The proposed 2012 budget...

[CaptainHaplo]

Before you start screaming about how this plan is going to make seniors live on dog or cat food, before you start arguing how lower taxes create economic growth, and before you take up whichever ideological arguements you already know.....

Try reading the thing:

http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/PathToProsperityFY2012.pdf

Once you have, lets have a discussion on is this the right thing to do.

No talking points - lets deal with it as what it is - not what one side or the other CLAIM it is.....

[Platapus]

Well this is not the actual budget document. This is a propaganda document reflecting partisan viewpoints.

What we need to find is the actual proposed budget that the House of Representatives, as a whole, is proposing (which has not been released yet).

Then we can talk.

This document is only what the GOP wants us to believe they are going to propose.

[Ducimus]

Well this is not the actual budget document. This is a propaganda document reflecting partisan viewpoints.
.

The file linked pretty much makes this obvious.
budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/PathToProsperityFY2012.pdf

Path to prosperity? REALLY?! Says who? And does everyone agree this is the path? It's not named something official like "ProposedBudget2012.pdf", but a file named with a "make you feel good" choice of words. I just wasn't going to say anything, but i couldn't help but respond to your post Platapus. Damn you!

[mookiemookie]

GOP Completely Fixes Economy By Canceling Funding For NPR

"Since eliminating federal spending for NPR, America's economic outlook is brighter than it's been in decades, with manufacturing on the rise and millions of jobs once sent overseas now returning to our shores," said Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL), adding that by eliminating funds for NPR, the deficit has been slashed by 0.000004 percent and a newly thriving middle class once again has cause to believe in the American dream.

The Onion nails it again. (http://www.theonion.com/articles/gop-completely-fixes-economy-by-canceling-funding,19897/)

And what they said. This is pure partisan propaganda. If you want to deal with something as is instead as one side claims it is, (your words) start by junking this document.

[Tribesman]

lets deal with it as what it is
me good them bad.
Dealt with as what it is:up:
Or if you go by the wondeful charts on projections
me amazingly good me the best thing since unsliced bread, them real crazy loons who couldn't tie a shoe lace.

[CaptainHaplo]

Actually pull up the document......

This IS the 2012 fiscal budget resolution released by the House committee on the Budget. Sorry you take offense to the name - and yes the name is partisan politics. But it IS the official resolution by the committee.

Try checking page 4 for the "Statement of Constitutionality and Legal Authority"

No - its no Binding (as the full house must vote, then send it thru the senate and exec)m, but it IS a starting point.

So how come no one wants to actually read the thing? People too entrenched in their partisanship?

Sad.... Just plain sad....

[Tribesman]

People too entrenched in their partisanship?



It is because it is a shallow pice of political posturing which completely lacks any real detail. For example the spending proposals on health are completely vacant apart from cut here/spend there when the programs are interconnected and interwoven at nearly every level.
With any buget the devil is in the detail and here it is absent

[August]

Actually pull up the document......

This IS the 2012 fiscal budget resolution released by the House committee on the Budget. Sorry you take offense to the name - and yes the name is partisan politics. But it IS the official resolution by the committee.

Try checking page 4 for the "Statement of Constitutionality and Legal Authority"

No - its no Binding (as the full house must vote, then send it thru the senate and exec)m, but it IS a starting point.

So how come no one wants to actually read the thing? People too entrenched in their partisanship?

Sad.... Just plain sad....

Of course it is Hap. The Dems are scared to death that the Republicans might actually address their run away spending habits so instead of actually considering the bill they will reject it because of who created it rather than what it contains.

[mookiemookie]

So how come no one wants to actually read the thing? People too entrenched in their partisanship?

Sad.... Just plain sad....

What's sad is that you're so entrenched in your partisanship that you refuse to see that this is a piece of GOP propaganda and you don't even realize it. I mean it's even got a link to the GOP website on the cover. It quotes the Heritage Foundation. And you're gonna try and tell me that this is a unbiased and objective document? If I tried to link you to an analysis from MoveOn, you'd all flame me to oblivion.

Your only response to that is "it's not because it says it's Constitutional on page 4."

[Takeda Shingen]

This Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2012 intends to recommit the nation fully to the timeless principles of
American government enshrined in the U.S. Constitution – liberty, limited government, and equality under the rule of law. It seeks to guide policies by those principles, freeing the nation from the crushing burden of debt that is now threatening its future.

Where the President has failed, House Republicans will lead. This budget helps spur job creation today, stops spending money the government doesn’t have, and lifts the crushing burden of debt. This plan puts the budget on the path to balance and the economy on the path to prosperity.

house.GOP.gov

It is fine to not have talking points, but what you have linked to is little other than talking points. If you want to spur discussion in a less partisan direction, I would start by linking a less partisan source.

[razark]

From glancing through it, looks to be more a policy document outlining the Republican agenda rather than a budget document.

[Bilge_Rat]

I read it.

It is the same, lame "solutions" right wing conservatives have been proposing for 30 years:

1. cut taxes;
2. cut spending;
3. balance the budget.

They will cut $178 B out of defence spending this year, but no specifics.

They will eliminate waste in government by firing 10% of all govt employess, but without affecting any services. :doh:

They will cut Medicare spending "by ending wasteful fraud", but without affecting the current level of benefits. :doh:

They will solve the Social Security crisis by forcing the President to come up with a plan. :doh:

And their magic weapon: producing untold amounts of savings by REPEALING THE OBAMA HEALTH CARE PLAN! which is repeated on a special BLUE page every few pages in case we dont get the point.

And what will this wonderful plan do for America? OMG, the cut in taxes will create an economic boom that will generate untold tax revenues to PAY OFF THE NATIONAL DEBT!!!!

This was not written by politicians, it was written by the inmates of an insane asylum. :haha::rotfl2::har:

[MothBalls]

Once you have, lets have a discussion on is this the right thing to do.

No talking points - lets deal with it as what it is - not what one side or the other CLAIM it is.....

Just write bad checks and let the grandkids worry about it.

[mookiemookie]

I read it.

It is the same, lame "solutions" right wing conservatives have been proposing for 30 years:

1. cut taxes;
2. cut spending;
3. balance the budget.

They will cut $178 B out of defence spending this year, but no specifics.

They will eliminate waste in government by firing 10% of all govt employess, but without affecting any services. :doh:

They will cut Medicare spending "by ending wasteful fraud", but without affecting the current level of benefits. :doh:

They will solve the Social Security crisis by forcing the President to come up with a plan. :doh:

And their magic weapon: producing untold amounts of savings by REPEALING THE OBAMA HEALTH CARE PLAN! which is repeated on a special BLUE page every few pages in case we dont get the point.

And what will this wonderful plan do for America? OMG, the cut in taxes will create an economic boom that will generate untold tax revenues to PAY OFF THE NATIONAL DEBT!!!!

This was not written by politicians, it was written by the inmates of an insane asylum. :haha::rotfl2::har:

1. Cut taxes
2. Cut spending
3. ????
4. PROFIT!

[August]

The Democrats held both houses of Congress and the Oval office yet they still didn't address the deficit other than to massively add to it.

[Bilge_Rat]

I will make one serious comment. One of the proposed solution to the medicare/medicaid issue is to transfer responsibility to the individual states and have the federal government make lump sum payments, with limited future increases presumably capped to cost of living. Unstated, but presumably under the premise that individual states could administer Medicare/Medicaid at a lower cost by tailoring the system to local conditions.

This solution is what was implemented in Canada 30 years ago. In the late 70s, the can. federal govt. was facing ballooning deficits. At the time, the fed. govt was funding 50% of public health care and many other social programs and the other 50% was paid by the provinces. They came up with a similar plan where the responsibility for the programs would be transferred to the individual provinces and the fed. govt would only pay a lump sum annual payment, increased each year by a cost of living increase.

Well, it turned out to be a great plan for the federal government. Over the past 30 years, the federal share of health care spending has gone down from 50% to around 30% while the provinces now pay around 70%. The federal govt, up until 2008 was running surpluses while the provinces have chronic deficits and the political problem of trying to figure out what programs to cut or what taxes to raise.

So the GOP solution sounds fine on paper, but all you wind up doing is transferring the problem to the individual states.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Could some one explain this "lower-taxes-fixes-everything" idea? Simple Finn does not understand... :hmmm:

I assume that GOP wants to go competition with PRC and lure industries back to USA. In that case my simple mind says that they would have to either:
1. implement tariff system to make importing goods unfeasible and ease export
2. or cut wages.

In my understanding option 1. would conflict with St. Free Trade (patron saint of conservatives am I correct?) and would therefore be out of question. I personally doubt success of option 2...

[Armistead]

It really doesn't address the issues, just the same old theory of voodoo economics, make the rich richer and we'll see a trickle down effect from it.
Due to regulations, shelters, trade laws, etc, 10% now hold about 80% of all wealth. That's where selling out to corporations has got us. Make no doubt about it, lobbiest wrote this bill. Some things sound good, but they always do, cap and decide what and how much to spend on this or that.

As long as lobbiest and special interest run this nation we'll be changing dance partners every election.

I have no doubt we'll have to scrap medicare/caid/SS to a great degree in the future. That's where the money goes. Until we can solve healthcare, we'll continue to see mass unsubtainable debt. The only way to do it is make all health care nonprofit, regulated and affordable. The GOP
for healthcare is simply thin the herd...can't keep up, fall out and die.

[gimpy117]

is that that road map tax plan again? I read a report from a watchdog group that tore it a new one.

they said it would actually raise taxes for the middle class, while cutting taxes for...guess who!...the rich. and that it actually wouldn't solve the budget.


also...defense spending to "below 2008 levels" that probably means just below. But what they don't mention is that we were in a war in 2008, so what does that mean? will we be spending as if we were in a war for the next 10 years? I bet GE loves that. Free money! they don't even pay taxes here.

[Sailor Steve]

Could some one explain this "lower-taxes-fixes-everything" idea? Simple Finn does not understand... :hmmm:
My personal belief is that the people responsible for creating taxes should be of the opinion that all taxes are evil. I'm not saying that they are, but too many people think that they're good, rather than just a tool.

In my ideal world there would be no taxes. Impossible? Of course. Government has no means to generate revenue, so if we want roads, police etc. we need taxes. If people were perfect we wouldn't need governments, but people aren't perfect, so we have governments and we have taxes.

But at the same time you mock the idea of lower taxes fixing things, I don't see you addressing the opposite. Are you saying that higher taxes can fix everything? If that's the case then shouldn't you be advocating 100% of everything we make going to the government, and then the wonderful people we elect can decide how much we need to live on?

I see you mocking one side, but ignoring the problems of your own. It's an all-too-common idea around here: "I'm right and you're stupid."

[Onkel Neal]

I read it.

It is the same, lame "solutions" right wing conservatives have been proposing for 30 years:

1. cut taxes;
2. cut spending;
3. balance the budget.



Wait, how is that lame???? :timeout:

Cutting taxes? Yes, it's my money, not yours. You want to contribute extra to the federal govt, go for it. You have no right to induce others to do the same.
Cutting spending? Sure, who says there's not enough govt spending?
Balance the budget? :doh:

[Tribesman]

@gimpy
they said it would actually raise taxes for the middle class
No, it cuts taxes for them...but of courseshifts it to other taxes so they end up paying more taxes but different ones, same with the healthcare its just juggling.
I bet GE loves that. Free money! they don't even pay taxes here.
What strikes me is the accelerated cuts they propose in the WOT, have the publicans gone soft on terror?

