DescentBB

As Americans brace for across-the-board tax hikes, President Obama is giving members of Congress -- and his No. 2 -- a pay raise.

Obama signed an executive order last week that will lift a ban on pay freezes for federal employees.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12 ... z2GfBRjpOU

FUNNY!!!! I didn't see where any of them have earned a pay raise. and as American continue to struggle with an anemic economy let's give a raise to the people that caused it. BRILLIANT!!!

Obama is trying to shake the publics confidence in the American government and those pay raises are a way to increase resentment.

The pay raise is about half a percentage point. Sound the alarms!

vision wrote:The pay raise is about half a percentage point. Sound the alarms!

Well considering they have a whopping approval rating of 18% I think it is fair for us employers to wonder why the manager is giving them a raise.
Add to the fact that one of the biggest things we are unhappy with is the way they are running our 'business' into bankruptcy from over spending and it is a major insult for the manager to give them a raise.

But you don't quite get logic yet so don't beat yourself up too much about not understanding things.

vision wrote:The pay raise is about half a percentage point. Sound the alarms!

did they earn it??????

because as far as I can see almost every single person that works for a living in the country earned less last year. I know I did. plus I'm set to earn even less now that Obama Care has become law and when all the tax breaks expire at midnight tonight.

The pay raise was inconsequential. The timing is where the motive is. Since 2008, every decision has been made at the last minute and under duress. Im sure when the deal is struck we will all breathe a sigh of relief Im not surprised you miss the principle while focusing on the details Vision. You must be one of the nine percent who actually approves of this Congress
I say they need more vacation time to ponder their hastily made deals too
Why not with people like you supporting. Blind leading the blind.

Earn it? Yes, by sticking to their principals and not compromising the wishes of their constituents. How would you feel if you elected someone to lower taxes and reduce spending then have them fold on the fiscal cliff? You would complain they didn't earn their pay then either. You can't have it both ways. You can't hire someone to do a job then get mad at them for doing it.

Actually inconsequential is not even correct. While staying in a perpetual stalemate over entitlement cuts and tax hikes, Obama adds 1 billion a year to the deficit while Congress waits till the very last minute to throw together a deal. Not giving themselves any time to even consider consequences.

vision wrote:Earn it? Yes, by sticking to their principals and not compromising the wishes of their constituents. How would you feel if you elected someone to lower taxes and reduce spending then have them fold on the fiscal cliff? You would complain they didn't earn their pay then either. You can't have it both ways. You can't hire someone to do a job then get mad at them for doing it.

SO LET ME GET THIS RIGHT...

the Senate by Harry Ried's direction has not passed a budget or even brought one to the floor for a vote for 4 years. which is a violation of the Constitution and is ILLEGAL, and you think they are doing their job

the Senate by Harry Reid's direction has refused to bring to the floor a vote on bills that have been on his desk proposed and passed by the house since MAY that would have prevented this "fiscal cliff" problem and you think they are doing their job

do you even pay attention to what goes on in Washington???

well at least someone gets it

Washington – Republican Sen. Rob Portman is urging President Obama to rescind a recent executive order granting pay increases to Congress and other federal officials, saying the move doesn't exactly jibe with the country's debt crisis.

We elect them, over and over again. Besides, the have a deal now, so let them enjoy themselves. Crisis averted.

We would fire them, if we had something better to replace them.

CUDA, quit putting total blame on the Senate. The House under Boehner has been a pretty good stick-in-the-mud in all this mess. It take 2 to tango. He's even hedging on the new agreement. Wanna bet he or his tea party members nix it?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =168384657

The only deal is thee GOP agreeing for a tax increase
the Dems have stoll not aggreed tp cut spending. And if they don then there is no deal.

And TC at least the house has tried.
The Senate jas stonewalled, never attempting to do their job

FYI dont post on a cell phone if you hope to type well

CUDA wrote:the Senate by Harry Ried's direction has not passed a budget or even brought one to the floor for a vote for 4 years. which is a violation of the Constitution and is ILLEGAL, and you think they are doing their job

First of all...

CUDA wrote:The Senate under Harry Reid's direction has not passed a budget or even brought one to the floor for a vote for four years, which is a violation of the Constitution and is illegal. And you think they are doing their job?

Now, when was the last time you gave the United States Constitution so much as a passing glance? Personally, I reread it frequently, like when I'm thinking about writing a piece about whether or not some legislation or behavior is Constitutional. It's a brief read, amendments and all, and the text is public domain, so there's really no excuse for failing to at least double-check it before spouting off that something isn't Constitutional. Feel free to enlighten me if you do feel that you have an excuse for being deliberately ignorant about the supreme law of the land, because...

