Poll
Question:
Who's going to look better?
Option 1: I think the teabaggers are right to destroy the budget, it's not in the constitution
votes: 16
Option 2: I stand with our beloved, sane and rational President
votes: 28
The clock is ticking. Friday at midnight, April 8th.
Who will come out on top: GOP teabaggers who want to starve old people and elimate capital gains taxes, Planned Parenthood and the EPA, or our beloved, sane and rational President?
Both sides are not only wrong, but also stupid.
I wish our "sane and rational" President would come out with some ideas, and some strong leadership on budget reform. He sits back and lets others do the dirty work; I have to assume he doesn't want to tackle this tough and tricky task, or feels he can put it off until after 2012 and he gets re-elected.
Indeed, the clock is ticking. Over $14 trillion in debt, and adding $1.5 trillion a year. How long before that house of cards crashes down?
Taking down tiny but unpopular departments like PP or EPA is just political theatre.
Both sides suck.
The Republicans need to stop raiding the treasury to enrich themselves.
Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2011, 08:00:42 AM
Taking down tiny but unpopular departments like PP or EPA is just political theatre.
Both sides suck.
Yeah, the wrong places to start. But both sides are afraid to start with anything more heavy. As it is, the Dems are already trotting out the "children will die", "seniors will be threatened" rhetoric. And if the Dems started first on, say Social Security or Defense, the Repubs would be slamming them in turn.
That's why the President needs to lead on this, and help Dems and Repubs work together. Some are already working together but others have their talking points to bash the other side. The Dems for their part, as they over use the phrase extremist for everything. Like trying to cut an over 14 trillion debt is extremist!
I'd like to think some sort of sanity will result, but until all the idealogues are eliminated from the mix this won't happen.
Quote from: KRonn on April 04, 2011, 07:58:25 AM
I wish our "sane and rational" President would come out with some ideas, and some strong leadership on budget reform. He sits back and lets others do the dirty work; I have to assume he doesn't want to tackle this tough and tricky task, or feels he can put it off until after 2012 and he gets re-elected.
:huh: Dude, what? You expect something concrete out of him? Really? That's cute. :hug:
Obama is a salesman, and the product he sells is Obama. Wait, I meant hope and change. :blush:
Quote from: Caliga on April 04, 2011, 08:14:10 AM
:huh: Dude, what? You expect something concrete out of him? Really? That's cute. :hug:
Obama is a salesman, and the product he sells is Obama. Wait, I meant hope and change. :blush:
Man I am dreading 2012. This coming Presidential election will make 2004 look like a clash of titans.
To be fair, if Obama says that the sky is blue, Republicans will all get their marching order next morning to all repeat the line that the sky is brown, with Fox News anchors in tow. Maybe he's just hanging back and letting the people out of the spotlight hammer something out.
Quote from: DGuller on April 04, 2011, 08:21:34 AM
To be fair, if Obama says that the sky is blue, Republicans will all get their marching order next morning to all repeat the line that the sky is brown, with Fox News anchors in tow. Maybe he's just hanging back and letting the people out of the spotlight hammer something out.
Agreed that it's a tricky path. Depending on what the budget issue is he'd get hammered by the right on defense or such, or the left when cutting social programs. But he does need to take action, try to pull the parties together, set some direction, so that he doesn't take the brunt, and neither party will. All will be in the fight and can all share in the actions, both positive and negative. But if one party only leads then they're fodder for the other side.
Quote from: DGuller on April 04, 2011, 08:21:34 AM
To be fair, if Obama says that the sky is blue, Republicans will all get their marching order next morning to all repeat the line that the sky is brown, with Fox News anchors in tow. Maybe he's just hanging back and letting the people out of the spotlight hammer something out.
That is a poor strategy then. All it does it make him seem impotent or under the thumb of the Democratic machine. He should be leading the charge for something. I don't really care what, because most of his presidency has been spent sitting back and letting others take the risk.
Quote from: DGuller on April 04, 2011, 08:21:34 AM
To be fair, if Obama says that the sky is blue, Republicans will all get their marching order next morning to all repeat the line that the sky is brown, with Fox News anchors in tow.
If that is the case, then the response is to come out and say "Hey, the sky is blue" and then make fun of the dipshits who say otherwise.
Refusing to comment on sky color just makes him look like an empty shell, without any actual ideas or leadership of his own.
Quote from: DGuller on April 04, 2011, 08:21:34 AM
Maybe he's just hanging back and letting the people out of the spotlight hammer something out.
I think you are describing his entire presidency, apparently.
I guess we could assume that he is really active and doing things, and we just can't tell.
Quote from: Berkut on April 04, 2011, 08:46:31 AM
I guess we could assume that he is really active and doing things, and we just can't tell.
Results to date indicate that this is untrue.
I think he simply doesn't know what a president does. He spent all his time trying to get elected president, without spending time figuring out why he wanted to be president. Now he has the job, and it is too late to figure out what to do once elected.
I think that, if he would get behind the bipartisan effort that Michael Bennet and Mike Johanns are pushing, he could be seen leading without actually having to display leadership.
Quote from: grumbler on April 04, 2011, 09:16:55 AM
I think he simply doesn't know what a president does. He spent all his time trying to get elected president, without spending time figuring out why he wanted to be president.
Yep, that is exactly how it feels.
You just don't get the feeling that he wanted to be President because he had any kind of vision of an America that he wanted, or some kind of task he felt he needed to accomplish, or really anything other than "Well, I *can* be President, therefore I will do my best to become President". It is a goal, rather than a means to attain a goal.
QuoteNow he has the job, and it is too late to figure out what to do once elected.
Pretty much. What is really sad is that the alternatives are going to be so very, very bad.
Quote from: Berkut on April 04, 2011, 08:45:26 AM
If that is the case, then the response is to come out and say "Hey, the sky is blue" and then make fun of the dipshits who say otherwise.
That's not Obama's style. Obama's style is to say that people who believe that the sky is brown have a point, and their view should be respected. He's not the kind of leader who leads by leading.
Anyway, beyond this point, there are two other points why Obama might not feel like weighing in. First of all, austerity during recession is self-defeating. The damage you do to the economy will cancel out the budget savings you get from austerity. Second of all, the whole debate is completely, utterly intellectually dishonest in nature. All the budget cuts being discussed are just long-time Republican targets which are attacked under the cover of budget deficits; in the long run, entitlements and defense have to go down or taxes have to go up, everything else is peanuts.
Everyone who says we can cut the deficit to any significant degree without doing one of the two things is uninformed, stupid, or a liar. If Obama weighs in with a proposal, he's just lending credibility to a cynical political game that shouldn't have any.
Quote from: grumbler on April 04, 2011, 09:16:55 AM
I think he simply doesn't know what a president does. He spent all his time trying to get elected president, without spending time figuring out why he wanted to be president. Now he has the job, and it is too late to figure out what to do once elected.
:yes:
Quote from: DGuller on April 04, 2011, 11:24:39 AMFirst of all, austerity during recession is self-defeating. The damage you do to the economy will cancel out the budget savings you get from austerity.
Doesn't matter anymore. There's no more wiggle room. Bush spent it all during the boom and now we can't do what would otherwise be a good idea to get out of the recession. We don't want to go up against the wall like the PIIGS.
QuoteSecond of all, the whole debate is completely, utterly intellectually dishonest in nature. All the budget cuts being discussed are just long-time Republican targets which are attacked under the cover of budget deficits; in the long run, entitlements and defense have to go down or taxes have to go up, everything else is peanuts.
Everyone who says we can cut the deficit to any significant degree without doing one of the two things is uninformed, stupid, or a liar. If Obama weighs in with a proposal, he's just lending credibility to a cynical political game that shouldn't have any.
All true.
One cut I've seen put out by Ryan and others is to roll back Federal budgets, which saw about a 25% increase since Obama took over. And with the stimulus adding to it, supposedly those budget increases were a lot more. At the least, we should be able to address that, roll back some of those very heavy increases.
The entitlements need to be addressed, something that every politician thinking responsibly about budget debts knows. Social Security, Medicare, others. And Defense spending needs to be addressed as well. But to tackle those requires leadership, and to take some lumps. If our parties and the President can actually work more together, making some fiscally responsible changes should be a lot easier, less damaging to the programs and the politicians.
We've been getting plenty of warnings from our Federal Treasury and Fiscal types, so that should also give cover to do what's needed. We also have the panel commissioned by Pres Obama on how to address the budget issues. That panel came up with plenty of ideas to look into as well, while also providing a bi-partisan cover.
But it does appear that the Repubs, and some Dems, will go it alone, absent many Dems and the Obama admin. They'll take heat for it though.
Also, from the title, I thought Seedy had lost his mind and gone Paultard on us. "The Fed" makes me think Federal Reserve. :P
Quote from: DGuller on April 04, 2011, 11:24:39 AM
That's not Obama's style. Obama's style is to say that people who believe that the sky is brown have a point, and their view should be respected. He's not the kind of leader who leads by leading.
Anyway, beyond this point, there are two other points why Obama might not feel like weighing in. First of all, austerity during recession is self-defeating. The damage you do to the economy will cancel out the budget savings you get from austerity. Second of all, the whole debate is completely, utterly intellectually dishonest in nature. All the budget cuts being discussed are just long-time Republican targets which are attacked under the cover of budget deficits; in the long run, entitlements and defense have to go down or taxes have to go up, everything else is peanuts.
Everyone who says we can cut the deficit to any significant degree without doing one of the two things is uninformed, stupid, or a liar. If Obama weighs in with a proposal, he's just lending credibility to a cynical political game that shouldn't have any.
Austerity during recession (which we're officially out of) is self-defeating unless we're approaching the point where our debt burden makes lending to the US unattractive to lenders. Austerity was not self-defeating for the PIIGs, the UK, Iceland, etc., etc.
We've been getting a free ride on interest because of the Fed, China, and Japan. Once those turn off our debt servicing costs will become significantly higher.
I agree that the Republican proposals are gimicky low-hanging fruit. But the rational response to that fact is not to say that the deficit doesn't matter.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 04, 2011, 11:36:17 AM
Doesn't matter anymore. There's no more wiggle room. Bush spent it all during the boom and now we can't do what would otherwise be a good idea to get out of the recession. We don't want to go up against the wall like the PIIGS.
You're making an assumption here, that there is no more wiggle room. If that were true, interest rates wouldn't be rock bottom like they have been lately. Investors would be pricing in default risk or inflation risk when lending money to the US government.
Comparison with PIIGS is a scare tactic, it's not based on sound economics. Eventually we'll pay the piper if we keep up this insanity, since deficits will persist to a lesser degree even after the recovery, but we're not close to the breaking point yet. Deficits have to be tackled, but they have to be tackled with a sound economy.
While DG is correct that if we want to really address the budget deficit we need to address the big ticket items, that doesn't really explain why the Dems want to keep spending more and more and more and more.
You present kind of an interesting argument. The TBs are all "ZOMG the Feds spend too much money! We should cut spending!" in response to the both parties vastly *increasing* spending, and the response is "Well yeah, but cuts don't mean anything if you don't cut the big costs!". Sounds like you are arguing that we should go ahead and keep on spending MORE since unless we cut stuff that politically cannot be cut, we might as well just keep on spending even more and more?
Sure, the cuts being proposed are not substantial, but it is surely better than not *increasing* spending, if the goal is to reign in the deficit in some fashion or another. Or to reign in an out of control federal government.
Of course, the Dems are not really being honest - the objection you have is not that the cuts don't cut enough to matter, since the Dems don't want to cut anything, and instead want to increase federal spending.
Quote from: DGuller on April 04, 2011, 11:45:00 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 04, 2011, 11:36:17 AM
Doesn't matter anymore. There's no more wiggle room. Bush spent it all during the boom and now we can't do what would otherwise be a good idea to get out of the recession. We don't want to go up against the wall like the PIIGS.
You're making an assumption here, that there is no more wiggle room. If that were true, interest rates wouldn't be rock bottom like they have been lately. Investors would be pricing in default risk or inflation risk when lending money to the US government.
Comparison with PIIGS is a scare tactic, it's not based on sound economics. Eventually we'll pay the piper if we keep up this insanity, since deficits will persist to a lesser degree even after the recovery, but we're not close to the breaking point yet. Deficits have to be tackled, but they have to be tackled with a sound economy.
Interest rates are low because Obi-Wan Bernanke keeps them low. Eventually, that's going to change. If we have to go into inflation-busting mode, the annual deficit is going to skyrocket.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2011, 11:38:39 AM
Austerity during recession (which we're officially out of) is self-defeating unless we're approaching the point where our debt burden makes lending to the US unattractive to lenders.
Well, obviously. You can't keep up the deficits no matter what if no one will lend us money. Any evidence that lending to US is becoming unattractive, though?
QuoteAusterity was not self-defeating for the PIIGs, the UK, Iceland, etc., etc.
That's debatable on a number of levels. We don't know yet what will happen in UK, but we know that their GDP growth turned negative after the austerity plan. As for Iceland, didn't they devalue rather radically after the huge bust they had?
Quote
I agree that the Republican proposals are gimicky low-hanging fruit. But the rational response to that fact is not to say that the deficit doesn't matter.
It's not a matter of whether they matter, it's a matter of priorities. Deficits aren't going to go away, and they can't go on forever. The question is whether it's prudent to attack them now, while the recovery is still tottering.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 04, 2011, 11:50:12 AM
Interest rates are low because Obi-Wan Bernanke keeps them low. Eventually, that's going to change. If we have to go into inflation-busting mode, the annual deficit is going to skyrocket.
Bernanke now has only limited influence at best over the long-term interest rates, which slightly more than he usually does (due to QE2). The market largely determines the long-term interest rates.
Quote from: DGuller on April 04, 2011, 11:51:59 AM
The question is whether it's prudent to attack them now, while the recovery is still tottering.
Who's going to want to attack them when things are good?
Quote from: garbon on April 04, 2011, 11:54:06 AM
Quote from: DGuller on April 04, 2011, 11:51:59 AM
The question is whether it's prudent to attack them now, while the recovery is still tottering.
Who's going to want to attack them when things are good?
The deficits are still going to be way too large to ignore, even after recovery. Want to or not, that battle will have to be fought eventually.
Quote from: DGuller on April 04, 2011, 11:51:59 AM
Well, obviously. You can't keep up the deficits no matter what if no one will lend us money. Any evidence that lending to US is becoming unattractive, though?
PIMCO liquidated 100% of their Treasury holdings. If I'm not mistaken 70% of new issues are being bought by the Fed. Some PIMCO manager said based on debt/GDP ratio the US really should have a AA rating. And at current rates we're tacking on another 10% of GDP to the debt each year.
PIIG spreads over German bonds were tiny before the crisis hit. You seem to be operating under the false premise that the yield curve gradually slopes up. It doesn't. It's flat until a certain point, when it gets very steep.
Plus the noise Moody's was making about a downgrade back when the deficit commission ( :rolleyes:) was operating.
Quote from: KRonn on April 04, 2011, 07:58:25 AM
I wish our "sane and rational" President would come out with some ideas, and some strong leadership on budget reform. He sits back and lets others do the dirty work; I have to assume he doesn't want to tackle this tough and tricky task, or feels he can put it off until after 2012 and he gets re-elected.
He let's the legislature legislate.* Quelle horreur! I'm sure there's lots of behind the scenes stuff but the administration submitted their budget and now this is the sort of thing that Congress is there to do.
*Except when it comes to issues of war and peace.
The area I think he can and in my view must show leadership isn't this budget but a medium-term road to budgetary control. That'll require defence cuts, tax rises and more cost-control in Medicare than was already included in healthcare reform. Basically throw down a challenge to your opponents to get serious - as right now the Republican right remain an attitude of outraged grievance rather than a governing party - while it lets you define yourself against your own party to some extent.
Quote
I think he simply doesn't know what a president does. He spent all his time trying to get elected president, without spending time figuring out why he wanted to be president.
He's got healthcare reform which is something that Democrats have been trying to achieve for decades and is, I think, a big part of what he campaigned to do. In addition I think what he and Bush did on the economy was right and helped avert a disaster. It's difficult to have too much vision when you've got the hangover of the biggest financial crisis in 70 years, an enormous deficit (largely from dealing with that) and a very hard-worked military. It can happen that any President comes into office with a very strong vision but will have to spend a lot of time fire-fighting.
I also think that one of the real achievements of the last few of years has been the management of this economic crisis without a return to protectionism and that has, I think quite efficiently, managed the start of a new global system. I think the growing responsibilities of countries like India and China, but also the increased inclusion of Indonesia and the like has been pretty well handled. I don't know that in the autumn of 2008 I wouldn't have guessed that the G20 would have been quite important, relatively successfully, and the world managed to avoid major trade wars. I think Obama and others will be judged pretty well on that in the long-term, similarly Geithner's stress tests were surprisingly effective.
But as I say I think you can have all the vision you want and have to deal with the situation you inherit and a great President or PM will try to transform the world as it is, rather than to impose their own idea that would work in a more benign world or just float around. For what it's worth I think Cameron is a peace-time Prime Minister whose ideas would be generally better received without an economic shitstorm - this is why he didn't win the election - while Brown was a guy who had no idea what to do with the office he'd coveted for so long. In my view Obama's challenge is the deficit, but it's not necessarily this year's battle as much as it's laying out a plan of getting the deficit and the debt down.
For what it's worth I think the economic situation in the US compared to the UK in recent months suggests that it was quite right to hold off on austerity at least for this past year.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2011, 12:02:47 PMPlus the noise Moody's was making about a downgrade back when the deficit commission ( :rolleyes:) was operating.
Why the rolleyes at the deficit commission? So far they've produced they've one of the few credible plans around.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 04, 2011, 01:12:01 PM
Why the rolleyes at the deficit commission? So far they've produced they've one of the few credible plans around.
Because people paid about as much attention to it as W did to Jim Baker's Iraq report.
And you're off about the president's role in the budget negotiation. It's his baby. It's his executive branch being funded. It's his country being taxed.
"He let's the legislature legislate.* Quelle horreur! I'm sure there's lots of behind the scenes stuff but the administration submitted their budget and now this is the sort of thing that Congress is there to do."
It looks more like he's trying not to get in trouble with anyone, by not taking much of a stance or showing strong leadership. The health care plan, was that even much of his idea? Seemed a mess of all stripes being pulled together, same as his stimulus plan - trying to favor everyone he wanted to, letting someone else make too many of the decisions.
In any event, he needs to lead on the budget issues, not go along for the ride. Does he even want to solve it? He doesn't seem to say much, all the while we have a 1.5 trillion deficit per year. And he needs to make some tough decisions on the budget. He would best do that by working with both parties, to lessen the political blow. Make the case for budget changes to the American people. People will listen, for the most part, as many feel the debt is a serious issue.
Sheilbh seems to put a lot of confidence in Congress.
You elected a black president. Live with it.
Quote from: garbon on April 04, 2011, 01:34:53 PM
Sheilbh seems to put a lot of confidence in Congress.
Your constitution does, I just think they should play their role. Personally I prefer a parliamentary system with an over-mighty executive.
Quote from: KRonn on April 04, 2011, 01:30:09 PM
"He let's the legislature legislate.* Quelle horreur! I'm sure there's lots of behind the scenes stuff but the administration submitted their budget and now this is the sort of thing that Congress is there to do."
It looks more like he's trying not to get in trouble with anyone, by not taking much of a stance or showing strong leadership. The health care plan, was that even much of his idea? Seemed a mess of all stripes being pulled together, same as his stimulus plan - trying to favor everyone he wanted to, letting someone else make too many of the decisions.
Seems like a good plan, judging by the consequences that were paid by the people he let take the lead on those things. He got what he wanted and somebody else took the blowback. Well, so far anyway.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 04, 2011, 01:10:57 PM
He's got healthcare reform which is something that Democrats have been trying to achieve for decades and is, I think, a big part of what he campaigned to do.
Actually, the failure of healthcare reform is the poster-child for the failure of Obama's "leadership." The democrats had irresistible majorities in both houses and still ended up giving birth to a plan that provoked massive resistance and exemplified the worst of special-interest pandering. If Obama had actually had a hand in the planning, the result wouldn't have been as disastrous and the final passage wouldn't have had to rely on a gimmick.
How does one have an irresistible majority when one can't break a filibuster? :huh:
Quote from: DGuller on April 04, 2011, 02:02:51 PM
How does one have an irresistible majority when one can't break a filibuster? :huh:
He had an irresistable majority until Captain Chappaquidick croaked.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2011, 02:24:44 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 04, 2011, 02:02:51 PM
How does one have an irresistible majority when one can't break a filibuster? :huh:
He had an irresistable majority until Captain Chappaquidick croaked.
Even then it's a questionable comment. It assumes that Democrats are organized in the same way that GOP or CPSU are, and will always obey the orders from the top when it comes to voting.
Kennedy had a seizure after the inauguration and was virtually incapacitated within a couple months of Obama taking office. I don't think that gave them much time with an irresistable majority.
Quote from: DGuller on April 04, 2011, 02:28:06 PM
Even then it's a questionable comment. It assumes that Democrats are organized in the same way that GOP or CPSU are, and will always obey the orders from the top when it comes to voting.
Which I think is a way of restating what grumbler said. Universal heath care has long been a totem of the Democratic party, yet with absolute control of all the levers a sizable number of representatives wanted to scupper it because it wasn't ideologically pure enough.
Quote from: DGuller on April 04, 2011, 02:02:51 PM
How does one have an irresistible majority when one can't break a filibuster? :huh:
:huh: How can one be a majority of any group except a group of one.
