Most experts will tell you that Congress' primary responsibility is to determine what the U.S. government should spend our money on..... or in this case, what to stop spending our money on. While a portion on "our money" comes from tax revenue, it is not the only source. Nonetheless, Americans have opinions, and of course- not everyone agrees.
Right now there is a battle brewing between fiscal conservative Tea Party Republicans and Progressive Liberals. These two groups could not be more opposite in their beliefs on spending.
Part of our debt ceiling increase bill from last week was that a 12-member Congressional "super committee" will convene to determine what to CUT out of our annual federal budgets to decrease overall government spending.
Each political party is pledging to appoint committee members that are going to "stand firm" on not cutting their individual strongholds. Some key strongholds are defense, social security, medicare, etc.
Please read these to articles:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/08/us/politics/08panel.html?ref=politics
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/07/big-mandate-low-expectations-greet-super-committee-on-debt-reduction/
Now, I realize you are new to evaluating decisions Congress makes and having opinions on what they "should do". But Economic Policy Development is a major part of the AP Gov exam and helps with AP MicroEcon topics too. So.......
How do you think this committee is going to go? Will they compromise? Why or why not? What are your expectations and what do you think the possible consequences or successes might be....?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
66 comments:
I have low expectations and high hopes for the committee. The United States' congresspeople have a tendency to hold out and stand by their beliefs until the last possible moment (as was evident with the raising of the debt ceiling). Because of this, I expect the committee to rush a last-minute compromise thrown together on the final day of its existence. Furthermore, I doubt that this compromise will pass both houses of Congress due to the polarization of political parties today.
The consequences of any plan that is passed to solve the debt problem are (of course) decreases in entitlement programs as well as tax increases for the rich. If a compromise is reached, it will without a doubt include these two conditions. The Democrats will fight for tax increases, while Republicans will try to do away with entitlement programs.
The benefits, on the other hand, would be a decrease in national debt (hopefully) and public awareness that the economy of the United States is not as perfect as the public so mindlessly believed. Awareness leads to action, so I have high hopes for Congress in the coming months.
Re: Mitch
I share your high hopes and agree with the awareness line. But we should also expect more from our government after we become more aware of how bad it is at controlling our nation's finances.
I also agree with Obama's and Boehner's "grand bargain". The present goal of 1.5 trillion in cuts is next to nothing compared to how bad off we've become. In the Fox article, it says, "Even if the committee is successful, $2.1 trillion is not enough to satisfy S&P, especially as the debt is still set to increase by as much as $13 trillion over the next 10 years." It would be very bad to increase our staggering debt through high rates caused by the debt. It's a vicious whirlpool that we should not want to fall into.
I think we can tax the rich a bit more, but they already carry most of the taxes. For most of the debt though, we need to look into deep cuts in medicare, social security and whatever else trillions of our dollars are going to.
If you've read Undercover Economist, go look at Singapore's healthcare system. I believe it's awesome. "typical Singaporean lives to eighty" "typical Singaporean pays 700 privately (the average American pays 2500 privately)" "the government spends $300 per person (seven times less than the American government)." It uses "forced savings and catastrophe insurance" to give citizens motives to spend less and make personal decisions. We should definitely look into that.
RE: Jacky
The Singaporean system would be a great system to follow, but we are already caught in the vicious cycle of mass debt, and to pay those kinds of rates, we would first have to fight our way out of the hole we have dug ourselves into.
Also, I probably should have more faith in the government, but as of now, I do not.
Kathy Nguyen
I'm going to type this last blog the best that I can (I only understand a little bit of this so forgive me for trying my best). Honestly, I think that the committee might go downhill and there would be no accomplishment because between these unanimous, they cannot make a "perfect" decision. Possibly, like Mitch said, that they could rush to a last-minute compromise on the final day. They both have different mindsets and ideals. I agree with Rep. Charlie Rangel, we don't know who these people are... how are we suppose to put a huge responsibility that could change how the economy works.
But eventually, I believe that they would make a compromise because they would have to think about the people that are living in their country and what should be the best for them. I believe that they actions that they do should be reasonable and the compromise should satisfy both the parties and the people in order to balance the economic way of thinking/order.
In the Undercover Economists, the last page describes that economics is all about the people. On the actions that they have done and that the growth of the economy is for the better life of the individuals. Of course of the debt problem changes the taxes and the entitlement plans on the society, many people wouldn't approve.