@ whom it may concern:rotfl2:
Of course it is Hap. The Dems are scared to death that the Republicans might actually address their run away spending habits so instead of actually considering the bill they will reject it because of who created it rather than what it contains.
Why do I get the idea that August actually hasn't read the document?
I suppose it goes with the problem of Haplo not seeing the document for what it is.

@Neal
Wait, how is that lame????
Because.
They don't cut they just shift
They don't reduce they just move.
Balance.....yeah heard that one before

@Mookie
It quotes the Heritage Foundation. And you're gonna try and tell me that this is a unbiased and objective document?
Be fair, it is in essence really from the heritage foundation. It is based on their commission and is their interpretation of the model they bought.

[Bilge_Rat]

Wait, how is that lame???? :timeout:

Cutting taxes? Yes, it's my money, not yours. You want to contribute extra to the federal govt, go for it. You have no right to induce others to do the same.
Cutting spending? Sure, who says there's not enough govt spending?
Balance the budget? :doh:

I was using bullet points to summarize a 70+ page document. The GOP plan uses these three familiar slogans which no one can really say they are against, but which mean nothing in practice. Let's look at the plan.

1. Tax Cuts: the theory behind cutting taxes is that individuals/businesses will use the savings to reinvest and create additional jobs and economic growth. This has been tried under Reagan and Bush jr, but no one can say the economic situation in the USA has been growing increasingly better in the past 30 years. The Republican solution is usually to say that we have to try even deeper cuts.

However, the reality is that most economic activity in the world is controlled by multinational corporations which already pay little or no tax since they can shift most of their taxable income to tax havens. They shift their production to low cost jurisdictions which the USA no longer is. A tax cut would not bring them back to the USA.

2. Cutting Spending: it sounds good, but there are no real cuts in the GOP plan. Real cuts means cutting programs or services which does not appear here.

3. Balanced Budget. Just like Mom&apple pie, no one can be against this, but if you cut taxes without really cutting spending, how can you balance the budget? The only way, which is what they do here is by grossly overestimating future revenues while underestimating future spending.

[mookiemookie]

But at the same time you mock the idea of lower taxes fixing things, I don't see you addressing the opposite. Are you saying that higher taxes can fix everything? If that's the case then shouldn't you be advocating 100% of everything we make going to the government, and then the wonderful people we elect can decide how much we need to live on?

Steve, that's a false choice argument. The opposite of saying "tax cuts fixes everything" is not advocating a 100% tax.

I'll explain why in a roundabout way of explaining the idea to kraznyi_oktjabr: the idea that lowering taxes is the answer is based upon the Laffer curve:

http://www.timswineblog.com/images/laffer%20curve.gif.

Proponents say that by reducing the tax burden on people and businesses, they'll have more money in their pocket to spend on things, which boosts the economy and makes everyone richer. (In the diagram above, you're moving from "Point B" to the top of the curve, closer to the "Equilibrium point", thus increasing revenues.)

There are numerous problems with such an economic model - it sounds legit on the surface, but when you start examining history and budgets, it falls apart. Too boring to go into here.

The problem is that Republicans will always tell you that we're in the left side of the curve where tax cuts will increase revenue. Reagan dropped the top tax rate from 70% to 28%. But yet they still tell you we need to drop it further. They ignore their own model - at some point dropping taxes will end up in reduced revenues. (going from Equilibrium to "Point A") But that point is conveniently swept under the rug. :doh:

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

My personal belief is that the people responsible for creating taxes should be of the opinion that all taxes are evil. I'm not saying that they are, but too many people think that they're good, rather than just a tool.

In my ideal world there would be no taxes. Impossible? Of course. Government has no means to generate revenue, so if we want roads, police etc. we need taxes. If people were perfect we wouldn't need governments, but people aren't perfect, so we have governments and we have taxes.

But at the same time you mock the idea of lower taxes fixing things, I don't see you addressing the opposite. Are you saying that higher taxes can fix everything? If that's the case then shouldn't you be advocating 100% of everything we make going to the government, and then the wonderful people we elect can decide how much we need to live on?

I see you mocking one side, but ignoring the problems of your own. It's an all-too-common idea around here: "I'm right and you're stupid."
First I don't see myself to be right nor you to be stupid. What I write is my opinion and does not assume other posters to be mentally retarded idiots.

I don't mean that higher taxes fixes everything - you can raise taxes to 100% and still I wouldn't be surprised find out that government is forced to take loan to cover expenses. This is because politicians always try to give everyone everything to get as much votes as possible which is expensive. Problem would also be that there would be no point for private business to have factory or other profit making activity in country where government would take all profit and leave expenses to company.

Reason for my question was that I just don't get it why for some "lower taxes" seems to be magic wand which fixes everything from economy to your aunt's marriage or your dog's diarrhea. Economy does not revolve around taxes only. For corporations lower taxes are ofcourse nice benefit but they are not only factor considered when they decide where to place their new shiny factory will be placed. Other important factors are costs from employees like wages & social security expenses and materiel availability & cost to mention few examples.

In media (atleast when watching from here Europe) taxes seem to play very large part in American policy discussion although it is just one part of package to consider if your country wants to remain competitive (which I assume to be goal).

I'm not perfect and I don't say that I'm absolutely correct in this. If I'm wrong then I'm happy to get constructive feedback. Btw what you mean with "my problem"?

[mookiemookie]

Looks like the ol' Heritage Foundation is already monkeying with the numbers.

Yesterday they claimed they were using a 2.8% unemployment rate in their projections - a rate that's never been that low in all of history (we'll not get into what that would do to inflation). Today...that assumption has magically disappeared from the documents. :rotfl2:

Forgive the Krugman link, but he's got links to both PDFs that the Heritage Foundation released - both yesterday's and today's that's been through the magical eraser treatment:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/memory-hole-alert/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto

How on Earth can you honestly say that this is objective and non-partisan?

[Armistead]

I would be all for corporate tax cuts if they worked for America, they don't. They'll use those cuts to get even richer in a global economy where
doing things cheap at the expense of others works best. Corporations are making good profits in a terrible world economy, do they really need to pay less taxes?

[gimpy117]

I would be all for corporate tax cuts if they worked for America, they don't. They'll use those cuts to get even richer in a global economy where
doing things cheap at the expense of others works best. Corporations are making good profits in a terrible world economy, do they really need to pay less taxes?

exactly. Cutting corporate taxes here is a farce. We can never make goods as cheaply as India, china, or any other 3rd world nation. Our workers simply cannot survive on those wages...so really, cutting their taxes isn't really a job creating measure, its a profit creating measure because even with lower taxes they will still outsource to Asia. Im sure even if we did some kinds a plan of getting rid of corporate taxes if a company only employed legal Americans, it would still be cheaper to go to china.

[Bilge_Rat]

I see you mocking one side, but ignoring the problems of your own. It's an all-too-common idea around here: "I'm right and you're stupid."

Steve,

I was quite ready to look at the GOP budget objectively and I am not one to mock my opponents in debate. In my day job, I analyse financial statements and reports all the time and know what to look for. This is not a budget per se, but simply a political document.

A lot of things dont add up. They say they want to cut spending, but never mention specific programs to cut. Most of the savings would seem to come from cutting out fraud and mismanagement, but that could not account for more than say a 5% savings. Despite that, they still have spending remaining at around 20% of GDP out to 2035-2040.


On taxes, the GOP wants to cut taxes and say the tax cut would have the following benefits:


According the analysis, this budget would produce the following results:

Faster economic growth:
$1.5 trillion in additional real gross domestic product over the decade.

More jobs:
Nearly one million new private sector jobs next year and 2.5 million new private sector jobs in the last year of the decade.

Higher wages:
$1.1 trillion in higher wages, salary and income.

More prosperity:
$9.35 trillion in higher real household income, translating into an average of $1,000 per year in higher income for each family.



By achieving sustainable levels of spending, deficits and debt – along with growth-oriented reforms to the tax code, this budget sets the nation on a path to prosperity.



However despite the tax cuts, they have government revenue as a % of GDP increasing from 17.4% in 2012 to 18.3% in 2020. How can the % go up if the tax rate is going down? They could presume that a higher percentage of the population will enter the workforce, but that would require an explanation of what demographic factors would account for that.

On the other hand, the GOP is also asking for a Tax Reform to close "loopholes" at the same time as they reduce taxes. If the overall effect of reform is to increase the taxable income of households and therefore the tax bite, that would account for the increase, but that would be a disguised tax increase, not a tax cut. This would also contradict their listed benefits (see above).

They also have the budget switching to surplus after 2020 without explaining how that would happen.

I am quite willing to discuss this document, but lets be clear on what it is: it is the political manifesto of the GOP. It is not a government budget.

[Tribesman]

@Bilge Rat
on your fraud and mismanagement section for savings it must also be considered that this really means more expense and bigger government.

[mookiemookie]

Steve,

I was quite ready to look at the GOP budget objectively and I am not one to mock my opponents in debate. In my day job, I analyse financial statements and reports all the time and know what to look for. This is not a budget per se, but simply a political document.

A lot of things dont add up. They say they want to cut spending, but never mention specific programs to cut. Most of the savings would seem to come from cutting out fraud and mismanagement, but that could not account for more than say a 5% savings. Despite that, they still have spending remaining at around 20% of GDP out to 2035-2040.


On taxes, the GOP wants to cut taxes and say the tax cut would have the following benefits:



However despite the tax cuts, they have government revenue as a % of GDP increasing from 17.4% in 2012 to 18.3% in 2020. How can the % go up if the tax rate is going down? They could presume that a higher percentage of the population will enter the workforce, but that would require an explanation of what demographic factors would account for that.

On the other hand, the GOP is also asking for a Tax Reform to close "loopholes" at the same time as they reduce taxes. If the overall effect of reform is to increase the taxable income of households and therefore the tax bite, that would account for the increase, but that would be a disguised tax increase, not a tax cut. This would also contradict their listed benefits (see above).

They also have the budget switching to surplus after 2020 without explaining how that would happen.

I am quite willing to discuss this document, but lets be clear on what it is: it is the political manifesto of the GOP. It is not a government budget.

They also used an unemployment rate of 2.8% in their analysis (the line that says so has since been deleted) and they say that 2.5mm more jobs will be created, but yet the numbers for wages and salaries and inflation are about equal to the President's plan. Explain how you will achieve full employment below what most will argue is the natural rate of unemployment due to general and normal turnover in the labor market (4-5%)? Explain to me how adding 2.5mm more workers to an economy will not result in wage inflation? Explain to me how wage inflation will not lead to CPI inflation?

These numbers make absolutely no sense. It's smoke and mirrors.

[Tribesman]

It's smoke and mirrors.
There you have the solution, the economy will be fixed with a new tax on smoke and mirrors

[Bilge_Rat]

good point Mookie, the last time the U.S. unemployment rate dipped below 3% was in ....1953.

[August]

Maybe we'll get lucky and the Federal government shutdown will make everyone realize they're not as vital to our continued existence as they like to make themselves out to be.

[gimpy117]

good point Mookie, the last time the U.S. unemployment rate dipped below 3% was in ....1953.

when the top tax rate was....drumroll.....93%

[Tribesman]

Maybe we'll get lucky and the Federal government shutdown will make everyone realize they're not as vital to our continued existence as they like to make themselves out to be.