If you are responding to my comment, I said that "democrats had irresistible majorities," which is true. They had 60 Senators (enough to overcome any filibuster) and 256 Representatives.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 04, 2011, 02:32:54 PM
Which I think is a way of restating what grumbler said. Universal heath care has long been a totem of the Democratic party, yet with absolute control of all the levers a sizable number of representatives wanted to scupper it because it wasn't ideologically pure enough.
Correct - and i would further argue that this was because Obama distanced himself from the process and so left the Democrats with 60 (later 59) chiefs in the Senate. No one risked anything by raping the system because the only person they would irritate was Broken Reid.
Quote from: DGuller on April 04, 2011, 02:28:06 PM
Even then it's a questionable comment. It assumes that Democrats are organized in the same way that GOP or CPSU are, and will always obey the orders from the top when it comes to voting.
No, it assumes that 60 senators form an irresistible majority. Which is true, btw.
Quote from: frunk on April 04, 2011, 02:31:14 PM
Kennedy had a seizure after the inauguration and was virtually incapacitated within a couple months of Obama taking office. I don't think that gave them much time with an irresistable majority.
Pat Robertson's prayers answered.
I guess the flaw in my logic is that I think of in effective terms, not nominal ones. Democrats may have had the irresistible majority to pass anything that Democrats unanimously agreed to pass. That's a true statement, and tautological to the point of idiocy.
The important question is whether Democrats had the irresistible majority to pass something that only a majority of that majority wanted to pass. For those that remember those distant years, the answer is no, whether before or after Kennedy's death.
Ultimately, when it comes to voting, it doesn't matter who claims to be on your side, it only matters who votes with you.
Quote from: DGuller on April 04, 2011, 03:02:45 PM
That's a true statement, and tautological to the point of idiocy.
Ultimately, when it comes to voting, it doesn't matter who claims to be on your side, it only matters who votes with you.
:hmm:
My tautological statement was making a point, or rather driving a point home. Grumbler's tautological statement was meaningless.
We can have a unity party tomorrow, to show the country that we're united. Instead of having Democrats or Republicans, we'll have 100 "Unitites" in the Senate. Would saying that "Unitites" have an irresistible majority have any meaning?
Quote from: DGuller on April 04, 2011, 03:14:41 PM
My tautological statement was making a point, or rather driving a point home. Grumbler's tautological statement was meaningless.
We can have a unity party tomorrow, to show the country that we're united. Instead of having Democrats or Republicans, we'll have 100 "Unitites" in the Senate. Would saying that "Unitites" have an irresistible majority have any meaning?
It would have none. Apart from the probability that a unity government would form around a particular issue, such as a large war.
But the Democratic Party didn't form the day before Obama was elected. And they've been preaching and wailing and gnashing ever since the end of WWII (or thereabouts) on the desirability of universal health care coverage. So the fact that a considerable minority of the party were threatening to kill a bill that 100% of the party leadership and rank and file agreed was a net improvement over the fact that insufficient numbers of insurance company executives are going to be impaled on PBS tells you something about the relative importance attached to improving conditions in the country as oppose4d to presenting oneself as ideologically correct.
(See that last sentence? That's a 1480 sentence.)
What Democrats did do, though, was to reach out to the conservatives, and try to rack up some "D"s in places thought to be hopeless. That did work on upping the "D" count, but as a side effect, that count did not represent the true level of support for the core Democratic agenda, and that showed when it came time to vote.
The Dems just screwed up. I don't really blame it on Obama.
They confused disgust with Bush and a national love affair with the good looking and well spoken black guy for some kind of ultra-left mandate, so they thought they didn't have to bother getting the not so nutbar left in their own party on board, and instead let the most nutbar of the nutbars call the shots.
They saw the bailout and the recession and the war and Bush as their shining moment to grab all that they could not get for the last 20 years, and they wanted it all. They got quite a bit of it, but they over-reached.
I am not really certain that leadership from Obama could have stopped that - he simply did not have any real power within his own party. His lack of experience meant that he was not an actual power with the Democratic Party - his power was simply that he could get a Dem into the Presidency. Beyond that, they didn't want or need him for anything. They certainly did not want him telling them what they should do.
I don't think Obama ever had any real chance of leading the Democrats anywhere.
Quote from: DGuller on April 04, 2011, 03:36:04 PM
What Democrats did do, though, was to reach out to the conservatives, and try to rack up some "D"s in places thought to be hopeless. That did work on upping the "D" count, but as a side effect, that count did not represent the true level of support for the core Democratic agenda, and that showed when it came time to vote.
That narrative works if you describe the core Democratic agenda as universal coverage with public option instead of just universal coverage.
Quote from: Berkut on April 04, 2011, 03:37:21 PM
I am not really certain that leadership from Obama could have stopped that - he simply did not have any real power within his own party. His lack of experience meant that he was not an actual power with the Democratic Party - his power was simply that he could get a Dem into the Presidency. Beyond that, they didn't want or need him for anything. They certainly did not want him telling them what they should do.
I don't think Obama ever had any real chance of leading the Democrats anywhere.
And it is sad as that problem was apparent from the outset.
Quote from: garbon on April 04, 2011, 03:45:26 PM
And it is sad as that problem was apparent from the outset.
I'm sorry, I'm really sorry, Hillary was a better candidate. Is that what you want to hear? If it is, then you won't hear it from me, I'll keep that thought to myself.
Quote from: DGuller on April 04, 2011, 03:52:27 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 04, 2011, 03:45:26 PM
And it is sad as that problem was apparent from the outset.
I'm sorry, I'm really sorry, Hillary was a better candidate. Is that what you want to hear? If it is, then you won't hear it from me, I'll keep that thought to myself.
No that's not where I was going. I was simply thinking about the notion that Obama could have faced down Pelosi & Reid.
Oh, ok. :unsure: Forget what I said then. :blush:
I do think that Obama should work on Plan B. He should replace Biden with Clinton, and then produce a birth certificate. From Kenya.
Quote from: DGuller on April 04, 2011, 03:58:05 PM
Oh, ok. :unsure:
I mean, that's already a given so there is no need to discuss the obvious. :P
Is every thread a megathread now? :hmm:
Quote from: grumbler on April 04, 2011, 01:57:11 PM
Actually, the failure of healthcare reform is the poster-child for the failure of Obama's "leadership." The democrats had irresistible majorities in both houses and still ended up giving birth to a plan that provoked massive resistance and exemplified the worst of special-interest pandering. If Obama had actually had a hand in the planning, the result wouldn't have been as disastrous and the final passage wouldn't have had to rely on a gimmick.
The bill is, for the most part, what he campaigned on. Though there are serious issues with the implementation so far.
But I think this was a conscious decision. He's got Hillary in his administration, his chief of staff was a Clinton veteran and Bill himself I imagine has advised Obama. One of the problems that Clinton's healthcare plan had was the sense that it was ignoring or sidelining Congress and being cooked up in offices in the White House. I think that many people around Obama (and just generally in the Democratic establishment) would have been very aware and advised him accordingly. And that comparison's instructive. Clinton showed leadership on healthcare reform (and gays in the military), Obama got the bill. I know which I'd rather.
I also think that despite this being a core issue for the Democrats they lacked a strong consensus about how to achieve it, just look at Edwards', Clinton's and Obama's proposals in the campaign. I personally think that one of the issues with the Democrats on this is a certain arrogance. They behave like technocrats who expect to govern and so the debate revolves around public option vs individual mandate vs taxes on cadillac plans and so on as if most people are interested and sufficiently convinced of the fundamental arguments to just let the Democrats work that out. The Republicans relentlessly stuck to the first principles of why they thought the bill was wrong without getting into the long-grass (just look at their proposals) and the Democrats barely stopped to talk to anyone else they were so interested in a policy SpAd off.
QuoteThey confused disgust with Bush and a national love affair with the good looking and well spoken black guy for some kind of ultra-left mandate, so they thought they didn't have to bother getting the not so nutbar left in their own party on board, and instead let the most nutbar of the nutbars call the shots.
This just isn't true. The most influential Senators on the stimulus: Specter, Nelson and the Senator from Maine. Similarly on healthcare reform it's Nelson and more pro-life Democrats not the public options, single payer fans who get the final say. As I've said this healthcare plan is broadly similar to what John Chafee proposed and Bob Dole, Arlen Specter, John Warner and others supported.
And polls showed majority support for universal healthcare reform as a general idea, and Obama had just won convincingly proposing a plan that was very similar to what eventually passed.
Now I've no doubt things could have been done better but I think the plan was fundamentally of the centre, the last time it had been tried it was killed in part because the White House was way too involved and the Democrats didn't have a consensus. Because of that you had an argument which stopped them talking to the public, allowed the harder-line to seem to predominate (they tend to in rhetoric if not results) and the White House decided to stay in the background. Nowhere near ideal but all reasonable and understandable, plus it got passed.
Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2011, 08:00:42 AM
Taking down tiny but unpopular departments like PP or EPA is just political theatre.
Unfortunately, the GOP's making them off-the-table caveats on the budget compromise. Abortion bullshit and rolling back environmental regulations might be debateable concepts, but shouldn't be part of the "cut them or else" nonsense.
And PP and the EPA are very popular departments in my book. So there.
I voted for #2
Quote from: Berkut on April 04, 2011, 09:25:35 AM
You just don't get the feeling that he wanted to be President because he had any kind of vision of an America that he wanted, or some kind of task he felt he needed to accomplish, or really anything other than "Well, I *can* be President, therefore I will do my best to become President". It is a goal, rather than a means to attain a goal.
Wow, you make Obama sound like, well, like some sort of uninterested and overwhelmed progeny that ran for the office out of a sense of dynastic obligation. Like it was expected of him by his family's political lineage or something.
Quote from: garbon on April 04, 2011, 01:34:53 PM
Sheilbh seems to put a lot of confidence in Congress.
Euro parliamentarians have a tendency to think like that. It's unfortunate.
Quote from: Berkut on April 04, 2011, 11:48:01 AM
Sure, the cuts being proposed are not substantial, but it is surely better than not *increasing* spending, if the goal is to reign in the deficit in some fashion or another. Or to reign in an out of control federal government.
Ask the Southwest Airlines passengers that got an instant sunroof if cutting $4 billion from the FAA's budget isn't substantial. :lol: Damned out of control activist federal safety inspections.
Don't care...either way, I still go to work.
Edit: Actually, as I am supposed to re-enlist on Friday...this might delay my $45,000-ish bonus. :mad:
Quote from: Berkut on April 04, 2011, 03:37:21 PM
The Dems just screwed up. I don't really blame it on Obama.
They confused disgust with Bush and a national love affair with the good looking and well spoken black guy for some kind of ultra-left mandate, so they thought they didn't have to bother getting the not so nutbar left in their own party on board, and instead let the most nutbar of the nutbars call the shots.
They saw the bailout and the recession and the war and Bush as their shining moment to grab all that they could not get for the last 20 years, and they wanted it all. They got quite a bit of it, but they over-reached.
I am not really certain that leadership from Obama could have stopped that - he simply did not have any real power within his own party. His lack of experience meant that he was not an actual power with the Democratic Party - his power was simply that he could get a Dem into the Presidency. Beyond that, they didn't want or need him for anything. They certainly did not want him telling them what they should do.
I don't think Obama ever had any real chance of leading the Democrats anywhere.
A most concise analysis.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 04, 2011, 06:38:33 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 04, 2011, 09:25:35 AM
You just don't get the feeling that he wanted to be President because he had any kind of vision of an America that he wanted, or some kind of task he felt he needed to accomplish, or really anything other than "Well, I *can* be President, therefore I will do my best to become President". It is a goal, rather than a means to attain a goal.
Wow, you make Obama sound like, well, like some sort of uninterested and overwhelmed progeny that ran for the office out of a sense of dynastic obligation. Like it was expected of him by his family's political lineage or something.
I don't think so. I think it just makes him sound like a neophyte who didn't pay his dues.
Good news, the GOP will get increases in military funding by cutting social services.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/04/defense-spending-budget-as-pa_n_844692.html
Quote from: Faeelin on April 04, 2011, 08:43:32 PM
Good news, the GOP will get increases in military funding by cutting social services.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/04/defense-spending-budget-as-pa_n_844692.html
Republicans are weird and dangerous, but can we get that from a credible news source?
Quote from: Neil on April 04, 2011, 08:52:24 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on April 04, 2011, 08:43:32 PM
Good news, the GOP will get increases in military funding by cutting social services.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/04/defense-spending-budget-as-pa_n_844692.html
Republicans are weird and dangerous, but can we get that from a credible news source?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52508_Page3.html
I'm for sensible cuts in defense spending, but how about we get out of Afghanistan and refrain for any more Libya-type actions first?
Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2011, 09:27:25 PM
how about we get out of Afghanistan
9/11 Islamopologist pussy.
How about we destroy Afghanistan and salt the earth, then leave?
Quote from: Habbaku on April 04, 2011, 09:34:34 PM
How about we destroy Afghanistan and salt the earth, then leave?
We should use our explosives to flatten it, literally. All those mountains are making it impossible for the civilization to seep through.
Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2011, 09:27:25 PM
I'm for sensible cuts in defense spending, but how about we get out of Afghanistan and refrain for any more Libya-type actions first?
That's viable. It would be better still to eliminate the Air Force.
Quote from: Neil on April 04, 2011, 10:03:55 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2011, 09:27:25 PM
I'm for sensible cuts in defense spending, but how about we get out of Afghanistan and refrain for any more Libya-type actions first?
That's viable. It would be better still to eliminate the Air Force.
Bah, it'd just get shoved back under the Army, who would mis-manage to an even greater degree.
Eventually all government agencies will be amalgamated under the DoD, since that's the only department that will receive funding in the future.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on April 04, 2011, 10:50:54 PM
Eventually all government agencies will be amalgamated under the DoD, since that's the only department that will receive funding in the future.
Service means citizenship.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 04, 2011, 06:38:33 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 04, 2011, 09:25:35 AM
You just don't get the feeling that he wanted to be President because he had any kind of vision of an America that he wanted, or some kind of task he felt he needed to accomplish, or really anything other than "Well, I *can* be President, therefore I will do my best to become President". It is a goal, rather than a means to attain a goal.
Wow, you make Obama sound like, well, like some sort of uninterested and overwhelmed progeny that ran for the office out of a sense of dynastic obligation. Like it was expected of him by his family's political lineage or something.
Well, whatever faults you want to lay at the feet of the Shrubbery, not knowing what he wanted to do with the Presidency isn't really a bitch that will stick.
Quote from: Berkut on April 05, 2011, 12:02:35 AMWell, whatever faults you want to lay at the feet of the Shrubbery, not knowing what he wanted to do with the Presidency isn't really a bitch that will stick.
Not all Presidents are lucky enough to have a 9/11.
Quote from: Faeelin on April 04, 2011, 09:02:33 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 04, 2011, 08:52:24 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on April 04, 2011, 08:43:32 PM
Good news, the GOP will get increases in military funding by cutting social services.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/04/defense-spending-budget-as-pa_n_844692.html
Republicans are weird and dangerous, but can we get that from a credible news source?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52508_Page3.html
This link does not say what you said.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 04, 2011, 03:07:18 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 04, 2011, 03:02:45 PM
That's a true statement, and tautological to the point of idiocy.
Ultimately, when it comes to voting, it doesn't matter who claims to be on your side, it only matters who votes with you.
:hmm:
:face:
Quote from: DGuller on April 04, 2011, 04:10:33 PM
I do think that Obama should work on Plan B. He should replace Biden with Clinton, and then produce a birth certificate. From Kenya.
:D
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 04, 2011, 10:13:12 PM
Bah, it'd just get shoved back under the Army, who would mis-manage to an even greater degree.
Perhaps, but at least you could heavily cut their budget.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/04/05/obama-to-gop-we-dont-have-time-for-games/
QuotePresident Barack Obama stepped out personally to address the impasse on budget negotiations and reject a Republican proposal for another temporary resolution unless it is to give Congress a few more days to pass a permanent deal.
"We are now at a point where there is no excuse to extend this further," Mr. Obama said during a surprise appearance at the daily White House briefing. "I shouldn't have to oversee a process where Congress deals with last-year's budget when we only have six months left."
The president, who has mostly stayed out of the budget debate until now, was visibly irritated over the impasse in negotiations. "There can be some negotiations about composition" of the cuts, Mr. Obama said, but he said he will not negotiate on ideological issues like abortion in the current budget discussions.
"We don't have time for games," he said. "Not on this."
The current stopgap spending measure for fiscal 2011, which began last October, expires at midnight Friday. The federal government is preparing for a partial government shutdown to begin this weekend if another stopgap measure or legislation funding the government through the remainder of the fiscal year isn't approved soon.
Mr. Obama said that the White House has "identified areas where we have made significant cuts," and that he has moved to accept Republicans' "original proposal for how much would be cut."
"We are now closer than we've ever been to getting an agreement," Mr. Obama said. "The only question is whether politics or ideology is going to get in the way of preventing a shutdown."
Mr. Obama said House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) did not want White House negotiators at a meeting between House Republican leaders and Senate Democratic leaders this afternoon.
"If they can't sort it out, then I want them back here tomorrow," he said. "And I will have my entire team work through the details" to get a deal done.
He sounds a little bit ridiculous with this as one of his main statements about the budget.
Well, I wouldn't plan any trips to a national park soon.
Looks like it's a bit more than just clipping numbers.
Quote from: WSJ
The GOP Path to Prosperity
Our budget cuts $6.2 trillion in spending from the president's budget over the next 10 years and puts the nation on track to pay off our national debt.
By PAUL D. RYAN
Congress is currently embroiled in a funding fight over how much to spend on less than one-fifth of the federal budget for the next six months. Whether we cut $33 billion or $61 billion—that is, whether we shave 2% or 4% off of this year's deficit—is important. It's a sign that the election did in fact change the debate in Washington from how much we should spend to how much spending we should cut.
But this morning the new House Republican majority will introduce a budget that moves the debate from billions in spending cuts to trillions. America is facing a defining moment. The threat posed by our monumental debt will damage our country in profound ways, unless we act.
No one person or party is responsible for the looming crisis. Yet the facts are clear: Since President Obama took office, our problems have gotten worse. Major spending increases have failed to deliver promised jobs. The safety net for the poor is coming apart at the seams. Government health and retirement programs are growing at unsustainable rates. The new health-care law is a fiscal train wreck. And a complex, inefficient tax code is holding back American families and businesses.
The president's recent budget proposal would accelerate America's descent into a debt crisis. It doubles debt held by the public by the end of his first term and triples it by 2021. It imposes $1.5 trillion in new taxes, with spending that never falls below 23% of the economy. His budget permanently enlarges the size of government. It offers no reforms to save government health and retirement programs, and no leadership.
Our budget, which we call The Path to Prosperity, is very different. For starters, it cuts $6.2 trillion in spending from the president's budget over the next 10 years, reduces the debt as a percentage of the economy, and puts the nation on a path to actually pay off our national debt. Our proposal brings federal spending to below 20% of gross domestic product (GDP), consistent with the postwar average, and reduces deficits by $4.4 trillion.
A study just released by the Heritage Center for Data Analysis projects that The Path to Prosperity will help create nearly one million new private-sector jobs next year, bring the unemployment rate down to 4% by 2015, and result in 2.5 million additional private-sector jobs in the last year of the decade. It spurs economic growth, with $1.5 trillion in additional real GDP over the decade. According to Heritage's analysis, it would result in $1.1 trillion in higher wages and an average of $1,000 in additional family income each year.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsi.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FED-AN340_ryan_D_20110404162403.jpg&hash=85d4b5a72ee4f9bb9ab61c55c07e9b8c75b2db18)
Here are its major components:
• Reducing spending: This budget proposes to bring spending on domestic government agencies to below 2008 levels, and it freezes this category of spending for five years. The savings proposals are numerous, and include reforming agricultural subsidies, shrinking the federal work force through a sensible attrition policy, and accepting Defense Secretary Robert Gates's plan to target inefficiencies at the Pentagon.
• Welfare reform: This budget will build upon the historic welfare reforms of the late 1990s by converting the federal share of Medicaid spending into a block grant that lets states create a range of options and gives Medicaid patients access to better care. It proposes similar reforms to the food-stamp program, ending the flawed incentive structure that rewards states for adding to the rolls. Finally, this budget recognizes that the best welfare program is one that ends with a job—it consolidates dozens of duplicative job-training programs into more accessible, accountable career scholarships that will better serve people looking for work.
As we strengthen and improve welfare programs for those who need them, we eliminate welfare for those who don't. Our budget targets corporate welfare, starting by ending the conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that is costing taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. It gets rid of the permanent Wall Street bailout authority that Congress created last year. And it rolls back expensive handouts for uncompetitive sources of energy, calling instead for a free and open marketplace for energy development, innovation and exploration.
• Health and retirement security: This budget's reforms will protect health and retirement security. This starts with saving Medicare. The open-ended, blank-check nature of the Medicare subsidy threatens the solvency of this critical program and creates inexcusable levels of waste. This budget takes action where others have ducked. But because government should not force people to reorganize their lives, its reforms will not affect those in or near retirement in any way.
Starting in 2022, new Medicare beneficiaries will be enrolled in the same kind of health-care program that members of Congress enjoy. Future Medicare recipients will be able to choose a plan that works best for them from a list of guaranteed coverage options. This is not a voucher program but rather a premium-support model. A Medicare premium-support payment would be paid, by Medicare, to the plan chosen by the beneficiary, subsidizing its cost.
In addition, Medicare will provide increased assistance for lower- income beneficiaries and those with greater health risks. Reform that empowers individuals—with more help for the poor and the sick—will guarantee that Medicare can fulfill the promise of health security for America's
We must also reform Social Security to prevent severe cuts to future benefits. This budget forces policy makers to work together to enact common-sense reforms. The goal of this proposal is to save Social Security for current retirees and strengthen it for future generations by building upon ideas offered by the president's bipartisan fiscal commission.