@Jacky Chen: Oh wow I love how you said that frmo the Undercover Economist. that is really interesting I didn't read that part in the book but that sure sounds interesting and eye catching great way to incorporate it into this weeks blog! :)
@Mitch Fehr: I agree with your second paragraph, there is always a condition when there is a compromise amongest the parties. Reading your blog, it kind of makes me wonder if I should also have high hopes for the committee. Cause so far I don't think that they can accomplish what they are wanting. I honestly right now also have no faith in the government so that's what makes my hopes surely not go high as it used to be.
Re: Mitch
I'm not saying that we should have faith because that implies that they will fix themselves without any help from us. I'm saying raise our expectations and maybe they'll come to meet them. Have us be the catalyst/ motivators to finding a solution to the problem by putting more pressure on the government. One of the articles said that it would be impressive if the parties were able to come together. Well I think that should be expected. We're at a critical moment, Stop playing around. Although it would be difficult (or maybe impossible?) to get a movement by the people like this to happen, I think that may be what congress needs to discover that they need to come together and make choices now.
And I agree that we need to fight our way out of the debt hole but I was suggesting the Singaporean system as something that could eventually save us billions or trillions of dollars. I believe that one of the articles (and that NY times thing Walker showed us) stated that medicare was one of the most expensive programs to keep up. The Singaporean system would replace that system and if you think about it a bit more, it'll also inspire Americans to be healthier and get rid of our fat stereotype.
Re: Kathy
Thanks, I agree with that they will create an imperfect compromise.
As Mitch said, the committee will come up with a last minute decision. As we have seen in the past, our congress enjoys keeping us sitting on the edge of our seats waiting for a decision. They are all stubborn and wont give in until the last second, making it nail biting for the country. The compromise on the debt ceiling is a perfect example of this, and this time isn't any different. Im not holding my breath for a quick decision but a compromise will be reached. They know their responsibility and even though none of them want to give in, some eventually will.
Consequences include tax increase, program cuts, or a total failure of the committee. No doubt one of these will happen, it all depends on who is able to stay standing at the end of the debates, Democrats, Republicans, or no one.
The benefit is a decrease in our national debt. Hopefully, as Senator John McCain stated, "This select committee, I believe, can really do what we haven't had the courage to do in the past."
I think many many politicians, facing re-election just around the corner, will have to make some sort of progress on this super committee. The Senate and the House have both rejected each others bills to reduce spending, since the Senate has a democratic majority and the house has a republican majority. Republicans are in a frenzy to cut all the programs while democrats are super glued to the idea that some programs (social security, medicare) are now rights as American people. So its easy to see how there would be some conflict.
This super committee, in the eyes of John McCain, will be comprised of the most experienced congressional members, who we can all hope to compromise on issues so something gets done, but expect another period of a deadlock. I'm sure once the committee members are named, and people get in the spotlight, they would be even more prone to stick to party values, making them even more stubborn.
In short, I don't believe the committee will compromise but I hope that they do. However, there comes a point when there is nothing else the members of congress can do besides work on this bill. So I believe that somewhere down the line, compromise and plans will be made, but not with this committee.
However, if this committee succeeds, American faith in congress may grow.
@Maddie Anderson: I agree with what you are saying. They aren't really making much progress if they can't make a "smart" decision. I think that if taxes or whatever they come up with isn't right for our country, we would just keep going downhill once more.
@Scott Suddarth: I agree that most likely the committee won't achieve as much as Congress. I'm not sure what could happen now with this committee at all. But I think that since the parties aren't really making a decision, our economy and our society just might sink further.
reply: Kathy Nguyen
And of course the people are going to be the ones hurt, Congressional PAychecks leave senators and representatives well fed, groomed and safe while the citizens it is their duty to represent are being left behind for attention and for the sake of their career.
Also, congress hasn't completed too terribly much, in my opinion the articles describing the committee as "super" (S.P., NYT) has probably set a high expectation for this committee, but it will probably just end in a bunch of cranky old politicians bickering and nitpicking.
I don't want to be a complete pessimist though, I really want this committee to work, but I think in such a crisis as now, instead of a calm formation of a group of people to discuss what to do, there needs to be maturity and (the all too often heard word) compromise dealt in congress. Cut this program, but maybe tax these guys a little more. Progress in the right direction, no matter how small, is progress.
I think that this committee will succeed. There is a high demand from the populous to create a better solution than the small one made by congress to avoid hitting the debt ceiling. This, in conjunction with the United State's decreased credit score will push this small group to success. Plus, small groups are more likely to be able to unite than large groups. An example of this is the book series "Gregor the Overlander" The solution proposed by Gregor's oldest sister is that each enemy faction choses the other's representative. The group succeeds in finding a way to unite after a devastating war. I have high hopes that the group will be able to bring our total deficit cuts up to 4 trillion. But then again, I'm typically over-optimistic...