Omnibus budgets are not Constitutionally mandated. Neither house of Congress is required to put forward any legislation of any kind, nor take up any legislation sent to them from the other house. If an omnibus budget is to be put forward, since such a budget would necessarily relate to revenues, it would be Constitutionally required (Article I, Section 7, Paragraph 1) to originate in the House of Representatives, and not the Senate.

You raised that last point in the thread about the Affordable Care Act (invalid, though it was, since the ACA originated in the House), so I'm a bit surprised that the relevant text is apparently completely absent from your consideration now. I know you're just trying to echo Speaker Boehner's rhetoric, when he tried to pass the buck to the Senate, late last week, but you should know better. You and Boehner should both know better. You should know better because you've previously demonstrated that you know the Senate doesn't have the authority to originate a budget. Boehner should know better, because he was the one who demanded a verbal reading of the Constitution, in its entirety, on the floor of the House, following his initial election as Speaker of the House.

And the budget legislation from May? That was the Ryan budget, again. (You're welcome to give that one a read too, but unlike the Constitution, this one's a long read, with a lot more required cross-referencing, so brew a pot of coffee, and prepare for a late night.) Paul Ryan puts it forward every year, like bloody clockwork, and it gets a party-line vote every year. It wasn't a serious proposal to avert the budget sequester, since a serious proposal would involve some kind of compromise to get it through a split Congress and avoid a Presidential veto. That legislation was a waste of time. Not only was Senate leadership was fully within its right to let the bill die, since it had less than no chance of passing the Senate on another, inevitable party-line vote, but the House should have known better than to waste four hours of floor time and god-only-knows how many hours of committee time on this doomed bill.

Don't lecture others about paying attention, when you're not doing terribly well at it, yourself.

Wow, something me and Vision agree on. There is no reason at all why ANYONE should spend 30 years in Congress! I say anyone in there for 8 years has already overstayed their welcome. The now deceased senator from Hawaii was there for over 50 friggin years. Ridiculous.

ya well apparently you have no clue either. while I used the term Constitutionally which technically is in error. it is law
Actually, "the fact is," Congress is required under the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to pass a spending plan and then have it scored by the Congressional Budget Office and signed by the president.

The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Pub.L. 93-344, 88 Stat. 297, 2 U.S.C. §§ 601–688) is a United States federal law that governs the role of the Congress in the United States budget process.

it is law that congress pass a budget. and Harry Ried not allowing it to come to the floor of the Senate for a Vote is a Violation of that law.he didn't filibuster. it. he flat refused to allow it for a vote

Since the passage of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Senate and the House are supposed to pass budget resolutions in the spring. These budget resolutions set a framework for spending, taxation and other fiscal items in the coming fiscal year. They also lay out general plans for the next four years. If these budget resolutions differ, the chambers are supposed to hammer out a compromise.

Budget resolutions are policy plans. They are not appropriations bills, or spending bills, which actually allocate money for specific purposes.

Back to the Ryan Bill. the Ryan Bill was a Budget PASSED by the House. (partisan vote or not) sent to the Senate for a Vote and Harry Ried tabled it. he refused to allow it to come to the floor for a Vote. so maybe you should stop listening to Nancy Pelosi and do some fact checking yourself. the Senate had a Bill in their possession since May and did nothing. they also had a second one in September but again Ried refused it to come to the floor for a Vote. at least vote on it DO YOUR JOB. if it fails then start over. blaming Republicans which Ried is very good at, when you don't do ANYTHING is BS. do your job. why didn't he get together with the GOP then and try to hammer out a deal. he did it yesterday. but according to you that wasn't the Senates Job. that's the Job of the house. make up your mind. is it OK now but not back in May and September???

the Senate doesn't have the authority to originate a budget

your wrong.. they can propose a budget. but only the house can allocate the money for it. HELL even the President can propose a budget, which he did 4 years ago. which coincidentally was the last budget he proposed and was voted down unanimously. but you didn't know that either did you?

"Article I, Section 7, Paragraph 1"]Clause 1: Bills of revenue

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

This establishes the method for making Acts of Congress that involve taxation. Accordingly, any bill may originate in either House of Congress, except for a revenue bill, which may originate only in the House of Representatives. In practice, the Senate sometimes circumvents this requirement by substituting the text of a revenue bill previously passed by the House with a substitute text.[54][55] Either House may amend any bill, including revenue and appropriation bills.

you really have no clue do you. your quote and you don't even know what it's about. it says only the house has the power to raise taxes. it has nothing to do with a budget. so back to my point the house sent TWO bills to the Senate for approval and Ried did not allow them for a Vote. the Senate and Harry Ried are in violation of the law.