• Budget enforcement: This budget recognizes that it is not enough to change how much government spends. We must also change how government spends. It proposes budget-process reforms—including real, enforceable caps on spending—to make sure government spends and taxes only as much as it needs to fulfill its constitutionally prescribed roles.
• Tax reform: This budget would focus on growth by reforming the nation's outdated tax code, consolidating brackets, lowering tax rates, and assuming top individual and corporate rates of 25%. It maintains a revenue-neutral approach by clearing out a burdensome tangle of deductions and loopholes that distort economic activity and leave some corporations paying no income taxes at all.
This is America's moment to advance a plan for prosperity. Our budget offers the nation a model of government that is guided by the timeless principles of the American idea: free-market democracy, open competition, a robust private sector bound by rules of honesty and fairness, a secure safety net, and equal opportunity for all under a limited constitutional government of popular consent.
We can reform government so that people don't have to reorient their lives for less. We can grow our economy, promote opportunity, and encourage upward mobility. This budget is the new House majority's answer to history's call. It is now up to all of us to keep America exceptional.
Mr. Ryan, a Republican, represents Wisconsin's first congressional district and serves as chairman of the House Budget Committee.
We can just eliminate Medicare tomorrow. Cancel it for everyone. That would take care of the long-term deficit.
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2011, 03:03:13 PMHe sounds a little bit ridiculous with this as one of his main statements about the budget.
Explain.
Quote from: DGuller on April 05, 2011, 06:16:26 PM
We can just eliminate Medicare tomorrow. Cancel it for everyone. That would take care of the long-term deficit.
By chucking it down to the states.
I propose we have an election over Ryan's proposal and see which side wins.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 05, 2011, 06:09:31 PM
Looks like it's a bit more than just clipping numbers.
Yes, it's about shutting down the government. It's what the Teabaggers want. They honestly believe that this will be different than '94.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 05, 2011, 06:19:56 PM
I propose we have an election over Ryan's proposal and see which side wins.
No, because it's an idiotic and ideologically-driven proposal specifically designed to be so over-the-top that there's no way it could conceivably survive, which is the exactly the point.
That way, you can blame The Nigger(tm) for being uncompromising.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 05, 2011, 06:23:32 PM
No, because it's an idiotic and ideologically-driven proposal specifically designed to be so over-the-top that there's no way it could conceivably survive, which is the exactly the point.
That way, you can blame The Nigger(tm) for being uncompromising.
Let's hold an election on the question of whether or not it's an idiotic and ideologically driven proposal specifically designed to be so over the top that there's way it could conceivably survive.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 05, 2011, 06:25:12 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 05, 2011, 06:23:32 PM
No, because it's an idiotic and ideologically-driven proposal specifically designed to be so over-the-top that there's no way it could conceivably survive, which is the exactly the point.
That way, you can blame The Nigger(tm) for being uncompromising.
Let's hold an election on the question of whether or not it's an idiotic and ideologically driven proposal specifically designed to be so over the top that there's way it could conceivably survive.
You can't. I'm a Mod, and I'll have left for an undisclosed location in Illinois.
Wait a minute. The Republicans are trying to save the US from the national debt, and they're telling me that their tax plan is 'revenue-neutral'? Why would you want a revenue-neutral tax plan when you're spending more than you're bringing in?
Also, why do I think that 'eliminating handouts for uncompetitive sources of energy' won't be accompanied by 'eliminating handouts for competitive sources of energy (read: oil, gas and coal)'
Quote from: Neil on April 05, 2011, 06:55:54 PM
Wait a minute. The Republicans are trying to save the US from the national debt, and they're telling me that their tax plan is 'revenue-neutral'? Why would you want a revenue-neutral tax plan when you're spending more than you're bringing in?
Because their Wall Street masters demand it.
Quote from: Neil on April 05, 2011, 06:55:54 PM
Wait a minute. The Republicans are trying to save the US from the national debt, and they're telling me that their tax plan is 'revenue-neutral'? Why would you want a revenue-neutral tax plan when you're spending more than you're bringing in?
Also, why do I think that 'eliminating handouts for uncompetitive sources of energy' won't be accompanied by 'eliminating handouts for competitive sources of energy (read: oil, gas and coal)'
The same reason you know that the graph shown in Ryan's piece is complete bullshit, and not at all the choice bing faced.
The lie starts with the first paragraph:
QuoteCongress is currently embroiled in a funding fight over how much to spend on less than one-fifth of the federal budget for the next six months. Whether we cut $33 billion or $61 billion—that is, whether we shave 2% or 4% off of this year's deficit—is important. It's a sign that the election did in fact change the debate in Washington from how much we should spend to how much spending we should cut.
Both sides agree that "how much spending we should cut" is the issue, as he himself says: "Whether we cut $33 billion or $61 billion." So, the following sentence, that it is important how much we cut because that determines whether it is about how much to spend vice how much to cut, is a lie.
If the Republicans want to shut down the government over a petty dispute involving $28 billion, they will get the blame. Hell, just withdraw from Iraq 14 weeks early, and cut the budget for Iraqi operations by $28 billion as a result, and you are there.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 05, 2011, 07:06:49 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 05, 2011, 06:55:54 PM
Wait a minute. The Republicans are trying to save the US from the national debt, and they're telling me that their tax plan is 'revenue-neutral'? Why would you want a revenue-neutral tax plan when you're spending more than you're bringing in?
Because their Wall Street masters demand it.
Why risk a ten trillion-dollar country for the sake of a few tens of billions?
Quote from: grumbler on April 05, 2011, 07:08:27 PM
If the Republicans want to shut down the government over a petty dispute involving $28 billion, they will get the blame. Hell, just withdraw from Iraq 14 weeks early, and cut the budget for Iraqi operations by $28 billion as a result, and you are there.
Eh, both sides are going to get the blame.
Scary stuff. Ryan explained to a reporter that even doing his plan, cutting trillions, would take 28 years to balance the budget. How did we get so messed up?? :huh:
Quote from: KRonn on April 05, 2011, 08:04:01 PM
Scary stuff. Ryan explained to a reporter that even doing his plan, cutting trillions, would take 28 years to balance the budget. How did we get so messed up?? :huh:
Voodoo economics, and the Democrats surrendering to the idea that low taxes are desirable.
Quote from: KRonn on April 05, 2011, 08:04:01 PM
Scary stuff. Ryan explained to a reporter that even doing his plan, cutting trillions, would take 28 years to balance the budget. How did we get so messed up?? :huh:
So messed up that people swallow what Ryan says without checking the facts?
Education. I blame the educational system.
Quote from: KRonn on April 05, 2011, 08:04:01 PM
Scary stuff. Ryan explained to a reporter that even doing his plan, cutting trillions, would take 28 years to balance the budget. How did we get so messed up?? :huh:
The very easy answer is enacting unfunded tax cuts, and refusing to consider any tax increases even in the face of the most severe deficits. The much harder answer is figuring out how a large percentage of the public was socially engineered to forget that tax increases are ever an option.
Quote from: DGuller on April 05, 2011, 11:25:12 PM
Quote from: KRonn on April 05, 2011, 08:04:01 PM
Scary stuff. Ryan explained to a reporter that even doing his plan, cutting trillions, would take 28 years to balance the budget. How did we get so messed up?? :huh:
The very easy answer is enacting unfunded tax cuts, and refusing to consider any tax increases even in the face of the most severe deficits. The much harder answer is figuring out how a large percentage of the public was socially engineered to forget that tax increases are ever an option.
These are great points, since it is clear that nobody ever increases taxes in the US, and the reason we have such a "severe deficit" is all about not bringing in enough cash to fund our perfectly consistently sized government.
Quote from: Berkut on April 05, 2011, 11:53:40 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 05, 2011, 11:25:12 PM
Quote from: KRonn on April 05, 2011, 08:04:01 PM
Scary stuff. Ryan explained to a reporter that even doing his plan, cutting trillions, would take 28 years to balance the budget. How did we get so messed up?? :huh:
The very easy answer is enacting unfunded tax cuts, and refusing to consider any tax increases even in the face of the most severe deficits. The much harder answer is figuring out how a large percentage of the public was socially engineered to forget that tax increases are ever an option.
These are great points, since it is clear that nobody ever increases taxes in the US, and the reason we have such a "severe deficit" is all about not bringing in enough cash to fund our perfectly consistently sized government.
Income taxes as percent of GDP:
2000: 14.57%
2010: 9.58%
Quote from: Berkut on April 05, 2011, 11:53:40 PM
These are great points, since it is clear that nobody ever increases taxes in the US, and the reason we have such a "severe deficit" is all about not bringing in enough cash to fund our perfectly consistently sized government.
Just keep telling yourself that. Record it, and play it in your sleep. Find some bogus, unsourced, and misleading statistics about income tax versus GDP, write them down, and sleep with them under your pillow.
You will wake up either crazy or DGuller or both.
Quote from: DGuller on April 05, 2011, 11:25:12 PM
The very easy answer is enacting unfunded tax cuts, and refusing to consider any tax increases even in the face of the most severe deficits. The much harder answer is figuring out how a large percentage of the public was socially engineered to forget that tax increases are ever an option.
The problem is that the natural party of tax increases is treating the debt as a joke.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 06, 2011, 06:43:03 AM
Quote from: DGuller on April 05, 2011, 11:25:12 PM
The very easy answer is enacting unfunded tax cuts, and refusing to consider any tax increases even in the face of the most severe deficits. The much harder answer is figuring out how a large percentage of the public was socially engineered to forget that tax increases are ever an option.
The problem is that the natural party of tax increases is treating the debt as a joke.
The natural party of tax increases? Allegedly the Democrats are the tax and spend party, but they seem to have conceded on the taxes, and settled for just spending. The Republicans are supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility, but I can't remember the last time that they proposed a tax increase. With them, it always seems to be about cutting taxes, and then proposing small, ideological cuts to spending.
Quote from: Neil on April 06, 2011, 06:54:42 AM
The natural party of tax increases? Allegedly the Democrats are the tax and spend party, but they seem to have conceded on the taxes, and settled for just spending. The Republicans are supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility, but I can't remember the last time that they proposed a tax increase. With them, it always seems to be about cutting taxes, and then proposing small, ideological cuts to spending.
4.6 trillion being small and ideological.
Quote from: grumbler on April 05, 2011, 08:37:27 PM
Quote from: KRonn on April 05, 2011, 08:04:01 PM
Scary stuff. Ryan explained to a reporter that even doing his plan, cutting trillions, would take 28 years to balance the budget. How did we get so messed up?? :huh:
So messed up that people swallow what Ryan says without checking the facts?
Education. I blame the educational system.
We've been similar things as Ryans says from a lot of people in the know, who aren't political ideologues in the issue. From politicians to those in the Federal Reserve and Treasury, to others in the financial fields. Ryan saying we won't get out of this for 28 years is certainly changeable, depending on the economy, GDP growth, etc. But he isn't saying what others aren't warning about, that the government has a very serious deficit problem that needs to be addressed.
Quote from: DGuller on April 05, 2011, 11:25:12 PM
Quote from: KRonn on April 05, 2011, 08:04:01 PM
Scary stuff. Ryan explained to a reporter that even doing his plan, cutting trillions, would take 28 years to balance the budget. How did we get so messed up?? :huh:
The very easy answer is enacting unfunded tax cuts, and refusing to consider any tax increases even in the face of the most severe deficits. The much harder answer is figuring out how a large percentage of the public was socially engineered to forget that tax increases are ever an option.
I think more so the very easy, but difficult to swallow answers, are more like we need some reforms to take place in Defense, Social Security, Medicare, along with the more low hanging budget "fruit". Reforms to save those programs just as much as rein in the deficit. I don't think we can tax our way out of this.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 06, 2011, 06:56:49 AM
4.6 trillion being small and ideological.
Cutting $4.6 trillion from a $3.82 trillion budget would be quite a feat. If they can pull it off for even ten years in a row, they will eliminate most of the total debt.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 06, 2011, 06:56:49 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 06, 2011, 06:54:42 AM
The natural party of tax increases? Allegedly the Democrats are the tax and spend party, but they seem to have conceded on the taxes, and settled for just spending. The Republicans are supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility, but I can't remember the last time that they proposed a tax increase. With them, it always seems to be about cutting taxes, and then proposing small, ideological cuts to spending.
4.6 trillion being small and ideological.
Isn't that more than the total budget? They're going to spend a negative amount?
Quote from: KRonn on April 06, 2011, 07:04:38 AM
We've been similar things as Ryans says from a lot of people in the know, who aren't political ideologues in the issue. From politicians to those in the Federal Reserve and Treasury, to others in the financial fields. Ryan saying we won't get out of this for 28 years is certainly changeable, depending on the economy, GDP growth, etc. But he isn't saying what others aren't warning about, that the government has a very serious deficit problem that needs to be addressed.
The statistic of "28 years" is meaningless, because it is based on a bunch of unstated assumptions. People who through out cherry-picked numbers like that without qualifying them are, in effect, lying.
I'd argue that the government borrowing $1.6 trillion so it can spend $3.6 trillion is a more immediate indicator of the problem. Or, the fact that total US debt will increase by 10% in this year alone. Numbers like that; supportable and meaningful.
Quote from: Neil on April 06, 2011, 07:57:52 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 06, 2011, 06:56:49 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 06, 2011, 06:54:42 AM
The natural party of tax increases? Allegedly the Democrats are the tax and spend party, but they seem to have conceded on the taxes, and settled for just spending. The Republicans are supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility, but I can't remember the last time that they proposed a tax increase. With them, it always seems to be about cutting taxes, and then proposing small, ideological cuts to spending.
4.6 trillion being small and ideological.
Isn't that more than the total budget? They're going to spend a negative amount?
That's the number Yi is quoting.
On the other hand, if the savings is spread over years, then Yi's use of it is meaningless. Saving $10 per year will save $4.6 trillion if you wait long enough, but I think everyone would agree that a $10 savings would be small (and probably ideological).
Quote from: KRonn on April 06, 2011, 07:11:14 AM
Quote from: DGuller on April 05, 2011, 11:25:12 PM
Quote from: KRonn on April 05, 2011, 08:04:01 PM
Scary stuff. Ryan explained to a reporter that even doing his plan, cutting trillions, would take 28 years to balance the budget. How did we get so messed up?? :huh:
The very easy answer is enacting unfunded tax cuts, and refusing to consider any tax increases even in the face of the most severe deficits. The much harder answer is figuring out how a large percentage of the public was socially engineered to forget that tax increases are ever an option.
I think more so the very easy, but difficult to swallow answers, are more like we need some reforms to take place in Defense, Social Security, Medicare, along with the more low hanging budget "fruit". Reforms to save those programs just as much as rein in the deficit. I don't think we can tax our way out of this.
Nevertheless, a large explanation for the persistent deficits over the last 10 years is that we had a big tax cut 10 years ago. It astounds me that no one thinks to look back and see what would happen if we would undo it. That goes for Democrats too, that tax increase on those only making $250k+ is bullshit as well to a slightly lesser degree.
Quote from: KRonn on April 06, 2011, 07:11:14 AM
I think more so the very easy, but difficult to swallow answers, are more like we need some reforms to take place in Defense, Social Security, Medicare, along with the more low hanging budget "fruit". Reforms to save those programs just as much as rein in the deficit. I don't think we can tax our way out of this.
I don't think that Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security are budget issues at all. They need to be fixed whether it benefits the budget or not.
I think a long-range plan for the US budget is needed, and that is where to strike the balance between funding increases and spending decreases. Recovery is really only going to start when people have the confidence that economic expansion won't be punished via new political blunders with the economy. A balanced budget doesn't have to come in the next few years, but a realistic plan for a balanced budget is necessary before the election season arrives at the end of this year.
Quote from: DGuller on April 06, 2011, 08:31:17 AM
Nevertheless, a large explanation for the persistent deficits over the last 10 years is that we had a big tax cut 10 years ago. It astounds me that no one thinks to look back and see what would happen if we would undo it. That goes for Democrats too, that tax increase on those only making $250k+ is bullshit as well to a slightly lesser degree.
Agreed, and would further say that a large explanation for the persistent deficits over the last 10 years is that we started big spending increases 10 years ago. It astounds me that no one thinks to look back and see what would happen if we would undo it.
Quote from: grumbler on April 06, 2011, 09:24:18 AM
Quote from: KRonn on April 06, 2011, 07:11:14 AM
I think more so the very easy, but difficult to swallow answers, are more like we need some reforms to take place in Defense, Social Security, Medicare, along with the more low hanging budget "fruit". Reforms to save those programs just as much as rein in the deficit. I don't think we can tax our way out of this.
I don't think that Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security are budget issues at all. They need to be fixed whether it benefits the budget or not.
:huh:
How do you figure they are not budget issues? As I understand it both are only "broken" in that they are not financially sustainable in the long run. The programs themselves work fine (or at least adequately) as long as you ignore how you are paying for them.
Quote from: grumbler on April 06, 2011, 08:09:27 AM
Quote from: KRonn on April 06, 2011, 07:04:38 AM
We've been similar things as Ryans says from a lot of people in the know, who aren't political ideologues in the issue. From politicians to those in the Federal Reserve and Treasury, to others in the financial fields. Ryan saying we won't get out of this for 28 years is certainly changeable, depending on the economy, GDP growth, etc. But he isn't saying what others aren't warning about, that the government has a very serious deficit problem that needs to be addressed.
The statistic of "28 years" is meaningless, because it is based on a bunch of unstated assumptions. People who through out cherry-picked numbers like that without qualifying them are, in effect, lying.
I'd argue that the government borrowing $1.6 trillion so it can spend $3.6 trillion is a more immediate indicator of the problem. Or, the fact that total US debt will increase by 10% in this year alone. Numbers like that; supportable and meaningful.
Yes, agreed on all counts. The 28 years thing was just something that caught my attention, as an indicator of the issue. It was just a comment he made to a CNN reporter's question.
Quote from: grumbler on April 06, 2011, 09:26:23 AM
Quote from: DGuller on April 06, 2011, 08:31:17 AM
Nevertheless, a large explanation for the persistent deficits over the last 10 years is that we had a big tax cut 10 years ago. It astounds me that no one thinks to look back and see what would happen if we would undo it. That goes for Democrats too, that tax increase on those only making $250k+ is bullshit as well to a slightly lesser degree.
Agreed, and would further say that a large explanation for the persistent deficits over the last 10 years is that we started big spending increases 10 years ago. It astounds me that no one thinks to look back and see what would happen if we would undo it.
Bingo.
I am actually not theoretically opposed to increasing taxes, if that is what is necessary.
But the idea that we should increase taxes *instead of* controlling spending is what I have a problem with - the idea that the recession is a vehicle for increasing the size and role of the federal government by huge amounts is ideology, and nothing more.
But that's what "worked" during the Depression, Berk! :)
Quote from: Barrister on April 06, 2011, 09:30:01 AM
:huh:
How do you figure they are not budget issues? As I understand it both are only "broken" in that they are not financially sustainable in the long run. The programs themselves work fine (or at least adequately) as long as you ignore how you are paying for them.
:huh: They are supposed to be self-sustaining and pay for themselves out of their own revenue streams. No matter what happened to the budget, they would still need to be fixed to avoid creating a burden on the budget that was not intended. OTOH, they can be fixed whether their is a general budget fix or not.
Quote from: Berkut on April 06, 2011, 10:00:04 AM
But the idea that we should increase taxes *instead of* controlling spending is what I have a problem with - the idea that the recession is a vehicle for increasing the size and role of the federal government by huge amounts is ideology, and nothing more.
I oppose using the recession as an excuse to indefinitely continue programs that everyone, even the recipients, know are unnecessary and not a federal mandate in any case; things like NPR and the 82 programs that monitor teacher quality and the many commissions on homelessness. If one wants to justify a one-time shot of money into one or more of those programs because it will have a demonstrable effect in easing the recession (more than leaving the money to be spent or saved by the taxpayer), then one should be able to try that. Putting spending cuts off the table because "OMG there is a recession!" is as stupid and counterproductive as the pre-recession excuse for deficit spending that ran "OMG we are at war!"
Quote from: Caliga on April 06, 2011, 10:48:21 AM
But that's what "worked" during the Depression, Berk! :)
The Japanese are a bit busy to apply the ol' "what worked during the Depression;" maybe the Chinese will lend us a hand?
It's over ten years.
Quote from: DGuller on April 06, 2011, 08:31:17 AM
Nevertheless, a large explanation for the persistent deficits over the last 10 years is that we had a big tax cut 10 years ago. It astounds me that no one thinks to look back and see what would happen if we would undo it. That goes for Democrats too, that tax increase on those only making $250k+ is bullshit as well to a slightly lesser degree.
That interactive NYT web site Veep linked to a while back had the annual amount you would get from rescinding each tranche of the Bush tax cuts.
The ranking Democratic member of the House budget committee was just on PBS responding to Ryan's proposal. When asked what the Democratic budget plan for 2012 is he said raise taxes on millionaires and serious cuts in spending.
Mike Pence R-Indiana was on MSNBC this morning, said that the "defunding" of Planned Parenthood ("the biggest abortion provider in the United States with federal money") in the GOP's budget proposal is non-negotiable, and they will stop the government on that very issue.
I just upped my monthly donation.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 06, 2011, 06:49:50 PM
Mike Pence R-Indiana was on MSNBC this morning, said that the "defunding" of Planned Parenthood ("the biggest abortion provider in the United States with federal money") in the GOP's budget proposal is non-negotiable, and they will stop the government on that very issue.
