[nfb-talk] blind and wanting to improve things, not get labeled

Mon Apr 26 08:10:40 UTC 2010

One story about the pay-go adoption, and Congress's willingness to 
ignore it, is here:

http://www.ombwatch.org/node/10259

It has a conservative slant, but most of the stuff about the current 
incarnation of the rule obviously would, since the liberals don't 
want to encourage people to look too closely at the details unless 
it's the GOP who is ignoring pay-go.  I chose it because it's at 
least intellectually honest enough to admit that the problem is with 
Congress, not with any particular party.

There are actually liberal sites that decry the GOP ignoring the 
pay-go rule when they were in power, but most of those have been 
scrubbed now that the shoe's on the other foot.  I swear, Congress 
acts like a bunch of five year olds.  Someone who can actually be an 
adult needs to tell them that we don't care who started it.  *grin*

As for the realization that they haven't followed the rule even once, 
that took a little more digging to see what bills have actually 
passed the House since rule went back into effect.  Not actually that 
many, as it turns out.  I think the legwork on that one was done by 
Heritage in order to embarrass the Democrats.  But since the GOP did 
much the same, I'm not inclined to jump up and down pointing at the 
majority and ignoring the scumbags in the minority as well.

(I have a high opinion of Congress, if you can't tell.)

Joseph

On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 10:36:41PM -0500, qubit wrote:
>Where is the source of this little gem?
>--le
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "T. Joseph Carter" <carter.tjoseph at gmail.com>
>To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 7:50 PM
>Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] blind and wanting to improve things, not get labeled
>
>
>The current crop of bozos have passed a pay-go rule that requires
>them to fund all legislation.
>
>Every bill since the enactment of the rule has first gone through a
>vote to suspend the rule so they did not actually have to pay for it,
>even though they claim credit for passing the rule and cite it as an
>example of their commitment to bringing down deficit spending.
>That's right.  Every. Single. Bill.
>
>In fact, they demonized the one guy who objected to the suspension of
>the rule, one time.  And neither Republican nor Democrat stood with
>him and insisted that the rule be followed.
>
>This is why Social Security WILL fail, and why a bunch of blind
>people are going to suddenly have a really hard time paying the rent.
>They ought to know what's happening, and they ought to be demanding
>an accounting from their elected leaders.  Failure to do so will only
>hurt those of us who depend on these services.
>
>Joseph
>
>On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 10:59:03PM -0700, ckrugman at sbcglobal.net wrote:
>>And we must not forget that
>>Social Security would not be in the unfunded position that it is in
>>had the trust fund not been raided to cover other government
>>expenditures as it has been raided many times over the past years.
>>Chuck
>>----- Original Message ----- From: "T. Joseph Carter"
>><carter.tjoseph at gmail.com>
>>To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 12:50 AM
>>Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] blind and wanting to improve things, not get
>>labeled
>>
>>
>>>According to the US Debt Clock (privately run and woefully
>>>inaccessible), the current total US liability per person is in the
>>>neighborhood of $350,634.  If you spread the wealth evenly, the
>>>total US national assets (public and private), per person, are only
>>>$234,237.  That means if you follow the current doctrine of soak
>>>the rich and make sure nobody has any more than everyone else gets,
>>>every single man, woman, and child in these United States would
>>>still owe a total of $116,377.
>>>
>>>I've got no idea how much of that is owed to other countries like
>>>China and how much of that is owed to Grandma (the largest unfunded
>>>liability of the government is Social Security), but there you have
>>>it.  If everything we own, all of our land and possessions are
>>>taken as payment of the national debt, we all still owe something
>>>in the neighborhood of the value of my family's house, pre-housing
>>>debacle.
>>>
>>>The government has no money to pay squat.  One of these days,
>>>Social Security is going to not get paid because our debtors are
>>>going to start demanding a return on their investment.  That's
>>>basic Economics 101.  WHEN that happens, not if, people looking for
>>>the government to pay their bills are going to be screwed.
>>>
>>>Ask the teachers in California how well they can spend IOUs.  In
>>>time, that'll be readers' SSI and SSDI checks.  The alternatives
>>>are a complete and immediate collapse of the dollar or
>>>Zimbabwe-style inflation.  Scary stuff.
>>>
>>>You cannot spend money indefinitely without the ability or desire
>>>to pay. If you and I do that, we will at least destroy our credit
>>>rating or at worse go to jail for fraud.  The Weasel Caucus (which
>>>seems to be the only thing bi-partisan in DC anymore) is doing the
>>>same and has been apparently since before I was born.  They
>>>probably won't face any real consequences for it.
>>>
>>>We will, sooner or later.  And it's gonna hit certain populations
>>>(like blind people collecting SSI and SSDI for example) a whole lot
>>>harder than it's going to hit political fat cats who quibble over
>>>which model of Gulf Stream Jet they are forced to fly in.
>>>
>>>If the media wants to see real anger in the streets, wait till
>>>people figure out just how screwed we really are, courtesy of a
>>>whole bunch of fat elephants and complete donkeys, who will have
>>>moved their not inconsiderable assets to safety long before it
>>>happens.
>>>
>>>Ready to vote them all out,
>>>
>>>Joseph
>>>
>>>
>>>On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 10:43:03PM -0500, David Andrews wrote:
>>>>Well, the government probably has more money, and can provide
>>>>things in a more even-handed regular way.  Yes, there are
>>>>problems with administering government programs -- but private
>>>>ones too.  Who hasn't had billing problems with an insurance
>>>>company, a phone company, a a bank or a credit card company.  Any
>>>>large system that tries to make everybody, and everything the
>>>>same is going to have these kinds of problems.  If you think the
>>>>government has a monopoly on the bad stuff, or that the private
>>>>sector could administer a large program without mistakes, fraud
>>>>and the rest of it is just thinking selectively to make a point.
>>>>
>>>>Dave
>>>>
>>>>At 11:43 PM 4/22/2010, you wrote:
>>>>>Chuck, I don't know you of course, but based on your comments,
>>>>>I'm tempted to think that you don't receive social security or
>>>>>Medicare benefits. I and many of my friends can relate horror
>>>>>story after horror story involving the bureaucracy and
>>>>>ineptness of various government programs. I've asked many
>>>>>liberals in amicable debates why they believe that the
>>>>>government is better able to provide assistance than the
>>>>>private sector. I ask on a historical, efficiency and
>>>>>motivational basis. At the end of the arguments, though many
>>>>>platitudes come across, I've never received a solid answer.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>RyanO
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>nfb-talk mailing list
>>>>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>nfb-talk mailing list
>>>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>nfb-talk mailing list
>>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>
>_______________________________________________
>nfb-talk mailing list
>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>nfb-talk mailing list
>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org