<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title><![CDATA[Comments for entry "The Wally Government" at Dilbert.com Blog]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/868]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Regular thoughts and updates from Dilbert.com]]></description>
<language><![CDATA[en-us]]></language>
<generator><![CDATA[VPI.Net MyBlogAbout]]></generator>
<managingEditor><![CDATA[]]></managingEditor>
<webMaster><![CDATA[]]></webMaster>
<ttl><![CDATA[5]]></ttl>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from retech]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1948152]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I sent this to the Washington Post a couple of weeks ago, but they didn't publish it:

Congress and the President erred in 2011 when they formulated the soâ€called Fiscal Cliff as an incentive
for them to reach an agreement on resolving the budget deficit. Instead of imposing the potentially
calamitous consequences of the Fiscal Cliff on the U. S. economy, and, by extension, millions of working
people whose employment, savings, and investments depend on the strength and advancement of that
economy, I would suggest that the consequences of failure to reach agreement be instead imposed
directly on the financial wellâ€being of the President and each member of Congress. I submit that the
President and each member of Congress should be personally assessed, say, $25,000 per day, payable to
the United States Treasury, for each day beyond 1 January 2013 for which they do not reach agreement.
I would view this as simply holding Congress and the President directly accountable for failure to act
responsibly. Perhaps if they were immediately, personally, and adversely affected by their own actions
in this matter, they would be more willing to reach a rational compromise. I would expect such a
compromise to reflect a combination of revenue increases and entitlement reductions that may not be
ideal to all parties, but, nonetheless, resolves the federal budget deficit problem in a rational way.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TueAMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1948152]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Niceone]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1943349]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Amazing  -  the first word that came into my head as I started to read this was  -  wait for it  -  Wally!]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[FriPMCSTE_Rstst]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1943349]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from isdnds]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1942128]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Are we allowed to nominate people for that kick?]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[FriAMCSTE_Rstst]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1942128]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from weilongtakayama]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1937643]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[The company that I work for has a similar system. Every year I get a bonus, which is nominally based on my performance. By far the greatest determining factor, though, is the company's overall performance. So if the board makes good decisions and the sales department sells a lot of product, my bonus gets increased; and if all that goes poorly, my bonus suffers. It's called &quot;pay for performance&quot;, and I'm not supposed to figure out that it's somebody else's performance.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TuePMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1937643]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from mythbred]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1937494]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I'm a bit confused. WHY has no one mentioned that there IS no cliff? The Tax Cut cutoffs were written in LAW when GW started this whole mess. He had a surplus in the budget. (from the Clinton years, and yes, I KNOW that Clinton didn't really cause the surplus). He decided That money should go back to the taxpayers, but mostly to the high income ones (who pay less of the taxes) It was written in such a way that all the HIGH income cuts ALSO included the LOW income cuts. (the $500 a year that &quot;I&quot; got for earning at least $10,000 a year ALSO goes to someone earning $1,000,000,000 a year)
Congress said &quot;But you have a surplus now, what if you give it all back and we have a downturn?&quot;
GW said &quot;No problem, we automatically end the cuts in 2010&quot;.
We are NOT raises taxes. We are ending a period of temporarily cutting taxes.
NO business goes under from the higher taxes, because you only tax PROFITS. (In the case of the richer, generally you tax capital gains)
Any business that wants to expand because they have a market, WILL still expand.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TuePMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1937494]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from asparaguspee]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1937254]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Actually grgeil, one of the best ways to get your credit card limit raised is to come close to maxing it out while making at least the minimum payment - they raise it so you keep using their card instead of switching to one that's not maxed out from another issuer.