Don't lecture others about paying attention, when you're not doing terribly well at it, yourself.

maybe you should heed your own words

geez, CUDA, are we going into yet another year with you whining over trivia and blaming Obama and the Senate for everything? Seriously, the raise for Congress is, at best minimal, although it is a fair point to suggest that they've earned pinkslips more than raises, but that is up to the voters. As for raising the salaries of judges and other employees, I see no harm, and the raises are not huge there, either.
As for the budget stuff, the Ryan budget was a cruel hoax, aimed at hurting the society's most defenseless. It was, in a nutshell, a budget without any social conscience. Thus, a non-starter. As for getting deals done, it seems like all the Dems have done is move to the GOP position, with the GOP not moving, or in many cases, taking an even harder line. On this current mess, the Pres moved the tax line up to 400K, gave up the payroll tax cut extension, and if I read correctly, nothing is being done to the estate tax, which is due to revert back to the ghastly old set of rules(1 million exemption, 55% of everything over that). Now, I don't mind the prospect of a reasonable change in the estate tax, say, lowering the exemption down to 3.5 million with a 40% rate over that, but this thing as it stands will affect the economy, as most of us with larger estates are going to allocate funds out of investment and into secured trust vehicles that are very conservative, so as not to burden potential heirs. At any rate(sorry for the digression) the current deal in the works, thanks to the Nordquist Zombies largely, is yet another kick-the-can-down-the-road bill. As for the sequester spending cuts, you cannot state, CUDA, that no cuts are forthcoming, they are. Now, whether it is good for the economy to make those cuts, is another story.

edit-after morning coffee and some bill reading, the compromise from the Senate restores the Estate tax to a 5 million exemption, 40% rate, and would
eliminate the Congress/VP pay raises. It also only raises cap gains tax on higher income earners.

callmeslick wrote:geez, CUDA, are we going into yet another year with you whining over trivia and blaming Obama and the Senate for everything? Seriously, the raise for Congress is, at best minimal, although it is a fair point to suggest that they've earned pinkslips more than raises, but that is up to the voters. As for raising the salaries of judges and other employees, I see no harm, and the raises are not huge there, either.OP position,

missed the point didn't you. I'm not surprised. you usually don't.

you apparently didn't pay attention to the OP before you posted. I said

FUNNY!!!! I didn't see where any of them have earned a pay raise. and as American continue to struggle with an anemic economy let's give a raise to the people that caused it. BRILLIANT!!!

I never said Democrat or Republican. I said ANY of them. maybe for once in your life you can see something for what it is instead of relentlessly defending the indefensible.

1 billion dollars added to the deficit on those raises alone. Cudos to the Senate for recognising it for what it was and refusing it. When your economy is going down the drain and your looking for anyway you can to recover, single-handedly with the swipe of a pen and adding 1 billion to it goes against all sound principal.

slick and Vision will tell you 1 billion is chump change and insignificant, but I guess its all a matter of what your principles are

but knowing the left they'll just call it spending cuts and tout how they are reaching out to the Republicans to cut the deficit.

Its not only the amount, it was the timing too. I myself have to judge motives. What i see happening is a total breakdown of the democratic process. An attempt to breakdown the current process and replace it with a more "progressive" one. Its disgustingly obvious to me.

that's because you care to look. it's whats required if you wish to see something.

I didn't really care about the amount. it was all the principle of it. our nation is struggling, people are loosing their homes. businesses are closing. and we are about to have the largest tax increase in history. and the President by executive order gives a pay raise to the very people that cause most of these problems. let them eat cake

The problem here is understanding the difference between revenue, spending and a budget. The constitution says nothing about the budget, and only states that revenue bills start in the house. Budgeting on the other hand by any logical process should happen in the executive branch, because that’s the department that actually receives and spends money.

Over the years Congress was and still is unhappy with the executive branches’ decisions, and has made laws regarding how the budget process should work, as stated in several budget acts passed over the years.