Maybe the shutdown will last, then people can celebrate the affect on veterans care, the tending of such trivial things like national museums and monuments, the loss of tourism and of course problems with travelling, I look forward to the complaints about unsecured borders and why there is a lack of police on the streets.
Now of course some of those are instant impacts as "essential" workers can continue working without pay though can still recieve benefits, others are more longer term impacts.
I would love to see the teabaggers jumping around boasting of how they stopped the government putting new border agents down south to stop the mexican horde:rotfl2:

[onelifecrisis]

Maybe the shutdown will last, then people can celebrate the affect on veterans care, the tending of such trivial things like national museums and monuments, the loss of tourism and of course problems with travelling, I look forward to the complaints about unsecured borders and why there is a lack of police on the streets.
Now of course some of those are instant impacts as "essential" workers can continue working without pay though can still recieve benefits, others are more longer term impacts.
I would love to see the teabaggers jumping around boasting of how they stopped the government putting new border agents down south to stop the mexican horde:rotfl2:

US citizens are very well armed. If there were no government and no law then the problem of immigration might get dealt with quite quickly by those who have strong feelings on the matter.

[tater]

when the top tax rate was....drumroll.....93%

Do have even the slightest clue how the tax code works (and did work)?

Tax brackets tax all adjusted income above a certain value. So you have a 95% top marginal rate on, whatever, income over 1M$. That means that the last dollar before 1M$ is taxed at the next lower rate, and so on.

In addition, when the tax brackets were higher, the loopholes were vastly greater. There were also like 25 tax brackets. All you need do is look at US tax revenues as a % of GDP. It varies in a range of high teens to ~20% of GDP. The top marginal rate apparently had nothing to do with total revenues. In point of fact, the "rich" pay a higher % of taxes actually collected than ever.

So Ryan's talk about limiting spending to 20% of GDP is entirely reasonable. History shows that this is in fact slightly above total federal revenues. Adjusting tax rates should certainly be on the table. Alternately, scrapping the current tax code which is built to intentionally be complicated. It is full of pay offs as "incentives." Just set a flat tax designed to put 20% of GDP into the coffers.

Medicare and SS need to be cut.

I could promise top give you, gimpy, $100,000 in a week if you give me $10,000 today. Would you jump for joy? Why, when I don't have 100 grand to give you? So 1 week from now, I'd become persona non grata at subsim, and you get nothing—in fact you are out 10 grand. What if Neal convinces me that SS is so cool that maybe I could give you something, and I could stay around... so I offer you $50,000 for your 10 grand, instead. Do you take it, or whine that I owed you more, and get nothing?

That's where we are as a country. The entitlements are ridiculous promises that cannot be kept. If the country goes the way of Greece/Spain/Portugal, the people counting on SS/MC will be SOL. Ditto if we go the way of Argentina (hyper-inflation). Bottom line is that someone has to get off their ass and propose budgets that actually deal with the problems. That means reducing spending.

So far we have Ryan's plan. That's it. The administration and the Dems have as the plan to spend 1.2 trillion per year more than we have, then crow that it's 100 billion less than it could've been. That's it, that's their plan.

Look at the current dems. They owned both houses, and neglected to do their job last year and make a budget. THAT is why there could be a "shut down." Had they done their job last year when they controlled the entire government, no impasse now. Instead, they are bent about cuts that are chump change compared to their own vast overspending. If they can't pass 60 B$ in cuts, how can they address ~1.5 trillion in needed cuts (not over 10 years, but THIS year)? They can't because they have no desire to cut spending. Not now, not ever.

[Bilge_Rat]

Tater,

I dont disagree. Limiting spending to 20% of GDP is entirely doable since it was more or less the historical average.

What is not doable is: limiting spending to 20% of GDP, plus cutting taxes as well and expecting to balance the budget.

There is no magic formula. To balance the budget, you have to cut spending, which means cutting programs or services and raise taxes to generate revenues.

There is no free ride, every other country in this situation has had to bite the bullet and make tough decisions.

[tater]

Tax revenues are already very nearly 20%.

There is no need to mess with them unless you scrap them and start over. The tax that most needs reduction right now is the corporate income tax. Slash it to a reasonable level, but eliminate all loopholes so that they actually pay.

Raising the payroll tax (or cap), OTOH, should be out of the question. SS/MC need to come from the payroll taxes as they are. If there is a shortfall, cut benis. It's not fair for people who paid in at under even the current 15.3% FICA to expect workers now to shell out more, when all the money they paid in was already spent—on themselves.

Right now, what is the democrat plan, exactly? Spend ourselves into solvency?

[Onkel Neal]

when the top tax rate was....drumroll.....93%


I don't know how you can think a 93% tax rate is fair.

[Dan D]

That is why it is called "Houston,Texas" and not "Houston, Taxes".

[mookiemookie]

I don't know how you can think a 93% tax rate is fair.

I don't think he's arguing the point that it's fair, but it certainly does poke holes in the "the solution to everything, including unemployment, is to lower taxes" argument.

[gimpy117]

I don't think he's arguing the point that it's fair, but it certainly does poke holes in the "the solution to everything, including unemployment, is to lower taxes" argument.

thanks mookie, im glad somebody knows what i was getting at.

[August]

I don't think he's arguing the point that it's fair, but it certainly does poke holes in the "the solution to everything, including unemployment, is to lower taxes" argument.

Nice straw man mookie but I don't think you could find that anyone here that has made that argument.

Lower tax arguments are always coupled with decreased spending and improved efficiency. They have to be. Federal spending must be reigned in or even 93% tax rates aren't going to make a bit of difference.

[gimpy117]

Nice straw man mookie but I don't think you could find that anyone here that has made that argument.

Lower tax arguments are always coupled with decreased spending and improved efficiency. They have to be. Federal spending must be reigned in or even 93% tax rates aren't going to make a bit of difference.

who said mookie was speaking about you guys? I think he was speaking politicians and their trickle down theory.

[August]

I think he was speaking politicians and their trickle down theory.


Ok Gimpy. Show me the politician who thinks that lowering taxes alone will solve the problem.

Again, you ignore the point though. Raise the top earners tax rate to 100%. Confiscate all their assets. Sell their families into slavery even (you know you want to). It will be all for naught, because you will still have a trillion dollar deficit.

[DarkFish]

Ok Gimpy. Show me the politician who thinks that lowering taxes alone will solve the problem.

Again, you ignore the point though. Raise the top earners tax rate to 100%. Confiscate all their assets. Sell their families into slavery even (you know you want to). It will be all for naught, because you will still have a trillion dollar deficit.Did gimpy ever say he wants to tax only the rich?

[mookiemookie]

Sell their families into slavery even (you know you want to).

Oh that's nice. :roll:

[tater]

I don't think he's arguing the point that it's fair, but it certainly does poke holes in the "the solution to everything, including unemployment, is to lower taxes" argument.

How does raising taxes improve business conditions and encourage employment?

Regardless, a 93% tax bracket does not mean anyone ever paid anything remotely close to 93%.

The year John Kerry ran he paid an effective rate of ~15%. His top marginal rate was 39%.

[mookiemookie]

How does raising taxes improve business conditions and encourage employment?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

[Bilge_Rat]

How does raising taxes improve business conditions and encourage employment?




It does'nt and I don't see anyone here arguing that it does.

[August]

How does raising taxes improve business conditions and encourage employment?

Regardless, a 93% tax bracket does not mean anyone ever paid anything remotely close to 93%.

The year John Kerry ran he paid an effective rate of ~15%. His top marginal rate was 39%.

Tater I think they're just going to continue to steadfastly ignore the point. They will continue to promote class warfare. They will continue to spend money they don't have until they destroy themselves and the country along with it.

[gimpy117]

It does'nt and I don't see anyone here arguing that it does.

I think its more if it hurts it or not. I go back to the 93% tax bracket argument. Unemployment was how low then? the economic climate was different back then, and offshoring wasn't really possible, but taxes were still high. If high taxes on the rich was to kill the economy we still would have been in the depression.



Regardless, a 93% tax bracket does not mean anyone ever paid anything remotely close to 93%.

The year John Kerry ran he paid an effective rate of ~15%. His top marginal rate was 39%. So? it shows the politicians are also using all the loopholes in the tax system to get richer. Do you honestly think Kerry is the only one? Besides, It also shows that politicians know full well that there are huge loopholes, but don't close them because they use them and their friends in high places do too. I mean look at GE. they get all sorts of government contracts but pay no taxes, yet, we still hand our public money over. If our government had any sense they'd stop working with them and make what they are doing impossible...but do you think they will?

[August]

Oh that's nice. :roll:

Oh i'm so sorry, the proper Democrat mantra is "Eat the Rich", not "Sell the Rich". My mistake... :yeah:

[Tribesman]

Isn't it funny that those who were complaining about people not discussing the document and just taking some partisan line are the ones who are avoiding the document and are spilling out endless partisan nonsense.

[Takeda Shingen]

Oh i'm so sorry, the proper Democrat mantra is "Eat the Rich", not "Sell the Rich". My mistake... :yeah:

This is correct. The buying and selling of individuals has historically been exclusive to the wealthy.

[mookiemookie]

Oh i'm so sorry, the proper Democrat mantra is "Eat the Rich", not "Sell the Rich". My mistake... :yeah:

"When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich." - Jean-Jacques Rousseau

[tater]

Gimpy, you entirely missed my point. Of course it was not just Kerry. When the rates were topped at 93%, NO ONE payed that much. I'd wager that the average effective rates are virtually identical.

My point is that calling forth old, higher tax rates is a BS argument since the marginal rates tell us exactly nothing about what people actually paid. Bottom line is that under those higher rates the taxes collected as a percentage of GDP was in fact LOWER than now.

Total government spending then was around half of now as a function of GDP. The farther back you go in US history, the less total spending was.

On topic, Ryan suggested a spending cap at 20% or GDP. This is more than reasonable, heck to me it is too high. Still it's a good suggestion. Also the basic premise of his plan is good. We do something now or watch it crash and burn. Take your pick.

[DarkFish]

Isn't it funny that those who were complaining about people not discussing the document and just taking some partisan line are the ones who are avoiding the document and are spilling out endless partisan nonsense.Nah... I rather think it's sad.

[gimpy117]

"When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich." - Jean-Jacques Rousseau

that would be a pretty small meal considering that how few hold so much in this nation.

Ironically though, Cannibals will eat somebody who they feel is doing harm to the community.

Coincidence?


My point is that calling forth old, higher tax rates is a BS argument since the marginal rates tell us exactly nothing about what people actually paid. Bottom line is that under those higher rates the taxes collected as a percentage of GDP was in fact LOWER than now.

I know right! screw History when it doesn't fit my ideology. Wheres a big black marker when i need one? Why can't I just make up theories and not base them off of past events?! man the past is such a Debbie downer.

[Tribesman]

Nah... I rather think it's sad.
Perhaps it wouldn't have been so bad if the document wasn't what it was.

[August]

Gimpy, you entirely missed my point. Of course it was not just Kerry. When the rates were topped at 93%, NO ONE payed that much. I'd wager that the average effective rates are virtually identical.

My point is that calling forth old, higher tax rates is a BS argument since the marginal rates tell us exactly nothing about what people actually paid. Bottom line is that under those higher rates the taxes collected as a percentage of GDP was in fact LOWER than now.

Total government spending then was around half of now as a function of GDP. The farther back you go in US history, the less total spending was.

On topic, Ryan suggested a spending cap at 20% or GDP. This is more than reasonable, heck to me it is too high. Still it's a good suggestion. Also the basic premise of his plan is good. We do something now or watch it crash and burn. Take your pick.

QFT

[August]

Ironically though, Cannibals will eat somebody who they feel is doing harm to the community.

Yeah I'm sure that Jeffery Dalmer thought his victims were doing harm to the community. :roll:

[Armistead]

Tax revenues are already very nearly 20%.

There is no need to mess with them unless you scrap them and start over. The tax that most needs reduction right now is the corporate income tax. Slash it to a reasonable level, but eliminate all loopholes so that they actually pay.

