the obvious (1 Jan, 2013) Reply
The problem, of course, is that this ratio is irrelevant. What begins to matter is the difference between spending and revenue.
Capt Obvious (1 Jan, 2013)
No, what matters is that our governmen, represented by our elected officials are failing us in their duties as keepers of the government. Instead they are acting as 4-5 year old children - they must get their way or no one gets anything.
ProjectRepresentMe (1 Jan, 2013)
You are correct, sir. Now here's my shameless plug for a great idea -
We know why it's broken wrong and how to fix it.
At 700,000 population per Rep. in the House, we don't matter, so they represent their big donors or their own whims. With a huge ratio like this, we will *never* matter.
Solution: A much smaller ratio, 30,000 or 40,000 like the Founders intended.
Reaching the solution - trickier. www.ProjectRepresentMe.com
LogiC (2 Jan, 2013)
No the problem is unlimited campaign contributions from corporations. If you got $100k from some corporation and you know that they will pay that again the next time your election is up would you campaign to make the corporation happy so they pay you again or push for fair law and not see a cent?
Now Obama did get quite a lot of money from "normal" people so he does this show of pretending to care, even going so far as to actually do something the people need every now and then. Yet as long as corporations can just funnel money into politicians for giant tax cuts and deregulation well things will not get better.
Glad I don't live in the US, at the same time if the US fails they will drag the world down with them. You guys gotta fix your shit.
ProjectRepresentMe (2 Jan, 2013)
@LogiC - Why so negative? Clearly you have a big piece of the problem right.
How can just say "No" about the glaringly bad representation ratio, one of the worst in the world?
Do the thought experiment:
If we has one Rep. per 7,000,000 instead of the present 700,000 would Reps be more responsive or less?
I think the structure of an institution can encourage or discourage corruption.
Some structures are dysfunctional.
I feel your frustration.
Union thugs (2 Jan, 2013)
No corporate contributions, then no union contributions.
Fred (1 Jan, 2013) Reply
Depending in how you land and on what material and with what force, you might get seriously injured by falling from a height of 4.5 ft such was breaking or neck or other bones.
Bob (1 Jan, 2013)
However, I don't think anyone would classify a 4.5 ft drop as a "cliff".
Caveat: I know almost nothing about this situation because I've not had access to news for a few months (hooyah, boot camp).
Browns44 (1 Jan, 2013) Reply
Elections have consequences....the voters have spoken, they want the next four years to be like that last four years.
Mr. Time (7 Jan, 2013)
Indeed and not like the Bush administration which brought you this mess.
faroutman (1 Jan, 2013) Reply
This is why I always where a wingsuit when I do my banking.
Grammar Nazi (1 Jan, 2013)
Wear the hell is the verb in the above sentence?
Rocket (1 Jan, 2013)
@ Grammar Nazi,
I see what you did there
faroutman (1 Jan, 2013)
The verb is banking, an action word such as running or learning. You should stick to being a speling nazi... or maybe not. Oh and ware.
Grammar Nazi (2 Jan, 2013)
@faroutman: The subsentence's verb is "do" while "banking" is the object; the main sentence, however, remains verbless.
Hey, Nimrod (2 Jan, 2013)
Just tell cluelessman that he misspelled 'wear'.
What cuts? (1 Jan, 2013) Reply
There aren't any cuts, sequestration has been "delayed" two months. The Democrats reneged on the Budget Reform Act of 2011. Obama epic fail.
Eric Cantor (1 Jan, 2013) Reply
We need to protect the rich. If we do not, the poor people will suffer.
Eric Holder (2 Jan, 2013)
The poor can protect themselves with guns from my Mexican drug gangs.
Charles Dickens (1 Jan, 2013) Reply
In "David Copperfield", Mr Micawber said:
"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."
He had it right. Don't overspend!
Roy Scheider (1 Jan, 2013) Reply
We're gonna need a bigger building.
Buck Ofama (1 Jan, 2013) Reply
Zero lied again - he will never cut spending, no matter what he says.
Canadian (2 Jan, 2013) Reply
Zelda (2 Jan, 2013) Reply
When 80% of America's income is off-limits for taxation, then we don't have a spending problem. The Top 1% is made up of parasites & vampires, and they are dragging down every one else.
Enter 104 here: (3 Jan, 2013)
Chief Lie-awatha, is that you? And you're actually thinking of the 47% who don't pay any income taxes but use the majority of gov't services and handouts who are the parasites.
I know a little (3 Jan, 2013) Reply
The people who make jokes about our situation are 1) the uninformed; 2) the financially irresponsible; 3) the ones who live off OPM; and 4) abusers of the system (some call them "societal parasites).
The absolute LEAST one can do is be informed.
RHJunior (12 Jan, 2013) Reply
The fiscal cliff isn't the spending cuts--- it's the tax increases.
shawn c (23 Feb, 2013) Reply
the major prob is the cya club. the puppets they use to gain their agendas, we need to go back to the days when a man says what he means, means what he says. i think all elected officials should be hooked up to lie detectors during debates. and sodium penthanol. and just maybe instead of lining their own pockets the should do what they r paid to do. and work for us and not themselves.