pay. These facts alone support a reduction in senators & congress.

Summary of opportunity:

$ 44,108,400 reduction of congress members.

$282,100, 000 for elimination of the reduced house member staff.

$150,000,000 for elimination of reduced senate member staff.

$59,675,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining house members.

$37,500,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining senate members.

$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork added to bills by the reduction of congress members.

$8,073,383,400 per year, estimated total savings. (that's 8-BILLION just to start!)

Big business does these types of cuts all the time.

If Congresspersons were required to serve 20, 25 or 30 years (like everyone else) in order to collect retirement benefits there is no telling how much we would save. Now they get full retirement after serving only ONE term!

Kurt - I'd like to slap the Marxist Professor that screwed you up bro. WOW!

Marcus, excellent points.

The biggest point of all should be, that Congress could have ended the recession, the Democrats created to win the election, and not spent a dime. All they had to do was get off our freakin' back! Stop over taxing us, stop over regulating us, stop spending billions to buy votes from minorites.

Barney Frank and Chris Dodd should be in jail for what they did, and typical liberal Kurt, has the Enron thing down, but he completely ignores the Democrats who have betrayed their own country, to get elected. The sub-prime crisis, Democrats invented it, and worked it to perfection.

And Kurt, who am I to answer for Larry Craig? It was Barney Frank, the man who actually masterminded the sub-prime debacle just in time for election, who had a homosexual prostitution ring running out of his house. Queer isn't it, how you ignore Barney, and hammer Larry? I'm sure you've forgotten about Garry Stubbs too, huh?

All you liberals got that Eisenhower quote down, do you even understand where that came from? Or did your Marxist Professor forget to tell you?

It was American business, working with the military that won the war. These businesses spent millions to re-tool, and buy equipment, and when the war was over, they wanted some tax considerations for all their expense and help winning the war. Eisenhower listened to the moderates in the party, and instead of helping business, he demonized them with that "military industrial complex" quote. Eisenhower was a okay General, and in my humble opinion, without George Patton, Omar Bradley and Douglas MacArthur, Eisenhower would have lost the war. Eisenhower had notions of running for office long before the war was over.

Kurt, you need help. If you think any little people are going to win with our entry into socialism, you're delusional, and not only that, I think you are a marvelous example of why America may fall into ruin. You know no facts, only the tired dogma of the left. For you to say that Clinton paid down Bush's debt is beyond ridiculous.

Seriously, if I did not have kids and grand kids, I would almost sit back with delight and watch as the leftist goons flush this country down the toliet. Kurt is a perfect example of the educational malpractice that has dumbed down entire generations, and Obama and Socialism is their reward.

As a Christian I realize that often we get what we deserve. As a country that was mightily blessed, we turned our backs on God, killed off millions and millions of babies, and told God to take a hike. Yup, we got what we deserved alright, Obama. I really don't know if the USA will ever recover. Obama may truly be the beginning of the end for the United States.

Two ideas for the economic recovery...

1. Cut corporate taxes to near nothing. This provides businesses the capital to expand their operations. Lets get this fact straight... jobs are not created because someone needs a job, they are created because there is a need for a good or service to be produced. By cutting taxes, the cost of the goods goes down because they do not need to charge as much to make the product. I know the libs do not see this as an advantage because there is less revenue coming into the government per item purchased, but the number of items purchased will go through the roof if this is allowed to take place.

2. Since we pretty much purchased the entire inventory of GM and Chrysler, we should get an tax break for the purchase of a new American Car. This not only will get the cars sold, but it gives the people that are actually stimulating the economy the ability to spend the money that the government has already promised to the other groups.

The other thing we need to do is to bring back personal responsiblity. I do not need to be responsible for my family along with yours. If I have extra money I am more likely to give it to you. But if the Government keeps taking away the extra money I do have, the less good I can do with it.

If you haven't heard about the New Hampshire House Resolution #6 (HCR6) re-affirming states rights based on the Jeffersionian Principals you should read up on it. We need more States to proclaim that we are the ones that gave the Federal Government it's power and we can take also it away.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/omb... should be the second link... sorry!

Kurt,

Let me see, I recall that the Libs attacked some Conservatives mercilessly. Not just on a personal level, but they ramped it up to attacking their families, finances, tax status, and numerous other ways. Are you that thin skinned that you can't take a little criticism? Ask Sarah Palin & Joe the Plumber about personal attacks, for no apparent reason, other than the fact that their viewpoint differed from that of the Liberals. We, as Conservatives, also love our country, but are not willing to drive ourselves into such debt that it will take 100 years to recover from it, if at all. I'm sure that Sam didn't intend to paint ALL Liberals with the same brush, but the one's that are running the Congress at this time seem to have tunnel vision when it comes to spending OUR money. They want to call the Porkulus Bill bi- partisan, but won't accept any amendments from the Republicans at all.

Brian.... I did say New American car, which would include Ford in that equation. Even though Toyota's are produced here in America, the corporation is based overseas and therefore would most likely not qualify.

Ok Kurt - I will relax. I admit I get intense. Let me shock you a bit. I am most disappointed in the Republicans during the Bush Years. They ran as conservatives, then forgot all about that when they got to Washington. The spent money like liberals, and failed to stand up to the liberal special interest.

They failed to take care of the failing Social Security program.

They tried to fight a kinder gentler war.

They failed to reform the abusive tax system.

They failed to free up our energy resources.

They failed to tackle the militant abortion industry.

They failed to put power back to the States, where it belongs.

They saddled us with a new expensive RX drug program.

They failed to secure the border, or deal with the illegal immigration problems.

Did I miss anything? LOL

Kurt, thanks for taking time to read and comment. Please don't ever take my intensity as anger. I appreciate your time, and I appreciate the privilege of debating folks I don't agree with.

I think it was comedian Gary Mule Deer who reported that his grandpa said, "If we all liked the same thing, every guy out there would want your grandma."