Because the nation is so polarized, there's not much hope of working with each other. The tea party branch of the Republican party believes it has a mandate to not compromise on spending. They are obviously wrong given the polling data, but since they ran as extremists, and were elected as extremists, there isn't much hope they'll decide that extremism isn't a virtue until after a large number of them are voted out in the next election. Those that remain in 2013 can be expected to be much more reasonable. barfo
The problem with this is that we have all-too-often seen in various states (like OR & CA) these initiatives get passed and then find out they had huge unintended (or intended) consequences and were subject to too much interpretation. It often creates more of a mess than we had before.
A couple of your points are well taken, but they were also elected as people have had their fill of out of control spending and a lack of accountability in federal politics. You may not like them (I'm leery of them), but they did come in on a mandate.
yup. Both parties largely work for the same big money donors/lobbyists (not the people), playing good cop bad cop to accomplish the goals of their bosses. the way things are set up now it takes millions of dollars to run for a seat in Washington. The politician has to afford TV commercials to stay competitive in the minds of our TV nation of voters, so they whore themselves out to those with the money. Those with the money aren't generally that concerned in whats best for the long term interests of the country, they're interested in how they can benefit today. Our election system didn't come to be by accident and those who benefit from it sure don't want to see the money rooted out of the process... hell, look at the Citizens United decision and the big money behind that. The mess we find ourselves in today is by design. STOMP
I'm not going to get too worked up about this idea as characterized by some guy in the Huffington Post. We're simply going to have to face the fact that we can't afford the entitlement system we've created, no matter how high the tax rates become (see Hauser's Law). The choice isn't keeping our current system. The choice is creating a system with fewer benefits or not having a system at all. Some in Congress floated this option so hard decisions can be made with minimal electoral damage. Clearly, it's bullshit. Congress gave out free candy. Now it's going to have to take it back. Logic says that some of the people taking away the candy are going to get voted out of office. Tough shit. It's better than the alternative, which is to become Greece.
For the doubters this was always the central mission of the bought and sold members of our government. Imagine the type of commission you get paid, err I mean the donation you get if you are on that committee. Link
And if that commission can't come to an agreement, 50% of the cuts come from defense. Man, is this a bad deal.
I wish I could say that I'm going to laugh my ass off when geopolitical virgins realize that controlling your access to foreign trade through control of the seas has been a staple of expanding economies for 700 years, and we're on the fast track to giving that up. But I can't, b/c I'll be one of those people hurting when prices skyrocket, and we look to our long-rotted industrial and agricultural base to supply the country. Meanwhile, let's pool our money, mortgage the future, and strip away constitutional requirements to keep paying exorbitant health care costs (among other things)!
