Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Super-Committee!!

Even though we've finished up with Congress and moved on to the Executive Branch, there have been some very important current events lately involving our Legislative Branch about which I felt it was important that you all have the opportunity to become educated and then comment on.

Remember during the chapter on Congress when you read about the different types of committees that exist (standing, select, joint, etc.)? Well, a couple of these categories were recently combined when, as part of a debt-reduction agreement that was reached earlier this year, Congress established the 12-member Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, also known as the "Super-Committee," made up of 6 members of the House (3 Democrats & 3 Republicans) as well as 6 Senators (also 3 from each party).

The Committee was charged with figuring out how to reduce the federal deficit by $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years, with the understanding that if they did not, a so-called "trigger mechanism" would be enacted that would impose automatic across-the-board spending cuts of over $1 trillion, on everything from domestic social welfare programs, to foreign aid, even to the military. Quite an incentive to figure out how to work together and come to an agreement, no?!

Click here for a Google Doc that explains in relatively concise terms exactly what this 'Super-Committee' is, how it came about, what it was designed to do, and why. This "fact sheet" is not entirely objective; it comes from the National League of Cities, and so the "we" it refers to underscores the importance of the Super-Committee's actions to state and local government funding. Even though it comes from that perspective, however, I would say the explanation is still basically politically neutral and doesn't really favor the views of one party or the other.

Suffice to say that over Thanksgiving Break, it became clear that these 12 members of Congress would be unable to accomplish their mission, and now--as often happens in politics--each side is blaming the other for that failure. Below are links to three different opinion pieces published online in the past week or so that I would like you to read; the first blames Democrats on the committee, the second lays blame on super-committee Republicans, and the third actually points the finger at President Obama.

http://tinyurl.com/73r6gdo
http://tinyurl.com/chey5o7
http://tinyurl.com/cwlmvrv

Now I realize that, even though we've referred to some of these issues and ideas in a peripheral way in class from time to time, you may not have sufficient background knowledge or context about all of this for everything to make perfect sense. Still, just do the best you can, and after reading the explanation of what the Super-Committee is as well as those 3 opinion pieces, please answer the following questions in your posted comments:
  • Do you think it is important to reduce our federal deficit? Why?
  • How important is this issue to you, i.e., are there other issues facing our country today that you feel are significantly more or less important than this one?
  • Do you think something like the 'Super-Committee' is a good idea, in which Congress is more or less forced to act in addressing our federal deficit? Why (not)?
  • Which of the 3 articles do you think made the strongest argument(s) in support of its point of view? Why?
  • Which of the 3 articles do you think made the weakest argument(s) in support of its point of view? Why?
  • Which deficit reduction approach do you find yourself agreeing with more--decreasing government spending or increasing tax revenues? Or perhaps some of both? Why?
Like I said, I totally understand that you may be confused by some of the terminology in the readings, and you may not feel that you have an adequate foundation in the subject matter to effectively comment about everything, but please just do the best you can. I will be checking the blog during the "posting window" more than I usually do, so if something comes up that you're unsure about or if you have any questions, post them as a comment and if possible I will post a reply shortly thereafter that will answer your questions as best I can.

Your two comments must be posted by the end of the day Friday, December 9 (BTW, posting something to ask me a question does NOT count as one of your two comments!). Your first comment should be answering the questions above, and the second should agree or disagree with something a classmate has posted, and explain why you agree/disagree. Thanks, good luck, and have fun!!

Silvy :)

90 comments:

  1. I think it is very important to reduce our federal deficit. Right now the United States is in a bad economic situation. We are in a recession, a period of temporary economic decline during which trade and industrial activity are reduced. According to Wikipedia, the United States is in major debt; they owe around 14,200 billion dollars. This is why it is important to cut back on spending. We need to decrease our public debt in order to get out of this recession. I think it is good that $1 trillion in discretionary spending has been cut under the Budget Control Act of 2011 but I really do not think that is going make much effect. None the less, I think it is important that we cut back on spending. This really is an important issue because I think it is the first step to a healthier economy. I think it was pretty outrageous that a super committee was supposed cut $1.5 trillion in savings just with just cutting the new revenues. I think the super committee was a completely effective attempt to try to cut spending if they had more time. “Why the Super Committee Failed” by Jeb Hensarling seemed to make the strongest argument. If we are in a recession, why are we deciding to spend more? It only seems logical to spend less when we are in a bad economic situation. Right now we are trying to cut back on 1.5 trillion dollars of spending, I cannot understand why “Mr. Obama and his party's leaders in Congress added trillions of dollars in new health-care spending to the government's balance sheet.” The weakest article was “Obama Let the Supercommittee Fail” by Michael Gerson. To me, all he was doing was blasting Obama and did not really have any good solutions. He had statistics to back up his opinion, but I just felt that his statement was not very strong. In my opinion, decreasing government spending and increasing tax revenues will be the most effective. Doing both, will lead to a quicker recovery of our economy. If we just do one approach, I feel like recovery would be much slower.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Decreasing our federal deficit should definitely be a high priority on our government’s to-do list. Even though I’m about the furthest thing from an expert on economics or the most recent events that have affected our deficit so deeply, a safe rule of thumb would be that our country shouldn’t be spending money we have no solid method of eventually paying back. Since our economy isn’t in the greatest shape at the moment, my intuition tells me that putting our selves into deeper debt won’t do much to help our situation. On paper, a super committee seems like a good idea. Not to mention that nothing else seemed to be working so why not just give it a go. However, as exemplified by our current congressional stalemate nothing really got done. Why should that be any different on a smaller scale? Both Democrats and Republicans are more concerned with playing the blame game rather than putting aside their differences and coming up with an actual solution. Now, that may seem like an over simplification because both sides are convinced that there way is what is best for the American people, but at this point I’m tired of our legislature doing nothing.

    Of the three articles I believe that the one written by Greg Sargent made the strongest argument. To be honest, I think the reason I connected the most with his points were because he seemed like more of the voice of the people in comparison to the other two. Jeb Hensarling, a Republican representative from Texas, wrote the first article. Perhaps it was unfair of me to get the idea that he was just covering for his own party’s mistakes involving the super committee. Both articles took the basic tone of “We gave the other side a very reasonable agreement, but they cold heartedly struck down and refused to work with any of our ideas”. However, Hensarling’s article focused more of the specifics of Medicare and Medicaid while Sargent’s was more about the big picture and taxing the upper class. As for the final article, I thought it was sort of out of left field and I believe that it is unfair to lay the blame onto President Obama. All the representatives involved were grown adults who have been elected with the responsibility to do what is best for the American people. If they didn’t get the job done, that’s their own fault and should be seen as such.

    As for my opinion, at this moment I have no idea. The political spectrum quiz we took in class said that I was a “liberally leaning moderate”, which I think is a byproduct of me having no idea about my own political beliefs. Or perhaps I just don’t have enough courage of conviction to take a strong stance, which would make me a complete hypocrite for criticizing Congress’ inaction. However if forced to choose I would have to agree more with Sargent’s argument mainly because tax breaks for the greatly wealthy seems like a pretty obvious injustice. The very wealthy are the people who need tax breaks the least, but it seems like they are the ones who we hear about getting them the most.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with Sean that although we are taking some action towards helping the deficit, it is not enough. To make an actual impact we will have to make fundamental changes in what we are currently doing. The problem is systemic and if we only work at curing the systems of our debt nothing will be resolved. We will continue to dig ourselves deeper into debt and in turn our country will suffer.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree with Jessica, it is hard to take a strong stand. If the answer to our problems is just a simple solution, I do not think we would be in this economic situation. I also agree with the fact that we are young and do not really have a lot of insight on economics. I also agree with her statement about Obama. It is not right to blame Obama for everything; he was in a pretty bad situation when he took office.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I do think it's crucially important to reduce our deficit. Without doing so we are just creating worse relations with the rest of the world. Specifically our relations with China. If we don't control spending now how can we be ready for necessary spending in the future? Yes there are more important things that our country is faced with other than the deficit. Though it's difficult not to worry about the future and try to be as prepared as possible, there are other issues like unemployment that need to be dealt with. Yet, if the economy get better would those problems fix themselves as well. The idea of a "Super-Committee" seems like it should work, to give these representatives a specific timeline and certain goals to be met. Yet, if the issues and dissagrements can't be resolved outside the "super committee" seeing them not work out in one is not surprising. Something needs to be done and this is just one more step towards finding the eventual solution. I think that Greg Sargent had the strongest argument. He was very clear in laying out the fact that when it was time to make descisions and have a little "give and take" people weren't open to it. Instead of sitting back and really looking at where the issues are. Both articles for or against each party showed how each party did try but that wasn't enough in the end. I think the article that made the weakest argument was the one against President Obama. I think that he was just pointing fingers instead of realizing that this group should have just come to a clear descision together. It doesn't seem like Obama "shrugged" it off at all and blaming him for future economy complete downfall isn't the answer. I think there should be a clear look decreasing government spending and increasing tax revenues. By doing both seems to be a clear way to balance things out. Both will create a quick and balanced approach.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think that it is very important for us to reduce our federal deficit. However, I feel that the US government has been inefficient in doing so because they think there is some simple, financial panacea that can eliminate this debt quickly. Historically, the largest federal deficits have occurred during periods of war or defense buildups. Over the last 100 years, the largest federal budget deficits occurred during World War II (a peak deficit of 28% of GDP), World War I (a peak deficit of 17% of GDP), the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars (a peak deficit of 10 % of GDP) and the Reagan Administration’s Cold War defense buildup (a peak deficit of 6% of GDP). In addition, with such a long time build up of the national debt, I feel that expecting the nation to rid itself of the debt in less than 5 years is improbable, even with extreme measures. I feel that there should be reasonable financial compromises between both parties that will cut down on spending while also increasing revenue.
    I feel that the Super Committee itself was not a wonderful idea, but I do agree that it is the role of Congress, not the President, to end the financial problem. They are the ones whose Constitutionally enumerated powers deal the most with budget and financial powers.
    I was bothered by how the articles all used a political bias as part of their argument: while I understand a political attachment is always gong to be present over these issues, I feel that the arguments presented in the articles would become much stronger if there was no obvious sway of the bipartisan system on their argument. I was impressed by the article from the Washington Post because the author seemed to bring to public attention the greater extent of the deals that were being made in the committee.
    The other two articles seemed weak to me. The one from the committee co-chair seemed to be childish in that he was trying to blame the other side for things that had happened in the committee he was a leader in: super impressive leadership quality, blaming other people.
    The reason I thought the final article was weak was because it is not the President's responsibility to support Congress. They should be able to manage perfectly on their own, and the idea that everything needs the President's support behind it has only recently been proving true in modern day.

    Finally, I think that the only way to truly get out of the deficit is to engage as broadly as possible in all budgeting abilities. I think that tax increases should be expected to help cancel out the debt, but I feel that they should not be the sole reliance of the government in canceling out the debt: I think that reduced spending, reorganization of wasteful departments, and government cutbacks/holidays might also help save the country financially. With a wide range of strategies, if one or two fail, it isn't a huge concern, and if any prove overly successful we recoup the failure of the others.

    Overall, I feel strongly that it was Congress and the Executive Branch who got us into this situation, but it is the responsibility of the entire US population to help with this budget crisis.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I agree with Hannah. I think that blaming the president in the case of failure is a common tactic, but will quickly backfire. Also, her comments about China were important, because without a positive national "credit rating" how can we expect to remain a economic influence across the world?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think we should have the deficit according to how the economy is. If the economy is going well then have a higher deficit but if its bad, like it is now, then try to have a lower one. I think right now it is important to make our deficit smaller because we are in a really bad economic situation. The "Super-Committee" sounds like a good idea but right now, we can't spend anything. Maybe when America is in a better economic situtation, we can think about "Super-Committees" again.

    I think all the articles are weak because they are all pointing fingers at people. Both sides are just trying to cover for their party and say that the other side wasn't willing to comply. I think the weakest article though was the one pointing their finger at Obama. You can't really blame Obama for this because the representatives didn't come to an agreement.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I also agree with Jessica that we are young and don't know a lot about economics but that still doesn't mean we can't give any insight on the topic. Sometimes the solution can be something extremely simple and that wouldn't sound like a reasonable solution.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think that reducing our federal deficit is probably the most important thing for us to concentrate on. This issue is kind of like a kid who has a fantastic allowance, but just spends every penny and plus some. The government needs to make a rigid budget plan and stick to it. I think that it is dangerous for us to be in so much debt because then we are obligated to other countries who if god forbid they did something horrendous, then we would be tied down to them because of the money the had lent us. I think that it was a great idea to in a sense try to force congress to try to solve this issue because nothing is getting done. I think that “Why the Super Committee Failed” by Jeb Hensarling had the strongest argument, because it used common sense. Why would you spend so much more than you can afford, when you are already in debt? It seems to me that first before you did any more major spending, that you would pay off you debts so that you are financially stable. However, I think that we also need to take into account that we are not in a time of peace, we are still fighting a war, and whenever there is a war, every country spends more than they can afford in order to protect the liberty of their people. The article that was the weakest was “Obama let the super-committee fail” by Michael Gerson. He couldn’t really blame this all on just Obama, obviously the super-committee members were unable to cooperate. I think that maybe Obama feels like Congress won’t do what he says so, he is letting the duke it out. I think that in order to solve this problem we need a little of both cuts in spending and raised tax revenues. We need a compromise that will fix this problem. There are going to be some unhappy people, but that’s the price for liberating ourselves from our monetary chains.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It is clearly vital to reduce out federal deficit. People often say that debt is not necessarily a bad thing, and it isn’t, but at our rate of spending it is. My dad often says that we’ll soon be owned by China if we can’t get ourselves out of our debt crisis, and while extreme, he has a point. The first step to decreasing debt is reducing our deficit.
    I think the deficit and our economy in general are the main issues on everyone’s minds. Unemployment and trouble with the European Union are also pressing problems, but it is all basically a part of the economy. Issues like national security and illegal immigration are also relatively important, but the economy is probably tops right now.
    I applaud both sides for realizing that they need to work together to find a solution, but this Committee proved that it isn’t a way to force them to act. In other words, forming a Committee to work on an issue is admirable, but it’s only meaningful if a solution is reached. This Committee was a failure, but that doesn’t mean we should stop trying.
    Surprisingly, I liked Hensarling’s article the most. While he clearly was going to support the Republican perspective (because he is one), I think that he is the most educated of the three authors on the subject. His article offered an insider’s perspective of the discussions, and painted a picture of the Democrats acting like petulant children, unwilling to compromise unless they got huge tax hikes. While this is obviously a slanted article, I felt like he made better arguments than the Democrat slanted one.
    My least favorite article was Sargent’s. I believe that he completely over-simplified the discussions. His article was written with elementary school logic, in terms of “we gave up two things, and you gave up one, so it’s better for you!” I am sure that the Democrats had just as many reasons as the Republicans for refusing to come to an agreement, but I don’t think Sargent delivered those arguments well.
    We should certainly have a mix of both. There is no way to get both sides to agree to a deal without mixing the two approaches. It’s true that the government is spending more than it should, and it’s true that the affluent are getting away with not paying enough taxes. Utilizing both methods is how Democrats and Republicans will be able to compromise.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I disagree with Daniel about Obama's role in directing Congress. I think Obama deserves the heat he has been getting for taking a hands-off role in the super committee discussion. As the leader of the nation and the leader of his party, the president needs to be able to lead Congress. Congress is made up of capable people, but having a united leader in the president would make a deal easier to make.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I agree with what Nick said about it seeming that both sides really want a solution and it was clear that the super committee didn't work. But as Nick said, this issue could become an even more extreme one in the future and just because this idea so solve it didn't work doesn't mean others won't. Every try is a hopefull step toward solving it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Having to owe anyone money is an laborious task especially if one is not able to pay the other back right away. Orr deficit has been growing consistently for quite a while now and Americans need to find a solution to this problem and fast. The United States owing other countries is not a good thing. In the long run, I believe that it is going to severely impair what our country's capabilities are going to be in the near future. There is a set tax on everything from imports to taxes to business incomes where tax returns are good for a set amount and people and businesses are sharing taxes equally.

    As a young adult coming into the world having a massive deficit is not how I want to start living life on my own in the U.S. Such a deficit is going to critically alter what I am able to pursue as a career in the future. The fact that the U.S. keeps exporting American jobs to China and India is not helpful either. Also the fact that rich people are able to get out of paying taxes is absolutely ridiculous. Having the poor trying to pay their taxes is not a sustainable plan that will get us out of debt. I don't understand why there isn't a set tax on individuals incomes. The rich need to start carrying their own weight and pay their share of taxes to help support the economy. Lastly why is it that those who serve in the government are receiving full benefits after one year while people who serve in the military have to wait 20 years to get those benefits. That right there should be reversed.

    The Super-Committee idea was a brilliant idea, melding together a group of evenly party-split Congressmen and Senators to try and solve the deficit crisis. But we live in a 2 party country and because of this there is more often than not going to be major disagreement between the 2 parties on how to govern the country. Also being forced to make solutions to solve the deficit is a great and bold move. However if we had people who were able to give some ground I believe that there would have been a fair and equal solution to the deficit problem.

    After reading all three articles, I found the second one blaming the republican most relatable and strongest. It seemed like the writer was talking to middle class people and not the higher educated like articles 1 and 2. Overall I found his argument relatable and quite true. Especially when he talked about the Republican proposal to lower taxes on the most affluent and also solving the real problem: unemployment.

    I found that the article blaming the President the most ridiculous and thus the least convincing. In no way am I supposed to believe that it is the Presidents fault that bills are not getting passed that will help to solve the deficit. It is Congress' fault that they are not able to put their narrow-minded thoughts of how to fix the country aside and solve the crisis.

    I believe that in order to most effectively rid ourselves of this deficit, we need to both cut government spending and increase tax revenues by equally distributing payment towards the deficit into both categories. Thus there will not be such a great burden placed upon either income or government spending.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think that we should reduce our federal deficit because then the government will have more revenue to pay off the national debt with. If congress is forced to address our federal deficit then I definitely think that the Super Committee is a good idea. However because this attempt failed each party is too busy trying to blame the other to do anything else about the problem yet. I think that the first article made the strongest argument because it says that if our country is in a debt then it should stop spending more money, which makes total sense. I think the article that has the weakest argument is the last one which blames Obama for the failure of the committee. This makes no sense to me because Obama wasn’t even on the committee so he couldn’t have made it fail even if he wanted to. I think that the government should decrease its government spending, especially on the things that are less important.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I believe reducing our federal deficit is crucial. This is the most important issue our country faces today. We are spending money we don’t have and living with luxuries we can’t afford, and it will come back to hurt us when our credit rating drops. Which it already has. Standard and Poors downgraded the US to a AA from AAA. In simple terms, people aren’t going to keep lending us money, because they say we’re not good at paying it back. If you can remember US history, think back to Alexander Hamilton. I got this off a site called Digital History, an online American history textbook:
    “The paramount problem facing Hamilton was a huge national debt. He proposed that the government assume the entire debt of the federal government and the states. His plan was to retire the old depreciated obligations by borrowing new money at a lower interest rate.”
    Hamilton’s whole plan was to establish the credit of the United States. We’ve gotten to the point where we’ve lost that credit, and we need it back. Without credit, you’re like the annoying little brother who asks his siblings for money but keeps getting denied because they know you won’t pay them back. Without credit, we can’t borrow any more money, so the $15 trillion in debt is going to be ours alone to shoulder. At that point, it’s like losing a game of Monopoly, when you’re staring at the board and you know that selling all your houses and hotels and mortgaging all your lots isn’t going to be enough. You lose.

    I think the Super-Committee was a nice thought. Congress believed that maybe they’d learn to work together and get past their differences in opinion enough to slip out a precarious $1.5 trillion (a tenth of the deficit). I think Congressman Hensarling summed up their reason for failure best: “Ultimately, the committee did not succeed because we could not bridge the gap between two dramatically competing visions of the role government should play in a free society, the proper purpose and design of the social safety net, and the fundamentals of job creation and economic growth.” This is where the third article comes into play. The President needs to take a more active role in pushing this Super Committee if he ever expects it to work. I think he has the potential to create something good here with the Super Committee, if he’s ready and willing to step up and be aggressive. As for the least convincing article, I’d have to choose Mr. Sargent’s. His word choice was simple and his arguments were almost childish.
    Much fault lies with the committee members. In order for compromise to work, each side needs to be willing to give up things that are important to them. These members, I’m sure, are all concerned for their bids for reelection and public opinion, which is understandable. However, they have to really take it to heart that in this Super Committee, they are first and foremost representing the United States, as a whole, rather than each of their respective States and Districts. There are two congressmen from Michigan. Does that mean Michigan has the largest say in what spending cuts or new taxes should be made? No, each needs to prioritize their allegiances and put the country before their districts or even their party. We’re in a national crisis, and things need to be done. Both sides need to be willing to give up some things. There needs to be both tax increases and less government spending.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I agree with Nick Andrews about the article by Sargent. I found it very childish as well. Also, I agree with his response to Daniel saying that President Obama needs to step up and take a more active role.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Personally, I can't stand a debt hanging over my head for any reason. I wake up and its all I think about all day, and I can't get anything done. I would hope the President makes this one of his main priorities, behind National Defense. It doesn't look good as a country to be behind in our money totals, and it is something that is not an easy fix because it had just accumulated from past and current presidents. The first article touches on how the President points to healthcare as a main receiver of unnecessary money, but then goes right out and spends even more of the money we don't have on it. Reducing spending is the only thing that will work to cut the deficit.
    In a sense, the Super Committee was given a pretty demanding and near impossible assignment when the President ordered them to come up with a solution within a certain number of days. The cut in the deficit won't come immediately. It needs to be understood that it will take full cooperation between everyone and take time. I think there should be a bi-partisan act to come out to gradually cut it down. The second article called for taxes on the rich, which would help i guess, but the main point is spending cuts. The average American doesn't understand the amount of spending that is actually going toward some of his plans and committees. Some of the committees are worthless and are just eating billions of dollars that could go toward the deficit. In the end, it will have to take a mutual understanding that relief will not be immediate, and that will take both parties working together to cut spending and evenly distribute taxes.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I agree with Nick when he said that both parties need to work together to cut the deficit. This debt is a gradual fix, so naturally the party of the president might change every 4 yrs. If this is the case, it will do no good for each president to try and fix it their own way. It will take time and cooperation is the only way this will be accomplished.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I strongly believe that something must be done about our federal deficit. Personally, I think that the world’s top countries are in way over their heads with debt, the U.S. included. My solution to the problem would be to just wipe away everyone’s debt and start fresh. Seeing as how the total world debt probably sums up to an unreachable amount, it seems like a good idea to me. Unfortunately, I do realize that this plan is not one that is practical or even possible. I suppose we can all agree on one thing and that is that the deficit needs to be reduced like yesterday. I do believe that the concept of forcing a group of people to get together and figure a problem out, i.e. our deficit, is a good one but obviously in this case it did not work out as intended. It seems that even a looming about of money, about 14.2 billion dollars, can’t get a group of people to agree on anything. I think that Super-Committees could be useful but that’s if and only if something comes of them. At this point, I think that if any solution, whether it was raising taxes or cutting money, would have been a step in the right direction. Our debt isn’t getting any smaller as the days go by. In fact, it seems to be getting larger.
    In the case of the articles, I think that the second article, from the Washington Post, made the strongest argument about who to blame. The first article seemed to be pointing the blaming finger a little too much. It went on and on about how the Democrats wouldn’t do this or that whereas the second article pointed out what both parties were agreeing or disagreeing about. I like how the second article points out how both sides wanted to do something and why they wouldn’t budge. I personally do not think their reasons were valid excuses for not coming to some agreement but at least when they played the blame game it wasn’t as poignant as the first. I think the first article, written by Mr. Hensarling, was too specific to convince me of anything. He seemed to just be covering for his party and trying to place the entirety of the blame on the shoulders of the Democrats when both sides are to blame. Six grown men were placed in a room and told to find a solution and even though they all are aware of the state of our economy they did not make a decision and instead decided to play “whose fault is it”.
    At this point, I don’t really care what is done; something just needs to be enacted. I think it would be wise to put a little bit of increasing taxes and decreasing spending into the solution. This way we are not taking or giving too much in one direction. I believe both are doable ideas, we just need a group of people that can also agree on the fact.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I agree with Jessica about increasing taxes to the wealthy. I think it is unfair that, in the state of our economy, the people that need tax breaks the least are receiving the most leeway. I believe that taxing the wealthy their fair share would be a completely reasonable thing to do in order to increase the inflow of income to the government. I do not think that spending should be cut on the programs that help those in need, especially at this time. We are in a recession and I think that those of us who are not being as greatly affected should start paying their fair share.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Of course it's important to reduce our federal deficit. Excessive debt is a bad thing. This issue is the most wide reaching problem we face today; it effects everyone. Our government has seemingly forgotten what the word compromise means and is leaving all of the citizens unsure about our futures.

    The super committee was a good idea, not practically speaking though. By setting up a committee that couldn't pass a party line vote, it was doomed from the start. But this committee failure jolted America. It raised awareness about the current (and depressing) state of Congress. As for Obama not being active enough with the committee? That's such a baseless argument. One comment on the article said it perfectly ,"Obama's job isn't to babysit the super-committee" The only reason we are talking about Obama even playing an active role in congress because FDR did that to get his New Deal legislation passed, and started a trend. Obama can't force people to vote a certain way. He can't march into the committee room demanding answers whenever he wants. Leaving the super-committee to their own devices was a political strategy...a smart one.

    All three of the articles weren't great at arguing their points. the one against Obama really had no argument to begin with, and the other two were just pointing fingers. There are only two reasons why if I had to pick a "more damaging" party in congress right now, it's be the Republicans. One: Its part of their strategy to block Obama from doing anything so they can presumably win in 2012. Obstructionist tactics are a cheap way to get what they want, but it's working... Two: Grover Norquist...who is probably the most influential conservative special interest out there (I know this is kind of out there, but listen) He basically makes all the republicans in congress sign this "I will never pass any legislation that involves a tax increase" contract. He forces them with money. Understand that this man is powerful enough to control the congressmen like puppets...he's that wealthy. So anyone who breaks the contract, will probably lose re-election. And this puts a lot of unwanted pressure on conservative congressmen. And they're in a pickle now. Because even if they want to raise taxes a bit to compromise, they will lose re-election and presumably get replaced with another "young buck" republican who is willing to adhere to Norquist's pledge.

    As to fixing the problem. it's not simple, and I can't wrap my head around most of it, but I'll say this. Moderation always wins. Never fight extremism with extremism, we've learned this the hard way to many times. The only feasible way out of this is through moderation.

    ReplyDelete
  23. It is my opinion that lowering the federal deficit is an important problem America needs to overcome as soon as possible. Coupled with the recession, the two can cripple America's economy and prevent it from being competitive with the rest of the world. And while I will not deny that it is an important issue, I do believe that there are other issues of similar importance such as defeating the current recession America is in.

    While I assume forcing Congress to make a hasty decision could possibly decrease the quality of said decision. However, if not forced to act, Congress might not act at all. I think inactivity is worse than failure. Economic recession isn't a trench, America can't just dig-in and wait for the storm to end, it has to proactively seek advantage and take it while it still can!

    I think the Anti-Republican argument was the best article. I think their reasoning is just and logical at most points. I think the Anti-Obama article was the weakest. By the end I can say that I wasn't convinced in the slightest. I think that an answer mixing both plans would be best. If one turned out to be successful and the other failed, we would be able to remove the failed one and pour all effort into the successful one.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I agree with Caroline, compromise is important! There will always be competing interests! And while you may not agree with the opposing party's solution, a solution is still necessary. Compromise with them for the good of the country and the good of your peers.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I disagree with Alyssa and Nick Andrews when they say that Obama needs to take a more active role. It's not Obama's job to be "active" with the super-committee. Besides, what do you mean by a more active role? All Obama can really do is talk about it on TV or to the committee members...and I don't believe that I would have made a difference in the committee's final decision. Obama strategically chose to step back here to highlight that this problem really is Congress'.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I'm glad so far all of my classmates have responded correctly to the first question. Of course it it is crucial to reduce the federal deficit; it impedes our progress in spending federal government money for the welfare of it's citizens, and according to Locke, that's the first thing that the Federal Government should do to avoid being overthrown. This issue has not only begun to affect several families as parents start to plan for their retirement and sending their kids off to college. Will there be enough stability from the government to provide the elderly with social security? Will public schools be equipped the necessary departments such as art, sports, and ROP classes to ensure that a student will receive all the education he or she deserves? I have noticed that conservatives are so quick to cut on federal programs such as welfare, social security, and medicare-- all agencies that exist to improve the lives of all Americans, everywhere, when a recession has now been a part of the modern American's life. A super-committee, in theory, sounds like a good idea. Bringing together both sides of the floor from both the House and the Senate, politically experienced people from all sorts of backgrounds racing against the clock for the betterment of the federal government. Sounds great! I even smiled reading about it. But just as like when a young liberal learns about communism- sharing is caring- their dreams are shattered when the learn about the Russian Revolution and what greed and power does to people, it shatters the vision and ultimately one person, or group, rises above. It's survival of the fittest. When it comes to the super-committee, liberals are committed to protecting social programs while conservatives, with the upcoming presidential race looming over the horizon, want to discredit Obama to provide a clear slate for the GOP candidates. Sargent's article was the most convincing for me, because it was the most objective. Maybe the Democrats were right that the super-committee shouldn't let millionaires pay less taxes if increased taxes would help reduce the deficit by giving more money to the Federal government, maybe they weren't. Hensarling's was the weakest for me, he said that the Democrat's "rejected" the super-committees objectives although its hard to believe the republican's didn't have a political agenda of their own.
    In business it's quite simple. You want to make money? Decrease spending. I believe our government shouldn't be a business. To balance our budget we neeed to place higher taxes on those who hae enough to go around- I hope we all learned our lesson from "Trickle-Down Economics", a theory proven faulty-that giving tax breaks to the rich doesn't do our country any good but what will is giving back to the federal government to give to the people. Karma.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I agree with Nick Robles, President Obama can't be found responsible for the congressional stalemate,he said "It is Congress' fault that they are not able to put their narrow-minded thoughts of how to fix the country aside and solve the crisis". I was so quick to say that increasing taxes on the rich was the way to solve this, but that's the kind of thinking that gets us nowhere. Nick said that a combination of both is what will help solve the deficit, "Thus there will not be such a great burden placed upon either income or government spending."

    ReplyDelete
  28. 1. It is absolutely necessary to reduce our federal deficit. While it’s true that sometimes debt can be harnessed to spur economic growth (i.e. Alexander Hamilton and the “national blessing”), the United States is constantly spending itself further and further into debt that at this point economic recovery isn’t possible unless we reduce our federal deficit.
    2. To me, our struggling economy is the most important and threatening issue that our country is currently facing. Our federal deficit is through the roof, the unemployment rate is ridiculously high, and even though this isn’t directly related to us, the European Union is on the verge of collapse. All three of those problems fall under the umbrella of our ailing economy, and they overshadow other current problems like illegal immigration or conflict overseas. Problems like providing for one’s family always take priority to problems that aren’t directly affecting you, i.e. immigration and foreign policy.
    3. I think the Super-Committee was definitely a good idea, regardless of the outcome. The most frustrating part about American politics to me is how stubborn politicians can be based on their party-affiliation, and I feel like that’s a big part of why Congress really doesn’t do anything (aside from declaring tomato paste on pizza a vegetable – way to go, guys!). Anyways, I think the idea of uniting Republicans and Democrats and forcing them to work together lends itself to compromise, even if it didn’t work this time around.
    4. I think the first article was the strongest of the three. The author seemed to be the most knowledgeable of the three, and he CONVINCINGLY portrayed the opposite side (the Democrats) as completely resistant to compromise, a trait that isn’t at all appealing at a time like this.
    5. In my opinion, the second article was the weakest of the three. First of all, the strongest points in the article weren’t even made by the author; they were made by the New York Times. Furthermore, the author deemed the Democrats more willing to compromise because they made two concessions to the Republican’s one. Clearly the author doesn’t understand that it isn’t the quantity of concessions that is important; it’s the quality of the concessions (i.e. increased tax rates on the rich that would significantly aid the reduction of the deficit).
    6. My solution to the problem? To be honest I’m a little unsure of some of the terminology used in the articles, but I would certainly do a few things. For one, I’d tax the rich. Not tax them to the point where we’re even close to socialism, but let’s face it. Our country is in the midst of a downward economic spiral, and as the most affluent citizens, they might be feeling it, but their definition of ‘feeling it’ isn’t nearly as dire as those who can’t put food on their plate. I understand the concept of trickle-down economics, but I don’t see it being effective at a time like this when everyone with money is interested in saving it due to our bad economy. Also, I don’t think a decrease in government spending is a bad idea. Like the first article said, Medicare and Medicaid are sucking the life out of our country, and while I’m not in disagreement that they are novel institutions, they’re poorly designed and are doing more hurt than good. In summation, I think the middle road should be taken between the two options posed by the Republicans and the Democrats. Both parties are so out of touch that I don’t think it’s a good idea to align ourselves with any one plan.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I agree with Nick Andrews and Alyssa Pybus. While it’s unwise to place all of the blame on Obama (this mess was a cooperative effort), he needs to step up and start playing more of an active role in Congress. Congress’ approval rating is hideously low for a reason; it isn’t performing its duties. Obama needs to fulfill his duties as the leader of our country and begin challenging Congress to do what it must do to salvage our nation.

    ReplyDelete
  30. As all of my companions have said, I think it is important to reduce our federal deficit. No one likes living "in the red," including myself, and i would love to return to 1998 where there was a budget surplus. However, we are living in 2011 with a very poor economy. While decreasing our federal deficit seems like a great idea, is it really the correct move at this time? Other adjustments to revenue and spending issues, like our tax system and health care, may produce even faster and improved results than reducing the deficit. Maybe some wise goverment spending may actually improve our deficit. Overall, in my opinion, i believe that a change to our tax system seems like the wisest step to take.
    At the start, the super committee sounded like a great idea. I believe that collaboration is always a great way to solve problems, but it does not work so well in our very divided, 2 party government. People allow their political views and their reelection goals to govern how they think and believe, which leads to very little getting done. Furthemore, the creation of a super committee and a deadline did not produce results, it just led to higher tensions and no results. I think that we should take this issue out of Congress, and set it in the hands of some financial experts who have a refreshing idea regarding how to reform our economy.
    Overall, I didn't really enjoy any of the articles because each of the articles used partisan speech, which grew irritating. I least enjoyed the article pointing fingers at Obama. It had no argument that I could fathom whatsoever, and it is not just the president's job to end the recession! If I had to choose a "favorite" article, it would be the article blaming the Republicans in the committee because I was able to understand the argument.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I agree with Caroline Mack's approach to solving our economic issues. She is right, extremism is never the answer. We need to use moderation and understand that we will have to compromise, even if it means losing a few votes in the Ohio primary. That being said, we must approach our tactics of compromise and moderation in a wise and thoughful way, or else it will be a long time before we "dig ourselves out" of this economic recession.

    ReplyDelete
  32. In my opinion, reducing the federal deficit is the thing our government should focus on most. I tend to think of it in very simple terms, you can’t spend money that you don’t have. This is exactly what our government is doing. It sets a bad example for the people, who run up credit card debt and spend beyond their means regularly. Of course, the federal deficit is even more of a problem with our economic recession. Now is the time we need money to get our economy going, but we don’t have that money. So I think we need to fix that problem first and then we can worry about other things. I’m not sure I can say whether the super-committee was a “good” or “bad” idea in such a black and white way as that. The whole reason for the super-committee was that Congress initially failed in balancing the budget. It was an act of desperation. Of course, the super-committee did fail which makes me realize that it wasn’t enough. I think it was worth a shot (because really what other choice do we have?), but too little and too late.

    I think the article that made the strongest argument was the third article, the one laying the blame on President Obama. My liking for this article could just be due to the fact that the other two blame the other side so clearly, and being a moderate I didn’t agree with either one. Regardless, I agree the Obama is probably making decisions based on his campaign as that only makes sense at this stage in the game. Politics is about winning elections, and that is what Obama is focused on.

    I think the first article, the one criticizing the Democrats, was the weakest. Honestly, it didn’t even seem well written to me. It just focused on what the Democrats did wrong, and didn’t take any blame. I don’t think anyone is ready to lay the blame on any one group. However, the second article also solely laid blame on the Republicans, but it seemed to give actually evidence in support of its accusations. The first article kept repeating that the Democrats didn’t agree to whatever plan they wanted, and seemed to ignore the fact that they probably had a legitamite reason for doing so.

    As for my opinion, I think both cutting government spending and increasing tax revenue is the best answer. Why would we only do one when doing both could be twice as effective? However, I do think the focus should be on cutting government spending. I’m honestly not really sure about my political opinion at the moment, but I do think we spend too much on healthcare. I believe that people need to be responsible for themselves. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the government needs to help care for the people. Therefore I think government spending is an area that would be relatively easy to cut.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I agree with Michael. The deficit is a huge problem that needs to be fixed. Added on the the recession we have is not going to make it any easier to solve this problem. Also there are much bigger problems that the U.S. is facing right now such as the 9% unemployment problem.
    I agree that unless Congress is not forced to act, they might not act at all. There needs to be initiative within our government. Someone needs to take charge and decide on a plan that will both raise taxes and cut government spending equally (for the most part). Overall Michael had the same views as me; also with the article blaming republicans being the strongest and the anti-Obama the weakest. Lastly, we as the young and upcoming generation are going to have to step up and solve the crisis we are in if we ever want the U.S. to be the strongest power in the world again.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I agree with Stephanie Merrill's view that the super-committee was an unfit solution. She made the argument that collaboration doesn't work well in our two party system, and that is definitely something that I agree with. She also brought up the point that the deadline still produced no results and only lead to higher tensions. This is not something that I had thought of before, but that really is the case.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Yes, it is important for us to reduce our federal deficit. Being trillions of dollars in debt is good for no one, especially future generations. This issue is especially important to me because my generation will have fewer workers than people collecting entitlements, such as Medicare, Medicaid and social security. The concern is that we won’t have any money left over after it’s used up. Solving the problem of the deficit will mean economic success or failure for our country, so it should be high on our priorities. If it is put in perspective, however, perhaps it is not the most important issue of our day. Maybe settling foreign disputes or taking care of the environment should be an even greater concern. Only time will tell.
    The “Super-Committee” was a good idea that was destined for failure because politicians fret that they won’t get reelected if they raise taxes or decrease benefits. Both of those actions were necessary to accomplish what they were asked to do.
    It’s hard to say which article was strongest and which was weakest. I’m sure that all three were written with passion and fury, since of course no one was pleased with the outcome of this endeavor, and when we are angry and close-minded there are gaps in our logic. The first article was convincing, lamenting over the “historic opportunity” that was lost and blaming those on the other side of the aisle for being stubborn and unwilling to compromise. I wasn’t very taken with the third article because while the president is an easy person to blame, and certainly is not without his faults on the issue of handling the deficit, I don’t think he could be expected to force six Republicans and six Democrats to work out their differences and hammer out a plan.
    If both taxes need to be raised and government spending needs to be cut, so be it. We need to do what it takes to dig ourselves out of this ditch, because the situation won’t get better on its own. It won’t be easy to make these sacrifices, and everyone will feel some pinch. However, we must remember that we are responsible because we all live here. Hopefully once we make some progress in cutting back, the economy will rally, we’ll make more money and the problem will be solved.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I understand Michael's frustration with the tendency of politicians to remain stubborn, even when the country is in dire need of their cooperation. They constantly feel pressure to represent their party and campaign for themselves--it is the nature of the system. However, they must learn to step on the toes of their own party, and perhaps to give up hopes of being elected again, to make real progress and real improvements.

    ReplyDelete
  37. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  38. HANNAH STUMP:

    As an American citizen, of coursed the national budget is always a topic of concern. And although I agree that it would be important for us to reduce our federal deficit as a way to try and climb out of the debt we have created, it is also somewhat risky. We could easily lift ourselves from debt by reducing the deficit, but what about after that? Would we have any money left over? I do think that the federal deficit is an important issue right now because our economy effects everything else we do. Although I think that areas of immigration and environment are important to be touched on, i think right now we need to focus on helping our economic situation. I like the idea of a Super Committee because it could bring the Democrats and Republicans together, and because the issue of the federal deficit is so large, it would help to have many committees of all political affiliations working together. I thought the article by Greg Sargant had the best argument because he was writing from the opinion of the people, which made him more relatable and easier to understand for someone my age. I thought the weakest argument came from the very last article because it was more focused on pointing fingers than it was on fixing the issue. I think the best way to solve the economy problem would be to raise taxes AND cut government spending. Doing just one won't solve our problems, it will just make people supporting the other side upset, so i think that doing both would be the most fair way.

    ReplyDelete
  39. HANNAH STUMP:

    I agree with Natalies statement that we are taking a risk in lowering the federal deficit. It is a common fear that once we solve the debt problem, we will have no money left, and that generations after us will suffer.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Hey everyone it's Mr. Silverman--great comments and discussion so far!

    Just wanted to clarify something based on some of the posts I've read; I don't think it's anything that messes up people's understanding of this topic, but it's important that we use correct terminology when discussing it:

    People often use the words "debt" and "deficit" interchangeably, but THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING! They are sometimes related to one another, especially with something as large and confusing as the federal budget, but let's understand the difference: "debt" is when we owe money to someone, often investors or foreign governments; "deficit" is when we spend more money than we bring in from tax revenues, as opposed to a SURPLUS, which is when you have more money coming in than you spend.

    The DEBT agreement that Congress reached earlier this year was sort of like our nation's credit card charges--they were approving money to be spent paying our bills for items we had already purchased. That's a separate thing from DEFICIT REDUCTION, which is about alleviating the situation that our government has more money going out than it does coming in. You can fix that by either having less money go out (spending cuts) or by having more money coming in (taxes), and this is what the Super-Committee (shockingly!) couldn't agree on.

    Hope that made sense--it's just a pet peeve of mine when even our elected officials mistakenly use those terms "debt" and "deficit" interchangebly, so I wanted to clear it up before our discussion went any further. Carry on!!

    ReplyDelete
  41. It's completely necessary to reduce our federal deficit for the sake of preserving our country, as it is the most prominent issue right now. Our government is spending money that they don't have which is cause for a major meltdown. The recession has impacted the entire country and without a solution, things are only going to get worse.
    The Super-Committee solution was not necessarily one that worked, but at least it tried to get something done about the deficit. Congress believed that if the two parties could get past their differences, then the solution would work. However, due to vastly conflicting ideas between parties, that was not possible.
    The argument made by Hensarling was the strongest in my opinion. Although he is clearly slanted in the Republican favor, he made strong points regarding the issue of the deficit and depicted the Democrats as incompetent and childlike. The article by Sargent was just as slanted, though in the opposite favor, yet did not provide an adequate argument for the Democrats.
    I am not going to pretend like I know what's best regarding the federal deficit because I definitely do not. However, I think both decreasing government spending and increasing tax revenues are needed to dig ourselves out of the deficit hole. There are sacrifices that our country needs to make and it won't be easy, but it has to be done to get our economy back on track.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I agree with Michael's comment that "inactivity is worse than failure". Not only regarding our country's deficit, but in every aspect of life it's a true statement. We must keep trying new ideas to solve the problems at hand or else nothing will get done.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I believe that it is very important to reduce our federal deficit because if we keep growing the federal deficit then we will eventually go bankrupt. We are already so far back that it might not even be possible to get out with the work that Congress is putting into the problem. We’re only digging a deeper hole for ourselves by borrowing money (while having to pay interest) and soon I foresee us never being able to come back as strong as we used to be. We will no longer be the leading superpower. This issue is probably the number one issue facing our country today, at least I believe so. When I graduate from college and move on out into the “real world” I hope that I can work in an economy that isn’t suffering like we are now. I want to be able to make enough money to support myself, heck; I just want to be able to get a job! I’m not excited to have to pay extremely high taxes and work for paychecks that can barely get me through the month, I want to live comfortably; we need to get rid of the deficit. I really don’t think a ‘supercommittee’ is a good idea. As we have already seen, when people are forced to do something in a high stress environment with little time to do it, they blow up. Especially when they’re working with people of differing views. The Democrats and Republicans will never come to terms and we will never solve this problem. We need to take a long while to figure this out (relatively speaking) and relax. Being stressed is only going to cause us to make crack decisions that don’t really work just to make a deadline. Hensarling wrote the stronger article out of the three. He obviously knew what he was talking about and he made much stronger points than the other two articles. He stated how Democrats “were unwilling to agree to anything less than $1 trillion in tax hikes—and unwilling to offer any structural reforms to put our health-care entitlements on a permanently sustainable basis.” That’s pretty much what he covered throughout his article, while also stating how the Republican’s wanted to make changes to Medicare and Medicaid. The other two article’s just went on and on about how they were right and didn’t really provide concrete enough details. The weakest article by far was Greg Sargent’s. I felt like I was reading a high school paper and it just didn’t convince me as to why the Democrat’s were in the right. Maybe he should take notes from Hensarling and try again. I believe that we should decrease government spending in our country. I know neither of the choices will make American’s very happy, but I think that decreasing spending will be taken a little more lightly even if American’s believe in their entitlements. Why should we allow incumbents to pay millions on their campaigns? Why should we pay so much for the arts (sorry art programs)? We really need to get down to the basics and only pay for things that we NEED. That’s the only way we’re going to solve this deficit problem.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I too agree with Nicholas on this subject. We the people cannot put all the blame on the sitting president. The real problem lies with the Democrats and Republicans. The president will be changing every 4 years anyways, so his or her opinion/solutions won't matter as much as theirs. Democrats and Republicans need to compromise in order for anything to get done. If they don't, then we're in a world of trouble, literally.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I think the federal deficit is a HUGE deal to deal with. It is something that effects everyone, poor and rich. Plus, instead of paying for things in the United States (such as hiring people) we are paying money to China. Alexander Hamilton was the first person to really take charge of the federal deficit, and I truly admire him for that. I think that the concept of 'Super Committees' is good, but realistically it's tedious. We already have more than enough committees we definitely do not need anymore. Took much organization because a waste. Like when you are on your computer and have folder inside folder, all for one file. Then you think to yourself, well that was a waste. But, I think forcing Congress to make decisions is good because without it, they could leave us all in limbo forever potentially. I thought the strongest article was the one by Hensarling. This is not surprising seeing that I usually associate with Republicans, but I felt what he had to say was very current and definitely well thought out. The least impressive was the Sargant article. It just blamed Republicans, which really did nothing. Republicans did not create this debt alone, it is an issue of national importance. Personally, I think that government spending should be decreased, but realistically we can't cut it down that much. As much as increasing taxes is a burden on all, it is in my opinion the most efficient way to decrease the deficit.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I agree with Garret's post about decreasing money for incumbents. I think that while it's important to get their names out there, those people supporting them should put their money to better use. Getting someone elected is one thing, but without this deficit at least greatly lessened, those people in office will be somewhat useless. With the deficit hanging over all of America's head, we are stuck in a mucky situation to say the least. First we should bond together as a nation to eliminate it, then create plans to keep it's numbers down, and elect people that share our ideological opinions.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I believe that it is important to reduce our federal deficit. If we do not find a way to solve the problem now, it is going to continue to increase and finding a solution is only going to get harder. I feel that this is a very important issue because it has impact on everyone, regardless of age, political party, race, etc. I think that the deficit it quite possibly the most important issue facing us today. The “Super-Committee” seems like a good idea because it brings two groups with differing beliefs together and tries to get them to compromise. Unfortunately, the act of compromising is quite difficult for these two groups, making the “Super-Committee” less effective. But, forcing Congress to act by a certain date could result in a solution that isn’t as well thought-out. Overall, I think the idea of a “Super-Committee” is nice but maybe not completely realistic. I think that Hensarling’s article was the strongest due to its convincing wording and the facts that it provided. I felt that the other two articles were more focused on pointing fingers and trying to appear as if their party was completely willing to work with the other party. I believe that both a decrease in government spending as well as a small increase in tax revenues is the best solution available right now. This is because it would not really favor either party, both would probably not be completely satisfied, but it might be the best compromise possible.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I agree with Michael that regardless of what the solution is, things need to be tried and something needs to be done to at least attempt to solve the problem. We have waited with the problem long enough, but at some point a possible solution needs to be put into place.

    ReplyDelete
  49. I highly doubt that there is a soul in the United States that deems reducing the federal deficit unimportant. The federal government has exemplified that increasing government spending, as well as tax revenues, is not improving our country's economic standpoint. Although this is a very simplistic approach, I do believe that the government should decrease spending, because the former case is obviously not working. As Albert Einstein once said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
    I do believe that this "Super-committee" is a good idea, despite the team not accomplishing anything. Although it's goals weren't realistic in the slightest bit, it was at least an attempt by politicians to improve the problem. Unfortunately, this was yet another example of how our country remains distinctly divided.
    As for the articles, I felt that all three were extremely biased. It doesn't help that I'm not as educated as I should be on our current economic situation, so it was hard to discern the truth in them. Both the Democrat and Republican articles were attempting to displace ALL of the blame on the other one, which makes it very difficult for a moderate reader to believe the point the authors were attempting to make. Because of this, I felt that the article pointing fingers at Obama was the least right-leaning or left-leaning, and therefore held the least amount of bias. The author's political ideologies did not intervene with the facts to the degree that the other two did.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I agree with Natalie's comment that only time will tell whether this issue should be regarded as the most important or not, for there are pressing environmental matters that could be even more detrimental to the US population than the deficit is now.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I think that the deficit problem is by far one of the most important one we face today. With our generation going to school and looking for jobs, we need money in our system in order to do so successfully. So I feel it especially concerning to the kids in our generation. I think this issue is higher up on the list because it is essentially every American being affected by this. Of course the issue of gay rights and such are an important one to our nation but I think the deficit trumps all (with the exception to the war on terrorism). I think the idea of hte super committee is great one. Come hell or high water we have to fix this problem, being in $1 trillion dollars worth of debt is not something you can ignore. Its good that the government is combing two sides of congress to fix our nation as a whole. I think the article blaming Obama is the least compelling. You can not blame one man for all of our nations problems, its just not possible. I think Hensarling has the most important things to say and said it with conviction and the best wording. I have to say I don't think taxing is the best idea. I think you have to put good in to get good out. If we invest money into more organization to take the burden off of state and local government we will see an improvment

    ReplyDelete
  52. I feel that it is highly crucial for our government to work towards reducing the national deficit. If no further actions are made, it will only continue to get worse and the country may not recover from it. This is an issue that has a huge impact on everyone living in the country. The "Super-Committee" seemed like it had all of the right ideas of how to work towards reducing the deficit, but the efforts are clearly not working. However, I think that the government should try and pursue this. I do believe that the kinks can be worked out and it could be the solution to the national deficit. I also feel that the national deficit is a huge cause of bigger problems in America. Unemployment is something that I would consider to be a bigger issue, but it is rooted from the national deficit.
    I felt that in the three articles about the "Super-Committee," the authors were just blaming other people. None of the articles were directed at new solutions or what was done right, they all just pointed fingers.

    ReplyDelete
  53. I agree with Nicole because I do believe that the Super-Committe is a good way to try and bring the two parties together to try and compromise. Yet, they had trouble compromising, making it much less effective than it could have been.

    ReplyDelete
  54. It is very important to reduce our federal deficit it is something that is not just going to go away until we take the proper steps that are needed to fix it. It is very hard to get things passed when there are two different parties that have completely differing views on the way that America should go to fix it. If there was a way to make the Super-Committee idea work out I feel like that would be the best idea but it just seems like there is no way that two completely different sides can agree on it. The first writer of the first article seemed to know the most about what he was talking about. He knew both sides agruements and seemed to know them very well. To me the best solution would have to be to try to find an idea that would work for both sides and also fix America as fast as possible. I also still think that Obamas idea to tax the rich is one of the better ideas out there not to a degree to where richer people are being punished but to where it can give American needed money.

    ReplyDelete
  55. I think the Michael makes some great points and also uses the example of Alexander Hamilton and the “national blessing very well. And he is right the United States keeps on spending more and more money going further into debt trying to reduce federal deficit.

    ReplyDelete
  56. I believe that it is extremely important to reduce the federal deficit because ten percent of the government’s total revenue is going simply to pay our debt, meaning we get nothing for it. This amount will only increase unless we immediately do something to curb our deficit spending and this is why reducing our federal deficit is so critical.
    I feel that this and the economy are the two most important issues facing America today. The economy may be the most important because if it doesn’t get any better it will make it that much more difficult to try to reduce our deficit so we have to get back to a basic principle of not spending more than we take in.
    Even though the super committee was basically a failure I believe that its idea must be utilized in the future. We have found through history that Congress, on its own, is never going to solve the deficit. Somehow we have to force the two parties to come together and make the hard decisions that are necessary to get us out of this debilitating situation.
    On the subject of these three articles, I would say that Sargent’s article was my least favorite while Hensarling’s was probably my favorite or at least the most well-written of the three. Hensarling seems to have better credibility compared to the other two, showing the readers what has actually gone on instead of pointing out facts that anyone could find on the internet.
    Although I feel like there are huge wastes in government spending and that billions of dollars can easily be saved by simply running programs more efficiently, I still feel like there is no way we can address the problem by solely cutting expenses. Some new tax revenues will be necessary but, as usual, the main question is: Where do these taxes come from? The usual way would be to simply tax the rich but is that really the solution since the wealthy are the only ones spending money in this economy? If we take away more of their spending money what will that do to the economy?

    ReplyDelete
  57. I agree with Michael for the most part but I don’t agree with his idea of taxing the rich. As I said above, taxing the rich would further our economic downfall. Since the wealthy are the only people spending money during these times, taking any more of that money will lead to them spending less and, in turn, the economy will slowly disintegrate. What about taxing everything other than food so that anyone who is spending on other items pays a share of what they’re spending. People who are wealthy will be spending much more money and therefore paying more taxes whereas people making less will be buying fewer items and therefore paying less tax.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Along with most, if not all, of the commenters on this blog, I believe that it is of vital importance to reduce our federal deficit. I fear that our federal government may soon be crippled by the debt and the deficit causing our debt to grow at such an alarming rate. Without adequate funding and without good credit, the government will not be effective. Overall, I think that everyone is worried most about the deficit, high unemployment, and the bad shape of the economy. I think that these issues are significantly more important than any others.
    In my opinion, the “super-committee” was a nice thought: have members of both parties get together to solve the deficit problem and give them a hard deadline with consequences. However, Congress’s plan to force action in addressing the issue of the deficit clearly did not work, and the super-committee failed despite the threat of cuts across the board.
    I thought that all of the articles were fairly weak, but the article by Hensarling was the strongest. He provided specific examples as to what led to the super-committee’s failure. Even though he did point fingers, he did so gently and conceded that they had noble intentions although by doing so, he implied that the Democrats were incompetent. I think that Sargent’s article was the weakest. He boldly claimed that the Republicans refusal to allow higher taxes on the rich led to the committee’s failure and that anyone who did not say so is trying to deceive you. I believe that Gerson’s article is also weak. Even if the president could have put more pressure on the committee, it is not his job to do so, and I doubt that it would have been effective. Overall, I felt that all of the articles were weak due partly to the fact that they focused only on one issue as the cause of the committee’s failure. Whereas there are no doubt many facets to the super-comittee’s task.
    I think that both decreasing government spending and increasing tax revenues is necessary to solve the deficit issue. The world is not black and white and we will not be able to find a clear black and white answer to our problem.

    ReplyDelete
  59. I agree with Garrett, there is much spending that can be cut just by becoming more efficient in spending and cutting programs that are not desperately needed.

    ReplyDelete
  60. By the way, I heard about this game on NPR in which you can balance the budget (or at least attempt to).
    http://www.marketplace.org/topics/economy/budget-hero

    ReplyDelete
  61. Personally, I think it is incredibly important to decrease the federal deficit. All of the federal government spending is harsh on the American people. I think that it is unfair that they are spending so much of our tax money on things that, in all honesty, I don’t think we need. Though, I will admit that we shouldn’t eliminate the federal deficit, I just believe that we should make it smaller.

    The issue is kind of important to me. Though, I definitely believe there are other issues I care more about—i.e. Gay Rights—I think that the federal deficit is a crucial factor. Sometimes I worry about how big the deficit is going to be when I’m an adult, or when my kids—once I adopt them—are adults. I worry, maybe unreasonably, that if we don’t fix the problem now, it will just keep growing into a giant metaphorical monster.

    After reading about the ‘Super-Committee’, I think the idea is great, but I don’t believe it was executed properly. I don’t believe Congress should be ‘forced’ to help with the deficit problem, I think that they should want to help. I believe that Congress should work together in peace as is—with a little bit of in-fighting because that’s how progress happens. Right now, I think that things are so back-and-forth that Congress isn’t getting anything done. Overall, the Super-Committee idea was great, but it wasn’t done right.

    Personally, I thought that the second article argued best. It had quite a few ‘factual’ citations, and presented the argument quite well. Though, I’m pretty much biased, I liked this article best.

    The third article, attacking President Obama, was the worst. It really had nothing important to say, and was honestly not very convincing. It was weak, and there were so many holes in it that it was nearly Swiss Cheese. Overall, I didn’t like any of the articles. Pointing blame is silly, and they should just find a way to fix it and stop bickering.

    I believe some of both would be best. By decreasing government spending and increasing taxes, I believe that the deficit would reduce a lot faster. It would cut less important things we spend money on, and the tax increase could help pay off the things that we actually need, ultimately digging us out of the hole that we’re in. That’s my opinion, and I’m sticking to it.

    ReplyDelete
  62. I completely agree with Liza. I think that it is ridiculous that instead of making jobs for the people in our own country that we're paying money to China and the like. I think that we should come together as a country and find a way out of this, instead of just pointing fingers at anyone or anyone party. Ultimately, I think she just really knew what she was talking about-- even though I believed that the second article was best and she thought it was worst. I appreciated her outlook.

    ReplyDelete
  63. In our trouble economy, I feel it is very important to reduce federal spending. It needs to be done tactfully though. I feel if drastic tax increase or drastic budget cuts are initialized, they could cause more trouble than they are worth. I think we need to take into account both sides of the argument and come up with a solution that best fits the country at this time.
    Though I feel the federal deficit is important, there are other issues I feel are more pertinent. Defense, the war on terror, and the high unemployment rate I think are all issues that we need to think about in the short term before the federal deficit. The deficit has been building for a long time, while these other issues are more in the short term time frame.
    I think the idea of a super-committee is a good; however I don’t think the consequences were well thought out. I can understand putting a deadline, however I think for an issue as large as this, the time should be increased, and instead of cuts across the board they should be better thought out. For example, I don’t think that this is really a good time to be cutting defense spending. If something similar to 911 were to happen again or we were to go to war, the deficit would be forgotten, and if we cut spending and are unable to defend ourselves and respond to threats we are leaving ourselves vulnerable.
    The article I thought made the best argument was the first one. It gave good examples of how the Republicans laid out a budget plan that would cut 1.2 trillion, with minimum tax increases, and the Democrats refused it. I think this effectively argued the authors ideas that the Democrats were mostly to blame for the failure of the budget deal.
    Though the second article started out with anti-Republican sentiments, but I felt it actually did a better job showing the flaws of the Democrat members of the super-committee. The article said the Republicans had raised tax revenue by a “modest” 300 billion, and still accomplished the federal budget goal. I feel the Democrats in the committee realize that they can’t just keep increasing taxes and expecting people to not want to throw them out of office.
    I support a mix of the budget proposals. I think that while we need to cut spending, we should also increase revenue, but not by the amount the Democrats want. I like the concessions plan the Republicans came up with in the super-committee and I think the Democrats were unwise to refuse it.

    ReplyDelete
  64. I agree with Cassie that congress needs to quit fighting. The back and forth nature of the legislative process does guarantee checks on all issues, but in this case I think they need to quit fighting and work together. We are after all citizens of the same country, and I feel sometimes they forget who they are representing.

    ReplyDelete
  65. -I think it is extremely important that our federal deficit is reduced. As a major world power, it's unacceptable that we are in debt and our currency is loosing its value. If we are in debt to other countries, then we have no power and are in debt to them, so they control us. This cannot be good for the well being of our country, i believe we need to work toward being completely independent, out of debt, and get back to a our top economic status.
    -This issue is second most important to me, with clean energy being first. I think it is ridiculous that we elect people to make decisions for the country and handle conflict with economy, but they cant do their job correctly. Renewable energy is most important only because if we run out of oil the whole world will be in trouble.
    -Yes, i think a super committee is good for the problems with the federal defect. The indecisiveness of congress with the issues of balancing the budget was unacceptable, and i think they need to have more incentive to make decisions, compromise, and get along with the opposite party.
    -I think that the Obama article was the best, because i could sense it was based more on actual facts than opinions, and it was less biased.
    -The democrat and republican articles seemed just to be pointing fingers, and not offering real reasons for what happened when everyone was to blame for not compromising.
    -I agree with decreasing government spending to approach the deficit reduction. I don't think the government has the right to tax the rich more just because they couldn't do their job. They need to figure out how to save money and reduce spending, not solve their problems by taxing the rich who had nothing to do with creating the deficit.

    ReplyDelete
  66. -I agree with loshki (lauren fish). I think that the democrats and republicans are just pointing fingers at each other and need to step back, examine their own actions, and work together to solve the problem. I also agree that they need to decrease government spending. She made an excellent point about how taxing hasn't worked in the past, and i enjoyed her Albert Einstein quote to explain this concept.

    ReplyDelete
  67. I think fixing our deficit is a pretty darn important task. Being in severe debt hinders our government to a great extent. We're stuck in a rut trying to figure out trivial tax cuts and adjusting our spending to escape our debt. That is not where we want to be as a country. I think reducing the deficit is important because of what we could be spending money on. Instead of digging ourselves out of a hole, we could be funding scientific development and ensuring America is a competitive and modern country.
    Reducing the federal deficit is very important to me. Even though it isn't something tangible I see in front of me everyday, it still matters. It matters to me because I want to live in a country I can be proud of. We could be so much more than we are, but we're weighed down by a huge debt. That doesn't exactly send a message of advancement and national pride.
    I think the Super-Committee idea was in the right place. A gridlocked legislature is not something a country needs when action is necessary for fixing our problems. If Congress can't act by itself, forcing itself to do something just has to be done.
    I ranked the articles' strength in the order they were presented to me. The first article just had the most professional appearance, in my eyes. It was structured and presented its argument like...well, like a professional writer would. The least effective article, the one blaming Obama just didn't scream "I know what I'm talking about" as much to me. The guy's title is even "opinion writer." How much faith am I supposed to put into that..?
    As far as actually reducing the budget goes, I'd say I'm mostly in favor of reducing government spending. I think a lot of money gets wasted on people and projects that really don't need or deserve the money. But of course, increasing tax revenue would speed up the reduction of our deficit, at the cost of paying more. But that would only last so long. Once the deficit is fixed, taxes could be lowered to more reasonable levels. There are a lot of potential solutions to the problem and I think a mixed approach would yield the best results.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Of course it is important to reduce the federal deficit. I believe it is the most important issue that faces our country today. We cant just raise taxes willy nilly…because the deficit would get worse. But we cant just cut government spending all together because our citizens have now become dependent on the programs that the federal government employs. We need to find a happy medium between the two extremes. In theory the super committee was a good idea, but it failed because there were too many opposing opinions within the committee itself. Nothing can get done when there is a equal dead lock of opposing ideas within the same committee. It forced Congress to look at the deficit but it pretty much made sure that we couldn’t do anything about it. All three articles were just pointing fingers. Who did what when is not the problem. All three of the groups blamed in the article were responsible in some part for the lack of action in the committee. But, Henslar made a great point when he said: “the Democrats were unwilling to agree to anything less than $1 trillion in tax hikes—and unwilling to offer any structural reforms to put our health-care entitlements on a permanently sustainable basis.” If the republicans were unable to make head way on their agenda how can the democrats expect to get anything in return? The second article was definitely the weakest. The author actually drew the validity of the democrats from the amount of concessions made (the republicans had only made one when the democrats made two). And the only real convincing arguments in the entire paper weren’t even made by the author but cited by the New York Times. I really feel like less spending is the way to go. By taxing the people more we are just creating less of a possibility of putting money back into the country through spending on American products.

    ReplyDelete
  69. I agree with Dylan Palmers analysis of the government spending. By taxing us more and using it on programs like welfare we are just teaching those poorer Americans that they depend on someone for the rest of their lives. Yes some people are born into great wealth...but most people who are wealthy have to painstakingly work for it why should they be punished for their hard work with higher taxes just so they can take care of other people who dont have the motivation t do it themselves? We as a nation cant keep taking care of everyone. We need to stop programs where we send money to African and Eastern European countries. Soon we will find ourselves in the same, if not worse situations. Now I am ranting. Basically the mixed approach is the best way to go. There is no one right answer we will most likely have to try a few different programs out to find the sweet spot for our economic recovery plan.

    ReplyDelete
  70. I think Kyana posted a well written response. A lot of what she had to say lined up with what I thought, too. I agree about the fact that the deficit is an important topic and needs to be fixed, along with everyone else. I also thought the committe was a well-intentioned idea, but I wouldn't write off its whole existence as a failure just yet. The committe was created with a mindset of either finding a way to succeed or forcing across the board cuts. While the committee failed in finding the alternative it was made to find, it's failure will still ensure a cut of some sort. So in a way, Congress forced its own hand and the committee idea worked to some extent.

    ReplyDelete
  71. I think it is important to reduce the federal deficit because the economic state that we're in doesn't allow us to be spending more than we have. I think issue is important because it has a hand in other issues. If we keep borrowing money it could effect how money on the government. I think the super-committee was a good idea because it forced congress to work together in an attempt to formulate a solid plan to reduce the deficit. I thought the first article had the strongest arguments. It only makes sense to spend less when your in debt not more. Which adds to the point why Obama and his party leaders would want to add trillions on new health-care. I thought the last article has the weakest argument because he wasn't really trying to prove point he was just dragging on Obama. I think that just decreasing government spending would enough because no one wants higher taxes, especially on this economy.

    ReplyDelete
  72. I agree with Sam, Defense and the war and terror are both issues that are government should concentrate on. Along with the fact that the consequences for the super-committee were also a little off and maybe not well thought out.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Reducing the federal deficit is a very important issue to amend. I feel like Congress needs to act now and develop a system that will get us out of this deficit. All hope is not lost though. We are slowly decreasing the size of the federal deficit. According to usgovernmentspending.com, the deficit has decreased from 1,293 billion to 1,101 billion. Congress' inability to compromise will have drastic consequences in the long run, especially for the next generation (us!!!!) Because this directly affects our future, the issue of the federal deficit is an important one. With a 9% unemployment rate, our generation is forced to deal with whatever work we can find, and that can truly hinder our primary intentions towards achieving our own personal goals. As for the articles, I felt that each one had a different approach, but i felt like the second one was the strongest. The second article provided the reader with textual evidence from the New York Times and illuminating the trickery the Republicans attempted to use. Although the article starts off with "pointing the finger," I feel like this article truly captures the essence of Congress. This is why nothing can be done. It's because Congress refuses to work together and cooperate with one another. By this rate, Congress won't accomplish anything. I didn't really care for the Obama article because I feel like it doesn't provide the reader with substantial evidence and instead reverts to finger-pointing. As far as fixing the deficit, we need to increase tax revenue. An increase in tax revenue means more money into projects and job opportunities, thus reducing our deficit.

    ReplyDelete
  74. I agree with Kyana on the issue of the Super Committee. The idea was new and different, which is what Congress needs to be doing. But, like Kyana, I feel like forcing people to sit in a room, debunk all of their political ties, and come up with a acceptable negotiation seems a bit wistful. I would disagree with how the second article was structured. I liked how the author used the New York Times, a credible news source, to support his claims. Although he clearly pointed the finger, I feel like, all of the aside, the author did a fine job presenting the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  75. In my opinion, the government should be working to reduce the federal deficit. It just seems unreasonable that we are spending money that we don’t have. I understand that it is difficult with the recession because the government is trying to stimulate the economy but it seems like they don’t have the funding available to do that. Also, I don’t necessarily think the “super-committee” is the greatest idea. It seems like the goals were unrealistic and that the support was really black and white with no gray area in between. For the most part it appeared as if people either fully supported it or were very against it. Maybe by creating a less extreme “super-committee” would be the best route to go. As for each of the articles, they all were very biased against the opposing party. It frustrated me that instead of proposing solutions, the authors were just pointing fingers. Overall, though, I definitely think that a modified version of the “super-committee” could be greatly effective and that if instead of fighting one another our politicians chose to work with each other the committee would be much more efficient in completing their tasks.

    ReplyDelete
  76. I agree with Emilee in that the super committee had some good ideas but there were too many opposing viewpoints for it to be really effective. I definitely think that the government should attempt to modify it so it would be less extreme. I also agree with her in that reducing government spending is the way to go. Yes, there has to be money stimulating the economy, but if taxes aren't raised, than people are more likely to spend money, which stimulates the economy without excessive government intervention.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Honestly, I'd like to say that our federal deficit is our number 1 priority. We are so far in debt that almost everything else we do to make a difference in this country. It has actually come to the point whereas if the federal government employed people to do work for them, well at least it's a paying jib where they can actually have something to eat. A lot of people are head over heels with issues such as abortion, gay marriage and immigration. Personally, the only one I really care about is the abortion issue however, I'm not going to start a controversial argument. I believe that focusing on immigration is a big waste of time right now because that would just result in more deficit spending. When it comes down to it, I feel as if less government spending is necessary and that we should all work together like during FDR's time period. Hey, that got us out of the depression. Many people say it was world war 2 but this world war is bringing us down. I'm also sick of congress fighting all the time. Senators and representatives should just grow up and actually get something done. The 1st article, I thought it was very informative and very straight forward about the issue of federal deficit. Bravo to that one. The 2nd article was a little bit too biased so I did not favor it too well. The 3rd one attacking Obama is clearly biased. It's not all his fault and it's not that he did a lot of bad it's just that he did not do too much good. Anyway I thought that these articles were interesting and I am glad to express my opinions to you all.

    ReplyDelete
  78. I believe it is important to reduce the federal deficit because it is hurting us as an international leader. Without good credit rating and help from economically successful countries, our country is going to lose respect and power. If this happens, there is no telling when we would be able to pull out of the deficit. I feel this is a very important issue because it directly affects everyone by creating a recession. Loans are harder to come by, jobs are nearly impossible to find and if people are unable to provide themselves and their families with basic things, no other problem (except for something like national security) is more important. I think the super-committee is a good idea on paper, but seeing as they have down little to nothing since their creation, I think it has become a bad idea. If Congress cant get their act together why should a committee made up of people from Congress be expected to work? I believe Greg Sargent had the beset article because he spoke for the people more than for his party. Compared to the article by Jeb Hensarling, which just put the blame on the Democrats, and the article that put the blame on Obama, this is definitely the best. It had some party favoring, but it wasn't as obvious as the other two articles. I personally have no idea where to start when trying to solve the deficit problem. The debt has become so large that I don't believe there is one way to solve it. I think a combination of decreasing government spending and increasing tax revenues would help the economy. This would cut the amount of money being spent and simultaneously increase the amount of money the government is receiving.I think other things will be needed to get rid of this deficit, but my knowledge of this issue isn't that great, therefore I don't know what those other things are.

    ReplyDelete
  79. I agree with Emilee when she said the super-committee will not work because the two opposing sides to not know how to compromise. I think that is the number one problem with our government in general. Politicians are so hung up with reelection that they will only do what they think their party wants, rather than what they want. Because of this, nothing is getting done. I believe that it is better to try and fail than never try at all.

    ReplyDelete
  80. In Response to Maddy Streifer: I agree with what you had to say for the most part. I too think that our government is just messing itself up by spending money that we do not have. It's like an irresponsible imbecile using a credit card and getting into the deepest debt possible. I also like your idea of a moderate super committee. If we had a system like that, we would have people from both sides working together in a cooperative matter. If only our committee can just cooperate for just once in this modern era so that we could all climb out of this and strive as a nation once again.

    ReplyDelete
  81. I absolutely believe our government should be working to reduce our federal deficit. The first step in doing so would have to stop with spending money we don't have. It's a little scary realizing that our generation will be facing these problems ourselves in a very short amount of time. I see no harm in forcing a super committee in attempt of facing this growing problem head on.
    I believe the first article by Hensarling was probably the strongest. He seemed the most knowledgeable of the three authors.
    The Washington Post articles seemed to me as more 'run of the mill' articles which little tangible, factual evidence. Of the two though, the second article appeared to me as the weakest.
    Overall, I like the idea of cutting spending rather than increasing taxes or a combo of both. We (literally) cannot afford to spend any more.

    ReplyDelete
  82. I do feel that the reduction of our federal deficit is important, because it has a direct impact on the economy. If we don’t do anything about reducing the federal deficit, the national debt will keep increasing which is obviously not something that is good for the country. The way the country spends its money is something that affects everyone in the country.
    In regards to something like the ‘Super-Committee’, I feel as if it is a good idea as Congress is getting more involved in doing something about the federal deficit and working to get it to a lower amount. The fact that the government is actually wanting to pay attention to the way is spending is obviously a good thing and the fact that Congress is a body of people in which some of them have the power to enforce laws on taxes and revenue and that they actually are trying to work to solve the problem of a national debt as a result of how much we spend in comparison to what we all collectively bring to the country is incredibly necessary.
    Out of the three articles, the second one had the best argument, because it was strong in what it was trying to say and it basically laid out for you the motives of each party and the real, “easier-to-understand” issue at hand, and what truly is the conflict. I have to say that last article made the weakest argument, because it just didn’t seem as convincing and there wasn’t so much of a real issue that I could get out of it. And to be honest, I guess I just get thrown off when people just immediately blame the president for such a huge problem.
    Lastly, I’m not exactly sure which would be the better thing to do—decrease government spending or increase tax revenue. I just know that things must be done in order to save our economy and get it back to a healthier point and decrease our federal deficit. Perhaps a little bit of both would be good, but I might see decreasing government spending probably to be easier to carry out as increasing tax revenue might just rub the majority of people the wrong way as many people just hate paying higher taxes anyways.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Yes, I think it’s important to reduce our federal deficit because it will make a big impact on federal programs and affect our economy. It’s said that $1 trillion discretionary spending has been cut under Budget Control Act 2011 and that seems pretty outrageous. In my opinion though, “Super Committee” doesn’t seem as much of an important issue to me if it doesn’t have too much of a direct connection to the people. The 2nd opinion article said that there was too much focus on this and that it’s not as important as other issues like unemployment. I agree with this, and think that the focus should be more on finding people jobs because that’s one of the greatest issues to the common person. I think that article two was one of the stronger articles. I think one of the weaker articles is article 3, because it blamed the president and I don’t think that something is ever only just a president’s fault. There is always a bunch of other people in charge of decision making and those people need to be taken into account too. The Super-committee idea seems good in theory, but really it seems to just be causing more trouble. People arguing over the cause of its failure or whose fault it is, doesn’t bring any progress. The idea that congress is forced to act in addressing the federal deficit seems natural and appropriate because I don’t know who else would be better for the job. I think that I agree with reducing deficit spending and increasing tax revenue (if that’s possible haha). I think there are positives to both and I don’t have much of a strong opinion on either side. If you can have both, a little bit of everything is always good because you need to have a sense of balance.

    ReplyDelete
  84. I agreed with Abby when she said the problem of the national debt has become so large it's hard to find one way to solve it. I think we should try to solve it from all angles if necessary, and possible.

    ReplyDelete
  85. I agree with Nick Velez. I think that is very important for this issue to be solved because we are the ones who are going to be paying for it. Congress needs to compromise and act quickly. I also loved the fact that you did some extra research!! :)

    ReplyDelete
  86. I agree with Michael Bigham when he says that party affiliation amongst members of Congress plays such a significant (and irritating) role in the way, and that is what is getting in the way of the work Congress can really be doing. Compromise is something that I definitely feel is something that should be explored more and when Michael talks about the "middle road", it's something that should be taken. In addition, he also mentions taxing the rich more would help, which I see is something that can aid the economy in getting to a better position.

    ReplyDelete
  87. in response to Candace: After reading her response, I thought a again and realized that that yah, the 1st article does seem the strongest because it's more factual and filled with meaty details. The other two articles do seem just more dramatic, and to grab the public's attention.

    ReplyDelete
  88. When maintaining a balanced budget is a problem, everything else is pushed aside. Our government needs to find a solution to the federal deficit immediately so that it can carry out its basic role and service for the people rather than encumbering them.

    It seems like the solution to the federal deficit will involve many solutions to other national dilemmas. Health care, tax reform, and unemployment can and should be all addressed in a federal deficit solution, so reducing the deficit is of significant interest to me and, of course, the nation.

    The articles mentioned how the president and members of congress didn’t have much to lose and could even stand to gain something if the Super-Committee failed. Although engineering a pressing incentive sounds like a good idea to me, it doesn’t seem to have worked.

    Article 1 made the strongest argument due to the breadth of detailed supporting evidence. As a true insider, the author explained specific details of Republican deals, highlighting good reasoning and concessions.

    Article 2 made the weakest article as it attempted to simplify what is clearly a complex problem. While both articles 1 and 2 attributed the breakdown of negotiations to one origin (taxation), article 1 failed to explain any other aspects of the negotiation. Notice how the closest mention to health care and tax reform in article 2 is a tiny sentence near the end.

    I think everyone would agree that a balance of cuts and taxes is the best route since embarking on the extremes of either path is damaging for all. I believe spending cuts should weigh more heavily than raising taxes, but I’m keenly interested knowing the effects of cutting/reforming programs like health care. How desperately do people need them? Why did they become so necessary in the first place?

    ReplyDelete
  89. I agree with Chad in that the third article provided unconvincing evidence of Obama’s letting the committee fail. As a campaign strategy, Obama would just be creating an even more severe crisis to fix if he actually was reelected in 2012. The speeches of both Obama and Speaker Boehner hinted at intense, if not acrimonious, behind the scenes negotiations which the president would have obviously been very interested in.

    ReplyDelete
  90. I agree with Candace who agreed with Abby. It's hard to say that one way will solve all the problems. As much as I know we don't have time and the resources for this, I think it'll be a bit of trial and error when it comes to solving the deficit.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.