And I completely agree with Jacky Chen. If republicans can accept small tax increases on the upper class, and democrats can accept deep spending cuts,I think we're fine.
I'm also disappointed by the lack of metaphors from Jacky....
Re: Kathy and Scott
I feel like you guys are not seeing the point of putting together this committee. The reason behind its existence is to be decisive and make choices that would take much longer if 500 people were arguing over the problem. It's not logical that a group of (12?) people wouldn't be able to agree faster than hundreds of people.
It was smart to put this committee together rather than having way too many people speak in way too little time.
Re: Connor
Thanks for the support but I'm not sure that your example supports the point you're trying to make.
Here's a continuation of my original "car driving over the cliff" metaphor. If you read that post from a few weeks past, you would know that we are driving towards a cliff and our brakes are broken. Now, the cliff has been extended with the raised debt ceiling so we have some room to work with. The person in the car is very ambivalent (he's got 500 members of congress on his shoulders as opposed to the usually angel and devil). Now congress realizes that the joyride's only going to last for as long as the "nation" is so they decide to pick a few among them to talk rather than have all of them confuse the poor guy. The "nation" is then given advice from each of the congressional leaders and finally agrees on a plan of action. We could jump out of the "car" because the system we have in place is obviously inadequate in some areas. We could attempt to fix the brakes with some keyhole economics. For all I know we could assemble a parachute from whatever is in the car to at least avoid death because we just can't put together a strong enough compromise or "decide on how to fix the brakes".
Plan A: fix the brakes, reverse the car and drive away from catastrophe with a smug look on your face and national pride in your heart
Plan B: jump out of the car like a bamf and walk away from the exploding car like a cool guy
Plan C: slow down enough to give us more time to fix the brakes somehow and nervously configure a new plan like indecisive congressmen
Plan D: parachute out as the car falls which is pretty cool but forces you to have to climb back up the cliff to get to the level you were at before.
Good enough metaphor?
As bleak as an outlook as it may be, I have little hope for a groundbreaking compromise between the two political factions. This so called "super committee" does nothing, but reduce the number of people involved in this political standoff to a more reasonable amount. The one pro of this move is that one side or the other need only sway the opinion of a small number of individuals rather than all those serving in Congress. One can only hope...
I have one single expectation for this new "super" plan. As many of Congress's attempts to find a middle-ground have gone, I fear that this too shall end in a poorly stitched together "compromise" that ultimately leaves both sides feeling unsatisfied. And ultimately, much like the plan to extend the debt-ceiling, it will have to be revisited.
Re: Sam
Your reasoning is based on the premise that if the separate parties are dissatisfied then the compromise is no good. I believe that if both parties are dissatisfied, it could in fact be a very good thing. The parties could end up pushing or pulling harder then their opponent would like creating a great reform. But I do agree that a highly successful plan is unlikely.
1.5 trilion dollars is a lot of money! I should say that I am very skeptic about the committee reaching their goal in such a short time frame. The goal is not entirely impossible but the committee is working against time and out own system. As Mitch said it has to pass both houses.
I wish the best for the committee for something needs to be successfully achieved in the demand for a slash in our debt. There is going to be consequences for everybody but our nation needs to start somewhere and i think this would be a good beginning.
@ Sam and Jacky
Yeah, the best compromises always leave everyone unhappy. that's how you know that they're fair.
@Jacky
Thats not entirely true, because if the committee consisted of Rush Limbaugh, Whoopi Goldberg, Bill O'Reilly, Nancy Pelosi, Chris Matthews, Glen Beck and the like, I'm pretty sure they would get less done.
And I understand the causation for the formation of this committee but I'm still allowed to expect some defaulting and rioting.
You see, both parties want to win all the battles, instead of compromising, choosing which battles to fight, and losing one to fight another day. I think if both parties in the committee can keep the bickering to a minimum and get their priorities straight, then things will get done. But like connor said, in a way, both parties will need to realize that no party will leave the committee completely satisfied.
@Connor
Yes. I agree. Both parties will need to leave the committee only maybe half satisfied. They will have to sacrifice somethingof their own to reach an agreement. This stain of sacrifice will also be faced by all Americans, not just the delegates hoping to set forth their personal belief as the most suitable path for debt deduction.