Raising the payroll tax (or cap), OTOH, should be out of the question. SS/MC need to come from the payroll taxes as they are. If there is a shortfall, cut benis. It's not fair for people who paid in at under even the current 15.3% FICA to expect workers now to shell out more, when all the money they paid in was already spent—on themselves.

Right now, what is the democrat plan, exactly? Spend ourselves into solvency?

I've said 100 times here, corporations don't care about the tax as long as they can buy regulation/loopholes. Both parties have been behind the loopholes, but the GOP are the big players. Everytime they've lowered corporate taxes, we got more loopholes not less, you think I would believe
them again. Let's get rid of all the loopholes first, then we can talk lowering the rate.

I cringe when I see corporations giving 300-600 million dollar stock options to CEO's, they generate hefty tax deductions.

Obama was right when he said.

"There are so many loopholes that have been written into the tax code...that we actually see our businesses pay effectively one of the lowest tax rates in the world."

They pay about 25% at best. Has it created more jobs, built our economy, nope? It's creating a two class economy

In the end it's a stupid smoke and mirrors game. I agree we need spending caps, but again, let's see what they choose to spend on. As I understand this is just a cap, later behind closed doors they'll decide what to spend on what.

[tater]

I agree. Actually the US corporate tax system is more like the old income tax system when it had higher rates, and far more loopholes.

That's why I said up the thread that the US should pass a very l;ow corporate rate, but with zero loopholes. 14 or 15%, flat.

BTW, I think that the rate should apply to churches as well. The "gentleman's agreement" that churches will not engage in ay political activity has always been BS. As such, I don't think they meet 501c3 (note that this applies to any entity that is at all partisan).

Anyway, you cannot compare income taxes from the past without a heavy weighting applied, as well as good data on what the actual effective rates were. The weighting applies to tax revenue as a % of GDP weighted to spending. For a long time it was thought enough for the federal government to spend ~1% of GDP per year. It's past 20% now. Even under FDR it was mostly under 10% of GDP.

SPENDING is the problem, not taxation. Cut federal spending to 10% of GDP, and taxes can be far lower. The pitch to democrats can simply be "we want a New Deal, exactly the same as FDR had it!" (don't tell the hoi polloi that this means hacking spending by over a factor of 2, just pitch it as Rooseveltian socialism).

This is easy to accomplish. ~2/3 of spending is "entitlements." Cut entitlements by 75%, and you've just halved the budget—and you'll still be spending far more than FDR did on social programs.

[Tribesman]

That's why I said up the thread that the US should pass a very l;ow corporate rate, but with zero loopholes. 14 or 15%, flat.


Which would be bad for business, "loopholes" are there for a reason, you need to stop abuse of "loopholes" not close them.
Passing a low corporate rate will achieve very little, there is always somewhere which will offer a lower rate.

So you know what that means don't you...more government and more regulation:yep:
The very things they say they need less of.

[tater]

Which would be bad for business, "loopholes" are there for a reason, you need to stop abuse of "loopholes" not close them.
Passing a low corporate rate will achieve very little, there is always somewhere which will offer a lower rate.

So you know what that means don't you...more government and more regulation:yep:
The very things they say they need less of.

No loopholes.

Loopholes are there as payback. The US tax code is so large no one understands it. Lawyers specialize in segments of it (I know a few tax attorneys). They also exist because the rates are too high. The base US rate is very high because they know there are a million loopholes and no one pays the base rate.

That's why you pick a low rate, then stick to it. Loopholes are not "abused," they are used as intended. Eliminate loopholes entirely, but set a rate that is fair.

Total corporate profits are what, around 1.5 trillion dollars? That means that 15% would generate 225 billion. Corp income taxes during the Bush admin (collected) were higher than right now, at over 300 billion. Assuming our 1.5 trillion profit (~10% of GDP), this means that maybe the corporate rate should be a little higher than 15% (I just picked a number). At 20%, flat, we'd be looking at ~300T$.

There is no good reason for tax loopholes, IMO. Better to design a good tax to start with, and avoid the unfairness that comes from one business getting a break while another does not.

That means LESS regulation, and fewer tax collectors since no one has to determine who falls into the special class of payers that get a subsidy. The same applies to a flat income tax.

Note also that this creates a more predictable business environment. You can easily tell what your tax liability should be.

[Tribesman]

Loopholes are not "abused," they are used as intended.
You have problems understanding some very basic concepts on tax and business.

There is no good reason for tax loopholes, IMO.
That shows you have very little understanding of what they are.

[tater]

You have problems understanding some very basic concepts on tax and business.

No, I don't. The loopholes were specifically created to incentivize certain businesses—often (always?) as payback by politicians. Pol A will vote for a certain bill in return for votes to add a new tax code that allows the principle employer in his district to pay lower taxes. That is exactly how such loopholes are created.

That shows you have very little understanding of what they are.

The good reason would be (as I said) incentives. Economists love incentives, but they are poorly understood in reality, such that they always have unexpected consequences. Such unexpected consequences are NOT "abuse." In fact, there should be no unexpected consequences—they know everyone who possibly can will take advantage of every possible loophole. That is a given, it's why tax attorneys are on staff for every major company (and retained by every smaller one).

I think that a fair tax system eliminates the need for incentives. I also think that incentives are bad in general. If, for example, "green" energy is viable, then it does not need to be incentivized. It should sink or swim on its economic merits, not based on government subsidy by " tax incentives."

BTW, there is a reason why some companies get to use the loopholes who congress didn't mean to. It's because congress cannot single out specific businesses. They want to (because of the political payback/give-and-take mentioned above), but the code must be written to look like it doesn't single anyone out. So they can give a break for making widgets of a certain material using a certain process, thinking that only their target firms will get the break, but then another type of firm figures out they can alter what they make to fit the broadly written law, and then they get it too.

[tater]

A couple known examples of "abuse" I can easily remember are for import duties. The US has a lower tax rate (significantly) on cotton garments than "man-made" fabrics. Garments must be over 50% cotton to get the better tax. Poly stuff, OTOH, is cheaper. So what the Chinese (largely, though others as well) do, is they like to make stuff with less cotton than required to get the tax break, while still using the cheaper poly at a higher % in the blend. Over millions of garments, the small savings by making a few % more poly is gravy to them. As a result, stuff requires testing to make sure it is over 50%.

Another is toys. TOys have no duty. Bedding does. Wonder why they have bedding called "pillow pets" (pillow that look like stuffed animals)? No duty, but as bedding they get picked up by stores that would not sell stuffed animals.

I don't consider the latter abuse, though faking a higher cotton content on the label IS abuse.

[Platapus]

When will we realize that since it took us decades to get into this mess (both parties are equally guilty) it may take decades to get us out.

Unfortunately, that requires the political parties to commit themselves to working for the country and not for their party. :har::har::har::har::har: There goes *that* fantasy. :yep:

A series of small incremental changes allowing time for the economy to adjust is the solution, in my opinion

[Bilge_Rat]

I saw an interesting comment on the Politico site that just like the Democrats made the mistake of thinking thay had a "mandate" to reform health care after 2008, the Republicans now think they have a "mandate" to cut spending.

reining in spending is a laudable goal, but far from a priority when the USA is in the worst recession since the Great Depression. The number one goal now is getting the economy back on its feet.

The housing market in the USA has hit its lowest prices in 9 years. Up to half of homeowners in certain states owe more on their house than its worth. Many economists think it may take 10-20 years, if ever, before all the excess housing stock is absorbed, all the while dragging down any potential recovery.

And why are the Politicians threatening to shut down the government? over whether they should cut 30 or 40 billion dollars out of last year's budget. Spending for 2010-11 is budgeted at 3,500 billion dollars, so 30 or 40 is only 1%.

[mookiemookie]

And why are the Politicians threatening to shut down the government? over whether they should cut 30 or 40 billion dollars out of last year's budget. Spending for 2010-11 is budgeted at 3,500 billion dollars, so 30 or 40 is only 1%.

Exactly why I posted that Onion article in the beginning of this thread. None of the proposals do anything to address any of the spending or debt problems they say they do. Apparently the last minute negotiations between both sides of clowns came down to bill riders such as defunding support for Planned Parenthood (which is completely stupid no matter which side of the abortion debate you fall on as PP's goal is to prevent pregnancy and thus the need for abortions) and minuscule things that DON'T MATTER and will not have ANY meaningful effect on the national debt or spending. It's pure ideology being sold as fiscal responsibility. Politics at its finest.

You want spending cuts? Here's your $82 billion in spending cuts. Done. Next problem.

http://i.imgur.com/Vu42d.png

[gimpy117]

it's a nice thought..but that will never happen. at least not the weapons development.

[Ducimus]

It seems to me, the core problem with both parties (GOP especially, but both are culpable) can be summed up in one picture:

http://spectrain.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/my-way.jpg

It's like their stuck on their ideology, they act like their at war, and they both think that their the only ones who live in this country. They also seem to be oblivious of very novel word called "Compromise". Hell, some of the representives elected went to their post stating they had no intention of making any compromises. That's not exactly what i'd call a team player. And what effort is made at compromise, is laiden down with so much pork, as to be laughable at best.

"A house divided against itself cannot stand." - Abraham Lincoln

If this is how the two parties are going to operate for now on, the "American Experiment" will be doomed to failure. Perhaps it already has. Go ahead. Shut down the F'ing governtment, and revoke all pay for every Assclown in congress while were at it. If i had my way, id lock them all in a room for however long it takes, without pay, until they come up with a joint and united solution.

[razark]

It seems to me, the core problem with both parties (GOP especially, but both are culpable) can be summed up in one picture:

"Bipartisanship" has two meanings now. To the majority party, it means "You have to do things our way!", to the minority party it means "You guys should be nice to us or we'll walk all over you when it's our turn!"

If i had my way, id lock them all in a room for however long it takes, without pay, until they come up with a joint and united solution.
I suggest we lock them in, and start fining them the equivalent of their salaries for each day the shutdown lasts.

[mookiemookie]

It seems to me, the core problem with both parties (GOP especially, but both are culpable) can be summed up in one picture:

http://spectrain.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/my-way.jpg

It's like their stuck on their ideology, they act like their at war, and they both think that their the only ones who live in this country. They also seem to be oblivious of very novel word called "Compromise". Hell, some of the representives elected went to their post stating they had no intention of making any compromises. That's not exactly what i'd call a team player. And what effort is made at compromise, is laiden down with so much pork, as to be laughable at best.

"A house divided against itself cannot stand." - Abraham Lincoln

If this is how the two parties are going to operate for now on, the "American Experiment" will be doomed to failure. Perhaps it already has. Go ahead. Shut down the F'ing governtment, and revoke all pay for every Assclown in congress while were at it. If i had my way, id lock them all in a room for however long it takes, without pay, until they come up with a joint and united solution.

It's politics. Compromise is a sign of weakness. Anything that your opponent can claim as a victory hurts you in your next re-election bid. It's not enough to oppose your foe. You have to destroy him.

You can't just oppose Bill Clinton's policies - you have to impeach him. You can't oppose Bush's ideas - you have to insult his intelligence and claim treason and 9/11 was an inside job. You can't oppose Obama's proposal - you have to delegitimize his presidency by claiming he's a Kenyan socialist Muslim Manchurian Candidate.

[Ducimus]

Compromise is a sign of weakness. Anything that your opponent can claim as a victory hurts you in your next re-election bid.

Yeah, heaven forbid they make the country their number 1 priority like their supposed to instead of getting re elected. F'ing C*********s.