And now the CBO. Says this new Senate deal will add 4 trillion to the deficit

Good job Senate

CUDA wrote:And now the CBO. Says this new Senate deal will add 4 trillion to the deficit

Good job Senate

yup, you would have to have let ALL the Bush tax cuts expire to get to the CBO's core estimate. Obama's original plan would have fallen 2 trillion short over 10 years(the period CBO looks at). Everyone, CBO included, ignores the cyclical nature of the economy, which should rise over the next 5 years and make up a good deal of the shortfall, but you still have to address defense costs and the mismatch between the number of folks retiring and those entering the workforce over the next decade.

Your lack of understanding of budgets and economics is astounding.

CUDA wrote:Your lack of understanding of budgets and economics is astounding.

how so? Perhaps you misread my words, because I was agreeing with your point about the current compromise. The CBO has a current outlook that was predicated upon the complete extinction of the Bush tax cuts(which were supposed to do so after 10 years in the first place).

CUDA wrote:slick and Vision will tell you 1 billion is chump change and insignificant, but I guess its all a matter of what your principles are

A billion here,a billion there and pretty soon you're talking real money.

then again, we have to come to some sort of budget with a bit of humanity and recognition that we have enough wealth in the society to provide for a robust safety net. Any part that puts up budgets like Ryan's does not have that basic decency. In other words, such a political party could be seen as
soul-less........heck, some of it's own members might even come to that conclusion:http://global.christianpost.com/news/go ... rty-87518/

Just because the Dems don't like Ryans, or any Repub, budget they shouldn't be allowed to get away with not trying to offer one of their own and then hammer out a passable version of it! They don't want a budget that anyone can examine and score because their plans for spending are even above and beyond the already insane levels they are spending at.
They don't need a budget either because the media lets them dictate the narrative which is that the Repubs "block everything good from happening" so the Dems can keep spending with no fear of repercussion and while the media carries that water bucket for them they can continue buying votes with unfunded liability's which ultimately will destroy our economy.

If they wanted one they would craft it, bring it to the floor for votes and begin the process of getting it passed. They instead just keep passing continuations and raise debt ceilings and for now the media is willing to go along but that will end when things get bad enough. They are selling us out for the short term power grab and when the poop hits the propeller the nasty recovery will leave them in ruins. I think they are betting on the inevitable economic up cycle to create enough revenue to pay off the massive credit card bill they are running up but it is looking less and less likely that the next up cycle will come swift enough or with enough juice to save them.

If we crash hard the political pendulum will swing back the other way in a few election cycles and it will continue swinging that way for a few more after that. When it is at it's peak in the other direction there will be elected a type that makes Reagan look like Carter. He will make you lefty's wish you could have Paul Ryan back!
You can't really blame the politicians for this either because they have become what they are under our watch. They can honestly say that we gave them permission to do what they do. The media has decided to join the process instead of being a firewall and they do deserve a lot of blame for that. Without an objective tenacious media/press we are doomed.

The first couple hundred years of the great american republic was pretty good but uneducated constituents get the decline they deserve under that kind of system. America is the land of the free, free to piss it all away too. The next couple hundred wont be so nice and full of promising futures. There is no Justice League of America...no Avengers...Superman won't be flying backwards against the rotation of the earth to give us a do over...

Will Robinson wrote:Just because the Dems don't like Ryans, or any Repub, budget they shouldn't be allowed to get away with not trying to offer one of their own and then hammer out a passable version of it! They don't want a budget that anyone can examine and score because their plans for spending are even above and beyond the already insane levels they are spending at.
They don't need a budget either because the media lets them dictate the narrative which is that the Repubs "block everything good from happening" so the Dems can keep spending with no fear of repercussion and while the media carries that water bucket for them they can continue buying votes with unfunded liability's which ultimately will destroy our economy.

it might sound good to you to spout this nonsense, but truth be told, both the administration and the House Dems DID present proposed budgets. They simply never made it out of committee.

If they wanted one they would craft it, bring it to the floor for votes and begin the process of getting it passed.

ahhh, I see the problem. You simply don't understand how the legislative process works. They cannot simply 'bring it to the floor', it has to be assigned to a committee.....controlled by the majority party.

If we crash hard the political pendulum will swing back the other way in a few election cycles and it will continue swinging that way for a few more after that. When it is at it's peak in the other direction there will be elected a type that makes Reagan look like Carter. He will make you lefty's wish you could have Paul Ryan back!

most polling indicates that the public now sees the reality I presented above. Along with growing disgust from moderate Republicans, I'd say it is far more likely that the GOP, as currently composed, crashes and burns. Hopefully, there will be a functional group of rational Republicans left to reform the party, as even 'lefty' types don't wish to see a one party situation, as that leads to excess.

You can't really blame the politicians for this either because they have become what they are under our watch. They can honestly say that we gave them permission to do what they do. The media has decided to join the process instead of being a firewall and they do deserve a lot of blame for that. Without an objective tenacious media/press we are doomed.

we actually have individuals in media who are both objective and tenacious. I doubt you would bother to seek them out, however. They tend to sing a different song and see a different reality than you have expressed on these pages.

The first couple hundred years of the great american republic was pretty good but uneducated constituents get the decline they deserve under that kind of system. America is the land of the free, free to piss it all away too. The next couple hundred wont be so nice and full of promising futures. There is no Justice League of America...no Avengers...Superman won't be flying backwards against the rotation of the earth to give us a do over...

although sort of an odd analogy, I agree with you. An America in which most people cannot name their Senators or Congressperson, but can easily give you every detail of Jennifer Aniston's love life, or identify the current trendy vodka, is deserving of the current status quo.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:The first couple hundred years of the great american republic was pretty good but uneducated constituents get the decline they deserve under that kind of system. America is the land of the free, free to piss it all away too. The next couple hundred wont be so nice and full of promising futures. There is no Justice League of America...no Avengers...Superman won't be flying backwards against the rotation of the earth to give us a do over...

although sort of an odd analogy, I sort of agree with you. An America in which most people cannot name their Senators or Congressperson, but can easily give you every detail of Jennifer Aniston's love life, or identify the current trendy vodka, is deserving of the current status quo.

I would say, rather, that they're asking for it. You wouldn't say that a rape victim deserved it for wearing hardly anything at all, so why start that ★■◆● here? There are a lot of people in the U.S. Who are not asking for it, though. Don't forget that. Also, either way our representatives neglect their responsibilities to the people and to the country and even their oaths. I believe that before God they will be accountable for that ultimately.

I don't think there's much use to disagreeing with Will on the media when he's mostly right. A lot of people go to the biggest names in news when they sit down at the tube.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Just because the Dems don't like Ryans, or any Repub, budget they shouldn't be allowed to get away with not trying to offer one of their own and then hammer out a passable version of it! They don't want a budget that anyone can examine and score because their plans for spending are even above and beyond the already insane levels they are spending at.
They don't need a budget either because the media lets them dictate the narrative which is that the Repubs "block everything good from happening" so the Dems can keep spending with no fear of repercussion and while the media carries that water bucket for them they can continue buying votes with unfunded liability's which ultimately will destroy our economy.

it might sound good to you to spout this nonsense, but truth be told, both the administration and the House Dems DID present proposed budgets. They simply never made it out of committee. ...

I know exactly how legislation is originated in Congress. 'simply not making it out of committee' is a tactic more often than not. You do know that don't you? In this case the reason it stays in committee is what I'm talking about!

Obama's was so bad that his own party wouldn't support it at all. The house Dems can craft one that could make it out of committee if they want to but they don't want to compromise. The Dems in the Senate could propose one and deliver it to the House to be originated.
Obama could rewrite his if he wanted to to give it a chance to make it through but because of the reasons I mentioned, they have no desire to or any need to!

They are quite happy to use the excuses you are repeating so they can spend with impunity, impunity in part because of the medias lack of objective due diligence. They know the actual budget will have to make some kind of fiscal sense. They dont want to be hampered by that reality when they can live in la-la land and spend funny money.


And Slick, just because you can think of a few in media who practice random acts of journalism doesn't mean the mainstream outlets aren't giving Obama and the Dem leadership plenty of freedom to keep dodging their responsibility. The narrative that the average idiot voter is fed is not any thing close to an objective accounting of the process. You have no trouble seeing how Fox runs cover for Repubs....do you really think the Dems don't get the same favor from the rest of the outlets!?! How do you think there ever was a need created in the market for a 'Fox News'? It was created by the existing media taking a left turn! How does an upstart media outlet skyrocket to the top like Fox did? When the market is polarized left and right and all the other vendors start ridiculing the right half customers! Who wouldn't open up a right leaning product in that vacuum where half the customers wish they had a product designed for them?!?

As for the GOP crashing and burning, that is already happening. But the net result of the current group on the left to refuse cutting spending will ultimately be the reason the left crashes politically. And then the pendulum swings too far the other way....

The only way the lefty luck out is if there is some kind of incredible economic upsurge and there really isn't any reason one should expect that. The amount they are overspending is way out of line relative to expected revenues. Current spending is way too much for any normal upswing in the expected cycle. If Al Gore can invent the next internet by tomorrow and that can grow some kind of incredible new bubble....fat chance huh? Back in realityville major programs are going broke soon, there isn't enough tax to be levied to cover the checks they are writing. One bad bump in the road, a big war pops out that we have to fight....game over.

Sgt Thorne, if we all vote either left or right because we are afraid to think outside the box then we asked for what was in the box, even those who knew it was going to be hard to swallow.....

Masons Who needs em?

Will Robinson wrote:The only way the lefty luck out is if there is some kind of incredible economic upsurge and there really isn't any reason one should expect that.

in case you weren't noticing, there is an upsurge in economic activity and notably in manufacturing. Incredible? Hardly, but still the perfectly predictable recovery from a recession caused by liquidity issues, which is historically a slow process. The bad news for the Right? History also shows that the political party in power when such recoveries occur(be they right,left,centrist) tends to stay in power and strongly so for up to two decades.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:The only way the lefty luck out is if there is some kind of incredible economic upsurge and there really isn't any reason one should expect that.

in case you weren't noticing, there is an upsurge in economic activity and notably in manufacturing. Incredible? Hardly, but still the perfectly predictable recovery from a recession caused by liquidity issues, which is historically a slow process. The bad news for the Right? History also shows that the political party in power when such recoveries occur(be they right,left,centrist) tends to stay in power and strongly so for up to two decades.

Are you purposely avoiding the distinction I made, twice, stating we would need something much more robust than the typical upswing coming out of a recession?
They are spending more than a normal up cycle can pay for by a large margin.


A slow typical uptick in revenues like the one you describe won't cover the bills and instead of cutting spending your guys want to increase it some more! They are probably already allocating the increased revenue they won last night into new spending.
They see no reason to stop because they have discovered no one is going to report them to a populace that is too stupid to care and even if the people start watching they get to blame it on the right wing.

Medicare is almost bankrupt
The cost to maintain other programs like Social Security are rising too fast for any budget to cover...hmmm budget? What's that anyway?

Obama doesn't care that there will be a crisis when the money runs out because to him it is an opportunity to redistribute more wealth. The problem is, at the level he is spending, he only gets to take the wealth once but the new levels of entitlements he is creating will be expenses that last forever. Well, they will last until the people riot in the streets and learn the meaning of austerity measures anyway.

You are in denial, rooting for your team has made you blind to he big picture but when they seize your estate from your children and put up thousands of trailers on it under the rationale that no one needs that much wealth your children will wonder 'Why did dad say they were the good guys?!?!

Will Robinson wrote:Are you purposely avoiding the distinction I made, twice, stating we would need something much more robust than the typical upswing coming out of a recession?

uh,no....I didn't deal with your statement because you are flat-out wrong. Not only would the predicted upswing, coupled with a return to Clinton's tax code do the job, but the fact that two wars are winding/wound down, coupled with a sensible re-shaping of the Defense budget, should allow for a balance to return, IMO.

A slow typical uptick in revenues like the one you describe won't cover the bills and instead of cutting spending your guys want to increase it some more! They are probably already allocating the increased revenue they won last night into new spending.
They see no reason to stop because they have discovered no one is going to report them to a populace that is too stupid to care and even if the people start watching they get to blame it on the right wing.

not the case at all, but the goal(stated) of this administration is to get the US economy back onto a track that will allow for expansion over the long haul.
Whether you like it or not, this requires spending. Spending on infrastructure, spending on research, spending on educational reform, spending to shore up emerging technologies. The private sector will help out with very little of those, so it is left to government to do so. While it does cost in the short term, you will never have the next great thing without laying that groundwork. Note the tech boom we have experienced for over 25 years. It was a direct result of government funding of R and D, and educational programs at the college level. Prior expansions were due to spending by government on the space program and the Interstate highway system. That is how government ought to work, but if one of the parties consistently blocks such measures or fails to allocate and raise funding for them, you risk a slow process of sinking into second-rate status as a nation.

Medicare is almost bankrupt
The cost to maintain other programs like Social Security are rising too fast for any budget to cover...hmmm budget? What's that anyway?

as I stated earlier, with Medicare, you have an issue around the number of beneficiaries vs. the number of workers paying in that HAS to be resolved. In my mind, it shouldn't be resolved, in an economy so wealthy, by cutting back on Medicare. Hell, I think we ought to make Medicare the single US healthcare payer from cradle to grave, as it is a very cost-effective way to address the situation for virtually all Americans. As for Social Security, study after study has shown that merely indexing the top end income for which SS taxes are collected addresses that solvency issue forever.