Mathmatically challenged

[Uben]

Why is it that in the most technologically advanced country in the world, that we can't balance a damned budget? Why can't congress seem to do what every other American has to do.....live within their means? Are they all mathmatically challenged?
Why is it that these people we elected to represent our interests ignore our needs and champion those of big business? I guess the big question is, why do we tolerate it?

It's not that hard. You make two columns, one for the stuff that is necessary and one for the things that are not. First, you cut all the things that are not necessary....all the "pet" projects and loopholes that have been abused for decades. Then, if you need to cut the necessary items, you list them in order of priority, and proceed to trim as necessary.

This practice of congress hiding huge expenditures in voluminous bills has got to stop....immmediately. They are spending OUR money on things so ridiculous (remember bridge to nowhere), they should be ran out of town. They need to quit using OUR money to bribe fellow congresspersons to vote a certain way by allowing their "pet projects" in their districts.

Maybe potential candidates should be "tested" on their mathmatical skills before becoming eligible for candidacy. They think our kids need to be tested before they can pass grades in school, so why shouldn't we test them on the skills needed to run a country?
It is obvious that congress does not have the necessary skills because they continue to be unable to do it.

Maybe we should be electing teachers instead of lawyers to congress. At least we know they have studied the skills necessary to do basic math. When candidates like Perry and Cain can't answer simple questions, they should be eliminated immediately. Why promote ignorance?

[greyl]

1. They can't even get spelling right yet, fercrissake!

Baby steps.

[geckosfeet]

2. Elizabeth Warren. Articulate. Educated. A teacher. Advocate for the middle class.

[edhopper]

3. Because there are times

like in a recession, when deficit spending is a good option. It is what FDR did. But the balanced budget thing is really a GOP sham. They didn't care about it under Reagan or Bush when the deficits were brought on by lowering taxes on the rich. They just hate social spending.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

6. a balanced budget is not a sham...

the supposed dedication to it by the GOP is a sham to be sure. we need not only a balanced budget but a budget that allows for payoff of debt in addition to current expenditures. believe it or not, at some point, the money will stop coming in...people will stop loaning it to us...people will make less or no money to pay taxes on...things like that. and when that happens, you CANNOT spend any more. you think the posit of austerity is bad now...wait til there really IS no more money and see what you think of it then...

please understand, this is not directed at you personally, i know your post wasn't really about all that, but i am in a mood this morning...

sP

[edhopper]

10. No offense.

And I agree. Clinton gave us a balanced budget. And over the long haul it is important, but a country must have the flexibility to run deficits when needed as in a recession or War. I should have said the idea of a mandatory balanced budget or, a God forbid, B B amendment, is total BS. And yes it's the GOPers proclaiming their desire for a balanced budget that is the sham.

[Tesha]

4. It ain't the math; we can't do it because there are two *COMPLETELY INCOMPATIBLE* theories...

...of governing struggling for supremacy.

Theory One is Nihilist; it wants to eliminate government
entirely and return to the days of serfdom, where the
serfs slave for the elite. Period. Full stop.

Theory Two recognizes the value of government as in
"a way for the citizens to express their large-scale
common desires". This theory supports the idea of
government.

In our system, these two theories are, strangely
enough, almost equally-balanced in power even though
one represents about 0.1% of the people and the
other represents about 99.9% of the people.

And because these two theories are both *COMPLETELY
INCOMPATIBLE* with each other and roughly balanced
in power, our government is completely frozen, un-
able to fall towards either polarity.

Tesha

[izquierdista]

5. More than 0.1%

The system works pretty well for the top 10%. If you are at the 90th percentile in salary and income, you have a pretty nice life, and if you wear the Republican blinders, you can fall for their line that "it's your own fault if you don't have a job". The doctors, lawyers, tenured faculty, middle managers and above, and owners of multiple franchises, they make up the 10%. Job outsourcing hasn't hit them, so unless they are avid readers, they have little idea how life for the working class has changed in the last 30 years. In the case of the multiple franchise owner, it may have helped him, because now he has more people lining up for his minimum wage jobs.

[Tesha]

8. I'm in (depending on how you count) the top 4%.

> The doctors, lawyers, tenured faculty, middle managers
> and above, and owners of multiple franchises, they make
> up the 10%. Job outsourcing hasn't hit them, so unless
> they are avid readers, they have little idea how life
> for the working class has changed in the last 30 years.

I'm in (depending on how you count) the top 4% to 6%.

Mr. Tesha and I both lost jobs owing to the collapse
of our former employer (our "lifelong" employer).

Mr. Tesha saw his next job outsourced to Costa Rica;
We ran through our most of our savings in the unemployment
aftermath of that.

His next job was a big pay cut to take a job that
offered fierce competition between groups in Bangalore,
Beijing, and a bunch of H1-B folks here in America as
that corporation slowly capsized. He left that job as
soon as he could but the rest of his multi-hundred
person group is being laid-off or sold-off by year's
end.

Now, okay, we're stable for the moment. Mr. Tesha's
latest job is a good one; it pays what his last,
hateful job paid and also pays the occasional bonus.
My web business still lives and I'm filling-in with
teaching computer technology and ESL. We got my 8-
year-old car paid off and Mr. Tesha's keeping his 15
year old clunker running with patch after patch, but
we understand that it could all change in a minute.

We've marched in Washington, New York, and Boston
many times since the Selection of 2000. We're active
in state and local politics and yes, before you ask,
*FOR THE DEMOCRATS*.

No, the problem is *NOT* us; it's somewhere above us.
It's also below us, in the vast swath of the 99% who
are *SURE* that someday they'll be in the top 1% if
they only keep supporting the top 0.1%.

Tesha

[ljm2002]

7. If you are buying a house...

...and are, say, 10 years into your 30-year mortgage, then your budget isn't balanced. Do we really want to force Congress to "live within its means" if the result is we can't make necessary long-term commitments of our resources in order to do big projects?

Balancing a budget and balancing a checkbook are not the same thing. They are surely related, but they are not the same.

[laundry_queen]

12. That should be a talking point.

"If you have a mortgage or a car loan, then your budget isn't balanced either."

Edited for spelling. D'oh!

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

9. Man, I hope they let the Chimp tax cuts expire

This morning on MSNBC they were saying that the proposed deal now to reduce the deficit will make the Bush cuts permanent. Mathematically, I don't see how that works. They had several Republicans on who kept chanting the "job creators" line.

[edhopper]

11. The GOP

has always planned to make them permanent, and i doubt Obama has the balls to stop them.