[tater]

The march has been inexorably in one direction for a long time. The amount of spending (the vast majority of which is on "social programs" (ie: "socialism")) has been going up and up. Compromise usually means that the insane spenders pitch some increase, and the supposed fiscal conservatives pitch a very slightly lower figure. Doesn't matter, now we spend over 20% of GDP on big government, when 100 years ago it was a tiny fraction of that %.

During the huge government spending days of the Great Depression we broke 5%, and got up above 10% of GDP!

The increase (other than WW2) was not driven by military spending, but by socialist programs.

Faced with mono-directional "change" we need something different. Note that the single direction is regardless of party, only the rate of change is altered, and even that is slight.

US politics has been polarized since the Washington administration, BTW.

[Torplexed]

In explaining why the North and South went to war in 1861, historian Shelby Foote argued that “the genius of American politics is compromise.” He was referring, of course, to the compromises that made the writing and adoption of the Constitution possible in 1787, of the Missouri Compromise of 1820 that quieted the debate over slavery for a generation, and of the Compromise of 1850 that briefly silenced the dispute over the expansion of slavery in the territories won from Mexico during the Mexican-American War.

However, I think it's safe to say that once again the political center, where compromises are fashioned, no longer exists. Are we drifting back to the climate of 1860?

[Ducimus]

However, I think it's safe to say that once again the political center, where compromises are fashioned, no longer exists. Are we drifting back to the climate of 1860?

Heh, interesting thought. If anything, nothing will get done. Ever. If both sides want it their way and no other, then nothing will get done. Meanwhile, the country will crumble down around them. I'll wager that in the future, In the history books, They'll be a chapter on "The American Era", and the conclusion of the chapter that describes how the era ended. Amongst other factors, one of which that ill be listed was constant infighting and bickering which contributed to internal stagnation and crucial issues of the day not being resolved. I'd bet money on that acutally, but that's a bet i'll never get to collect on.

[Tribesman]

@Tater
No, I don't. The loopholes were specifically created to incentivize certain businesses—often (always?) as payback by politicians.
No, what you should mean is "sometimes a few might be" which is very different from "specificly, often(always)".

I think that a fair tax system eliminates the need for incentives.
In an alternate reality maybe, but it has never happened anywhere throughout history.

If, for example, "green" energy is viable, then it does not need to be incentivized. It should sink or swim on its economic merits, not based on government subsidy by " tax incentives."

Oh dear, there we see the problem, you believe in the myth of free markets, I hate to burst your bubble but that ideology is only a fairytale.

A couple known examples of "abuse" I can easily remember are for import duties.
What on earth has that got to do with corporation tax?
So you want uniform import tarrifs

Another is toys. TOys have no duty. Bedding does.
So now its uniform duty not corporation tax.

So lets get this straight, you want uniform income tax across the board with no write offs or allowances. You want uniform corporation tax with no write offs, delays or subsidies. You want uniform import tarrifs on all goods and materials. You want the same duty on everything so a bottle of whisky has the same duty as a bottle of childrens cough syrup.

You sound like a cambodian communist economist who thinks all things and everyone are absolutely equal.

[August]

In explaining why the North and South went to war in 1861, historian Shelby Foote argued that “the genius of American politics is compromise.” He was referring, of course, to the compromises that made the writing and adoption of the Constitution possible in 1787, of the Missouri Compromise of 1820 that quieted the debate over slavery for a generation, and of the Compromise of 1850 that briefly silenced the dispute over the expansion of slavery in the territories won from Mexico during the Mexican-American War.

However, I think it's safe to say that once again the political center, where compromises are fashioned, no longer exists. Are we drifting back to the climate of 1860?

Good point.

Unfortunately though compromise is rarely a permanent answer to anything. The Missouri Compromise for example might have delayed the civil war but it did not solve the underlying issues that caused the war to eventually break out.

Indeed had the 1820 compromise not happened the war might have been fought before the introduction of modern weapons (like the rifled musket) that made civil war battlefields so particularly bloody.

As to whether we're drifting back to the climate of 1860, you may be right, but a key difference is that the polarization is not concentrated into definable geographic areas. In a new civil war every state would be a "Bleeding Kansas" or "Bloody Missouri".

As Thomas Jefferson put it:

"...but this momentous question, like a fire bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union. it is hushed indeed for the moment. but this is a reprieve only, not a final sentence. a geographical line, coinciding with a marked principle, moral and political, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men, will never be obliterated; and every new irritation will mark it deeper and deeper."

[Platapus]

Yeah, heaven forbid they make the country their number 1 priority like their supposed to instead of getting re elected. F'ing C*********s.

It has been a while since politicians worked for the country. Party before country is the state of our politics these days (and has been for many years). It is sad and makes me frustrated.

I wish I knew a solution to the party politics problem we have. Our fore fathers were right when they were concerned with political parties. :yep:

[Bakkels]

It has been a while since politicians worked for the country. Party before country is the state of our politics these days (and has been for many years). It is sad and makes me frustrated.

I wish I knew a solution to the party politics problem we have. Our fore fathers were right when they were concerned with political parties. :yep:

Here in my country once in a while the discussion flares up about introducing a two-party system like in the US, but this is exactly the reason why I'm opposed to that; there are only two sides. Reaching a compromise is much harder that way; since neither side wants to lose face, and that's what becomes increasingly important: every decision becomes a 'win' or 'lose' thing.
Multiple political parties partly takes this problem away. This doesn't mean this system doesn't have it's drawbacks (it usually takes three to four months between elections and the formation of a government coalition for example) but it does help governing parties to focus a little less on 'we win you lose' tactics.

[Onkel Neal]

@Neal

Because.
They don't cut they just shift
They don't reduce they just move.
Balance.....yeah heard that one before



Ok, well, that's a different topic, politicians promising but not delivering. It doesn't preclude tax cuts, spending cuts and balancing the budget.


I don't think he's arguing the point that it's fair, but it certainly does poke holes in the "the solution to everything, including unemployment, is to lower taxes" argument.

Maybe so, but am I mistaken when I say I sense a degree of glee from a lot of people when the 93% (exorbitant) tax rates are mentioned?

[ReallyDedPoet]

Yeah, heaven forbid they make the country their number 1 priority like their supposed to instead of getting re elected.

:yep: x 10

[Onkel Neal]

...and I don't claim to know everything about this particular budget proposal (http://www.slate.com/id/2290724/), but between the two school of thoughts:

1. Tax the rich until everyone's need and wishes are satisfied
2. Cut spending and taxes and allow business to work with minimal interference

I will opt for #2. Sure, we disagree.


you believe in the myth of free markets, I hate to burst your bubble but that ideology is only a fairytale.



Well, that's certainly your opinion. You've earned the Skybird award for posing an opinion as undisputed fact.

My opinion contrasts that, I believe that free markets deserve a large share of credit for getting us this far. I sure don't think state run economies are the answer.

At least someone is making an effort. (http://www.slate.com/id/2290509/) :)

[Tribesman]

@Neal
Well, that's certainly your opinion. You've earned the Skybird award for posing an opinion as undisputed fact.


Can you find any example of a true free market system ever existing in any nation?
If it has existed you can surely produce one example as an item of fact, if you are unable to produce one then it reverts to mythical status.

I sure don't think state run economies are the answer.

A State run economy is just another ideology, and like most it is mythical.

[mookiemookie]

I believe that free markets deserve a large share of credit for getting us this far.

I believe you're right - radical deregulation and unwavering worship of "The Free Market" ideology in the face of all sense and prudence has led us into the most expensive financial crisis this country has ever seen. So yes, in a way the "free market" has got us to where we're at. :03:

[Ducimus]

Enjoy this crop of related comics:
http://www.cagle.com/news/GovShutdown/main.asp

[Oberon]

So...is this like some kind of governmental BSOD? :hmmm:

Is Lizzie going to have to come over and hit the reset button? :hmmm:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NPYix0wNfI4/TZ4NrIAkhLI/AAAAAAAAAL8/cOKHkDYhScU/s320/FedReboot.jpg

[Oberon]

Looks like enough processes were closed to prevent bluescreen.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13022575

[Tribesman]

Looks like enough processes were closed to prevent bluescreen.


So the compromise was to keep condoms but get rid of some pollution regulation

[mookiemookie]

So the compromise was to keep condoms

And wanting to get rid of them never made any damn sense in the first place. If you're against abortion, you should be all for Planned Parenthood. It was started by Nixon with the support of Bush 1 because contraception kept women from having more babies and kept them off welfare.

Well, that's when "the GOP" didn't mean "eat your own feces insane."

[Platapus]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NPYix0wNfI4/TZ4NrIAkhLI/AAAAAAAAAL8/cOKHkDYhScU/s320/FedReboot.jpg


Reboot the federal government. I wish. :yep:

[gimpy117]

And wanting to get rid of them never made any damn sense in the first place. If you're against abortion, you should be all for Planned Parenthood. It was started by Nixon with the support of Bush 1 because contraception kept women from having more babies and kept them off welfare.

Well, that's when "the GOP" didn't mean "eat your own feces insane."

yeah, then they advocated "abstinence only programs" Pretty much the Sexual education they give kids is summed up as "don't have sex".

Closing down places Like Planned parenthood would be a GIANT mistake, and one done purely to benefit one interest group at pretty much every sexually active young person's expense, not just women. Opponents said they were abortion mills and people were using them like birth control (which is madness because abortions are a pretty good amount of money and not something any woman takes lightly), but they also provided other services like STD tests etc.

With all the new abortion laws etc, I can can bet were gonna start having more welfare babies. And that's going to cost us even more money in the long run. This pretty much shows this isn't a fiscal move. It's another way of controlling moral and social issues with the purse strings. Programs Like planned parenthood and the EPA aren't going to bankrupt this nation, but thats what the GOP is saying so they can slash their budgets and make big business happy there's nobody to regulate the sludge they dump into a river, or the Far religious right and Pro-lifers happy because they can regulate somebody else's womb, making them stop frothing at the mouth long enough for them to vote "red" next election.

[DarkFish]

And wanting to get rid of them never made any damn sense in the first place. If you're against abortion, you should be all for Planned Parenthood. It was started by Nixon with the support of Bush 1 because contraception kept women from having more babies and kept them off welfare.

Well, that's when "the GOP" didn't mean "eat your own feces insane."They really want to get rid of condoms?! ZOMGOMG they're even worse than I thought:o

[mookiemookie]

They really want to get rid of condoms?! ZOMGOMG they're even worse than I thought:o

Hah - to clarify what I meant, PP started receiving federal funds in 1970. Now they want to de-fund it for some twisted weird reason. Having known many women who would not have had the level of access to birth control they did if not for PP, this is a completely idiotic stance.

[Armistead]

I keep laughing at those that think corporations are taxed too much. Sure, up front it seems they pay high taxes, but after loopholes and shelters, they pay one of the lowest rates in the world... I would have no problem lowering taxes if all the stupid loopholes were done away with. It's just the GOP's way of hiding from the left hand what the right hand is doing.

Every great kingdom was brought down by greed. Then those that end up with the goods see it all go when a nation crumbles..You think we would learn from history.

[Oberon]

You think we would learn from history.

Why start now? :haha:

[Onkel Neal]

I believe you're right - radical deregulation and unwavering worship of "The Free Market" ideology in the face of all sense and prudence has led us into the most expensive financial crisis this country has ever seen. So yes, in a way the "free market" has got us to where we're at. :03:


You know what I mean. Every systems needs rules and checks, excessive "deregulation" allows corruption. Still, the free market beats the alternatives. Just what do you propose?