I just upped my monthly donation.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.huffpost.com%2Fgen%2F264195%2Fthumbs%2Fr-PELOSI-large570.jpg&hash=599b22347f6b746722e5a1c18407614b1dd06612)
This thing has to be snuffed out
Unfortunately, garbon, I can't abort her. :P
I'll pretend my funds don't go to birth control, and aren't being used for condoms for you faggots.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 06, 2011, 06:49:50 PM
Mike Pence R-Indiana was on MSNBC this morning, said that the "defunding" of Planned Parenthood ("the biggest abortion provider in the United States with federal money") in the GOP's budget proposal is non-negotiable, and they will stop the government on that very issue.
I just upped my monthly donation.
Really, really stupid.
What I don't get though is how the Tea Baggers can block it by themselves. There's not that many of them.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 06, 2011, 06:52:47 PM
Unfortunately, garbon, I can't abort her. :P
I'll pretend my funds don't go to birth control, and aren't being used for condoms for you faggots.
I liked the pairing of her quotation about the repub budget and that photo. :D
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 06, 2011, 06:59:56 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 06, 2011, 06:49:50 PM
Mike Pence R-Indiana was on MSNBC this morning, said that the "defunding" of Planned Parenthood ("the biggest abortion provider in the United States with federal money") in the GOP's budget proposal is non-negotiable, and they will stop the government on that very issue.
I just upped my monthly donation.
Really, really stupid.
I'll give my money to whomever I like. :ultra:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 06, 2011, 06:59:56 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 06, 2011, 06:49:50 PM
Mike Pence R-Indiana was on MSNBC this morning, said that the "defunding" of Planned Parenthood ("the biggest abortion provider in the United States with federal money") in the GOP's budget proposal is non-negotiable, and they will stop the government on that very issue.
I just upped my monthly donation.
Really, really stupid.
What I don't get though is how the Tea Baggers can block it by themselves. There's not that many of them.
There are plenty of them voting in the primaries, and they already have a formidable record of purging the insufficiently extreme from the GOP ranks. Sometimes they shoot themselves in the foot doing it, but having a reputation for irrationality is not necessarily a bad thing.
This is just the example of the ideological cuts I was talking about. Instead of cutting things where it counts, the Republicans are cutting without regard to budgetary or social utility.
Quote from: DGuller on April 06, 2011, 08:04:04 PM
There are plenty of them voting in the primaries, and they already have a formidable record of purging the insufficiently extreme from the GOP ranks. Sometimes they shoot themselves in the foot doing it, but having a reputation for irrationality is not necessarily a bad thing.
Plenty voting in the primaries, not that many in the House.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 06, 2011, 08:31:45 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 06, 2011, 08:04:04 PM
There are plenty of them voting in the primaries, and they already have a formidable record of purging the insufficiently extreme from the GOP ranks. Sometimes they shoot themselves in the foot doing it, but having a reputation for irrationality is not necessarily a bad thing.
Plenty voting in the primaries, not that many in the House.
Why replace them wholesale when you can just intimidate them with a few well-publicized examples? The important thing that Tea Party has the power to primary someone, and no one wants to do something to put themselves in their crosshairs.
Quote from: DGuller on April 06, 2011, 08:49:32 PM
Why replace them wholesale when you can just intimidate them with a few well-publicized examples? The important thing that Tea Party has the power to primary someone, and no one wants to do something to put themselves in their crosshairs.
OK, my post wasn't very clear.
Apparently "the Tea Party wing" of the Republican party is blocking the compromise bill in the House; I think it's for 32 billion in cuts, with the Democrats allowed to choose what gets cut. Now my understanding is that "the Tea Party wing" isn't that many Congressmen. 20? 40? So it seems like one of two things must be true: either the Tea Party wing is virtually every Republican except Boehner, or there are few to no Democrats voting for the compromise.
Gotcha. It could still be the intimidation factor, though. Maybe few Republicans want to go ahead without Tea Party block consent, even if the block itself lacks the direct power to block anything.
Quote from: DGuller on April 06, 2011, 08:56:52 PM
Gotcha. It could still be the intimidation factor, though. Maybe few Republicans want to go ahead without Tea Party block consent, even if the block itself lacks the direct power to block anything.
I think you are right, and that this is the crisis that will determine whether Boehner is just Pelosi with a Y chromosome, or whether he is an actual leader. If he shuts down the US government over the lie that planned parenthood provides abortion with federal funds, then he is the former, and the US is well and truly fucked.
Quote from: grumbler on April 07, 2011, 06:34:00 AM
Quote from: DGuller on April 06, 2011, 08:56:52 PM
Gotcha. It could still be the intimidation factor, though. Maybe few Republicans want to go ahead without Tea Party block consent, even if the block itself lacks the direct power to block anything.
I think you are right, and that this is the crisis that will determine whether Boehner is just Pelosi with an X chromosome, or whether he is an actual leader. If he shuts down the US government over the lie that planned parenthood provides abortion with federal funds, then he is the former, and the US is well and truly fucked.
Just so we're clear, what sort of chromosomes are you alleging that Pelosi has?
Quote from: Neil on April 07, 2011, 07:45:38 AM
Just so we're clear, what sort of chromosomes are you alleging that Pelosi has?
Well, that was an amusing mistake! :lol:
Freudian slip?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 06, 2011, 06:52:47 PM
Unfortunately, garbon, I can't abort her. :P
I'll pretend my funds don't go to birth control, and aren't being used for condoms for you faggots.
:lol:
QuoteObama threatens to veto GOP budget extension plan
In this link there's a short video with two of Obama's debt commission members, Irskin Bowles and Alan Simpson (Dem and Repub). They explain some of their reasoning behind their commission's ideas, especially Social Security and some of Medicare and Medicaid.
Quote
http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/06/news/economy/budget_crisis_congress/index.htm?hpt=T2
Government shutdown: How it came to this
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The fiscal year is 189 days old, and the federal government is still operating without a long-term spending bill. And now, if lawmakers can't cut a deal, the government will shut down.
Usually, lawmakers make some effort to pass a real, 365-day budget. Not this year.
Instead, lawmakers have passed six short-term spending bills. With their Friday deadline bearing down, the two parties remain billions of dollars apart on spending cuts.
"This is just an eyeball-to-eyeball moment where Republicans want to exercise their power," said Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. "And Obama is trying to defend his reputation with Democrats."
As even school children know, Congress has the responsibility to appropriate funds for the government to spend. It's right there in Article 1 of the Constitution. But this year -- and let's not mince words -- lawmakers have fallen down on the job.
Of course, short-term spending bills are nothing new. Congress has enacted at least one every year for all but three of the past 30. But six in one year? How did it come to this?
President Obama first proposed a budget for fiscal year 2011 on Feb. 1, 2010. That was 431 days ago.
If the process worked as designed, Congress would have taken a look at the president's suggestions. Lawmakers on the budget committees would have set target spending levels, and appropriations committees would have hammered out spending plans to fit.
The result was supposed to be 12 separate appropriations bills. Congress would have voted on each, and moved them to the president's desk. That's all supposed to happen by Oct. 1, the start of the fiscal year.
Lots of talk, no action
Here's what Congress did manage to do: The House produced two of 12 appropriations bills. The Senate has not voted on a single one. Lawmakers couldn't even agree on their own legislative budget.
0:00 /07:43How to cure U.S. budget 'stupidity'
And those two House votes? They happened way back in July, when Democrats had huge majorities in the House and Senate, with Obama in the White House.
Why Democrats failed to take more action when they had the chance remains somewhat of a mystery. Remember, this is the same Congress that moved heaven and earth to enact landmark health care and Wall Street reform laws.
In the absence of a full-year budget, lawmakers have instead passed six short-term spending bills called "continuing resolutions." Designed to bridge short-term gaps in appropriations, Congress has approved one after another to keep the government running. Average length: 31 days.
The budget punt has implications for effective governance.
Will spending cuts hurt the economy?
Continuing resolutions, with the exception of the two most recent efforts by Congress, freeze spending at the prior year's levels.
That forces federal agencies into a head snapping game of stop-and-go. Hiring is delayed, work is repeated, and agencies struggle to implement new legislation. Uncertainty is king, with agencies left to guess what their funding level for the year might be.
Just ask the Securities and Exchange Commission, which is trying to implement the new Wall Street oversight law with last year's staffing.
Add in the threat of imminent government shutdown coming around, on average, once a month, and it's easy to see why agencies are praying the budget Merry-Go-Round stops soon.
Battle lines being drawn
As if to call attention to their own failure, both Republicans and Democrats have spent months issuing high-profile calls for a return to responsible budgeting.
Yet they have made no progress.
The latest stalemate has lawmakers about to plunge into the precipice as they argue over a few billion dollars and a set of contentious political issues -- like abortion -- that have been inserted into the debate.
On Wednesday, lawmakers from both parties met at the White House in the hopes of reaching an agreement. They did not.
What happens next is largely unclear. One scenario is that lawmakers will pass another short-term bill before Friday. There also might be a minor miracle in the form of a six-month spending deal that would cover the rest of the fiscal year.
Or, the government might close its doors. To top of page
The debt commission's plan did a much better job than Paul Ryan's at reducing the deficit.
Quote from: garbon on April 07, 2011, 12:38:00 PM
QuoteObama threatens to veto GOP budget extension plan
Does it actually have a chance of getting 60 votes in the Senate? I doubt it...
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 07, 2011, 12:46:54 PM
The debt commission's plan did a much better job than Paul Ryan's at reducing the deficit.
The commission had some good ideas. But too few legislators seem to want to act for fear of political fall out. Same with the President. As for Ryan, at least he put out a plan, which probably opens the door to real debate on the budget. I have to laugh at all the angst over cutting 3.5 billion or 30 billion or 60 billion from the budget as the Dems and Repubs have proposed, but still bash each other, in a multi-trillion dollar budget!
Quote from: KRonn on April 07, 2011, 01:40:42 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 07, 2011, 12:46:54 PM
The debt commission's plan did a much better job than Paul Ryan's at reducing the deficit.
The commission had some good ideas. But too few legislators seem to want to act for fear of political fall out. Same with the President. As for Ryan, at least he put out a plan, which probably opens the door to real debate on the budget. I have to laugh at all the angst over cutting 3.5 billion or 30 billion or 60 billion from the budget as the Dems and Repubs have proposed, but still bash each other, in a multi-trillion dollar budget!
How does an ideological plan based on pure fantasy open the door to the real debate?
In other news, the groupthink tank that Ryan used tried to quietly change the details of the plan, 1984-style. They removed mention of the fact that unemployment plan would be assumed to be 2.8% under Ryan's budget. :lol: You have to give credit to Republicans, they're not that stupid, they know that the Ryan plan is utter bullshit.
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2011, 01:44:07 PM
Quote from: KRonn on April 07, 2011, 01:40:42 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 07, 2011, 12:46:54 PM
The debt commission's plan did a much better job than Paul Ryan's at reducing the deficit.
The commission had some good ideas. But too few legislators seem to want to act for fear of political fall out. Same with the President. As for Ryan, at least he put out a plan, which probably opens the door to real debate on the budget. I have to laugh at all the angst over cutting 3.5 billion or 30 billion or 60 billion from the budget as the Dems and Repubs have proposed, but still bash each other, in a multi-trillion dollar budget!
How does an ideological plan based on pure fantasy open the door to the real debate?
Is it really all that, just ideological? Or is that the Democrat Caucus talking points? Nothing good or useful in it? Nothing the Dems can debate? Have the Dems put a plan on the table at all??
Quote from: KRonn on April 07, 2011, 01:48:17 PM
Is it really all that, just ideological? Or is that the Democrat Caucus talking points? Nothing good or useful in it? Nothing the Dems can debate? Have the Dems put a plan on the table at all??
It assumed 2.8% unemployment rate sometime in the future. It also assumes that we'll cut non-entitlement spending from 12% of GDP to 3.5% of GDP, without explaining how such a feat could be accomplished. I would laugh, if I wasn't severely depressed from watching this utter joke taken seriously.
Hey, looks like they are may have to delay Siegy's paycheck.
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2011, 01:44:07 PM
How does an ideological plan based on pure fantasy open the door to the real debate?
An ideological plan based on pure fantasy opens the door to real debate because the natural follow up question to the statement that this plan is an ideological plan based on pure fantasy is OK, how do you think we should do it then?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 07, 2011, 04:57:02 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2011, 01:44:07 PM
How does an ideological plan based on pure fantasy open the door to the real debate?
An ideological plan based on pure fantasy opens the door to real debate because the natural follow up question to the statement that this plan is an ideological plan based on pure fantasy is OK, how do you think we should do it then?
So it opens the door to debate by saying, "I'm totally irrational! Can you come up with something better?". Perhaps Obama should counter with a plan based on the seizure of dragon hoards and see if the GOP can do better.
:rolleyes:
I think what Yi is probably trying to say is that it's akin to a strawman proposal.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 06, 2011, 08:55:01 PMOK, my post wasn't very clear.
Apparently "the Tea Party wing" of the Republican party is blocking the compromise bill in the House; I think it's for 32 billion in cuts, with the Democrats allowed to choose what gets cut. Now my understanding is that "the Tea Party wing" isn't that many Congressmen. 20? 40? So it seems like one of two things must be true: either the Tea Party wing is virtually every Republican except Boehner, or there are few to no Democrats voting for the compromise.
The problem is that your post in nonsense. The House has passed a bill, the Senate has utterly failed to do anything other than take two vacations. The problem is not a lack of the House "tea party wing" compromise, but the inability of Harry Reid to act with even a minimum level of competence. Indeed, the House bill got more votes in the Senate than the Democrats bill (44 vs 42) when it was brought up for a vote. The ball is in the Senate's court.
Due to rule changes adopted in the House at the beginning of the session requiring that a final bill has to be posted 72 hours prior to the vote (to prevent another "you have to pass the bill to see what is in it") the deadline for a bill to be voted on Friday to be finalized was Tuesday - the first day the White House got involved in the process.
The only way to keep the gov't open at this stage is to pass the one-week extension, which Obama promised to veto today over $12 billion of cuts, as well as a policy rider on prohibiting funding of abortion in DC identical to the one that was in the 2009 budget signed by Obama and voted on by the entire democratic leadership.
The deems obviously hope there will be enough useful idiots parroting their BS to swing the public their way, just as in 1995 when Clinton shut down the gov't.
I hope you don't get paid this month.
Quote from: Caliga on April 07, 2011, 05:22:19 PM
:rolleyes:
I think what Yi is probably trying to say is that it's akin to a strawman proposal.
If you want to think of them as simply intellectually dishonest, that's fine too.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 07, 2011, 05:31:54 PM
I hope you don't get paid this month.
Aren't you supposed to be in your basement, curled up in the fetal position?
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 07, 2011, 05:34:06 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 07, 2011, 05:31:54 PM
I hope you don't get paid this month.
Aren't you supposed to be in your basement, curled up in the fetal position?
I am.
Quote from: Caliga on April 07, 2011, 05:22:19 PM
:rolleyes:
I think what Yi is probably trying to say is that it's akin to a strawman proposal.
Not at all. I think it's a serious proposal. The numbers are real, there's no smoke and mirrors, no trillions of dollars of waste and abuse. Just because you think the specific items in the proposal are not optimal does not render it fantasy. I think 1/3 tax increases and 2/3 spending cuts would be about right. But I don't think that anything that strays from that is coo coo for cocoa puffs.
Take the Medicare proposal for example. Ryan's is radical. Seniors would basically eat the cost of health care price inflation. But compare that to Bowles-Simpson, in which the medical services industry would eat it instead. Is that somehow less radical?
At some point the Democrats are going to have to stop preaching to the choir about how essential the National Cowboy Poetry Festival is to the very fabric of our society and join the debate on deficit reduction. (Or if they think the deficit is hunky dory, and we can keep running 10% deficits indefinitely, they can try to make that case.)
Quote from: Razgovory on April 07, 2011, 05:33:35 PM
If you want to think of them as simply intellectually dishonest, that's fine too.
Not it's not.
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 07, 2011, 05:34:06 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 07, 2011, 05:31:54 PM
I hope you don't get paid this month.
Aren't you supposed to be in your basement, curled up in the fetal position?
Raz has taught himself to perform a variety of basic and complex functions while curled in a fetal position. Eventually, his feats will transform our understanding of fetal capabilities and revive the anti-abortion movement.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 07, 2011, 05:39:31 PM
Take the Medicare proposal for example. Ryan's is radical. Seniors would basically eat the cost of health care price inflation. But compare that to Bowles-Simpson, in which the medical services industry would eat it instead. Is that somehow less radical?
It's certainly more equitable.
Quote from: KRonn on April 07, 2011, 01:48:17 PM
Is it really all that, just ideological? Or is that the Democrat Caucus talking points? Nothing good or useful in it? Nothing the Dems can debate? Have the Dems put a plan on the table at all??
I am no democrat, and I see nothing in Ryan's plan but CYA bullshit. To be fair to him, his plan was only issued because the Republicans realized how silly it was of them to whine that the Democrats had no plan, when they didn't have one either. Ryan couldn't recommend real solutions because his party hasn't any idea what real solutions they would find acceptable, any more than the Democrats do.
This issue needs a McCain-style "Gang of X" backbenchers to take charge. There are no adults sitting at the negotiations table right now, just a bunch of political hacks hoping that the agony they are inflicting on the nation will be blamed on their enemies.
And, no, the Democrats have put no plan on the table. I don't think they have anything like the leadership needed to create such a plan, or even a plan for how to take a dump. the solution to the nation's problems won't come from the Democratic "leadership," that's for sure.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 07, 2011, 05:39:31 PM
Take the Medicare proposal for example. Ryan's is radical. Seniors would basically eat the cost of health care price inflation. But compare that to Bowles-Simpson, in which the medical services industry would eat it instead. Is that somehow less radical?
The latter is the way it works in the world. Health care price inflation doesn't exist magically. It exists because it is extraordinarily profitable to the health care industry that it exist.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 07, 2011, 05:39:31 PM
At some point the Democrats are going to have to stop preaching to the choir about how essential the National Cowboy Poetry Festival is to the very fabric of our society and join the debate on deficit reduction. (Or if they think the deficit is hunky dory, and we can keep running 10% deficits indefinitely, they can try to make that case.)
I think you are right, to the extent that some democrats are going to have to talk turkey about exactly what they mean by deficit reduction. But at some point the Republicans are going to have to accept that budget negotiations need to be about budgets, and stop wrecking every deal with some bogus policy riders that go from nowhere to being "non-negotiable."
I think the leadership on each side is wrecking the chances for compromise deliberately, because each sees the other as getting more bones broken when the train goes off the rails.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 07, 2011, 06:35:45 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 07, 2011, 05:39:31 PM
Take the Medicare proposal for example. Ryan's is radical. Seniors would basically eat the cost of health care price inflation. But compare that to Bowles-Simpson, in which the medical services industry would eat it instead. Is that somehow less radical?
It's certainly more equitable.
Wouldn't it be equitable to somehow split the cost?
Quote from: Neil on April 07, 2011, 07:23:06 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 07, 2011, 06:35:45 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 07, 2011, 05:39:31 PM
Take the Medicare proposal for example. Ryan's is radical. Seniors would basically eat the cost of health care price inflation. But compare that to Bowles-Simpson, in which the medical services industry would eat it instead. Is that somehow less radical?
It's certainly more equitable.
Wouldn't it be equitable to somehow split the cost?
No. 50% from octogenarians versus 50% from the medical services industry? Nope.
Quote from: garbon on April 07, 2011, 12:38:00 PM
QuoteObama threatens to veto GOP budget extension plan
That seems really politically risky to me. He does that won't he get the blame for the shutdown that follows?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 07, 2011, 07:40:55 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 07, 2011, 12:38:00 PM
QuoteObama threatens to veto GOP budget extension plan
That seems really politically risky to me. He does that won't he get the blame for the shutdown that follows?
They didn't blame Clinton for the shutdown in the 1990's. The Republicans are doing the same thing before and hoping for a different outcome. I think Obama is being smart politically, but policy wise it does nothing.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 07, 2011, 07:37:25 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 07, 2011, 07:23:06 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 07, 2011, 06:35:45 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 07, 2011, 05:39:31 PM
Take the Medicare proposal for example. Ryan's is radical. Seniors would basically eat the cost of health care price inflation. But compare that to Bowles-Simpson, in which the medical services industry would eat it instead. Is that somehow less radical?
It's certainly more equitable.
Wouldn't it be equitable to somehow split the cost?
No. 50% from octogenarians versus 50% from the medical services industry? Nope.
Yes it would. That's what equitable means. As the health care industry discovers ever more expensive and counter-productive means of extending human life, it seems reasonable that those who take advantage of them pay for the privilege.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 07, 2011, 07:44:22 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 07, 2011, 07:40:55 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 07, 2011, 12:38:00 PM
QuoteObama threatens to veto GOP budget extension plan
That seems really politically risky to me. He does that won't he get the blame for the shutdown that follows?
They didn't blame Clinton for the shutdown in the 1990's. The Republicans are doing the same thing before and hoping for a different outcome. I think Obama is being smart politically, but policy wise it does nothing.
Clinton didn't veto a budget extension did he? IIRC he just let the Republicans cut their own throat. Am I wrong? :unsure:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 07, 2011, 07:40:55 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 07, 2011, 12:38:00 PM
QuoteObama threatens to veto GOP budget extension plan
That seems really politically risky to me. He does that won't he get the blame for the shutdown that follows?
Dumbass, the "budget extension plan" involves 12 billion in cuts for a one week extension. Obama said he'd accept a clean, no-cuts extention for a week.
