Comments on: Crime takes a bite out of NASA

By: Fred Cink

Fred Cink — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 04:20:03 +0000

“Congress can not do anything if the Senate does not have a veto proof majority” is a false statement. Congresses have been doing alot of stuff for a alot of years and significantly less than half of that time has there been a veto proof majority in the house or senate. The buck USUALLY stops at the oval office but vetos can be over-ridden by congress and by “legislation” from the Courts. You are spot on correct in your explaination of “we know how it is played” with trading voting favors, and under utilization of the veto pen. The worst of it comes from within congress itself by the inserting of earmarks and other pork into time and budget critical omnibus bills, the veto of which would cause at least short term chaos. What we are staring at now, due to a lack of Duty, Honor, and concern for Country, by both parties (in congress and the white house) is total economic collapse that will make the great depression look like a cake walk.

By: Vladislaw

Vladislaw — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 23:53:45 +0000

Congress legislates, the Executive Branch executes. Congress can not do anything if the Senate does not have a veto proof majority. It is part of the checks and balances. If congress proposes overspending it is up to the Executive Branch to rein in the wild spending. The Presidental veto is the final safeguard. If they fail to use it to rein in congress, it is the President’s fault.

As “give em hell” Harry Truman said the buck stops here. The final word is the President, they get the glory for all successes but they have to take the heat when they fail.

Unfortunatly we know how it is played, as long as a President is getting the funding for their pet programs they are willing to trade funding to 534 legislators as long as it gets them what they want.

Look what spending President Reagan and President Bush Jr. were willing to accept to get what they wanted. MASSIVE deficits, but they didn’t matter because star wars got funded and so did the the two wars.

By: Fred Cink

Fred Cink — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 21:48:18 +0000

I will (continue to) blame congress for over spending, because that is who controls the pursestrings (remember Byrd?) and I will also blame any president whose proposed budgets encourage it (Bush and Obama) and whose lack of use of the veto pen allows it. (all of them) Do you remember all the democrats in the majority during Reagan’s first term bragging on national TV that his “…budget was DOA…” and congress spent the proposed military increases to win the cold war but also over spent in the domestic areas where Reagan proposed flat rates? I thought congress was SUPPOSED to be made up of RESPONSIBLE ADULTS with an OATH TO THE CONSTITUTION not to their reelection.

By: Vladislaw

Vladislaw — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 17:42:14 +0000

The President holds the veto pen and Reagan said he was going to use it when he was running for President. He never did, don’t blame congress if a President is afraid to rein them in.

President Reagan was getting all the funding he wanted for his programs and as long as he got them, he didn’t care about the rest, because as Dick Cheney was telling him at the time:

“deficits don’t matter”

By: Fred Cink

Fred Cink — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 01:54:55 +0000

The answer to my first question is “yes” I really did mangle the word “compassionate.” Secondly for Vladislaw and his debt chart, the easy-to remember saying is that “Presidents propose, congresses dispose” yes, it is somewhat of an oversimplification but is also basically true, so I would ask you to re-color the chart according to which of the two major political parties was in control of congress during those buget years, take your heart meds, and get out some more bleach for your koolaid stains. For common sense, please check out the definition of the words “sarcasm” and “irony” to discern how they were used by me to make the point. As for DCSCA I would, unfortunately, have to agree with that sad statement even in light of the sarcasm.

By: DCSCA

DCSCA — Sun, 20 Feb 2011 11:39:14 +0000

49 years ago this morning… my God, seems like last month Glenn lifted off on that three orbit flight. It’s gonna take decades to get back to the moon and out to Mars. Unlessm of course, you’re Chinese.

By: common sense

common sense — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 23:06:18 +0000

@ Fred Cink wrote @ February 19th, 2011 at 2:32 pm

“AND FOR ALL THE MOST COMPASSIOINATE AND JUSTIFIABLE OF REASONS”

Like wars?

By: Vladislaw

Vladislaw — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:11:48 +0000

The debt as a percentage of the budget and GDP were managable before. At the peak of WWII it was 92% of GDP and then plunged. We are about to pass that when the next debt ceiling is raised. I believe the real start was with President Reagan.

As I said, it is easy to pass the tax cuts and spending but congress never wants to put on the brakes and raise taxes and cut spending on the way up to slow the economy, they wait until the bust then pass more tax cuts and increase spending.

Look at the second chart on this page for the National Debt.

http://www.the-inter-web.com/debt.html

It is pretty clear when it started.

By: Fred Cink

Fred Cink — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 19:32:35 +0000

“…What I did say and no one has been able to say I am wrong is that spending beyond government means got out of hand under Bush…” I will say YOU ARE WRONG. It really got started under FDR…but he had an terible economic crisis then a war to deal with so it was justified, it accelerated under LBJ, but he had a war in Vietnam, and one on Poverty so it was justified. Then Nixon had a war and an oil crisis and recession, and it was justified. Then Carter had a cold war and a recession and it was justified, then Reagan had a recession he inherited from Carter and at least won the cold war so it was justified… Do I see common recuring thread here? We are now 12 plus trillion into on-the-books debt with government admitted unfuded liabilities of 110 trillion. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out this house of cards is ready to collapse. AND FOR ALL THE MOST COMPASSIOINATE AND JUSTIFIABLE OF REASONS

By: Vladislaw

Vladislaw — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 15:47:32 +0000

I should add that many economists where saying the same thing in 2006 and 2007 with the housing bubble. Most economists agreed that the money supply should have been tightened to raise interest rates and slow up the housing sector because there was going to be hell to pay because of inflated housing prices. Instead we got the boom/bust, constructive destruction senerio and blew up the housing sector. High unemployment has brought down the labor rates and quite a few marginal construction firms went under. I guess you can say we cleaned out the dead wood.