[Rilder]

Reboot the federal government. I wish. :yep:

The 1 dollar bill agrees. :O:

http://hackedirl.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/money-21.jpg

[gimpy117]

I keep laughing at those that think corporations are taxed too much. Sure, up front it seems they pay high taxes, but after loopholes and shelters, they pay one of the lowest rates in the world... I would have no problem lowering taxes if all the stupid loopholes were done away with. It's just the GOP's way of hiding from the left hand what the right hand is doing.


the problem now is, That the GOP was somehow able to make the public believe that corporate taxes are directly connected with the economy, which it is to an extent yes, but they have been able to sell the fabrication that any raises on the corporate taxes would make everything go to hell, and lowering taxes will create scores of jobs. So now, whenever they want to lower taxes for their corporate buddies they can without any complaint from the masses because all they have to repeat is: "it will surely create jobs", and can hang a tax raise over all our heads because: "what are you doing!, you'll ruin everything".

but this is all blown out of the water by GE.

[Platapus]

I keep laughing at those that think corporations are taxed too much. Sure, up front it seems they pay high taxes, but after loopholes and shelters, they pay one of the lowest rates in the world... I would have no problem lowering taxes if all the stupid loopholes were done away with. It's just the GOP's way of hiding from the left hand what the right hand is doing.



I agree. The "tax rate" is not the amount of taxes people pay, unless they can't afford tax shelters/lawyers.

I don't understand this system of everyone having a pretty high "tax rate" but then a buttload of deductions. How about getting rid of the deductions and keeping the tax rate lower? All the tax laws do is make tax lawyers rich and you can bet they don't pay anywhere near what their "tax rate" is. :nope:

Of all the things a government does, taxation should not be all that complicated.....unless deception and misdirection is the goal.

[August]

I agree. The "tax rate" is not the amount of taxes people pay, unless they can't afford tax shelters/lawyers.

I don't understand this system of everyone having a pretty high "tax rate" but then a buttload of deductions. How about getting rid of the deductions and keeping the tax rate lower? All the tax laws do is make tax lawyers rich and you can bet they don't pay anywhere near what their "tax rate" is. :nope:

Of all the things a government does, taxation should not be all that complicated.....unless deception and misdirection is the goal.

You answered your own question Brother. Income tax is a creation of Congress. Congress is made up of lawyers.

[Platapus]

You answered your own question Brother. Income tax is a creation of Congress. Congress is made up of lawyers.


And the circle goes round and round :shifty:

[frau kaleun]

They really want to get rid of condoms?! ZOMGOMG they're even worse than I thought:o

If you do the research, you'll find that the really hard-core "right to life" groups (at least here in the US) are not just anti-choice when it comes to abortion... they are anti-choice when it comes to any kind of birth control aside from complete abstinence or, for married couples, the rhythm method. Some of them will even admit that the abortion battle is just the first hurdle to be cleared in furthering their longterm agenda.

They tend to be particularly hostile to any form of birth control that can be used by a woman to prevent pregnancy without the "permission" of the father of any potential offspring, so condoms are usually somewhere further down on the list of things they want to do away with (or, rather, make impossible for the average person to obtain and use) - except when it comes to them being conveniently and cheaply available to individuals who wish to use them but who might not have the means or self-confidence to walk into a store and buy them.

At bottom it is all very much a part of the "every sperm is sacred" and "sex is for procreation only" and "you will have as many babies as God decides you will have" kind of thinking that pervades the radical religious right.

[mookiemookie]

If you do the research, you'll find that the really hard-core "right to life" groups (at least here in the US) are not just anti-choice when it comes to abortion... they are anti-choice when it comes to any kind of birth control aside from complete abstinence or, for married couples, the rhythm method. Some of them will even admit that the abortion battle is just the first hurdle to be cleared in furthering their longterm agenda.

They tend to be particularly hostile to any form of birth control that can be used by a woman to prevent pregnancy without the "permission" of the father of any potential offspring, so condoms are usually somewhere further down on the list of things they want to do away with (or, rather, make impossible for the average person to obtain and use) - except when it comes to them being conveniently and cheaply available to individuals who wish to use them but who might not have the means or self-confidence to walk into a store and buy them.

At bottom it is all very much a part of the "every sperm is sacred" and "sex is for procreation only" and "you will have as many babies as God decides you will have" kind of thinking that pervades the radical religious right.

abortion services account for about 3 percent of Planned Parenthood’s activities. That’s less than cancer screening and prevention (16 percent), STD testing for both men and women (35 percent), and contraception (also 35 percent). About 80 percent of Planned Parenthood’s users are over age 20, and 75 percent have incomes below 150 percent of the poverty line. Planned Parenthood itself estimates it prevents more than 620,000 unintended pregnancies each year, and 220,000 abortions. It’s also worth noting that federal law already forbids Planned Parenthood from using the funds it receives from the government for abortions.

Source. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/what_planned_parenthood_actually_does/2011/04/06/AFhBPa2C_blog.html?wprss=ezra-klein)

Any lawmaker who was using Planned Parenthood as an obstacle to getting this budget passed is duplicitous lying scum.

[frau kaleun]

Source. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/what_planned_parenthood_actually_does/2011/04/06/AFhBPa2C_blog.html?wprss=ezra-klein)

Any lawmaker who was using Planned Parenthood as an obstacle to getting this budget passed is duplicitous lying scum.

Sometimes it almost seems like the really radical ones believe that unwanted parenthood and the possibility of life-altering or even fatal disease is the punishment someone deserves for engaging in something as "dirty" as sexual intercourse.

Except of course if you're married, in which case it's a fantasyland where disease and unwanted pregnancy never happen because all married couples were virgins on their honeymoon and remain 100% faithful to each other, and every sexual encounter is a de facto expression of the desire to make (another) baby. And if you didn't want to make a baby, then the risk of doing so is the price you have to pay for the sin of non-procreative lust. :nope:

[mookiemookie]

Sometimes it almost seems like the really radical ones believe that unwanted parenthood and the possibility of life-altering or even fatal disease is the punishment someone deserves for engaging in something as "dirty" as sexual intercourse.

Except of course if you're married, in which case it's a fantasyland where disease and unwanted pregnancy never happen because all married couples were virgins on their honeymoon and remain 100% faithful to each other, and every sexual encounter is a de facto expression of the desire to make (another) baby. And if you didn't want to make a baby, then the risk of doing so is the price you have to pay for the sin of non-procreative lust. :nope:

Surely the Duggars (http://www.spitefulcritic.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/18-19-kids-and-counting.jpg)are the ideal everyone should aspire to.

[gimpy117]

It also seems that some of the people who are most vocal against abortion are also for small government and extensive freedoms without gov. control. Which is really ironic since telling you what you can and can't do with your body is about the ultimate invasion of your freedoms.

furthermore, I'm sure these people would be very critical of a Muslim theocracy, but are trying to get their religious beliefs incorporated into our government.

[August]

All of which has squat to do with getting federal spending under control except as a distraction from it.

[gimpy117]

All of which has squat to do with getting federal spending under control except as a distraction from it.

but thats the thing. The GOP says it has something to do with the budget. Why? because as i said before, they are using the crisis to eliminate funding for programs they don't like. Essentially using the purse to forward partisan and religious ideas.

[Tribesman]

At bottom it is all very much a part of the "every sperm is sacred" and "sex is for procreation only" and "you will have as many babies as God decides you will have" kind of thinking that pervades the radical religious right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-L3JMk7C1A

[August]

...eliminate funding for programs they don't like.

The Democrats have so many Sacred Cows it's impossible not to affect something that y'all will complain about. You're just taking this particular molehill and trying to make it into as big a political mountain as possible in order to divert attention away from the fact that all federal programs are bloated and need severe trimming.

We've already seen what happens when the Democrats are left in charge. Raising taxes and fees is the only thing they know how to do. Well that and punting the budget to the next session of Congress. Avoid the issue then criticize and complain. They're very good at that.

[mookiemookie]

The Democrats have so many Sacred Cows it's impossible not to affect something that y'all will complain about. You're just taking this particular molehill and trying to make it into as big a political mountain as possible in order to divert attention away from the fact that all federal programs are bloated and need severe trimming.

We've already seen what happens when the Democrats are left in charge. Raising taxes and fees is the only thing they know how to do. Well that and punting the budget to the next session of Congress. Avoid the issue then criticize and complain. They're very good at that.

Bill Maher: "The republicans run on the ticket that government doesn't work. Then they ---- it up and say, 'See?'"

[August]

Bill Maher: "The republicans run on the ticket that government doesn't work. Then they ---- it up and say, 'See?'"

Nice theory but since the Dems have controlled Congress for the past 5 years the present ---- up can hardly be blamed on the GoP.

[mookiemookie]

Nice theory but since the Dems have controlled Congress for the past 5 years the present ---- up can hardly be blamed on the GoP.

I thought it was kind of clever and illustrated the point that there's no real difference between the two parties.

[August]

I thought it was kind of clever and illustrated the point that there's no real difference between the two parties.


I don't think that was Mahers intention.

[gimpy117]

Ha ha, trying to blame the democrats is like blaming the other person on a sinking boat when neither of you saw it coming. I can't recall any concerted alarm from the republicans in congress, actually quite the opposite. The Democrats were trying to curb spending for Iraq whilst the republicans were beating the drum for more spending. And along with that neither saw the housing bubble burst coming.

[Armistead]

Both parties spend like they're on free crack. The GOP to make a class of uber wealth, the Dems numerous social programs.

In the end, both suck, but at least the Dems spend on Americans. Sadly, both parties spendig habits have done us in.

[mookiemookie]

I don't think that was Mahers intention.

No, but coupled with your post right above it, it works that way.

[August]

No, but coupled with your post right above it, it works that way.

Not really. :hmmm:

[August]

I can't recall any concerted alarm from the republicans in congress, actually quite the opposite. The Democrats were trying to curb spending for Iraq whilst the republicans were beating the drum for more spending.

You can't recall it because you have blinders on to everything your precious Democratic party does.

The Democrats were trying to cut funding to Iraq because of ideological reasons not because of financial reasons. After all they DID vote to fund the war. Their only objection was to where the money was spent, not that it was spent. The proof of that is the biggest deficit in American history, courtesy of a Democrat controlled US Congress and Administration.

[mookiemookie]

You can't recall it because you have blinders on to everything your precious Democratic party does.

The Democrats were trying to cut funding to Iraq because of ideological reasons not because of financial reasons. After all they DID vote to fund the war. Their only objection was to where the money was spent, not that it was spent. The proof of that is the biggest deficit in American history, courtesy of a Democrat controlled US Congress and Administration.

So is it more their fault for going along with it, or more the Republicans fault for proposing it?

[Tribesman]

You can't recall it because you have blinders on to everything your precious Republican party does.

The Democrats were trying to cut funding to Iraq because of ideological reasons not because of financial reasons. After all they DID vote to fund the war.
I seem to recall some sort of democrat fellow changing his vote because of financial reasons, if my feeble mind stretches back that far it was because the structure for finance was changed entirely so that the US taxpayer got shafted with the full bill.
I think them publican fellows started ranting about him being a sandal or something like that for changing his mind over trivial finances on their ideological crudade.

[August]

So is it more their fault for going along with it, or more the Republicans fault for proposing it?

As far as i'm concerned the decision to remove Saddam was the right one, but i'm not the one trying to make out like the Democrats were driven by fiscal concerns.

[gimpy117]

As far as i'm concerned the decision to remove Saddam was the right one, but i'm not the one trying to make out like the Democrats were driven by fiscal concerns.

ok whoopty dee! Maybe we were voting over ideological reasons maybe we weren't...but the real point is that the republicans were willing to spend that much money in those wars...but now it's "oh my gosh, oh my gosh! spending is out of control!". Ha ha thats a joke. Again it's not about the budget, it's all a political move. They can whine and complain about how we spend to much to look good, and then slice programs they don't like to get their enemies out of the way.If they really cared about the fiscal spending they would vote us out of those pointless wars ASAP and take a long hard look at the defense spending of this nation, because it is one of the largest chunks there is. However, they like the Military industrial complex so they will never cut funding to the DoD. Apparently they hate the air and would also like to see our daughters get knocked up..because guess what was on the chopping block.

