An interesting little snippet linked which illustrates many of the issues that should not be issues but they allow many to profit with their emotional mind games.
Just my opinions here on the general issues and approach because I want to build from some common ground instead of focusing on destroying everything before it has a chance:
1) Obama has not been effective in dealing with the liberal opposition. I’ve yet to reach an opinion on how much of that ineffectiveness results from the President and the ingrained entitlement mentality versus the 100 percent obstruction regardless of issue. We have two extremes: those who no longer can differentiate between needs and wants, and those of the so-called “conservative” extremism and propaganda that opposes any and everything they do not like. While both despise the other extreme, the personalities and characteristics are similar: they occupy the center of the universe yet are among the first at the trough gobbling up tax money for their own benefit. The vast majority of critters in the pen are not on the fringes and only know that something was in that trough, but we really don’t know for certain who ate it all before we even got up to the trough through the crowd.
2) Tough decisions on the nation’s deficit? Seriously, from either the historical perspective, political science perspective, or from just reading the Constitution for you yourself, it makes little difference who is in the White House because Congress is the body with the power to fund or to cut funds.
Here we go to some possible broad scenarios:
A) Make smaller cuts across the board where everyone is impacted to some degree and thus making everyone angry about getting cut;
B) Make larger cuts to some areas which will make some angry and keep others at the status quo;
C) Eliminate some areas, cut others, and make everything transparent which would anger everyone who profits off the system while assisting those who need temporary assistance to get back on their feet.
The problem there is that special interests, lobbyists, and those who believe in their “right” of something for nothing will turn on the elected officials and lower their personal profits either directly with contributions or by way of the ballot box.
3) Immigration? Reforms are needed and necessary. The problem, however, is that it is only a priority for political purposes and nothing more. I yearn for those yesterdays when my Grandfather and his friends sitting in that packing shed and making it clear as glass how lucky they were to be in the United States and not behind the Iron Curtain or living under some right wing totalitarian control. Unlike today, those men actually understood the differences in governmental and control structures and based upon my subsequent “book learning” actually downplayed the negatives.
4) Tax reform? The political rhetoric there just churns in my gut. There are some economists on my FB list, and I also communicate with a number of people who, pardon the expression, know their numbers. More importantly, there are a number who just exercise basic common sense.
The code can be simplified, lower rates can bring in the same, if not more, revenue than is done today, but it ain’t some simple process. Dang right Speaker Boehner, it will take a lot of work, but if the outcome is something such as Bobby is promoting in LA of course it will be debated long after the cows come home or the chickens come to roost.
Why? It’s unacceptable because it might seem wise to try to wait for it to rain to water that plant versus walking a country mile to find a working well head and fill up a bucket with water, carry it back, and water the plant yourself. If it is a clear day, however, it might not rain and that plant will turn up its roots and burn in the Sun and then you have not only lost the plant, but you have also lost the runners which would have become your plants the next season.
5) Automatic spending cuts or sequestration? Again, this talk is more crud in the gut when this boy listens to all of this political rhetoric whether it is on the Hill or some media rag. Here’s a comparison that I’ve used in the fancy “Sunday go to Church” clothes style look and language, the big words academic style jargon, Livingston Parish Boy prose, and just the look you in the eye and tell it to your face style. Regardless of approach, the opposition from everyone and at every angle is always made clear.
I’ll wager that most can follow and understand this broad garbled talk outline, and I don’t gamble.
A) You got 2 fields planted in different directions from the well head and both fields are producing.
B) You discover leaks in the water lines going to both fields.
C) Question 1: Do you ignore the leaks and expect them to go away by themselves?
C1) Yes, I don’t want the extra hassle. Well, it really doesn’t matter if you are lazy or an idiot because nothing is going to change until you adjust your attitude.
C2) No, common sense, I’ll see if I am able to repair those leaks. It might be with plugs, wrap-a-rounds, replacing a section, or maybe creating a by-pass. I really don’t know, but I’ll try to repair the leaks in the most productive and efficient manner that I can.
D) Question 2: Well, what if you discover that you don’t have the materials available to repair both water lines.
D1) I’ll use materials from the worst line to repair the line that is most capable of getting the job done. Heck, that’s what I would do.
E) Question 3: What about the other field? Will you let it dry out?
E1) Are you an idiot? If I do not have the money to buy a new line immediately, I’ll try to temporarily switch the lines between the fields, create some type of trenching or reservoir for one field, or at worst create some bucket brigade. That’s extra work but you do what you have to in order to get the most out of your work that you can. The second question was rhetorical, but even so the response is what I would have given to most.
In other words with the upcoming (again) budget showdown:
1) Investigate and find leaks (look for cuts to reduce waste)
2) If something is leaking do not continue to send water down the line or increase the amount of water which simply makes the leak larger
3) Cost effectiveness…is it better to abandon a non producing field, spend the effort repairing a line, or replacing that line?
4) Production…maybe the line is fine, but it is only a 1 inch line which in years past was sufficient to maximize the production from that field. Today, however, that 1 inch line does not supply enough water and production is only about 25% of its potential. Would it be in your best interest to install a new 3 inch line which would increase production 4 fold? Perhaps even a larger line where you don’t need to max out pressure today, but you are virtually certain that in a few years that increased water flow will be necessary for maximum production and efficiency.
Yes, consider waste first, then address cuts, but it might be necessary to increase revenue in order to make some things more efficient and productive which will in turn reduce future costs.
The point is that everything should be on the table for discussion. As the Federal Branch closest to the people, the House should address budget categories and then break those categories into the magnitude of single funding outlays that exist and bring proposals for each outlay to the Floor for an up or down vote.
There you have transparency which allows constituents to see if their elected representative supports their positions, their own, their political alliance, or their PACs, Super PAC, and 501 contributors. The next Branch from the people then comes into the public light by their actions on the proposals sent from the House. You can see who votes for your best interests, who votes for special interests, and who just ignores or obstructs. Finally, the President really becomes the “individual responsible” by choosing to affix his signature or not.
Perhaps the President does not have the “guts” or the ability to lead. Despite the confusion and images surrounding the power of the office that lack or inability might not be a bad thing in this particular debate. For all the talk of divisiveness and violations and disrespect for the Constitution of the United States of America, the President is actually the one upholding his Constitutional authority and limitations on this matter. Republicans blame the Democrats; Democrats blame Republicans; Tea Party blames Democrats, Republicans, anyone who cares more about what you do versus what you say, and anyone who does not blindly follow the ranting of their talking heads; Liberals blame any and all of the above and especially the President; many people have learned to hear only what they want and ignore anything to the contrary; many older Americans and those who fear extremes on either side find it so confusing that “Conservatives” today love to recite quotes and such from the past and observations from foreign travelers in the past that in reality support that their view of “conservatism” today is actually liberalism in comparative contexts.