12 billion in cuts. For a week. They're calling it the "troop funding" extension, and yet they want to eliminate $350+ million from the VA. Too funny.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 07, 2011, 07:53:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 07, 2011, 07:44:22 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 07, 2011, 07:40:55 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 07, 2011, 12:38:00 PM
QuoteObama threatens to veto GOP budget extension plan
That seems really politically risky to me. He does that won't he get the blame for the shutdown that follows?
They didn't blame Clinton for the shutdown in the 1990's. The Republicans are doing the same thing before and hoping for a different outcome. I think Obama is being smart politically, but policy wise it does nothing.
Clinton didn't veto a budget extension did he? IIRC he just let the Republicans cut their own throat. Am I wrong? :unsure:
Yes, you are. Clinton vetoed the continuing resolution and shut down the gov't. But you're forgiven for getting it wrong since the msm lied and pretended it was the GOP's fault. Gingrich didn't help because he was proud to take responsibility for the shutdown. There are a few differences today.
1. The msm can't get away with bs like that anymore since they can't control the message.
2. Boehner is a lot more reasonable than Gingrich
3. Obama is a lot dummer than Clinton
4. We're actually having a real budget crisis this time
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 07, 2011, 08:52:57 PM
4. We're actually having a real budget crisis this time
Well that's true.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 07, 2011, 08:13:04 PM
Dumbass, the "budget extension plan" involves 12 billion in cuts for a one week extension. Obama said he'd accept a clean, no-cuts extention for a week.
12 billion in cuts. For a week. They're calling it the "troop funding" extension, and yet they want to eliminate $350+ million from the VA. Too funny.
And here we have the infantile democratic position. No, we can't cut anything, boohoo.
Well, the democrats completely fucked everything up last year by completely refusing to even start on the budget for the first time ever and are now crying about minuscule cuts.
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 07, 2011, 08:59:14 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 07, 2011, 08:13:04 PM
Dumbass, the "budget extension plan" involves 12 billion in cuts for a one week extension. Obama said he'd accept a clean, no-cuts extention for a week.
12 billion in cuts. For a week. They're calling it the "troop funding" extension, and yet they want to eliminate $350+ million from the VA. Too funny.
And here we have the infantile democratic position. No, we can't cut anything, boohoo.
Not for a week. Nope. Not for the benefit of stopping "abortion providers" in the District of Columbia, conveniently slipped in to the "troop funding" extension.
QuoteWell, the democrats completely fucked everything up last year by completely refusing to even start on the budget for the first time ever and are now crying about minuscule cuts.
Planned Parenthood is miniscule cuts in the big deficit picture. But we know that niggers being allowed to get mammograms because they don't have healthcare isn't a miniscule issue for you Teabaggers.
Enjoy your furlough.
The real problem is that Harry Reid has managed to piss off so many Senators that he is incapable to pass anything at all so he is trying to shift focus to the House.
Normally the house would pass a bill, then the senate, and then they would go to conference to hash out the differences.
Now the house has passed a bill while the senate hasnt done shit, but now demands that the house compromise on their own bill before they will take it up in the senate. And then you have the crazy leftist hacks in the msm and on this forum claim that this is the house's failure. This is nonsense, the only ones that have acted responsible are the house republicans.
Meanwhile we're heading towards a gov't shutdown this Friday, default by may 16, and insanely high deficits as far as the eye can see. The tea party are the only sane people in this circus, the democrats have lost all sense of reality.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 07, 2011, 09:05:46 PM
Planned Parenthood is miniscule cuts in the big deficit picture. But we know that niggers being allowed to get mammograms because they don't have healthcare isn't a miniscule issue for you Teabaggers.
http://www.blackgenocide.org
We're not gonna default on May 16th. There's plenty of income to service the debt. We'd have to not pay for other stuff but we could do it.
Might you mean hit the debt ceiling then?
The Senate shit all over the bullshit riders the House tried to sneak in the first time, and they've since moved the goalposts and are trying it again. The same riders. Planned Parenthood, the EPA, the BATF, and STILL including tax cuts for the wealthy and megacorporations.
It's not about the deficit. It's not about jobs. What it is about is the same old social bullshit song and dance from GOPtards. Abortion, federal regulation, guns and more free rides for Wall Street and their country club buddies, all the usual fare. They just don't get it. They don't want to get it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 07, 2011, 09:05:46 PM
Not for a week. Nope. Not for the benefit of stopping "abortion providers" in the District of Columbia, conveniently slipped in to the "troop funding" extension.
QuoteWell, the democrats completely fucked everything up last year by completely refusing to even start on the budget for the first time ever and are now crying about minuscule cuts.
Planned Parenthood is miniscule cuts in the big deficit picture. But we know that niggers being allowed to get mammograms because they don't have healthcare isn't a miniscule issue for you Teabaggers.
Enjoy your furlough.
We already establish that you only have infantile arguments, thanks for reiterating them. Didn't your governor just propose deep cuts to state employee benefits, indeed deeper cuts than what passed in Wisconsin? Shouldn't you be out there protesting at the state Capitol, or you only complain if republicans cut your benefits? Fucking tool.
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 07, 2011, 09:07:38 PM
Now the house has passed a bill while the senate hasnt done shit,
The "Government Shutdown Prevention Act of 2011"?
QuoteThe tea party are the only sane people in this circus, the democrats have lost all sense of reality.
lulz
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 07, 2011, 09:14:18 PM
The Senate shit all over the bullshit riders the House tried to sneak in the first time, and they've since moved the goalposts and are trying it again. The same riders. Planned Parenthood, the EPA, the BATF, and STILL including tax cuts for the wealthy and megacorporations.
It's not about the deficit. It's not about jobs. What it is about is the same old social bullshit song and dance from GOPtards. Abortion, federal regulation, guns and more free rides for Wall Street and their country club buddies, all the usual fare. They just don't get it. They don't want to get it.
Wall street elected Obama, you dumb fuck. They vote democrats because they guarantee them profits without having to work for them. You sure are ignorant.
Quote from: garbon on April 07, 2011, 09:11:19 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 07, 2011, 09:05:46 PM
Planned Parenthood is miniscule cuts in the big deficit picture. But we know that niggers being allowed to get mammograms because they don't have healthcare isn't a miniscule issue for you Teabaggers.
http://www.blackgenocide.org
Well, to be fair Planned Parenthood was founded for the expressed purpose of exterminating negroes, the retarded, and other mongrel races. Not to mention Jews.
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 07, 2011, 09:14:58 PM
We already establish that you only have infantile arguments, thanks for reiterating them. Didn't your governor just propose deep cuts to state employee benefits, indeed deeper cuts than what passed in Wisconsin? Shouldn't you be out there protesting at the state Capitol, or you only complain if republicans cut your benefits? Fucking tool.
My governor isn't attempting to destroy the state-funded safety nets out of ideological extremism while eliminating revenue streams at the same time. Oh, and he worked with the other side to get it done. So everybody's happy here in my little socialist paradise.
Plus, he plays in a band. So he's cooler than any Teabagger could ever hope to be.
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 07, 2011, 09:17:09 PM
You sure are ignorant.
Quote from: HansmeisterThe tea party are the only sane people in this circus, the democrats have lost all sense of reality.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 07, 2011, 05:39:31 PM
The numbers are real, there's no smoke and mirrors, no trillions of dollars of waste and abuse.
Nope, no waste and abuse, just 2.8% unemployment rate and 8.5% of GDP reduction in non-entitlement spending.
Did Hansy take an early furlough? :unsure: His presence did make me realize what a horrible thing it would be for a government to shut down, and leave him with free time on his hands.
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 07, 2011, 09:20:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 07, 2011, 09:11:19 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 07, 2011, 09:05:46 PM
Planned Parenthood is miniscule cuts in the big deficit picture. But we know that niggers being allowed to get mammograms because they don't have healthcare isn't a miniscule issue for you Teabaggers.
http://www.blackgenocide.org
Well, to be fair Planned Parenthood was founded for the expressed purpose of exterminating negroes, the retarded, and other mongrel races. Not to mention Jews.
And the Republican Party once freed the slaves, busted the trusts and rail barons, and once understood the concept of fiscal conservatism.
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2011, 09:43:29 PM
Did Hansy take an early furlough? :unsure: His presence did make me realize what a horrible thing it would be for a government to shut down, and leave him with free time on his hands.
Much like the battered wife that knows he only hits her because he loves her, he'll blame his unpaid spring break on the HNIC. Its more comforting that way.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 07, 2011, 06:35:45 PM
It's certainly more equitable.
Is it really more equitable to have a "fully funded" Medicare program that no doctor is willing to participate in rather than a partially funded insurance program? Explain that to me.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 07, 2011, 09:44:26 PM
And the Republican Party once freed the slaves, busted the trusts and rail barons, and once understood the concept of fiscal conservatism.
What can the Democratic Party claim? :(
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2011, 09:36:55 PM
Nope, no waste and abuse, just 2.8% unemployment rate and 8.5% of GDP reduction in non-entitlement spending.
OK, you think the projection is too optimistic. Then we need to come up with additional cuts or revenue enhancements.
You don't like the distribution of cuts. Fine, come up with an alternative.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 07, 2011, 10:38:29 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2011, 09:36:55 PM
Nope, no waste and abuse, just 2.8% unemployment rate and 8.5% of GDP reduction in non-entitlement spending.
OK, you think the projection is too optimistic. Then we need to come up with additional cuts or revenue enhancements.
You don't like the distribution of cuts. Fine, come up with an alternative.
Ok, here is a DGuller plan.
I project that in two years, unemployment rate will be 1% and will stay there perpetually, and for the next 30 years, per capita real income annual growth would be 10%. Unfortunately, tax rates will need to rise, since eventually we'll be swamped with budget surpluses, and we'll need to reduce the tax revenues.
Is my plan perfect? No, of course not. However, I'm putting something up for discussion, hopefully it will get the debate going.
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2011, 10:46:59 PM
Ok, here is a DGuller plan.
I project that in two years, unemployment rate will be 1% and will stay there perpetually, and for the next 30 years, per capita real income annual growth would be 10%. Unfortunately, tax rates will need to rise, since eventually we'll be swamped with budget surpluses, and we'll need to reduce the tax revenues.
Is my plan perfect? No, of course not. However, I'm putting something up for discussion, hopefully it will get the debate going.
As with Ryan's plan, it might be a good idea if we examined the assumptions in your plan.
Besides, I think Obama already proposed that plan.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 07, 2011, 10:07:08 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 07, 2011, 06:35:45 PM
It's certainly more equitable.
Is it really more equitable to have a "fully funded" Medicare program that no doctor is willing to participate in rather than a partially funded insurance program? Explain that to me.
Yes, it is more equitable.
Quote from: garbon on April 07, 2011, 10:21:48 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 07, 2011, 09:44:26 PM
And the Republican Party once freed the slaves, busted the trusts and rail barons, and once understood the concept of fiscal conservatism.
What can the Democratic Party claim? :(
Fought a civil war to defend slavery, dressed in white hoods and lynched blacks, instituted and defended segregation, and topped it off by destroying black families and turning them into helpless wards off the state.
With that kind of thinking representing the Republican Party, Hansmeister, it's a wonder that more Black people don't vote for you guys.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 07, 2011, 10:38:29 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 07, 2011, 09:36:55 PM
Nope, no waste and abuse, just 2.8% unemployment rate and 8.5% of GDP reduction in non-entitlement spending.
OK, you think the projection is too optimistic. Then we need to come up with additional cuts or revenue enhancements.
You don't like the distribution of cuts. Fine, come up with an alternative.
The projection is based on immigration staying equal. Realistically this would mean that immigration would surge as it did in the late '90s as well as labor rate participation increase that would probably keep unemployment aroun 4-4.5%. However, since the budget doesn't address changes in immigration law such as expanded h1b visas it basically shows what the unemployment rate would be if all else was equal. Since this seems to be the only criticism that the left is harping on that must they don't really have any substantive criticisms. The proposal doesn't game the CBO by forcing it to adopt unreasonable premises like obamacare, or simply ignore it like Obama's last budget which was laughable with it's phantom numbers.
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 07, 2011, 11:57:02 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 07, 2011, 10:21:48 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 07, 2011, 09:44:26 PM
And the Republican Party once freed the slaves, busted the trusts and rail barons, and once understood the concept of fiscal conservatism.
What can the Democratic Party claim? :(
Fought a civil war to defend slavery, dressed in white hoods and lynched blacks, instituted and defended segregation, and topped it off by destroying black families and turning them into helpless wards off the state.
Of course, what you conveniently fail to mention the realignment since the Civil War. Democrats eventually shed the racists when they fought for civil rights, while Republicans swooped in and picked them up.
Quote from: Jacob on April 07, 2011, 11:59:40 PM
With that kind of thinking representing the Republican Party, Hansmeister, it's a wonder that more Black people don't vote for you guys.
How could they? They're trapped by a system designed by the democrats to prevent them from ever succeeding. They got hucksters like Jesse Jackson and al sharpton to keep them in line and to tell them that their only purpose in life is to vote democrat to keep the handouts coming.
And any black person who dares to wander off the plantation is subjected to the vilest forms of racism imaginable.
Quote from: DGuller on April 08, 2011, 12:10:07 AM
Of course, what you conveniently fail to mention the realignment since the Civil War. Democrats eventually shed the racists when they fought for civil rights, while Republicans swooped in and picked them up.
Pure revisionist bullshit. You know what year the GOP first won a majority in the Southern congressional delegation? 1994. And the first time they won a majority of the southern state legislatures? 2010.
And of course it is the democrats who to this date still argue that blacks are inferior to whites and Shouldnt be held to the same standards. Or to any standards as well. They completely infantilized the black population of this country. Just look at American cities which have been run by the democrats for generations and tell me that they have been well treated. Their families have been destroyed, their children stuck in schools designed by democrats not to educate the children but to funnel money thru union dues back into the democratic political machine. The late senator Patrick Daniel Moynihan had realized that four decades ago and warned about it to no avail.
In the meantime democrats like to talk about how compassionate they are because they're willing to steal money from group a to buy the loyalty of group b, what a hypocritical bunch they are.
This thread delivers! :lol:
Hansie in Full Froth(tm) mode is absolutely hilarious. No parody is possible, because parodies take a position to an absurd extreme, and absurd extreme is where Hams starts, before he moves further into the loonie fringe.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 07, 2011, 10:07:08 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 07, 2011, 06:35:45 PM
It's certainly more equitable.
Is it really more equitable to have a "fully funded" Medicare program that no doctor is willing to participate in rather than a partially funded insurance program? Explain that to me.
You can always legislate participation.
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 08, 2011, 12:26:20 AM
Quote from: DGuller on April 08, 2011, 12:10:07 AM
Of course, what you conveniently fail to mention the realignment since the Civil War. Democrats eventually shed the racists when they fought for civil rights, while Republicans swooped in and picked them up.
Pure revisionist bullshit.
That's not what Republicans at the time were saying. They were explicitly saying they were picking up white southerners because Democrats had picked up the mantle of civil rights.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 08, 2011, 06:45:11 AM
That's not what Republicans at the time were saying. They were explicitly saying they were picking up white southerners because Democrats had picked up the mantle of civil rights.
Really? They were explicitly saying that? Quote?
Of course once the civil rights act was passed it was only a matter of time before southerners would abandon the democrats, though it still took 30 years for the GOP to make significant gains. Since support for segregation was the chief reason southerners supported the democrats in the first place its elimination meant that in the long-term other issues would start to dominate. Combine that with the democratic party's decision to remake itself after the '68 fiasco into a party of the left and the only surprising thing about the rise of the GOP in the south is how long it took.
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 07, 2011, 09:17:09 PM
Wall street elected Obama, you dumb fuck.
:tinfoil:
Vintage Hans. A couple of decent points mixed in with channeling some B.S. NRO talking points before final descent into nonsense.
Anyways Wall Street couldn't elect anything: it's just a couple million feet of Grade B office space and a few condo conversions.
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 07, 2011, 11:57:02 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 07, 2011, 10:21:48 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 07, 2011, 09:44:26 PM
And the Republican Party once freed the slaves, busted the trusts and rail barons, and once understood the concept of fiscal conservatism.
What can the Democratic Party claim? :(
Fought a civil war to defend slavery, dressed in white hoods and lynched blacks, instituted and defended segregation, and topped it off by destroying black families and turning them into helpless wards off the state.
yeah they truly sucked, until the parties switched sides.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 08, 2011, 09:00:53 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 07, 2011, 11:57:02 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 07, 2011, 10:21:48 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 07, 2011, 09:44:26 PM
And the Republican Party once freed the slaves, busted the trusts and rail barons, and once understood the concept of fiscal conservatism.
What can the Democratic Party claim? :(
Fought a civil war to defend slavery, dressed in white hoods and lynched blacks, instituted and defended segregation, and topped it off by destroying black families and turning them into helpless wards off the state.
yeah they truly sucked, until the parties switched sides.
And then they both ended up sucking. :(
We had an extreme ham once. Once of those gigantic Virginia salted hams. It was revolting.
Quote from: Berkut on April 08, 2011, 09:58:36 AM
We had an extreme ham once. Once of those gigantic Virginia salted hams. It was revolting.
How did you slice it? My understanding is they're supposed to be sliced thin like prosciutto.
Country ham is extremely salty; unless you really really love salt you should wash it (some people wash it in milk) before cooking.
Nancy Pelosi doesn't like Ryan's bill either. Says it will kill or otherwise harm millions of senior citizens. Of course it's very doubtful she read the bill, just pulled stats out of the air. I guess we could just pass the bill to find out what's in it, eh Nancy?? :P
Man, she is a piece of work. I think she needs to get clear on what her talking points are. Can't cut anything - Armageddon will ensue!
Quote from: Caliga on April 08, 2011, 10:16:26 AM
Country ham is extremely salty; unless you really really love sale you should wash it (some people wash it in milk) before cooking.
You guys mean Pork!! Pass the political pork, will ya! :cool:
Quote from: Berkut on April 08, 2011, 09:58:36 AM
We had an extreme ham once. Once of those gigantic Virginia salted hams. It was revolting.
Speaking of extreme hams, this week I've been tackling a 3 pound can of extra-lean Polish ham. Mmmmmm....
Quote from: DGuller on April 08, 2011, 10:30:32 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 08, 2011, 09:58:36 AM
We had an extreme ham once. Once of those gigantic Virginia salted hams. It was revolting.
Speaking of extreme hams, this week I've been tackling a 3 pound can of extra-lean Polish ham. Mmmmmm....
:hmm: Martinus isn't that thin.
Ham in a can?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ckffoods.com%2Fimg%2Fkrakus-can.jpg&hash=dfd1808724457a1cd9fc5ef5144ce6d8d51d0f0f)
Krakus is supposed to be a good ham. Reminds me that I wanted to check that out at the market!
But you guys need to stop hamming it up.... ;)
This thread: not kosher.
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 08, 2011, 07:34:24 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 08, 2011, 06:45:11 AM
That's not what Republicans at the time were saying. They were explicitly saying they were picking up white southerners because Democrats had picked up the mantle of civil rights.
Really? They were explicitly saying that? Quote?
Of course once the civil rights act was passed it was only a matter of time before southerners would abandon the democrats, though it still took 30 years for the GOP to make significant gains. Since support for segregation was the chief reason southerners supported the democrats in the first place its elimination meant that in the long-term other issues would start to dominate. Combine that with the democratic party's decision to remake itself after the '68 fiasco into a party of the left and the only surprising thing about the rise of the GOP in the south is how long it took.
The South was shifting toward the GOP before '68. They were doing so in '64. They would have gone sooner if Northern Democrats hadn't been so badly beaten in the early 50's.
But here's your quotes
QuoteAtwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn't have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.
Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?
Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."
This was from the early 1980's.
QuoteFrom now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.
Kevin Philips from 1970 (he later went Democratic, but not in 1970).
Only poor city slickers eat ham out of a can. :(
Whenever I want ham or any other kind of pork, I can get it fresh slaughtered from a farmer a mile or two from my house. :cool:
Quote from: Caliga on April 08, 2011, 01:29:16 PM
Only poor city slickers eat ham out of a can. :(
Whenever I want ham or any other kind of pork, I can get it fresh slaughtered from a farmer a mile or two from my house. :cool:
If you're getting a pig freshly slaughtered what you are getting is NOT ham. :contract:
Quote from: Barrister on April 08, 2011, 01:44:23 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 08, 2011, 01:29:16 PM
Only poor city slickers eat ham out of a can. :(
Whenever I want ham or any other kind of pork, I can get it fresh slaughtered from a farmer a mile or two from my house. :cool:
If you're getting a pig freshly slaughtered what you are getting is NOT ham. :contract:
You gotta cure it.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 08, 2011, 02:45:32 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 08, 2011, 01:44:23 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 08, 2011, 01:29:16 PM
Only poor city slickers eat ham out of a can. :(
Whenever I want ham or any other kind of pork, I can get it fresh slaughtered from a farmer a mile or two from my house. :cool:
If you're getting a pig freshly slaughtered what you are getting is NOT ham. :contract:
You gotta cure it.
That would be the point I am making, yes. :huh:
HALF THE PAY
HALF THE WORK
Who said you have to eat meat right after it's slaughtered? :huh:
Oh, Drudge. :lol:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fd.yimg.com%2Fa%2Fp%2Fafp%2F20110408%2Fcapt.photo_1302211983078-1-0.jpg%3Fx%3D400%26amp%3By%3D269%26amp%3Bq%3D85%26amp%3Bsig%3D1CteLAlnDDFM1ouN5pl0rg--&hash=9db74c3fe39dc3f648ca54c888601cb648fe4553)
Quote from: Caliga on April 08, 2011, 05:20:36 PM
Who said you have to eat meat right after it's slaughtered? :huh:
It is my understanding that in fact, if you want ham, you can't eat it right away. It needs to be prepared first.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 08, 2011, 10:33:06 AM
Quote from: DGuller on April 08, 2011, 10:30:32 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 08, 2011, 09:58:36 AM
We had an extreme ham once. Once of those gigantic Virginia salted hams. It was revolting.