[mookiemookie]

As far as i'm concerned the decision to remove Saddam was the right one, but i'm not the one trying to make out like the Democrats were driven by fiscal concerns.

I agree with you there, but when they say "we're the party of spend less, they're the party of spend more" - it comes across as a bit disingenuous. Both parties are the party of spend more.

[NeonSamurai]

As far as i'm concerned the decision to remove Saddam was the right one, but i'm not the one trying to make out like the Democrats were driven by fiscal concerns.

Really? I find the decision to remove Saddam highly questionable on several levels.

For example, the argument was made that he should be removed because he was a brutal dictator. The problem, though, is that the world is full of such people, and more often than not we do not get involved. So why remove this one guy in particular. We knew he was not a major threat (he did not have WMDs), and was not financing or supporting terrorist groups. The only other reason would be oil interests (and of course all those juicy government contracts).

By removing him we seriously destabilized the region, and allowed major in-roads when it comes to terrorist groups. There are also tones of other issues, and we are pretty stuck in there for a while.

So how exactly was all of this a good idea? It has (and continues to) cost us a fortune, many lost lives, screwed up the region, etc etc etc. In all likelihood in the long term the country will end up with yet another brutal dictator, probably more extreme (and anti western) then the last one.

I am increasingly coming to the opinion that west needs to stop trying to act like the world police force. It's not doing much good, not for us, and not for them either. It is however causing us a lot of problems, both internally, and a lot of hate externally.

[August]

ok whoopty dee! Maybe we were voting over ideological reasons maybe we weren't...but the real point is that the republicans were willing to spend that much money in those wars...but now it's "oh my gosh, oh my gosh! spending is out of control!". Ha ha thats a joke. Again it's not about the budget, it's all a political move. They can whine and complain about how we spend to much to look good, and then slice programs they don't like to get their enemies out of the way.If they really cared about the fiscal spending they would vote us out of those pointless wars ASAP and take a long hard look at the defense spending of this nation...but they like the Military industrial complex so they will never cut funding to the DoD. However, apparently they hate the air and would also like to see our daughters get knocked up..because guess what was on the chopping block.

Because money has been spent on other things in the past is not an excuse to go even more crazy now. Even you have to admit your Democrats have created the largest deficit ever in American history. Is Obamacare really that important?

[nikimcbee]

I don't think progressives understand the term; "We have no more money."
I'll use a language they understand: No mas denero.

Don't cut my program bro.

[gimpy117]

Because money has been spent on other things in the past is not an excuse to go even more crazy now. Even you have to admit your Democrats have created the largest deficit ever in American history. Is Obamacare really that important?

who signed TARP into law?

I'm simply just pointing the hypocritical events that have taken place, where the republicans voted almost universally to throw more money to war yet have been climbing the walls when we propose social programs to help our countrymen or a bill to keep our country's economy from having the bottom fall out. Now however, when it is politically convenient to suddenly be fiscally conservative (at least from face value...until they start with handouts to the rich and businesses) they do so.

It's politics bro, if there was a republican president in office and they GOP wasn't worried about winning in 2012 we'd be selling our first born kids to send more money to haliburtion in Iraq.

[mookiemookie]

I don't think progressives understand the term; "We have no more money."
I'll use a language they understand: No mas denero.

Don't cut my program bro.

And what have the Republicans done to address the problem? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. They kicked and screamed and threatened to shut down the government over 1.59% of the entire budget. 1.59% isn't about solving our deficit problems. It's about using the deficit as an excuse to cut programs that the GOP views as politically distasteful.

Anyone that believes any of this was about the budget and fiscal austerity is a rube.

[August]

So how exactly was all of this a good idea?

I'd be happy to discuss this with you Neon but this isn't the thread to do it.

[Armistead]

I don't think progressives understand the term; "We have no more money."
I'll use a language they understand: No mas denero.

Don't cut my program bro.

You're right, we don't have any more money, the GOP gave it all to corporations through tax shelters and loopholes.

When less than 5% hold over 50% of all wealth, compared to 60% of us holding it in the 70's, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see were creating a two class system via the corporate takeover of America.

It seems this nation is headed in one of two directions, corporate control or big government with social programs. The problem is one creates the other. The richer the corporations get, the poorer the mass population becomes. This creates a social and economic problem that many Dems. want to fix, face it, they believe in helping others even if it is with someone elses money, the GOP want to help the rich get richer so they can stay in office and force idealology down our throats.

It's laughable to say the GOP believes in smaller government. Anytime they had power, government and the budget increased.

[Oberon]

And thus

Deadlock.

[August]

who signed TARP into law?

A lame duck president signed a Democrat created and passed bill. This is your argument? :DL

[mookiemookie]

A lame duck president signed a Democrat created and passed bill. This is your argument? :DL

The Dem's passed it? Looks like 91 Republicans voted for it and 63 Dems against it as well. Don't ignore relevant facts because they're not politically expedient.

[August]

the GOP want to help the rich get richer so they can stay in office and force idealology down our throats.

Last I checked the GoP or the rich do not tell me who to vote for.

...they believe in helping others even if it is with someone elses money...

Way too general a statement. The Dems believe in helping their political supporters by stealing everyone elses hard earned money even if it causes the nation to collapse financially.

[August]

The Dem's passed it? Looks like 91 Republicans voted for it and 63 Dems against it as well. Don't ignore relevant facts because they're not politically expedient.

I'm not ignoring anything mookie, just getting tired of the constant hypocrisy of the left in this country.

Ask yourself:
Who controlled Congress when TARP was enacted?
What has been the most common fate of the Blue Dogs who voted against TARP?

[mookiemookie]

I'm not ignoring anything mookie, just getting tired of the constant hypocrisy of the left in this country.

Ask yourself:
Who controlled Congress when TARP was enacted?
What has been the most common fate of the Blue Dogs who voted against TARP?

91 Republicans voted for it and 63 Dems against it. Neither side holds the monopoly on hypocrisy.

[August]

91 Republicans voted for it and 63 Dems against it. Neither side holds the monopoly on hypocrisy.

If you're going to try and make a point Mookie then tell the whole story instead of cherry picking:

October 1, 2008 TARP Tally
House of Representatives - Controlled by Democrats:
Ayes: 173 Democrats, 91 Republicans = 264 Ayes
Nays: 63 Democrats, 108 Republicans = 171 Nays
435 Total Votes

October 1, 2008 TARP tally
Senate - Controlled by Democrats:
Ayes 38 Democrats 35 Republicans 1 Independent = 74 Ayes
Nays 10 Democrats 15 Republicans 1 Independent = 25 Nays
Not Voting 1

In both houses of Congress more Republicans voted against TARP than voted for it by wide margins.

In both houses of Congress more Democrats voted for TARP than voted against it, again by wide margins.

[mookiemookie]

If you're going to try and make a point Mookie then tell the whole story instead of cherry picking:

October 1, 2008 TARP Tally
House of Representatives - Controlled by Democrats:
Ayes: 173 Democrats, 91 Republicans = 264 Ayes
Nays: 63 Democrats, 108 Republicans = 171 Nays
435 Total Votes

October 1, 2008 TARP tally
Senate - Controlled by Democrats:
Ayes 38 Democrats 35 Republicans 1 Independent = 74 Ayes
Nays 10 Democrats 15 Republicans 1 Independent = 25 Nays
Not Voting 1

In both houses of Congress more Republicans voted against TARP than voted for it by wide margins.

In both houses of Congress more Democrats voted for TARP than voted against it, again by wide margins.

The point is you keep saying "controlled by Democrats" like that means that it was the big bad Democrat party that voted as a whole in lockstep for the ultimate destruction of our fair nation, every one of them voting yea, and the valiant Republicans mustered an ultimately futile defense, every one of them voting nay.

It didn't happen that way, but yet you refuse to admit that in the face of the facts. THAT'S the point.

[Bilge_Rat]

If you're going to try and make a point Mookie then tell the whole story instead of cherry picking:

October 1, 2008 TARP Tally
House of Representatives - Controlled by Democrats:
Ayes: 173 Democrats, 91 Republicans = 264 Ayes
Nays: 63 Democrats, 108 Republicans = 171 Nays
435 Total Votes

October 1, 2008 TARP tally
Senate - Controlled by Democrats:
Ayes 38 Democrats 35 Republicans 1 Independent = 74 Ayes
Nays 10 Democrats 15 Republicans 1 Independent = 25 Nays
Not Voting 1

In both houses of Congress more Republicans voted against TARP than voted for it by wide margins.

In both houses of Congress more Democrats voted for TARP than voted against it, again by wide margins.

yes but on oct. 1, 2008, who was in control of the White House? Whose administration went running to Congress saying they had to give $700 billion to Wall Street RIGHT NOW! or the world as we know it would collapse.

a REPUBLICAN administration came up with TARP and shoved it down Congress's throat. It's a bit disingeneous to try to lay all this on the laps of the Democrats.

[August]

The point is you keep saying "controlled by Democrats" like that means that it was the big bad Democrat party that voted as a whole in lockstep for the ultimate destruction of our fair nation, every one of them voting yea, and the valiant Republicans mustered an ultimately futile defense, every one of them voting nay.

It didn't happen that way, but yet you refuse to admit that in the face of the facts. THAT'S the point.

You know what control of Congress entails Mookie. :roll:

[mookiemookie]

You know what control of Congress entails Mookie. :roll:

Not every Democrat voted for TARP. Not every Republican voted against it.

[August]

Not every Democrat voted for TARP. Not every Republican voted against it.

So what?

Twice as many Democrats voted for it than against it.
Twice as many Republicans voted against it than for it.

Those are the important facts here.

[mookiemookie]

Twice as many Republicans voted against it than for it.


Better check your math.

[August]

Better check your math.

Fair enough mookie. You've managed to ignore and derail the point for so long that you've caught me in a technicality. Good for you. :yeah:

[mookiemookie]

Fair enough mookie. You've managed to ignore and derail the point for so long that you've caught me in a technicality. Good for you. :yeah:

I suppose we disagree on the pertinent part of the discussion. I'm less willing to lump all members of a party into a narrowly defined category, whereas I get the impression that you would like to paint them both with a broad brush.

[gimpy117]

yes but on oct. 1, 2008, who was in control of the White House? Whose administration went running to Congress saying they had to give $700 billion to Wall Street RIGHT NOW! or the world as we know it would collapse.

a REPUBLICAN administration came up with TARP and shoved it down Congress's throat. It's a bit disingeneous to try to lay all this on the laps of the Democrats.

Exactly, Thats the dagger, the Bush administration Liked the idea! they championed it! and who signed it into law? Bush! This wasn't some evil bill drafted up by democrats, it was a bill backed by a conservative white house, and voted on with bipartisan support, and is arguably one of the most bipartisan bills in a long time.

I don't think Mookie was derailing the point at all, sorry August thats a lame Ad hominem defense> the writing is on the wall with Tarp, with almost as many republicans voting for it than against AND Bush backing and proposing the bill it's obvious.

[August]

yes but on oct. 1, 2008, who was in control of the White House? Whose administration went running to Congress saying they had to give $700 billion to Wall Street RIGHT NOW! or the world as we know it would collapse.

So what you're saying is that after years of contradicting and disparaging every single word that came out of Bush's mouth suddenly these skeptical Democrats are given to take his lame duck word at face value even though his own party was against it?