Funny thing, that.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TuePMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1937254]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from MontyMole]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1937158]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I've been thinking that both sides were hoping that we go off the fiscal cliff this whole time so that they can blame the other party for making us go there while avoiding the voter backlash for backing down on their positions.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TuePMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1937158]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Drowlord]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1937125]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[So explain to me the immunity scenario.  I mean... like I don't really know you personally, but as a fan and reader of your blog, am I the kind of stranger that gets paid for kicking nads, the kind of stranger who gets kicked in the nads, or am I disqualified from both positions?]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TuePMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1937125]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from rich_lenz]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1937045]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I believe you have hit on the solution to the problem with congress (notice the lack of capitalization).  We should push for an amendment to the Constitution to make it forbidden to run for the Presidency or Congress if you have or have ever been a lawyer.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TuePMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1937045]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Anfauglir]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1937016]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[&quot;if you tell me you don't like my blog, I will pay a stranger to kick another stranger in the nads&quot;

Absolutely the best quote ever.  Or the best life philosophy ever - both work for me.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TuePMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1937016]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from ina]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1936874]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[No, Scott, to follow the analogy, you should get paid by a stranger for kicking him.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TuePMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1936874]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from harrykrak]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1936758]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I do not like your blog!

Lets spread the pain...]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TueAMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1936758]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from grgeil]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1936379]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Go ahead and max out your credit cards and your home equity line of credit, too.  When out of this credit, you can simply vote to increase your own debt limit even further!  Just notify your creditors that this is OK because you have gone ahead and obligated your children and grandkids to pay the debt.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TueAMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1936379]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from car206]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1936176]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[[ I will pay a stranger to kick another stranger...]
Technically, if you want to adopt the Congressional model, the person being kicked is the one who has to pay.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TueAMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1936176]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from cpbrown1]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1936140]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I love the idea of automatic spending cuts. There will *never* be agreement on what should be cut and what absolutely can not be cut. So instituting across the board automatic cuts is as close to a &quot;balanced&quot; approach as you are ever going to get.

And, in fact, restricting *increases* to federal spending to 2 or 3 % would get us to balance in approximately 10 years. That's better than anything I've seen so far from any of those idiots in DC who absolutely deserve automatic nad &quot;sequestration&quot;.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1936140]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from TheNeverMind]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1936069]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I don't like you blog!
Even if I find it amusing that just saying so could get someone kicked in the nads.
Letting us fall off the cliff offers each party more of what they really want (Dems was tax/revenue increases, Reps want spending cuts) than they could ever hope for in a compromise package - I think this motivation will prove much stronger than either the brownie points for actually looking like they &quot;did&quot; something or the fact that there are less desirable features wrapped up in the trigger (that they'd probably get most of in a compromise package anyway).  I bet they let us fall off.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1936069]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from anothermick]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1935985]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[For you to really feel incentive equivalent to congress, I think you're going to need to procure a small business grant that subsidizes you for the cost of hiring the ball-kicker.  probably better limit your victims to Democratic congressmen until that comes through...]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1935985]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from RavenBlack]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1935928]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I consider the benefits of saying I don't like your blog, but it feels awfully like that twilight zone episode with the box. Sure, I might be the stranger you pay, but it's equally likely that I might be the stranger who gets kicked in the nads.

On balance, I'll go with &quot;actually I quite like the 'avoidy thing' bit.&quot;]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1935928]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from mhlong47]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1935893]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I always get a kick out of people saying - well, the approval rating is so low for Congress, I'm surprised they get re-elected' - or words to that effect.  Hate to tell you all, but that's the approval rating people give for anyone OTHER than their congressman.  Their own congressman has much higher approval ratings especially among those that actually vote in the primaries.  And since most elections take place there (most districts are so gerrymandered as to ensure certain party candidates get elected in the general election), and so few bother to vote, it's no wonder they stay in office, and often nobody who has much of a chance, bothers to challenge the incumbants in the primaries anyway.  So stop complaining, unless you're willing to spend several hundred thousand if not more of your own money to run what would be required for a decent campaign - with no assurances you will actually get elected (see: Romney). We are getting the best Congress that primary money can buy.  Regarding Scott's basic point? Why take risks when toeing the party line will ensure you get that primary vote win.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1935893]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Geldhart]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1935719]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[You can solve the debt problems EASILY in most countries by auctioning off the right to kick a politician in the &quot;gender&quot; parts. Televise it live and you can have sponsorships as well.

How much would you pay to kick your MP in the fork on live TV? Bidding will start at $1000.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1935719]]></guid>
</item>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedPMCSTE_Rstst]]></pubDate>
<lastBuildDate><![CDATA[WedPMCSTE_Rstst]]></lastBuildDate></channel></rss>