Speaking of extreme hams, this week I've been tackling a 3 pound can of extra-lean Polish ham. Mmmmmm....
:hmm: Martinus isn't that thin.
He sounds fat when he posts.
Quote from: Fate on April 08, 2011, 05:21:30 PM
Oh, Drudge. :lol:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fd.yimg.com%2Fa%2Fp%2Fafp%2F20110408%2Fcapt.photo_1302211983078-1-0.jpg%3Fx%3D400%26amp%3By%3D269%26amp%3Bq%3D85%26amp%3Bsig%3D1CteLAlnDDFM1ouN5pl0rg--&hash=9db74c3fe39dc3f648ca54c888601cb648fe4553)
:lol: Pay for your own abortions & whore pills, gals.
Quote from: derspiess on April 08, 2011, 06:35:19 PM
:lol: Pay for your own abortions & where pills, gals.
I have to admit that while I understand their point, it's hard for me to feel sorry for the people I've heard complain, as yeah, they can pay their own way.
To hear the rhetoric, you'd think the rider was that abortions and birth control would be made illegal.
I only see one chick in that pic that's ever going to get near a boner.
Nice reboot Speesh. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Slargos on April 08, 2011, 05:30:57 PM
It is my understanding that in fact, if you want ham, you can't eat it right away. It needs to be prepared first.
That is correct.
If PP really does have sufficient funding from other sources I don't see the big deal. We are trying to make cuts, after all. I suspect it isn't true though.
Quote from: Caliga on April 08, 2011, 06:41:58 PM
Quote from: Slargos on April 08, 2011, 05:30:57 PM
It is my understanding that in fact, if you want ham, you can't eat it right away. It needs to be prepared first.
That is correct.
The pigs tend to react when you try to bite them.
Quote from: derspiess on April 08, 2011, 06:35:19 PM:lol: Pay for your own abortions & whore pills, gals.
You're a classy guy :lol:
Quote from: Jacob on April 08, 2011, 06:55:00 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 08, 2011, 06:35:19 PM:lol: Pay for your own abortions & whore pills, gals.
You're a classy guy :lol:
Yeah, there's no war on women or anything.
Quote from: Jacob on April 08, 2011, 06:55:00 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 08, 2011, 06:35:19 PM:lol: Pay for your own abortions & whore pills, gals.
You're a classy guy :lol:
I'm sort of with Derspiess here. :ph34r:
I think that abortions are important, especially for poor people and minorities (who are usually poor). If they had to pay more, your country would be awash in scum, even more than it already is.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 08, 2011, 07:11:09 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 08, 2011, 06:55:00 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 08, 2011, 06:35:19 PM:lol: Pay for your own abortions & whore pills, gals.
You're a classy guy :lol:
I'm sort of with Derspiess here. :ph34r:
In theory I would be too. It's hard to feel bad for the pieces of shit who go out and protest.
However, the social utility of Planned Parenthood means I'm willing to ignore their sense of entitlement.
Quote from: The EconomistIT IS bad enough that Republicans and Democrats are so divided on how much to spend and tax. But if you want to feel really gloomy about America's ability to tackle its deficit, consider the ideological, almost theological, arguments about tax that are taking place within the Republican camp itself. In the past few weeks these have been revealed in all their dreadful clarity by an esoteric debate about the tax break for ethanol.
To balance the budget you can spend less or tax more. The Republicans are allergic to tax increases, and since their capture of the House of Representatives in November's mid-term elections have succeeded in focusing the debate almost exclusively on what should be cut. One bit of spending that has caught the eye of Tom Coburn, the Republican senator for Oklahoma, is the $6 billion a year the government doles out in tax breaks to refiners who blend ethanol into their petrol. By general consent, this is not money well spent. Farmers may relish receiving taxpayers' money to grow the corn that goes into ethanol, but corn-based ethanol is not the green fuel it is cracked up to be. Almost as much energy is used to make it as when it is burned. Here, you would think, is one subsidy that any Republican fiscal conservative in his right mind would want to get rid of.
Senator Coburn, being in his right mind, has proposed an amendment that would scrap the subsidy. As it happens, he was a member of the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson deficit-reduction commission set up last year by Barack Obama. The president has paid scant attention to the commission's report since it was published in December. But Senator Coburn continues to tell anyone who will listen that nothing is more urgent for America than to reduce its Himalaya of debt before the bond markets take fright and slap on punitive rates of interest before they lend more. He is one of six senators, three from each party, working discreetly behind the scenes in search of a compromise. As for ethanol, the senator is under no illusion that scrapping the subsidy is a solution to the deficit problem. It is a drop in the ocean. But, hell, the tax credit is a waste of public money and should be scrapped. Who on the tax-cutting side of the debate could argue with that?
Grover Norquist: that's who. And on the face of it this is peculiar. Mr Norquist is the pugnacious founder of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), a mighty pressure group that deems taxes no less of an evil than alcohol was in the eyes of the 19th-century temperance movements. He and the ATR put fierce pressure on politicians at every level of government to sign the "taxpayer protection pledge", a promise to oppose any increase in the marginal tax rate on individuals and firms. No fewer than 237 House members and 41 senators have done so. The aim of the association is to reduce the power of government by making taxes "simpler, flatter, more visible, and lower than they are today". You might think such an organisation would jump at the chance to eliminate a distortion as gratuitous as the ethanol subsidy.
You might think so, but you would be wrong. That is because, in Mr Norquist's book, taking away a tax break has an iniquitous corollary. Ending the ethanol credit will increase federal tax revenues and so make available to the government money that can be spent on other things. And since government spending is the underlying evil on which Mr Norquist believes all policy should focus, the tax break for ethanol (and other such credits, loopholes and distortions) must not be eliminated unless the extra revenue they will put in federal coffers is taken out again in the form of an equal tax cut somewhere else. After all, he told the Washington Post last month, "The goal is to reduce the size and scope of government spending, not to focus on the deficit."
Herein lies the great difference between the philosophies of Mr Norquist and Senator Coburn. The former is a sworn enemy of government spending. The latter would like to cut taxes and shrink the state, but cares most about the need to cut the deficit. He thinks the Norquist position is dotty. "By opposing my amendment", he told the ATR, "you are defending wasteful spending and a de facto tax increase on every American. Ethanol subsidies are a spending programme placed in the tax code that increases the burden of government, keeps tax rates artificially high, and forces consumers to pay more for fuel and energy."
Tax reductio ad absurdum
Senator Coburn has the better of this argument. Even the Wall Street Journal, one of Mr Norquist's admirers, said in an editorial this week that the compelling taxpayer interest in this case is to end a policy that is "driving up the cost of food and fuel with no benefit for the environment or American energy security."
But the significance of the quarrel goes well beyond ethanol. Bruce Bartlett, a former adviser to Ronald Reagan, laments the fact that Senator Coburn is one of too few Republicans who understand the need for higher revenues and not just spending cuts. To tame the deficit by cuts alone would require such deep ones that the Republicans could not hope to pass them without winning back the White House and a filibuster-proof majority of fiscal hawks in the Senate. And it might not happen even in that impossible event. When the Republicans last had full control, in the 2000s, they cut nothing except taxes, and added to entitlements.
At its best America is open-minded and pragmatic. These qualities will be needed in abundance if its political class is to rescue it from its burden of debt. Some mix of spending cuts and tax rises is inevitable. So it is encouraging that a conservative such as Senator Coburn is willing to work with Democrats and take on the fiscal fundamentalists of the ATR. Then again, the senator is not seeking re-election. Very few other Republicans in the Senate, to say nothing of the tea-party-beholden freshmen in the House, will find pragmatism on taxes so easy to contemplate.
Sigh...
Free abortions for minorities; ban abortions for white people. This is the way to fix our Democrat problem.
Quote from: JonasSalk on April 08, 2011, 08:48:00 PM
Free abortions for minorities; ban abortions for white people. This is the way to fix our Democrat problem.
That crosses the line just a tad, don't you think?
Quote from: Jacob on April 08, 2011, 06:55:00 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 08, 2011, 06:35:19 PM:lol: Pay for your own abortions & whore pills, gals.
You're a classy guy :lol:
What's wrong with what I said? :unsure:
Quote from: DGuller on April 08, 2011, 08:53:22 PM
Quote from: JonasSalk on April 08, 2011, 08:48:00 PM
Free abortions for minorities; ban abortions for white people. This is the way to fix our Democrat problem.
That crosses the line just a tad, don't you think?
Pretty typical conservative. You don't have to scratch the surface very hard to find that tasty racist nugget in a Southern Republican.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 08, 2011, 09:45:10 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 08, 2011, 08:53:22 PM
Quote from: JonasSalk on April 08, 2011, 08:48:00 PM
Free abortions for minorities; ban abortions for white people. This is the way to fix our Democrat problem.
That crosses the line just a tad, don't you think?
Pretty typical conservative. You don't have to scratch the surface very hard to find that tasty racist nugget in a Southern Republican.
But that's not too far from Seedy's rationale.
And?
QuoteCongressional leaders reach agreement on budget deal
By Paul Kane, Philip Rucker and David A. Fahrenthold, Friday, April , 11:31 PM
Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill have reached an agreement that would avert a federal government shutdown, yielding more spending cuts for Republicans while giving Democrats a key win on an issue related to abortion rights, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's office announced Friday night.
The deal to fund the federal government for the next five months will include $39 billion in spending cuts and will drop language related to Planned Parenthood. Lawmakers still need to approve a short-term stopgap funding bill before midnight, when the federal government will run out of money and cease operations.
The stopgap bill will allow lawmakers time to craft the longer-term, complicated budget for the rest of 2011.
Jo Maney, a spokeswoman for the House Rules Committee, said it could take a day just to write such a bill in the first place. "There's no way. It won't be written," Maney said.
Capitol Hill spent Friday on the brink, with both parties saying they didn't want a shutdown — but also refusing to give the ground that would prevent one.
For much of the day, the two sides seemed widely separated: they seemingly couldn't even agree on what they disagreed about.
In the early afternoon, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told reporters that negotiations with Democrats were focused mainly on the overall size of budget cuts.
"Most of the policy issues have been dealt with," Boehner said, apparently meaning the disputes over "riders" that would strip out funding from programs unpopular with conservatives. "And the big fight is over the spending."
But, later, Reid (D-Nev.) detailed a very different account of the spending negotiations. Expanding on remarks from Friday morning, Reid said that the two sides had actually agreed on a specific amount of cuts — but that deal was torpedoed by Republican demands to cut funding for the group Planned Parenthood.
"At 4 a.m., I got an e-mail saying, 'We've tried, but they've backed off the number they agreed to,' " Reid said, because of the Planned Parenthood dispute.
Republicans have said all day that they never agreed to a specific number.
As the two parties remained unable to reach an agreement, Obama decided to postpone a family trip to Williamsburg, Va., that was planned for Saturday and Sunday, White House officials said. The first family had been expected to take the trip if a budget deal materialized today.
Administration officials remained tight-lipped on the status of talks Friday afternoon. Obama has not yet called congressional leaders to the White House as he did on Wednesday and Thursday. And the White House so far has opted against joining congressional Democrats in publicly criticizing House Republicans for the impasse.
"The House leadership, with the speaker, have a very clear choice to make. And they don't have much time to make that choice," Reid said after a meeting with Senate Democrats. "They can keep their word, and significantly cut the federal deficit, or they can shut down the American government over women's access to health care. If that sounds ridiculous, that's because it is ridiculous."
Reid said he was already talking with Republican leaders to prepare to rush a spending deal through the often-balky Senate.
But, he said, if a deal was not reached soon, the day was headed for a chaotic ending. Both sides have proposed one-week spending extensions, but with different provisions attached. Reid said that, if it came to that, Congress would be left to a last-minute debate over which to choose.
Reid also said that, during late-night talks at the White House Thursday, Vice President Biden had seemed to lose his composure over the Republicans' insistence on defunding Planned Parenthood.
"Joe Biden wasn't flustered," Reid said, when a reporter described Biden that way. "But he was damn mad."
Even as the two sides traded allegations, there were still small signs of hope.
The Senate's top Republican, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), said on the Senate floor that neither side wanted a shutdown and that he believed "a resolution is within reach."
"I believe there will be an agreement here shortly. I've been in many negotiations over the years. I assure you, these are not unresolvable issues," McConnell said. "So my suggestion . . . is that both sides sit back and give the negotiators a few more hours to work this out."
After a meeting with House Republicans in early afternoon, Boehner told reporters that one key stumbling block-- the amount of money to allocate to the Department of Defense — was "pretty much resolved." But he said nothing about the Planned Parenthood issue.
According to Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and a close Boehner ally, the speaker told members he hoped a deal could be reached by the evening.
"He said he was hopeful that he could come back in a couple of hours and bring us back together and have a deal," McKeon told reporters.
The two sides are fighting over a relatively small piece of the $1 trillion-plus federal budget. Reid has said that negotiators were near an agreement to cut $38 billion from current spending levels — $5 billion more in cuts than they had discussed last week.
Federal agencies have begun preparing more than 800,000 federal workers nationwide for a possible closure, letting them know whether they should show up for work on Monday morning if the government runs out of funds.
The White House said Obama spoke in separate phone calls to Boehner and Reid on Friday. The two-sentence statement did not say how the administration viewed the progress of the talks, adding only that "discussions between the two leaders and the White House aimed at reaching a budget agreement are continuing."
Obama remained out out of public view, huddling with advisers.
Planned Parenthood is the nation's largest abortion provider. The organization receives millions of federal dollars for non-abortion services for low-income people, including breast exams and Pap smears, cholesterol and blood pressure screenings, family planning and contraceptives.
But conservatives have questioned the integrity of the group, and argued that — even if federal funding doesn't pay for abortions — it frees up other money that could.
In lieu of a provision defunding Planned Parenthood, Republicans this week proposed an alternative that would change the way federal Title X funding for women's health programs is distributed, according to senior congressional aides.
Currently, Title X funding is provided in federal grants to women's health organizations, including Planned Parenthood. Under the Republicans' alternative proposal, federal Title X funds would be sent to states in the form of block grants and it would be up to state governments to distribute those funds to health groups.
A senior Republican aide dismissed Reid's criticism of this idea as empty "sound and fury," saying that rather than denying women's health funding, Republicans wanted to allow states to distribute the money as they see fit.
With the impasse unresolved, Boehner urged the Senate and Obama to approve a one-week budget extension that passed the GOP-controlled House on Thursday. It includes full funding for the Defense Department as well as $12 billion in cuts to other agencies.
But the measure has no chance of passing the Democratic-controlled Senate, in part because it contains a restriction on funding for abortions in the District. Obama has said he would veto the legislation.
Reid said he would propose his own measure to fund the government for one week more. That proposal, Democratic leaders said, would include $2 billion in overall spending cuts, and fund the U.S. military for the remainder of the fiscal year.
If Senate Republicans filibuster Reid's bill, and the government shuts down, Democrats will be able to blame the GOP.
The fight appears to have come down to a test of political will between Boehner on one side and Reid and Obama on the other. Neither side wants to be perceived as the one who caves. And both see an advantage in waiting until the last minute to strike an agreement.
But what if the two sides miscalculate, and a shutdown comes?
Both lawmakers and the White House could be tarred with an even more damaging perception: These are the people who couldn't manage to keep the government open.
Democrats and Republicans are both eager to move past this argument and get to other disagreements with far greater impact, including debates over whether to allow the U.S. Treasury to borrow money beyond the current $14.3 trillion debt limit and over the GOP's ambitious proposed budget for 2012.
Congressional leaders consider the current talks a dry run for the battles to come.
"Understand that this process that we're in is likely to be repeated a number of times this year," Boehner told reporters Thursday. "I think everyone is taking their time, trying to get this right."
Quote from: derspiess on April 08, 2011, 10:45:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 08, 2011, 09:45:10 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 08, 2011, 08:53:22 PM
Quote from: JonasSalk on April 08, 2011, 08:48:00 PM
Free abortions for minorities; ban abortions for white people. This is the way to fix our Democrat problem.
That crosses the line just a tad, don't you think?
Pretty typical conservative. You don't have to scratch the surface very hard to find that tasty racist nugget in a Southern Republican.
But that's not too far from Seedy's rationale.
Republicans don't like women and minorities, and minority women is a double-whammy they just can't abide.
There're some sort of shenanigans going on with things like garbage collection in DC because of this as well, isn't there?
Quote from: derspiess on April 08, 2011, 09:12:33 PMWhat's wrong with what I said? :unsure:
Everything.
But "whore pills" stands out.
Have you forgotten how misogynistic this place is Jake?
Is it really, though? Some have schticks to such effect, just like some have homophobic schticks. However, do we really have a significant number of posters who are truly misogynistic?
Quote from: DGuller on April 09, 2011, 12:05:54 AM
Is it really, though? Some have schticks to such effect, just like some have homophobic schticks. However, do we really have a significant number of posters who are truly misogynistic?
We have many gays.
Quote from: The Brain on April 09, 2011, 12:54:13 AM
Quote from: DGuller on April 09, 2011, 12:05:54 AM
Is it really, though? Some have schticks to such effect, just like some have homophobic schticks. However, do we really have a significant number of posters who are truly misogynistic?
We have many gays.
:lol:
And we're saved
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2011/0409/Federal-shutdown-averted-at-last-minute
Quote from: Razgovory on April 08, 2011, 09:45:10 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 08, 2011, 08:53:22 PM
Quote from: JonasSalk on April 08, 2011, 08:48:00 PM
Free abortions for minorities; ban abortions for white people. This is the way to fix our Democrat problem.
That crosses the line just a tad, don't you think?
Pretty typical conservative. You don't have to scratch the surface very hard to find that tasty racist nugget in a Southern Republican.
The only way you can construe Jonas' comment as racist is if you consider a free abortion to be a hostile act.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 09, 2011, 02:00:39 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 08, 2011, 09:45:10 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 08, 2011, 08:53:22 PM
Quote from: JonasSalk on April 08, 2011, 08:48:00 PM
Free abortions for minorities; ban abortions for white people. This is the way to fix our Democrat problem.
That crosses the line just a tad, don't you think?
Pretty typical conservative. You don't have to scratch the surface very hard to find that tasty racist nugget in a Southern Republican.
The only way you can construe Jonas' comment as racist is if you consider a free abortion to be a hostile act.
wut
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 09, 2011, 02:00:39 AM
The only way you can construe Jonas' comment as racist is if you consider a free abortion to be a hostile act.
Even if he had said "mandatory abortion" he would sill have been talking about the "Democrat problem" and it wouldn't have been racist.
Let's not cry wolf, m'kay? Plenty of
actual faux racism to decry here.
Two very nice articles this week in Time on deficit reduction. It's almost as if a debate is breaking out after the publication of Ryan's proposal. :)
I tried to cut 'n' paste the Fareed Zakaria's article but Time's site has too much shit going on for poor little dialup me.
They still sell dialup services? Even my phone has broadband...
Quote from: Fate on April 09, 2011, 06:33:31 PM
They still sell dialup services? Even my phone has broadband...
Admiral Yi is a Teabagger, which means he endorses The GOP's proposed cutting of the Rural Broadband Funding Initiative. So he's just walking the walk. The Founding Fathers used 56k dialup, you know.
NO TAX DOLLARS FOR CONNECTIVITY SHUT IT DOWN
I'm disappointed. I was hoping Hans and Siegy's pay would be delayed.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 09, 2011, 06:50:13 PM
I'm disappointed. I was hoping Hans and Siegy's pay would be delayed.
What about the collateral damage? :mad:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 09, 2011, 06:44:52 PM
Admiral Yi is a Teabagger, which means he endorses The GOP's proposed cutting of the Rural Broadband Funding Initiative. So he's just walking the walk. The Founding Fathers used 56k dialup, you know.
NO TAX DOLLARS FOR CONNECTIVITY SHUT IT DOWN
Are we actually spending money on that bullshit or is it just a retardo proposal?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 09, 2011, 07:51:54 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 09, 2011, 06:44:52 PM
Admiral Yi is a Teabagger, which means he endorses The GOP's proposed cutting of the Rural Broadband Funding Initiative. So he's just walking the walk. The Founding Fathers used 56k dialup, you know.
NO TAX DOLLARS FOR CONNECTIVITY SHUT IT DOWN
Are we actually spending money on that bullshit or is it just a retardo proposal?
You'll never find out now.
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 09, 2011, 07:17:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 09, 2011, 06:50:13 PM
I'm disappointed. I was hoping Hans and Siegy's pay would be delayed.
What about the collateral damage? :mad:
Oh, it won't be permanent.
Does 56k modem work over VoIP?
Quote from: Jacob on April 08, 2011, 11:50:28 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 08, 2011, 09:12:33 PMWhat's wrong with what I said? :unsure:
Everything.
But "whore pills" stands out.
I fully support women's rights to buy whore pills with their own (or at least private) funds :cool:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 08, 2011, 06:47:13 PM
If PP really does have sufficient funding from other sources I don't see the big deal. We are trying to make cuts, after all. I suspect it isn't true though.