All that says to me is the Democrats are so incompetent that they'd make their decisions based on how much it sticks it to their political opponents, not what is good for the country.

[gimpy117]

So what you're saying is that after years of contradicting and disparaging every single word that came out of Bush's mouth suddenly these skeptical Democrats are given to take his lame duck word at face value even though his own party was against it?

All that says to me is the Democrats are so incompetent that they'd make their decisions based on how much it sticks it to their political opponents, not what is good for the country.

what about all the republicans who voted for it? It kinda helps your argument when you ignore that doesn't it?

also, it makes it ok for bush to propose the bill just because he was a lame duck? get real.

[mookiemookie]

All that says to me is the Democrats are so incompetent that they'd make their decisions based on how much it sticks it to their political opponents, not what is good for the country.

Not disagreeing with that as that's politics, but do you honestly think they hold the monopoly on that either?

[August]

what about all the republicans who voted for it? It kinda helps your argument when you ignore that doesn't it?

See post #145. I'm ignoring nothing.

also, it makes it ok for bush to propose the bill just because he was a lame duck? get real.

Get real yourself pal. Bush might have proposed the bill but it's your party who actually crafted the legislation and your party who passed it and your party who must therefore defend it. Trying to shuffle the blame off on the Republicans just wont wash. It didn't wash in 2010 and it won't wash in 2012.

[August]

Not disagreeing with that as that's politics, but do you honestly think they hold the monopoly on that either?

I have no patience with anyone who puts their political party first, Dem, Repub or Other.

[nikimcbee]

I have no patience with anyone who puts their political party first, Dem, Repub or Other.

:sign_yeah:

[gimpy117]

Get real yourself pal. Bush might have proposed the bill but it's your party who actually crafted the legislation and your party who passed it and your party who must therefore defend it. Trying to shuffle the blame off on the Republicans just wont wash. It didn't wash in 2010 and it won't wash in 2012.

who signed it into law? there is such a thing as a veto

[August]

who signed it into law? there is such a thing as a veto

So your whole argument is that the Democrats were fooled by Bush? In 2008? That although you guys had spent previous 8 years repeatedly telling yourselves and the country ad nauseum how stupid and evil George was he still managed to snooker you out of nearly a trillion bucks in his last year in office?

I can't think of a more blatant indictment on the fitness of the Democratic party to lead this nation.

[gimpy117]

So your whole argument is that the Democrats were fooled by Bush? In 2008? That although you guys had spent previous 8 years repeatedly telling yourselves and the country ad nauseum how stupid and evil George was he still managed to snooker you out of nearly a trillion bucks in his last year in office?

I can't think of a more blatant indictment on the fitness of the Democratic party to lead this nation.

no, but you try to ignore the fact that your party is just as responsible for TARP as we are. Which paints your current budget "crusade" in a pretty hypocritical light. Especially when your party kept voting to pay and pay and pay for a worthless war started on false pretenses.

but then again, this current anti spending obsession isn't about the budget. It's pure political Posturing to try and get elected. I expect to see the republicans cut scores of programs for the middle class while giving more money to the military industrial complex, Rich, and Corporations, In a time where everybody should be pulling their own tax weight. I also expect them trying to paint all of this as being in the bes interest for the people they just screwed over.

[August]

...this current anti spending obsession isn't about the budget. It's pure political Posturing to try and get elected.

Yeah well that belief cost your party control of the House of Representatives last year and it's going to cost you the US Senate next year, maybe even the White House and I say good riddance to all of you.

Meanwhile Gitmo prison remains open, your party has started a whole new war on a completely different continent. They have offered to keep our troops in Iraq past their own deadline. They are continuing the war in Afghanistan and all you Dems can do is whine about how terrible the evil Republicans are. Not much of a platform for success I must say. :up:

[mookiemookie]

Yeah well that belief cost your party control of the House of Representatives last year and it's going to cost you the US Senate next year, maybe even the White House and I say good riddance to all of you.

Not a belief. Arguing over 1.5% of the budget and painting it like it's the panacea to all of our nation's debt problems can't be anything BUT politics. You honestly think it's fiscal responsibility? Please tell me you're not that gullible.

[August]

Not a belief. Arguing over 1.5% of the budget and painting it like it's the panacea to all of our nation's debt problems can't be anything BUT politics. You honestly think it's fiscal responsibility? Please tell me you're not that gullible.

No I don't think it's fiscal responsibility. On the other hand the Democrat argument that even this small percentage is "too much" is even less responsible don't you think?

[mookiemookie]

No I don't think it's fiscal responsibility. On the other hand the Democrat argument that even this small percentage is "too much" is even less responsible don't you think?

Yes. Some form of cuts should be made to Defense, Medicare and Social Security. Cut things that actually matter and have significant costs. None of the current proposals do that.

[gimpy117]

No I don't think it's fiscal responsibility. On the other hand the Democrat argument that even this small percentage is "too much" is even less responsible don't you think?

So in other words you're okay with your party engaging in a political charade solely for pursuit of political power, while they lie and say it's actually for budget reasons? I think the same old same old GOP just jumped out of the Trojan horse labeled "spending" that they rode in on. It's no wonder they have only cut a minimal of the budget so far (mostly programs they don't like) but are trying to ram their old social ideas down the nations gullet.

[mookiemookie]

I think the same old same old GOP just jumped out of the Trojan horse labeled "spending" that they rode in on.

:rotfl2: That's a great analogy.

[Onkel Neal]

I think the coming social collapse of the United States will be good for the people, in the long run. Make us a hardy, self-reliant breed, as we were in the beginning. :cool:

[Rilder]

I think the coming social collapse of the United States will be good for the people, in the long run. Make us a hardy, self-reliant breed, as we were in the beginning. :cool:

I thought we were British in the beginning? :rotfl2:

[Armistead]

I think the coming social collapse of the United States will be good for the people, in the long run. Make us a hardy, self-reliant breed, as we were in the beginning. :cool:

It may be good for those that survive, those that have money, not ill, etc.
Course, it's a very dangerous time to have a social and economic collapse in world history, but history has proven survival usually means a big thinning of the herd.

Today on the news Baptist Wake Forest stated they will no longer accept medicaid/care, not good for 1000's of the children, elderly and poor that use their special services daily.

[gimpy117]

It may be good for those that survive, those that have money, not ill, etc.
Course, it's a very dangerous time to have a social and economic collapse in world history, but history has proven survival usually means a big thinning of the herd.

A new dark age. But it figures, The GOP has helped facilitate the creation of a sort of New Aristocracy. I think something will be coming soon if the wealth of the majority of the people continues to be funneled to the top. We are seeing the oppression of a wealthy few, something that has sparked many revolutions all over the world in the past, Russia, France, South America. As horrible as it sounds there will be an uprising when the middle class hits rock bottom. I hope it is via the ballot box rather than the sword...but who knows.

[Armistead]

The ballot box won't change anything with either party. Right now we have minor improvements, but nothing has really been addressed. Politicians must decide do they do the right thing or do they sell out to get elected.


Why do you think so many rich are building castles behind walls? Our government knows it's created a two class system. Many millions will be moving into poverty the next generation. The stupidity of it, anytime in history this has happened, eventually it brings the rich down with it.

We've been sticking bubblegum in the Hoover dam of government for decades, I'm afraid it's just got to crumble and come down and do it's damage and we see what happens from there.

[gimpy117]

Why do you think so many rich are building castles behind walls? Our government knows it's created a two class system. Many millions will be moving into poverty the next generation. The stupidity of it, anytime in history this has happened, eventually it brings the rich down with it.

Very true. the most blatant place I've seen this is Saginaw, one side of the river, a slum, the other side, Golf courses and gated communities. All within plain view of each other

[August]

So in other words you're okay with your party engaging in a political charade solely for pursuit of political power, while they lie and say it's actually for budget reasons?

Is that what MOVEON and daily KOS is telling you? Well you just keep believing that and your party will continue to loose elections.

[August]

:rotfl2: That's a great analogy.

Only to an idiot who actually believes the propaganda he's fed.

[gimpy117]

Is that what MOVEON and daily KOS is telling you? Well you just keep believing that and your party will continue to loose elections.

I don't read those. actually the first and last time time I ever visited that site was when YOU mentioned it. Also, did you not just say you knew that the republican behavior isn't fiscal responsibility? What else would it be then? if it's not fiscal responsibility OR an attempt at a power grab? Maybe it's some kind of super dooper fun republican alternate reality games!! that would be so swell!!

also, thanks for being the bigger man and calling mookie an idiot. Staying classy i presume?

[August]

I don't read those. actually the first and last time time I ever visited that site was when YOU mentioned it.

also, thanks for being the bigger man and calling mookie an idiot. Staying classy i presume?


I wasn't calling mookie an idiot but nice job trying to stir up trouble.

[gimpy117]

I wasn't calling mookie an idiot but nice job trying to stir up trouble.

but heres what you said to him:

Only to an idiot who actually believes the propaganda he's fed.

if it wasn't intended it sure did seem like it.

[August]

but heres what you said to him:



if it wasn't intended it sure did seem like it.

Says the guy who thinks stealing from the rich is going to solve any of the nations financial woes.

[mookiemookie]

Really constructive discussion we have goin' here! Namecalling, ad hominems, muddying the waters, strawmen, poisoning the well, mischaracterizations, oversimplifications, generalizations!

GT FEVER! CATCH IT!

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Really constructive discussion we have goin' here! Namecalling, ad hominems, muddying the waters, strawmen, poisoning the well, mischaracterizations, oversimplifications, generalizations!

GT FEVER! CATCH IT!
Couldn't have summarized it better! :up:

P.S. Neal, we need smilie for clapping hands...

[gimpy117]

Really constructive discussion we have goin' here! Namecalling, ad hominems, muddying the waters, strawmen, poisoning the well, mischaracterizations, oversimplifications, generalizations!

GT FEVER! CATCH IT!

yeah it went down hill fast

[August]

yeah it went down hill fast

What do you mean fast. It went 10 pages.

[Takeda Shingen]

P.S. Neal, we need smilie for clapping hands...

We used to have one. Don't know where it went.

[Ducimus]

A new dark age. But it figures, The GOP has helped facilitate the creation of a sort of New Aristocracy. I think something will be coming soon if the wealth of the majority of the people continues to be funneled to the top. We are seeing the oppression of a wealthy few, something that has sparked many revolutions all over the world in the past, Russia, France, South America. As horrible as it sounds there will be an uprising when the middle class hits rock bottom. I hope it is via the ballot box rather than the sword...but who knows.

Honestly, It's always been my thought that this is ultimately the reason we have the second amendment. As a fail safe in case the government fails the people and it becomes neccessary to overthrow tyranny again.

[TorpX]

I think the coming social collapse of the United States will be good for the people, in the long run. Make us a hardy, self-reliant breed, as we were in the beginning. :cool:

This may be true, and I certainly hope it is. But, I think there is always a danger that a desperate people will embrace full-bore socialism or dictatorship. It would be tragic for the country to end up ruled by a strongman who has to restore order over a squabling, angry, desperate population.



Honestly, It's always been my thought that this is ultimately the reason we have the second amendment. As a fail safe in case the government fails the people and it becomes neccessary to overthrow tyranny again.
This is unquestionably true.

[Rilder]

Really constructive discussion we have goin' here! Namecalling, ad hominems, muddying the waters, strawmen, poisoning the well, mischaracterizations, oversimplifications, generalizations!

GT FEVER! CATCH IT!

On the plus side we don't seem to be bickering about which side is right, much, were all pretty much agreed that the government is full of idiots. :O: