money and politics

[gsh]

The deficit commission is starting to leak at least some of the recommendations. I took a look, and while they take direct aim at civil servants, they seemed to have a pretty good grasp of the problem with social security, and had a set of 8 recommendations that, taken together, look like they will solve the problem.

However, one of the recommendations calls for a tax increase, which means no republicans will support it, and
one recommendation calls for a benefit cut, which means no democrats will support it.

Back to the drawing board I guess.

Comments

[draakken.livejournal.com]

Doing the 'right' fiscal thing involves cutting a lot of federal spending and curtailing/ending a number of popular 'hand out' programs.

The truth of the matter is, programs that help you and almost everyone, are going to get cut back and/or ended, and you are going to pay higher taxes.

Both of which are highly unpopular and I don't think that elected officials will do anything meaningful until the national version of "the sheriff is on the doorstep with an eviction notice" happens... and at that point we will need to make MASSIVE cuts in everything, probably to the point that the 1920's look like happy times in comparison.

[gsh]

I notice that the "deficit commission" still calls for large tax cuts, most of which go to the upper 20% in income. It would be nice if "the deficit is too large, you'll have to pay higher taxes" wasn't a controversial statement. But it is.

[draakken.livejournal.com]

Yep large cuts in rates, but substantial changes in deductions, so its hard for me to make any personal assement as to how it changes the net tax burden for any income group.

[gsh]

I may be overly pessimistic, but I generally find that assuming that for most members of congress "screw the poor, how do I most help the rich" is an accurate reflection of what happens.

[draakken.livejournal.com]

The rich help pay for the adds that get you reelected, so its a reasonable course to expect for most of the congress-critters.

[mtnwlf.livejournal.com]

I believe its just that kind of thinking that's getting us into trouble. The rich do NOT put a critter in congress in America, the PEOPLE do. It takes a majority vote, just like it has for 200+ years. What's changed are the people, who have been incorrectly told and foolishly believe that only the rich get their way from Congress. The rich get their way cause they have power of money and they buy a loud voice that appears powerful to represent the few. The people have only the power of their VOTES but they will always possess the potential for the loudest voice. It says more about our generation than I like to think that the majority of us can't be bothered to vote. It says worse that we allow the few to tell the many "No" in the name of money, fear and exploitation.

[draakken.livejournal.com]

Money puts ads and opinion on the street. True or not, the advertising helps sway the voters.

You can't put the image forward without money. You might in a small town, running for a small office be able to do a campaign on personal finance. However, any substantial state level office is going to take 100's of thousands to millions of dollars to mount an effective campaign.

I agree that more people need to vote, but I don't know how you motivate/inspire people to vote.

[mtnwlf.livejournal.com]

Me neither. *sigh*