Taking that one step further, taking PP out of the cycle would be a lot more palatable if it
were just a mill for pills and abortions and not a major source of gynecological care for the underinsured or people in situations where insurance creates impossible red tape. I've got some personal experience with this, where PP stepped in and helped get S treated for something before she needed to be hospitalized (BTW- uninsured/underinsured/insurance-unavailable hospitalizations cost the public WAY more than PP).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 09, 2011, 07:51:54 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 09, 2011, 06:44:52 PM
Admiral Yi is a Teabagger, which means he endorses The GOP's proposed cutting of the Rural Broadband Funding Initiative. So he's just walking the walk. The Founding Fathers used 56k dialup, you know.
NO TAX DOLLARS FOR CONNECTIVITY SHUT IT DOWN
Are we actually spending money on that bullshit or is it just a retardo proposal?
How is it bullshit? How do you think the country got electricity and telephone service? The Government made companies provide it. Broadband is just as valuable a tool today if not more then the telephone was 70 years ago.
Quote from: derspiess on April 09, 2011, 10:32:59 PM
I fully support women's rights to buy whore pills with their own (or at least private) funds :cool:
I'd think you would be more in favor of men being able to buy "whore pills." :unsure:
Isn't that pretty much every male's dream?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 09, 2011, 10:49:57 PM
How is it bullshit? How do you think the country got electricity and telephone service? The Government made companies provide it. Broadband is just as valuable a tool today if not more then the telephone was 70 years ago.
I've never seen evidence that Federal rural electrification or telephone subsidies made sense from an economic standpoint. The studies I have seen indicate that the service would have been provided anyway as costs came down. I suspect the same is true of cable TV (which was never federally subsidized, as far as I know, and reaches rural areas around here) and broadband.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 09, 2011, 10:49:57 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 09, 2011, 07:51:54 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 09, 2011, 06:44:52 PM
Admiral Yi is a Teabagger, which means he endorses The GOP's proposed cutting of the Rural Broadband Funding Initiative. So he's just walking the walk. The Founding Fathers used 56k dialup, you know.
NO TAX DOLLARS FOR CONNECTIVITY SHUT IT DOWN
Are we actually spending money on that bullshit or is it just a retardo proposal?
How is it bullshit? How do you think the country got electricity and telephone service? The Government made companies provide it. Broadband is just as valuable a tool today if not more then the telephone was 70 years ago.
People who choose to live in non-broadband country only have themselves to blame.
Quote from: grumbler on April 09, 2011, 11:22:08 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 09, 2011, 10:49:57 PM
How is it bullshit? How do you think the country got electricity and telephone service? The Government made companies provide it. Broadband is just as valuable a tool today if not more then the telephone was 70 years ago.
I've never seen evidence that Federal rural electrification or telephone subsidies made sense from an economic standpoint. The studies I have seen indicate that the service would have been provided anyway as costs came down. I suspect the same is true of cable TV (which was never federally subsidized, as far as I know, and reaches rural areas around here) and broadband.
So when would rural areas get electricity? 1970? 1980? There are lots of areas around here that get neither broadband or cable.
Quote from: grumbler on April 09, 2011, 11:22:08 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 09, 2011, 10:49:57 PM
How is it bullshit? How do you think the country got electricity and telephone service? The Government made companies provide it. Broadband is just as valuable a tool today if not more then the telephone was 70 years ago.
I've never seen evidence that Federal rural electrification or telephone subsidies made sense from an economic standpoint. The studies I have seen indicate that the service would have been provided anyway as costs came down. I suspect the same is true of cable TV (which was never federally subsidized, as far as I know, and reaches rural areas around here) and broadband.
I think it was the social utility that was the driving force.
Quote from: grumbler on April 09, 2011, 11:22:08 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 09, 2011, 10:49:57 PM
How is it bullshit? How do you think the country got electricity and telephone service? The Government made companies provide it. Broadband is just as valuable a tool today if not more then the telephone was 70 years ago.
I've never seen evidence that Federal rural electrification or telephone subsidies made sense from an economic standpoint. The studies I have seen indicate that the service would have been provided anyway as costs came down. I suspect the same is true of cable TV (which was never federally subsidized, as far as I know, and reaches rural areas around here) and broadband.
I know of substantial rural areas that do not get cable.
Quote from: Barrister on April 10, 2011, 09:04:13 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 09, 2011, 11:22:08 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 09, 2011, 10:49:57 PM
How is it bullshit? How do you think the country got electricity and telephone service? The Government made companies provide it. Broadband is just as valuable a tool today if not more then the telephone was 70 years ago.
I've never seen evidence that Federal rural electrification or telephone subsidies made sense from an economic standpoint. The studies I have seen indicate that the service would have been provided anyway as costs came down. I suspect the same is true of cable TV (which was never federally subsidized, as far as I know, and reaches rural areas around here) and broadband.
I know of substantial rural areas that do not get cable.
Someone hundreds of miles out in the Yukon I think may still qualify as "wilderness" and not "rural".
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 10, 2011, 02:45:33 PM
Someone hundreds of miles out in the Yukon I think may still qualify as "wilderness" and not "rural".
I think Whitehorse can be described as 'rural'. It's a small town.
Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2011, 02:47:54 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 10, 2011, 02:45:33 PM
Someone hundreds of miles out in the Yukon I think may still qualify as "wilderness" and not "rural".
I think Whitehorse can be described as 'rural'. It's a small town.
I agree. I was thinking more of smaller places outside of WH, not including the stops along the Al-Can.
Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2011, 02:47:54 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 10, 2011, 02:45:33 PM
Someone hundreds of miles out in the Yukon I think may still qualify as "wilderness" and not "rural".
I think Whitehorse can be described as 'rural'. It's a small town.
According to the Yellow Pages there are two cable TV companies serving Whitehorse.
http://www.yellowpages.ca/search/si/1/Cable+Television+Companies/Whitehorse+YT
Apparently Obama is going to give a new speech on reducing the deficit on Wednesday. I guess he is going to ask for a Mulligan on his extremely unserious budget proposal from last month.
My oh my how fast things change.
According to a White House spokesman Obama now considers his 2006 vote to not lift the debt ceiling a mistake.
Woops.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 11, 2011, 05:47:03 PM
According to a White House spokesman Obama now considers his 2006 vote to not lift the debt ceiling a mistake.
Woops.
I'm sure the crash of 2008 changed a lot of opinions on how to deal with the economy. Except for you and Hans, of course.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 11, 2011, 06:31:38 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 11, 2011, 05:47:03 PM
According to a White House spokesman Obama now considers his 2006 vote to not lift the debt ceiling a mistake.
Woops.
I'm sure the crash of 2008 changed a lot of opinions on how to deal with the economy. Except for you and Hans, of course.
By quoting my post then typing your own you're suggesting there's some connection between the two, right? :hmm:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 11, 2011, 06:31:38 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 11, 2011, 05:47:03 PM
According to a White House spokesman Obama now considers his 2006 vote to not lift the debt ceiling a mistake.
Woops.
I'm sure the crash of 2008 changed a lot of opinions on how to deal with the economy. Except for you and Hans, of course.
The people who wanted to privatize social security before the crash aren't the sorts of people we should be listening to when it comes to economics.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 11, 2011, 06:41:19 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 11, 2011, 06:31:38 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 11, 2011, 05:47:03 PM
According to a White House spokesman Obama now considers his 2006 vote to not lift the debt ceiling a mistake.
Woops.
I'm sure the crash of 2008 changed a lot of opinions on how to deal with the economy. Except for you and Hans, of course.
By quoting my post then typing your own you're suggesting there's some connection between the two, right? :hmm:
I don't answer loaded Yi questions. That's an IYiD just waiting to detonate.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 11, 2011, 07:59:07 PM
I don't answer loaded Yi questions. That's an IYiD just waiting to detonate.
Run away! Run away!
Quote from: Barrister on April 10, 2011, 09:04:13 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 09, 2011, 11:22:08 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 09, 2011, 10:49:57 PM
How is it bullshit? How do you think the country got electricity and telephone service? The Government made companies provide it. Broadband is just as valuable a tool today if not more then the telephone was 70 years ago.
I've never seen evidence that Federal rural electrification or telephone subsidies made sense from an economic standpoint. The studies I have seen indicate that the service would have been provided anyway as costs came down. I suspect the same is true of cable TV (which was never federally subsidized, as far as I know, and reaches rural areas around here) and broadband.
I know of substantial rural areas that do not get cable.
I suspect that Canada is different than the U.S. in that regard, then. Here, many rural areas and small towns got cable before the cities, because the cities tended to have multiple broadcast stations and you didn't need cable to pick them up.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 11, 2011, 05:47:03 PM
According to a White House spokesman Obama now considers his 2006 vote to not lift the debt ceiling a mistake.
Woops.
So, by "woops" are you implying that Obama doesn't consider the vote to be a mistake?
Yicrypted posts take too much time to break down into English and just invite misunderstandings. Please post in just plain English if you want to get an idea across.
I think what he's saying is that Obama's backtracking on the concept of a vote from over 5 years ago, and because of that, he's a lying dirty negro. Obama, not Yi.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 12, 2011, 06:37:17 AM
I think what he's saying is that Obama's backtracking on the concept of a vote from over 5 years ago, and because of that, he's a lying dirty negro. Obama, not Yi.
I still don't understand. Is Yi assuming the vote itself to be "woops"-worthy, or is it the admission that it was a mistake that was woops-worthy?
Maybe the woops isn't even related to the previous sentence at all?
Relax folks. President Obama is going to give a speech on his budget plans this Wednesday, tomorrow. I'm sure he'll clear everything up, and come out with some clear, concise and concrete ideas that we can all embrace. :unsure:
Is "reax" slang for "ask again"?
Quote from: KRonn on April 12, 2011, 08:00:08 AM
Relax folks. President Obama is going to give a speech on his budget plans this Wednesday, tomorrow. I'm sure he'll clear everything up, and come out with some clear, concise and concrete ideas that we can all embrace. :unsure:
Being cynically sarcastic is like taking a shit. It's healthy to let a solid one go once in a while, but constant dribbling is something to be avoided.
Quote from: DGuller on April 12, 2011, 09:09:14 AM
Quote from: KRonn on April 12, 2011, 08:00:08 AM
Relax folks. President Obama is going to give a speech on his budget plans this Wednesday, tomorrow. I'm sure he'll clear everything up, and come out with some clear, concise and concrete ideas that we can all embrace. :unsure:
Being cynically sarcastic is like taking a shit. It's healthy to let a solid one go once in a while, but constant dribbling is something to be avoided.
Baloney. There's good reason to be sarcastic. That is, for those of us not drunk on the Obama kool aid. ;)
Don't you mean Obama.... krunk juice? :)
Quote from: KRonn on April 12, 2011, 09:29:36 AM
Baloney. There's good reason to be sarcastic. That is, for those of us not drunk on the Obama kool aid. ;)
This has nothing to do with good reason or the kool aid. Constant dripping sarcasm is neither helpful, useful, or amusing. It's dreary and fatalistic.
Quote from: DGuller on April 12, 2011, 09:35:11 AM
Quote from: KRonn on April 12, 2011, 09:29:36 AM
Baloney. There's good reason to be sarcastic. That is, for those of us not drunk on the Obama kool aid. ;)
This has nothing to do with good reason or the kool aid. Constant dripping sarcasm is neither helpful, useful, or amusing. It's dreary and fatalistic.
I'm hardly overly sarcastic. I get the impression that you feel the Dems gaining power were the answers, that you hang onto the notion of one party being good, the other bad. I look at both parties as bringing us to the problems we have now, and I'm not going to cheer lead either one. And both parties are responsible for making things right, but neither has shown itself to get too far beyond the talking points. Especially when they give lip service and talking points, which Obama seems to be the King of. He needs to go some to prove himself. He's been too aloof, unengaged. Had nothing on the budget, now talks reform of entitlements. Let's see what he actually comes up with.
Everybody votes against raising the debt ceiling whenever possible.
How much leverage is the debt ceiling, though? Isn't not raising the debt ceiling pretty much the self-destruct button for the US economics? Do you really get much leverage from threats so grave that they're not credible?
If there was any relationship between the budget decision process and the setting of the debt ceiling it would have meaning. As it is they set the budget, it blows past the debt ceiling, they raise the debt ceiling. Instead if they considered the debt ceiling when making the budget...
Quote from: KRonn on April 12, 2011, 10:01:35 AM
I'm hardly overly sarcastic. I get the impression that you feel the Dems gaining power were the answers, that you hang onto the notion of one party being good, the other bad. I look at both parties as bringing us to the problems we have now, and I'm not going to cheer lead either one. And both parties are responsible for making things right, but neither has shown itself to get too far beyond the talking points. Especially when they give lip service and talking points, which Obama seems to be the King of. He needs to go some to prove himself. He's been too aloof, unengaged. Had nothing on the budget, now talks reform of entitlements. Let's see what he actually comes up with.
This is a far different argument than "I'm sure he'll clear everything up, and come out with some clear, concise and concrete ideas that we can all embrace." It suffers from the disadvantage of being mature, sensible, and meaningful, but your first one had the advantage of being moronic.
Leave the sarcasm for those who can do it well.
Quote from: frunk on April 12, 2011, 11:04:34 AM
If there was any relationship between the budget decision process and the setting of the debt ceiling it would have meaning. As it is they set the budget, it blows past the debt ceiling, they raise the debt ceiling. Instead if they considered the debt ceiling when making the budget...
There really should be no relationship. The debt ceiling is a bureaucratic formality, unrelated to policy.
Quote from: DGuller on April 12, 2011, 11:01:05 AM
How much leverage is the debt ceiling, though? Isn't not raising the debt ceiling pretty much the self-destruct button for the US economics? Do you really get much leverage from threats so grave that they're not credible?
If you convince others that you're willing to see the US economically self-destruct as long as you promote your ideological views, then it can be credible.
Quote from: grumbler on April 12, 2011, 11:04:48 AM
Quote from: KRonn on April 12, 2011, 10:01:35 AM
I'm hardly overly sarcastic. I get the impression that you feel the Dems gaining power were the answers, that you hang onto the notion of one party being good, the other bad. I look at both parties as bringing us to the problems we have now, and I'm not going to cheer lead either one. And both parties are responsible for making things right, but neither has shown itself to get too far beyond the talking points. Especially when they give lip service and talking points, which Obama seems to be the King of. He needs to go some to prove himself. He's been too aloof, unengaged. Had nothing on the budget, now talks reform of entitlements. Let's see what he actually comes up with.
This is a far different argument than "I'm sure he'll clear everything up, and come out with some clear, concise and concrete ideas that we can all embrace." It suffers from the disadvantage of being mature, sensible, and meaningful, but your first one had the advantage of being moronic.
Leave the sarcasm for those who can do it well.
Fair enough. I've given Obama leeway on Libya, as I know it's a tough decision. I'll give him leeway on the budget but not if it's the same old stuff that hasn't served us well for far too long now. We need answers and leadership, which is what I've been saying. Congress is trying but each side bludgeons the other; it gets ridiculous. If Obama comes out with something akin to reforms of the most difficult Federal programs I'll probably be happy as that will give a starting point for debate. I honestly don't know if he has it in him to take the tough road, but I think we need it on the budget issues. He'll get lambasted by those who disagree, but if he explains his stance for reform I think he'll get strong support, as most Americans view the budget issues as one of the most pressing problems.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on April 12, 2011, 11:30:41 AM
Quote from: DGuller on April 12, 2011, 11:01:05 AM
How much leverage is the debt ceiling, though? Isn't not raising the debt ceiling pretty much the self-destruct button for the US economics? Do you really get much leverage from threats so grave that they're not credible?
If you convince others that you're willing to see the US economically self-destruct as long as you promote your ideological views, then it can be credible.
Oh, shit, we're fucked. :(
Quote from: DGuller on April 12, 2011, 11:36:10 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on April 12, 2011, 11:30:41 AM
Quote from: DGuller on April 12, 2011, 11:01:05 AM
How much leverage is the debt ceiling, though? Isn't not raising the debt ceiling pretty much the self-destruct button for the US economics? Do you really get much leverage from threats so grave that they're not credible?
If you convince others that you're willing to see the US economically self-destruct as long as you promote your ideological views, then it can be credible.
Oh, shit, we're fucked. :(
Not really. We can easily pay the debt service. Other things would go without, but that won't.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 12, 2011, 06:37:17 AM
I think what he's saying is that Obama's backtracking on the concept of a vote from over 5 years ago, and because of that, he's a lying dirty negro. Obama, not Yi.
I'm saying Obama experienced a teachable moment.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 12, 2011, 12:11:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 12, 2011, 06:37:17 AM
I think what he's saying is that Obama's backtracking on the concept of a vote from over 5 years ago, and because of that, he's a lying dirty negro. Obama, not Yi.
I'm saying Obama experienced a teachable moment.
:face:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 09, 2011, 10:49:57 PM
How is it bullshit? How do you think the country got electricity and telephone service? The Government made companies provide it. Broadband is just as valuable a tool today if not more then the telephone was 70 years ago.
Funny thing is that a lot of people without broadband don't want it: http://www.dslreports.com/r0/download/1518486~d1c991314bb8cc21e1f2f9380bfd0996/RuralUrban.jpg
IMO the ones who want it but can't get it are not worth the expense. If there is enough demand, cost-effective solutions will appear for them, particularly as wireless broadband becomes more ubiquitous & less costly.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 12, 2011, 12:11:39 PM
I'm saying Obama experienced a teachable moment.
Since everyone experiences those all of the time, that seems a rather trite conclusion.
Quote from: derspiess on April 12, 2011, 12:39:46 PM
Funny thing is that a lot of people without broadband don't want it: http://www.dslreports.com/r0/download/1518486~d1c991314bb8cc21e1f2f9380bfd0996/RuralUrban.jpg
IMO the ones who want it but can't get it are not worth the expense. If there is enough demand, cost-effective solutions will appear for them, particularly as wireless broadband becomes more ubiquitous & less costly.
What if they live in a rural area? Sort of hard to work up demand when not many people live in the area.
Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2011, 01:03:45 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 12, 2011, 12:39:46 PM
Funny thing is that a lot of people without broadband don't want it: http://www.dslreports.com/r0/download/1518486~d1c991314bb8cc21e1f2f9380bfd0996/RuralUrban.jpg
IMO the ones who want it but can't get it are not worth the expense. If there is enough demand, cost-effective solutions will appear for them, particularly as wireless broadband becomes more ubiquitous & less costly.
What if they live in a rural area? Sort of hard to work up demand when not many people live in the area.
Also may not be cost effective, especially in the case of electricity where a great deal of infrastructure is needed.
Quote from: grumbler on April 12, 2011, 12:42:18 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 12, 2011, 12:11:39 PM
I'm saying Obama experienced a teachable moment.
Since everyone experiences those all of the time, that seems a rather trite conclusion.
Politicians are never, ever allowed to change their positions. Particularly black politicians Teabaggers hate.
Politicians are allowed to change their minds, even black politicians Teabaggers hate. I generally see it as a sign of maturity that a person can say they were in the wrong and that their perspective has changed.
What is less commendable, even for black politicians Teabaggers hate, is to have that moment of ephiphany right at the moment when it is in your political self-interest to do so. Obama has had 5 years to reflect on that particular vote, but it wasn't until he was on the other end of the game of nuclear chicken that he discovered it's a bad choice.
I dunno...if I were a politician, particularly a black one Teabaggers hate, I'd have had a change of heart regarding the debt ceiling vote I cast in 2006 after seeing the 2008 meltdown and following carnage which I would be dealing with today, even as a black politician Teabaggers hate.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 12, 2011, 06:16:03 PM
I dunno...if I were a politician, particularly a black one Teabaggers hate, I'd have had a change of heart regarding the debt ceiling vote I cast in 2006 after seeing the 2008 meltdown and following carnage which I would be dealing with today, even as a black politician Teabaggers hate.
Which gets us to where we were previously. If you were a politician, particularly a black on Teabaggers hate, why would the 2008 meltdown have caused your thinking about voting against lifting the debt ceiling to change?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 12, 2011, 06:26:46 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 12, 2011, 06:16:03 PM
I dunno...if I were a politician, particularly a black one Teabaggers hate, I'd have had a change of heart regarding the debt ceiling vote I cast in 2006 after seeing the 2008 meltdown and following carnage which I would be dealing with today, even as a black politician Teabaggers hate.
Which gets us to where we were previously. If you were a politician, particularly a black on Teabaggers hate, why would the 2008 meltdown have caused your thinking about voting against lifting the debt ceiling to change?
Because now it has to. The 2008 crash has exponentially magnified the damage done to the economy by the Bush administration, which was still relatively salvageable in 2006. The debt ceiling must go up.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 12, 2011, 07:40:06 PM
Because now it has to. The 2008 crash has exponentially magnified the damage done to the economy by the Bush administration, which was still relatively salvageable in 2006. The debt ceiling must go up.
I thought that was your assumption but didn't want to put words in your mouth.
Breaching the debt ceiling is a disaster regardless of economic health.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 13, 2011, 12:11:16 AMBreaching the debt ceiling is a disaster regardless of economic health.
It's a viable alternative if we insist on not raising revenue.
Watching the Today Show now; Michelle Bachmann is going to be a fantastic GOP nominee.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 12, 2011, 06:09:41 PM
What is less commendable, even for black politicians Teabaggers hate, is to have that moment of ephiphany right at the moment when it is in your political self-interest to do so. Obama has had 5 years to reflect on that particular vote, but it wasn't until he was on the other end of the game of nuclear chicken that he discovered it's a bad choice.
Why do you assume that Obama discovered that he had made a mistake only moments before you heard about it? Is it acceptable for a politician to realize he made a mistake and even if their advisers don't tell you about it until it becomes newsworthy?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 13, 2011, 12:11:16 AM
Breaching the debt ceiling is a disaster regardless of economic health.
