The Fed's HR Department » Federal Debt

Take the day off, with pay, and save the bosses 1,000 times your salary. . .

Shannon Rodgers — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 02:31:16 +0000

Well they did it, in the middle of the night, while we slept. I say “they”, I don’t know how to say more correctly, “WE THE PEOPLE”. Our Congress agreed to end debate on 300 pages of replacing amendments which few have read, and no one seems able to explain.

“There are 100 senators here and I don’t know that there’s a senator that doesn’t have something in this bill that isn’t important to them,” Reid said. “If they don’t have something in it important to them then it doesn’t speak well of them. That’s what legislation’s all about,” Reid said of the compromises. “It’s the art of compromise.” – Harry Reid.

His excuse, like I often get from my 7 year old, is a permutation of the he-started-it defense. It is similar to my 7 year old defending making a mess by pointing out that my 5 year old made one the day before. Reid would have us swallow that grabbing tax dollars for votes is OK because they are all doing it, if not, . . . well . . . sucks to be them, that is their loss. He says health legislation is about the payments we taxpayers will have to pay to hire Senators to vote to end debate, not about representing Americans by voting like they would vote for themselves. Ben Nelson, the Senator from Nebraska successfully arranged to exempt his state from the Medicare expansions . . . forever. If it is such a good idea, why would Nebraska want to be exempt? If this is such a good bill, why do we need to bribe Senators to vote for it?

Do not try to convince me that paying a state an estimated $100 million in concessions before their Congressman will vote for something is anything other than a bribe. Shame on Nebraska, and I hope that the Governor sticks to his principles and agrees to drop this provision.

They passed cloture on debate of the health care amendments some 36 hours after it was shown to the Senate. They voted to stop debate on a healthcare scheme that does not apply to them, will not start helping anyone until 2014 even though the massive taxes start immediately, and contains numerous payoffs for those who represent us. They voted to stop debating a bill hardly any have seen, because they were paid to do so, without having to live with it themselves, hours after it became public, in the middle of the night.

We could afford to buy insurance for everyone who is uninsured ten times over and still have some left over to subsidize the trial lawyers with the $1.2 Trillion this health care would cost. My question is this, if the price of a vote is $100 million or so, and we have 100 Senators, can we simply pay them the $10 billion to vote to go home?

How many bosses can say that sending their employees home, with pay, can save the bosses a thousand times the employee’s salary?

The Green Eyed Monster with Spittle

Shannon Rodgers — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 01:12:45 +0000

Lest we forget that the modern “Progressive” movement wants to take us backwards to the systems we had prior to our independence . . . this is a cartoon, reportedly from 1948 making fun of the very things we are discussing now. The human race has been discussing them as long as there is a record of discussions. Much of the world believed that The Great American Experiment would fail, many are working to that end now, or claiming that it has. The Progressive doth protest too much, methinks. Do I detect a hint of jealous rage in the voices of the socialists abroad?

http://nationaljuggernaut.blogspot.com/2009/09/this-cartoon-seemed-far-fetched-in-1948.html

Minimum Payments

Shannon Rodgers — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 02:47:35 +0000

Do you make the minimum payment on your credit card(s) each month? I do. If there is any left over, I pay extra on the account with the highest interest rate. If I asked, would you loan me your money if you knew I would use it to make minimum payments on my credit cards and I offered no plausible plan to pay you back?

Do you do what we are encouraged to do, and pay off your balances each month? Do you not borrow more than you can pay off each month? If so, God bless you, but the following will cause your head to hurt.

When the federal government spends more than it takes in, it is called a deficit. They (we) borrow the difference. Congress wants to raise the debt ceiling, the limit on their (our) credit card, so that they can make the payments on our existing debt. They want to do this in a year the deficit has doubled. Spending is up, revenue is down, and Congress wants a credit limit increase to pay the minimum payments on the difference. What a gig!! They set their own pay, set their own credit limits, and do not have to pay the payments – ever!!! They tell us they expect tax increases on the rich to pay for all of this and more.

Want some perspective?

I have seen this, which I cannot independently confirm, so correct me if you are good with numbers: If we collect a 100% tax on the profits of ALL of the Fortune 500 companies, it would take 145 years to pay the principle.

The principle is 12 trillion dollars by the way. Heard of the rule of 72? At 3%, which is what I expect we pay on federal bonds, the principle doubles in 24 years. That means to me, we cannot tax the rich more, enough to pay off the debt before it doubles.

Do you not agree that making the minimum payments is a bad idea? Are you OK in lending them more money to make the minimum payments with no plausible explanation of how they intend to pay it back?