Re: Scott
Well take that group and multiply it by a hundred. I think the small group's going to decide on more than the large group. I'm not saying that the committee will work great together. I'm just saying that they'll work better when the ideas, perspectives, and opinions are kept to a more manageable number.
@Jacky
I agree. A smaller committee is much more ideal than a larger group, say Congress.This small group will reach an areement much more efficiently than one of a large number of heads and ideas.
I'd like to make analogy, and it may be a bit of a stretch but here it goes. I believe the negotiations in congress will be a lot like the negotiations in the recent NFL lockout between the owners and players. At the outset both sides feel that a compromise is utterly impossible, but as the deadline approaches and the sense of urgency increases, the real work will begin to get done. And at the last possible moment, the "super-committee" will come to a compromise that both sides don't feel entirely comfortable with but one that is agreeable. Now I could be wrong but the people in congress are just like the rest of us; they're incredibly lazy and they will only act unless it is absolutely necessary.
RE: Sam
I agree completely, this is the most likely outcome. I just hope that the "super" committee can prove us wrong here... The debt problem is a massive one.
Re Connor and Jacky:
Don't know how I let that one go over my head haha, but touche! Having both sides leave a bit unsatisified would essentially require that neither one was a clear victor and that indeed a compromise was made haha! As long as the dissatisfaction exists amongst the congressman and not us, the citizens!
Re Jacky:
KUDOS to the Singapore set-up! By placing more responsibility on us regarding our own healthcare and the way in which we allocate our own finances in turn forces us to become more responsible. Well either that or those who don't become more responsible only hurt themselves and not those who do.
Re: Jacky
Problem?
@ Sam
I agree with you. Your message is short and concise and doesn't hide its message with large words. In this respect, your response and reasoning is much like Machiavelli's in his book, The Prince. I'm impressed.
Scott, the brevity of your answer is such that its meaning is lost. I feel like you tried to emulate Sam's form of response in an attempt to hide your lack of knowledge of economics and the topic of the blog. Would you care to expand on what you said?
Connor, the duplication of your initial reply to Sam is distasteful and lacking of finesse, which leaves me relucatantly answering your question. However, my expansion to replying to Jacky's answer was that I respect his opinion that a smaller committee will work better, but as John McCain said, "the most elite congressmen" will be on the committee. And who else will the congressmen elect to the committee besides the furthest left-and-right politicians?
In an attempt to find a bipartisan solution and do what is best for the country, i feel like the congressmen might choose members of their party who firmly believe in their beliefs, but who are also able to see both sides of the situation. However, I think an update from Jacky might help prove my point.
Re: Sam
Thanks for seeing the genius of the Singapore system. I think that when it comes to our own lives we can care enough to at least do some research if not become healthier altogether and the shift in responsibility can give the people a strong enough incentive to do that.
Re: Scott and Connor
Well Scott, I guess that some of your worries could come true but that will all depend on who Congress chooses. I would hope that a group of politicians would be mature enough to elect respectable, understanding leaders for the committee rather than rallying behind the most extreme, uncompromising individuals to make the decision but I guess you can never know with how smoothly our government is currently running. We need to learn that the world does not revolve around us, or at least the part of the country that we're from, and make decisions that will ultimately benefit the entire populous.
RE: Jacky's Re: Sam
Singapore has an amazing health care system, and I hear dentists in MExico do dental work for a fraction of the rice here.
I also think relative to how much money they make, their health care is still pretty expensive. Since they don't have insurance and going to the doctor may very wel bankrupt them, they have great incentive to not get sick, unlike here, keeping the demand as well as price lower. While here, if everyone has insurance, everyone will use the invaluable time of the doctor for their every whim, while some people would need surgery, there will be waiting lists for surgery and knee replacements.
RE: Jacky
But the congressmen WILL choose the most adamant and stubborn extremist politicians, because then their views will be carried through. They are hoping that if they stand firm long enough, the other side will pull out and they will get their way.
You are right though when you say the politicians need to grow up.
Alright Scott, lets break your comment down. The first flaw I found in your comment was how you said that, relative to income, Singapore's health care was expensive then contradicted yourself by later saying that their health care is lower in cost. And I feel like your take on the moral state of America is negative to an extreme. Why are you such a darned pessimistic fellow?
Connor Mullins I reasoned that the reason why healthcare is lower there is because the people make less money and stay healthy, as an incentive to keep out. The low demand keeps supply low and cheap.
HOwever, it seemed like I contradicted myself when I said it was cheap to us, but expensive to them. It all plays into economics.
and then you asked me, why I am such a pessimistic fellow.
I was dropped on my head several times as a baby, and force fed raw rhinoceros meat to Full House
Re: Scott
First of all, how can you be sure of the congressmen's choices. Can you predict the future? If so, what will my grades be this semester? What college will I get into? What is the name of my first born child?
Also, who's to say that moderates won't stand as firm as extremists? Their ideas and beliefs do not effect the degree in which they are believed.
The rhetorical elements in your comment to Connor are completely ridiculous. The phrase "dropped on my head several times as a baby" is hardly original and highly unlikely. If it is true then I do not believe that it should psychologically correlate with your outlook on life. Raw rhinoceros meat not only illegal but also bland so I do sympathize you at that. Full house is a sad excuse for a sitcom that does not deserve your attention as it has not rhetorical value at all. You should know better after taking AP language with the "Queen of Rhetoric", Mrs. McDermott.
JAcky:
Your accusations are uncalled for and unwarranted.
Your first childs name will be Jacky Chen II.
Oh, and you're going to fail AP Physics
LEAVE JACKY ALOOONNE!!
Teacher
leave them kids alooooone
The second part of the brick in the wall. Why did you skip the first Scott? Has the pessimism you feel towards society affected your self confidence and made you view number one as out of reach? I feel like your pessimistic view of politics mirrors that of the nation. I think that for this reason, the nation might also mirror your natural tendency to quote the second part of brick in the wall to the first.
I feel disenfranchised as a middle class white American male, as though my vote doesn't count and I'm viewed upon as a second class citizen. So yes, I did skip part one because of that, but my bitterness and pessimism towards politicians stems from my own reasons, not that of the nation.
Re: Connor
I think he skipped the first section so that he could take advantage of the parallelism between those particular lyrics and your defense of me. It also has an amount of irony because we are on an AP blog with a teach monitoring our posts.
Re: Scott
You mean your bitterness and pessimism for politicians stems from something deeper then the nights of raw rhinoceros meat and full house episodes?
continue re: Scott
Do tell more.
re: Jacky
Your re to Connor was correct.
RE: Jacky
Yes, it stems from something much deeper. I hear of corruption from both sides of the spectrum in politics... kickbacks from defense bills and government funding of companies where the politicians have invested in; Big Labor have their agendas and politicians to groom and feed, while Big Business has also bribed their own politicians to turn a blind eye to breaking the laws.
I have lost faith in Americans, but not America.
Re: Scott
I can understand your view of our country especially when scrutinizing on the corruption that exists here. I wonder how other, less corrupt, countries do it. How do you reinforce an honor code? Maybe create a system of checks and balances that is complicated enough to hold everyone together. Can money be stopped? Hopefully human integrity or at least ingenuity can create a cure for corruption.
People are naturally selfish but they are at least partly good as well. We just can't expect much from others but that doesn't mean you should lose faith in yourself. You can succeed where others fail and then guide others along and together we can fight corruption. Maybe that can lift your mood.
some people are beyond redemption, and most everyone is not worth the trouble of it.
And America is actually one of the least corrupt countries, though it may not seem present, other countries politicians are professionally corrupt and keep it well hushed.
the people there have become complacent and helpless to the corruption, so much so that the media won't bother writing the occurrences.
Re: Scott
I have to disagree with you. You are devaluing each individual's life by mentally grouping them into a mass. Most people are good, it's just something inside of us. Yes, we also act in our own interest but many will not cross certain lines in their conscience.
So you believe America seems more corrupt because it is less corrupt. Which would you rather have? I can't really put together how we can fix this but I think that we have moved into a stage of government where politicians should have a history of integrity. Problem is, most selfless people don't want to be THAT selfless. Like George Washington and his almost third period of presidency.
Matter of opinion, I suppose then. Because unfortunately corruption is not beyond most peoples line of goodness.
Batman, for instance, was pushed almost into insanity by The Joker in The Dark Knight when he was forced to decide between his goals and wants as a person versus his goals as the hero. He was so aggravated and torn between doing the right thing that he resorted to torturing one of the mob bosses by breaking his legs. The Joker also brought down The White Knight by killing his fiancee, turned him into an unrecognizable murderer. In the end, Harvey Dent almost killed the commissioner of Gothams police force as well as his family.
If you are familiar with the movies, which you should be if you had Mr. Walker for APUSH, then you would know that it was Harvey Dent that turned into Two-Face, carrying around a coin with a burnt side and a normal side. He would flip a coin to decide the fate of his victims, as he is alive because of a 50-50 decision. But after having his love taken away from him, he crossed the line beyond corruption into murder to achieve his goals as a human, not just a politician.
But I digress.
I do not fully understand your analysis of my post, I was simply saying that yes, America is corrupt, but we only see it so corrupt because thats all we know of. Other countries we know not as much of, somewhat like Batmans disdain towards alcohol. But America is easily not as corrupt as it could be, just the businesses trying to get more than their democratic republic-an fair share.
I believe the only true way to fix this is to get involved and proactive and to find out who we are voting for- there are valiant people running for office, we just need to find them and keep them in office.
Re: Scott
You're making two opposing points. Anyone can be corrupted or forced to cross some line. And we can find good people who have the morals to stand up to corruption. Flawed argument?
Anyways Batman didn't really cross a line, he just broke a mob boss's leg. No fatal damage and the guy deserved it.
Re: Scott
On my analysis of America's corruption. You are correct. We know about the corruption but think about how we know it. It's because our system is strict enough to be able to reveal as in where other countries, it is not even good enough to do that.
Flawed argument, flawed human race. We do the best we can, when we can. I guess our only solution to that is keep our politicians nice and naive, or what do you suggest?
And the point is not that he just broke some guys leg, its that Batman is better than that. Batman shouldn't have to resort to punishing answers out of people.
Re: Scott
Well, he started out beating up bad guys so he's been crossing that line for a while. His personal belief is to not kill anyone.
And having dumb politicians isn't the solution at all. In fact that's the worst case scenario. Who better to manipulate then some half-wit politician. We need the best of us, intellectually and morally, to lead the people. They must not only know how to lead but also why they are leading. They must devote their lives to greater good. The best leaders have always been as selfless as possible. Jesus, Ghandi, MLK Jr., George Washington, Abe Lincoln?, Leonidas!
This is Sparta!
He only beat up the bad guys in self defense, though, and to save other people. He was never the belligerent partner. But Joker pushed him across the line to start hurting other people.
I never said to keep the politicians dumb, just naive to the corrupt dealings between big labor, interest groups and big business out of the relationship. Without knowing the sin, they wouldn't partake, and would rightfully fear repercussions. I believe you took my meaning o naive to be inexperienced, which it is in a sense, but in this case more of purity of backdoor dealings.
Leonidas was a great leader.
Abe Lincoln was pretty cool,
eat a hearty break lads.. for tonight,
we DINE
in
heck
Re: Scott
I believe that most politicians do start out pure. Nobody grows up wanting to be a corrupt politician. They are forced (or at least lulled) into the corruption by big business. Also, common school kids like us know about these back door dealings so how would a grown up politician be kept ignorant of this widely spread knowledge.
Also Batman had a reason too break the guys leg besides simple persuasion by the Joker. He needed answers, probably quickly. And he did not cross his own line. If you really want look at it from a more technical standpoint, he probably killed some of the ninja's in the first movie when he blew up their temple.
Where's Connor?
Hey! I'm back! Sorry for the absence. And I won't pretend to be a Batman aficionado. Can someone get Mr. Walker in on this conversation? And I considered being a corrupt politician. But not in America. Possibly in Portugal because it seems much easier to be corrupt there.
I believe that most congressmen start out at a state level as pure. But once they get to the national level and become well known, they are plump and corrupt, not like my computer corrupt, or plump like an adolescent german, but they are ripe with evil and tomfoolery.
Batman was not persuaded by anybody, Joker of all. But the Joker made Batmans goals fight the goals of Bruce Wayne. He was pushed over the edge, and he started torturing to get his way
Connor I hear the weather and politics there are simply fantastic. You would do good to become a corrupt politician there, like Blagojevich.
I have a cousin who owns a cat named Blago. They named him after Blagojevich. The cat actually does have a profile similar to that of the guy.
But does he have the same insufferable Chicagoan accent? Or the hair.
The hair is essential.
Come to think of it, the meow is slightly accented. And the Cat sheds. Not sure if the politician does though....
True, that could either make or break the cat politician. Hmm, the information you have provided me with is very crucial to my studies on the cats of our time.
Re: Sam
I agree with Sam in the fact that the over hyped "super- committee" really does nothing, it may persuade a small number of people in Congress but in the big picture it doesn't really matter.
Re: Maddie
I really liked your outlook on the situation. Your viewpoint is one that everyone should have in this circumstance; cautious optimism.
Post a Comment