Agreed, but Obama wasn't voting to breach the debt ceiling in 2006, so your point is moot for this discussion.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 13, 2011, 06:11:51 AM
Watching the Today Show now; Michelle Bachmann is going to be a fantastic GOP nominee.
Maybe she and Trump can run as Pres/VP. ;)
Quote from: grumbler on April 13, 2011, 06:43:50 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 12, 2011, 06:09:41 PM
What is less commendable, even for black politicians Teabaggers hate, is to have that moment of ephiphany right at the moment when it is in your political self-interest to do so. Obama has had 5 years to reflect on that particular vote, but it wasn't until he was on the other end of the game of nuclear chicken that he discovered it's a bad choice.
Why do you assume that Obama discovered that he had made a mistake only moments before you heard about it? Is it acceptable for a politician to realize he made a mistake and even if their advisers don't tell you about it until it becomes newsworthy?
Maybe because the WH as recently as last month defended the 2006 vote?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/12/summary-fiscal-2011-budget/:/
Fox's summary of the 2011 budget plan:
QuoteOverall Spending Limit: The final CR will include a total of $1.049 trillion in funding, a nearly $40 billion reduction from last year's (fiscal year 2010) levels. This includes the $12 billion in reductions previously approved by Congress and signed into law under the previous three continuing resolutions, as well as nearly $28 billion in additional new spending cuts.
Agriculture: The CR funds Agriculture programs at $20 billion, which is $3 billion below the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $3.2 billion below the President's 2011 budget request.
The bill provides $1 billion for Food Safety and Inspection, which is $10 million below the fiscal year 2010 level, while allowing for uninterrupted meat, poultry, and egg products inspection activities of the agency. The bill also reduces Agricultural Credit Programs by $433 million, Agricultural Research Service by $64 million, and the National Institute for Food and Agriculture by $125.9 million below the fiscal year 2010 levels.
The CR also includes $6.75 billion for the Special Supplemental Feeding Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), which allows the program to support more than 9 million income-eligible mothers, infants, and children up to 5 years of age.
Commerce, Justice, Science: The Commerce, Justice, Science section of the CR contains a total of $53.4 billion, a $10.9 billion, or 17%, reduction from fiscal year 2010 levels, and a reduction of $7.1 billion, or 12%, from the President's fiscal year 2011 request.
The CR provides funding above fiscal year 2010 levels for National Institute of Standards and Technology research and manufacturing programs, as well as critical FBI national security and prisons/detention requirements. Justice Department appropriations are reduced by $946 million below fiscal year 2010, with significant reductions to grant and construction programs, and Commerce Department appropriations are cut by $6.5 billion below fiscal year 2010. The bill also includes $18.5 billion for NASA and fully funds the newly authorized exploration program.
This section of the CR also prohibits funding for: the establishment of a Climate Service at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; the approval of new fisheries catch-share programs in certain fisheries; and for NASA and the Office of Science and Technology Policy to engage in bilateral activities with China.
Defense Funding: The Department of Defense is funded at $513 billion in the CR - approximately $5 billion above last year - providing the necessary resources for the safety of our troops and the success of our nation's military actions. The bill also includes an additional $157.8 billion for overseas contingency operations (emergency funding) to advance our missions abroad.
The Defense section of this legislation includes $126.7 billion for military personnel, providing for 1,432,400 active duty and 846,200 reserve troops. In addition, the bill contains a total of $165.6 billion for operations and maintenance, $102.1 billion for procurement, $75 billion for research and development, and $31.4 billion for Defense health programs. This legislation eliminates all Defense earmark account funding, a cut of $4.2 billion from last year's level.
The CR also includes language preventing Guantanamo Bay detainees from being transferred into the United States for any purpose, prevents the construction or modification of detention facilities within the U.S. for the housing of detainees, and requires the Secretary of Defense to provide a certification to Congress that a transfer of any detainee to any foreign country or entity will not jeopardize the safety of the U.S. or its citizens. This language is virtually identical to existing law that was included in the National Defense Authorization Act
Energy and Water: The Energy and Water section is funded at $31.8 billion in the CR. This is a 10% reduction - or $3.6 billion - from the President's fiscal year 2011 request, and a 5% reduction - or $1.7 billion - from fiscal year 2010 levels. These significant cuts further the House Republican commitment to deficit reduction and reining in the size of government, while at the same time protecting American security, providing support for private sector growth, and promoting a balanced national energy supply.
The bill funds the Army Corps of Engineers at the President's request level of $4.9 billion, supports existing applications for renewable energy loan guarantees at the Department of Energy, and provides a $697 million (7%) increase for the National Nuclear Security Administration to ensure adequate funding for critical components of our national defense.
Financial Services: The Financial Services and General Government section of the CR contains a total of $22 billion, a $2.4 billion, or 10%, reduction from fiscal year 2010 levels, and a reduction of $3.4 billion, or 14%, from the President's fiscal year 2011 request.
The CR reduces most Treasury and Executive Office of the President accounts and reduces funding for construction of new federal buildings by more than $800 million. The bill provides a $13 million increase over last year for the Inspector General of Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to provide strong oversight of the billions of dollars remaining in TARP assets and continues current funding for drug task forces and programs to assist small businesses.
The CR restores a long-standing provision against the use of federal and local funds for abortions in the District of Columbia. The bill also includes the reauthorization of the DC Opportunity Scholarships, along with a $2.3 million funding increase, to stop the termination of the program and allow new students to participate. The legislation also eliminates four Administration "Czars," including the "Health Care Czar," the "Climate Change Czar," the "Car Czar," and the "Urban Affairs Czar."
Homeland Security: A total of $41.8 billion in discretionary funding is provided for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for fiscal year 2011. This is $784 million, or 2%, below FY 2010, and $1.9 billion, or 4%, below the President's fiscal year 2011 request.
All critical frontline operations for DHS - including Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Transportation Security Agency, the Coast Guard, and the Secret Service are sufficiently funded to meet mission requirements and sustain staffing levels. This includes funding for 21,370 Border Patrol agents, 33,400 ICE detention beds, and military pay and allowances for the U.S. Coast Guard. The bill reduces CBP's Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology (BSFIT) account to the President's request, reduces FEMA first responder grants by $786 million, eliminates $264 million in funding that was previously targeted to earmarks, and rescinds $557 million in unobligated and lapsed balances from prior year funds. The bill also caps the amount of TSA screener personnel at 46,000.
The bill also includes $1.05 billion in additional discretionary funding (for a total of $2.65 billion, including current funds) for the costs of existing and expected disasters for fiscal year 2011.
Interior: The CR includes $29.6 billion in discretionary funding in the Interior and Environment section of the bill, which is 8.1%, or $2.62 billion, below the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and 8.5%, or $2.8 billion, below the President's request.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is reduced by $1.6 billion, a 16% decrease from last year's level. The cuts to the EPA alone represent 61% of the bill's reduction compared to last year's level. Funding levels for Land and Water Conservation Fund (land acquisition) programs are reduced $149 million (-33%), climate change funding bill-wide is cut by $49 million (-13%), and funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities is reduced by a combined $25 million from last year's levels.
Funding levels for operational accounts bill-wide are largely sustained to prevent layoffs and the closure of national parks and forests, wildlife refuges, Smithsonian museums and other sites. In addition, the legislation contains language reinstating the Fish and Wildlife Service's original determination to delist wolves in states with approved management plans in place. It returns management of wolf populations in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Utah to the states. The bill also includes a limitation on the use of funds to implement the Bureau of Land Management's "Wild Lands" policy.
Labor, HHS, Education and Related Agencies: The Labor, HHS, Education and Related Agencies section of the CR contains a total of $157.7 billion, roughly a $5.5 billion, or 3.36%, reduction from fiscal year 2010 levels. The bill is also nearly $13 billion, or 7.6 percent, below the President's fiscal year 2011 request.
The CR preserves funding for large education programs that fund elementary and secondary schools as well as special education and provides a modest increase for Head Start to ensure that all children currently enrolled will continue to receive services, while making prudent reductions in lower priority areas. In addition, the bill continues the Pell Grant Program at the current maximum award level of $4,860.
The CR terminates funding for more than 55 programs, for a total savings of well over $1 billion. In addition, the bill terminates two programs funded in ObamaCare (the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (CO-OP) and the Free Choice Voucher programs). The bill makes reforms to the Pell Grant Program that are estimated to save more than $35 billion over the next 10 years by eliminating the ability of students to draw down two Pell Grant awards at the same time. Finally, the CR will return Title X funding to fiscal year 2008 levels.
Legislative Branch: Legislative Branch is reduced by $103 million from last year's levels. Of this amount, funding for the U.S. House is reduced by $55 million from last year - or 53% of the total cut - and reflects a 5% cut in Member, Committee, and Leadership office expenses except for the Appropriations Committee, which offered a larger cut of 9%.
Military Construction/Veterans Affairs: Military Construction/Veterans Affairs programs will receive $76.6 billion in discretionary funding - an increase of $3.4 billion over the President's fiscal year 2011 request and an increase of $600 million over last year's level. Within this funding, the bill provides critical and necessary resources for veterans' health and benefits, including an increase of $13.8 billion for the Department of Veterans affairs over last year's level. Military Construction accounts are reduced by approximately $10 billion below last year's level.
State and Foreign Operations: The funding level for the State Department and Foreign Operations in the CR is a total of $48.3 billion - a $504 million reduction from last year's level and an $8.4 billion reduction from the President's fiscal year 2011 request.
This section of the legislation includes a prohibition on pay raises for foreign services officers, a $377 million cut to U.S. contributions to the United Nations and international organizations, and a $130 million cut to international banks and financial institutions. In addition, the bill reduces family planning activities by $73 million - including a reduction in the UN Population Fund to fiscal year 2008 levels - and maintains pro-life policy provisions carried in fiscal year 2010.
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development: The Transportation, Housing, Urban Development and Related Agencies section of the CR contains a total of $55.5 billion, a $12.3 billion, or 18%, reduction from fiscal year 2010 levels, and a reduction of $13.2 billion, or 20%, from the President's fiscal year 2011 request.
For the Department of Transportation, the bill eliminates new funding for High Speed Rail and rescinds $400 million in previous year funds, for a total reduction of $2.9 billion from fiscal year 2010 levels. The bill reduces funding for transit by a total of $991 million and includes a total of $528 million in new funding for the "TIGER" grant program. While the majority of programs funded by the Highway Trust Fund remain at fiscal year 2010 levels, the bill contains total contract authority rescissions of $3.2 billion, of which $630 million is comprised of old earmarks.
For the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Community Development Fund program was reduced $942 million, for a fiscal year 2011 funding level of $3.5 billion. The Section 8 program is funded at a level of $18.4 billion with $16.7 billion for voucher renewals, $1.45 billion for administrative fees, $35 million for Section 811 mainstream voucher renewals, and $50 million for HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) vouchers.
For a list of highlighted program cuts, please visit**: http://republicans.appropriations.house.gov/_files/41211Finalprogramcuts.pdf
For the text of the legislation, please visit: www.rules.house.gov
*All non-defense funding levels within this summary DO NOT include a 0.2% across the board reduction included in the legislation that applies to all non-defense programs, projects, and accounts.
**This list contains highlighted program cuts. This list is not comprehensive of all program funding levels in the legislation. In addition, the totals DO NOT reflect the overall across the board cut of 0.2% to all non-defense programs.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/12/summary-fiscal-2011-budget/#ixzz1JQ7U8J7n
:bleeding:
Won't be long before we're forced to conduct all our diplomacy through DOD.
And why not other government departments?
Roads falling apart? No one wants to fund transportation? Set up a DOD Transportation Agency and send the money through that, using USACE to fix the roads!
Everyone wants to slash your agricultural subsidies? Hey, the military could probably use ethanol (and if not, Congress will force them to)! Set up a DOD Agriculture Agency and funnel the subsidies through that!
There's a dam breaking in Minnesota from all the snowmelt...
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 13, 2011, 09:25:18 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 13, 2011, 06:43:50 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 12, 2011, 06:09:41 PM
What is less commendable, even for black politicians Teabaggers hate, is to have that moment of ephiphany right at the moment when it is in your political self-interest to do so. Obama has had 5 years to reflect on that particular vote, but it wasn't until he was on the other end of the game of nuclear chicken that he discovered it's a bad choice.
Why do you assume that Obama discovered that he had made a mistake only moments before you heard about it? Is it acceptable for a politician to realize he made a mistake and even if their advisers don't tell you about it until it becomes newsworthy?
Maybe because the WH as recently as last month defended the 2006 vote?
This is what I loved about you conservatives with Clinton. When Clinton did something you didn't like, he was an arch-liberal fiend. When he did something you wanted, you hated him
even more. Then he was chasing polls, and lacking leadership.
I see the same thing here. Are you guys going to be honest with this time and just try to impeach him?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-real-housewives-of-wall-street-look-whos-cashing-in-on-the-bailout-20110411?page=1 (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-real-housewives-of-wall-street-look-whos-cashing-in-on-the-bailout-20110411?page=1)
Quote from: Razgovory on April 13, 2011, 11:57:24 AM
This is what I loved about you conservatives with Clinton. When Clinton did something you didn't like, he was an arch-liberal fiend. When he did something you wanted, you hated him even more. Then he was chasing polls, and lacking leadership.
I see the same thing here. Are you guys going to be honest with this time and just try to impeach him?
The only GOP charge about Clinton that annoyed me was the whole "he rules by poll" thing. Last time I checked we don't elect a term-limited Dictator, we elect a President who is charged with carrying out the will of the people. I don't see why it's a bad thing for him to change his policies if he perceives that it's what the country needs and wants. Actually in my mind that makes a person a GOOD leader, not a bad one.
Quote from: Caliga on April 13, 2011, 12:21:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 13, 2011, 11:57:24 AM
This is what I loved about you conservatives with Clinton. When Clinton did something you didn't like, he was an arch-liberal fiend. When he did something you wanted, you hated him even more. Then he was chasing polls, and lacking leadership.
I see the same thing here. Are you guys going to be honest with this time and just try to impeach him?
The only GOP charge about Clinton that annoyed me was the whole "he rules by poll" thing. Last time I checked we don't elect a term-limited Dictator, we elect a President who is charged with carrying out the will of the people. I don't see why it's a bad thing for him to change his policies if he perceives that it's what the country needs and wants. Actually in my mind that makes a person a GOOD leader, not a bad one.
Well, you have an exceptionally limited mind, don't you? Your kind of thinking has caused enormous damage to the modern democracies.
Quote from: Caliga on April 13, 2011, 12:21:54 PM
The only GOP charge about Clinton that annoyed me was the whole "he rules by poll" thing. Last time I checked we don't elect a term-limited Dictator, we elect a President who is charged with carrying out the will of the people. I don't see why it's a bad thing for him to change his policies if he perceives that it's what the country needs and wants. Actually in my mind that makes a person a GOOD leader, not a bad one.
I'd say it depends on what means by "the polls." Most opinion polls are devised to produce a specific answer. One cannot chase those kinds of polls, or justify policies by arguing that the policy is what "the people want" according to those kinds of polls.
If well-designed polls indicate a shift in peoples' thinking, then a wise politician certainly pays heed to that change in opinion. If the change of opinion makes a change in policy seem like a better option, then one should be willing to change policies.
Example: if the majority of the public believes the big lie that "taxation is theft," then trying to increase tax revenue by increasing tax rates will likely lead to failure due to increased tax evasion rates, and a wise policy will eschew tax increases. If Reliable polling later indicates that people have changed their mind and think higher taxes are an acceptable solution to fiscal problems, one should be willing to change fiscal policies.
In 2010, federal revenue as % of GDP was under 15 percent. This number was cyclically impacted but absence a significant increase in tax, it is unlikely to get above 19%.
Total actual federal spending is at 23.8%.
Net interest is 1.4%. That is almost certainly only going to increase at this time, as interest rates paid by the feds are unusually low.
Of this 13.2% is mandated: social security (4.4), medicare and medicaid (5.0), other (3.7) (figures are netted out and rounded).
The "other" consists, in descending order by amount of: unemployment benefits, retirement benefits for federal employees, earned income and child tax credits, food stamps, and veterans benefits.
One can expect unemployment benefits to decline significantly in the future; however this is more than offset by the fact that in 2010, "other" included a $110 billion profit from TARP, which is unlikely to recur.
Let's take these in order:
1) Social security - if untouched, these outlays will only increase in the future. The likelihood of significant cuts being made can perhaps be gauged by the fact that the Ryan plan, which probably represents the maximal starting point for discussions about cuts, does not touch social security. Ryan's earlier roadmap plan did discuss social security reform, but would actually have increased outlays even more until around 2055 (though at the same time increasing payroll tax).
2) Medicare/Medicaid: Absent massive restructuring of the provision of health care in the US, costs are not likely to decrease. realistically that limits what can be done in the short term to cut federal outlays. Again, the Ryan proposal does not contemplate decreasing these outlays, indeed it would involve increasing them as a percentage of GDP, just much more slowly than under the current anticipated baseline.
3) "Other" - cuts in this amount will be complicated by the disapperance of the massive TARP windfall in future years. But let's say for the sake of argument you could cut 25% across the board for everything else in this category. Assuming a return of unemployment benefit costs to "normal levels" that gives back about 1 percent of GDP.
So the mandated baseline + interest is about 13.6% assuming strenuous, Ryan-like efforts to cut. With interest costs and social security likely to arise, I think a 15 percent baseline is reasonable, again assuming stringent cuts in "other" and a Ryan-style gutting of medicare and medicaid.
That leaves 4% for all discretionary spending if balance is to be obtained at the current tax structure.
Actual discretionary spending in 2010 is 9.3%
Defense alone is at 4.7%.
Interestingly, the way the Ryan proposal deals with this problem is to ignore it. The Ryan proposal would cut all spending other than social security and health benefits to 6% of GDP by 2022 and to 3.5% of GDP by 2050. This is not remotely feasible.
It should be apparent that even if determined efforts are made to cut down the federal budget, taxes have to rise. My rough guess would be a rise until revenue levels ar reached 22 percent of GDP assuming strenuous efforts to cut spending, 24 percent if moderate but still significant efforts. This would involve an increase in revenue take of over 15% in the strenuous case or 25% in the moderate case.
Pres Obama's budget plan was just announced. At first look, it seems to me like some good ideas for thought and progress in the budget debate. :hmm:
Quote
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/04/13/obama.deficits/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1
Obama calls for $4 trillion in deficit reduction over 12 years
Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama unveiled his long-awaited deficit reduction plan Wednesday, calling for a mix of spending reductions and tax hikes that the White House claims would cut federal deficits by $4 trillion over the next 12 years without gutting popular programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.
Obama's plan includes a repeal of the Bush-era tax cuts on families making more than $250,000 annually -- something sought by Democrats but strongly opposed by Republicans. The president also called for the creation of a "debt fail-safe" trigger that would impose automatic across-the-board spending cuts and tax changes in coming years if annual deficits are on track to exceed 2.8% of the nation's gross domestic product.
The president claimed that by building on or adjusting the health care reform bill passed last year, $480 billion would be saved by 2023, followed by an additional $1 trillion in the following decade. For example, he proposed tightly constraining the growth in Medicare costs starting in 2018.
"Doing nothing on the deficit is just not an option," Obama said in the speech at George Washington University, adding that "our debt has grown so large that we could do real damage to the economy if we don't begin a process now to get our fiscal house in order."
Budget deal details revealed
What's on the budget chopping block?
Carney: 'Tough choices' with budget deal
Sessions: 'What we need is numbers'
Obama's approach seeks to carve out a political middle ground between conservatives -- who are pushing for deficit reduction based solely on spending cuts and expected economic growth -- and liberals, who are generally resisting entitlement reform and seeking higher corporate and personal taxes.
He called for political leaders to put aside orthodox party ideology and work together for the good of the country, saying "we can solve this problem" while noting that "any serious plan to tackle our deficit will require us to put everything on the table, and take on excess spending wherever it exists in the budget."
At the same time, Obama blasted the House Republican 2012 budget proposal unveiled last week, saying it would "lead to a fundamentally different America than the one we've known throughout most of our history."
"These are the kind of cuts that tell us we can't afford the America that I believe in and that I think you believe in," Obama said of the plan by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, who sat in the audience Wednesday. "I believe it paints a vision of our future that's deeply pessimistic. "
The administration's package stands in sharp contrast to Ryan's blueprint, which calls for cutting the debt by $4.4 trillion over the next decade while radically overhauling Medicare and Medicaid and dropping the top personal and corporate tax rate to 25%.
Under the Obama plan, Pentagon spending would fall by roughly $400 billion by 2023, while federal pensions, agricultural subsidies and other domestic programs would also face the budget ax, according to the White House.
In total, nonsecurity discretionary spending -- Washington jargon for the 12 percent of the federal budget aside from defense spending, debt payments and the big entitlements such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security -- would be cut by a total of $770 billion over the next 12 years.
The $770 billion figure is in line with recommendations put forward by Obama's bipartisan debt reduction commission last December, according to the White House.
Obama's plan contained no specific proposal for Social Security, the government-run pension plan that will run out of money in coming decades. The president does not believe that the program "is in crisis (or) is a driver of our near-term deficit problems," a White House statement noted.
But Social Security does face "long-term challenges that are better addressed sooner than later," the statement added, and Obama expressed a willingness to consider changes to help the program maintain its solvency down the road.
Sessions on debt: 'We need real change'
Hoyer: Republican plan 'not balanced'
Cantor: Cuts alone cannot save us
RELATED TOPICS
* Barack Obama
* John Boehner
* The George Washington University
* Federal Budget
* U.S. Congress
Obama said Vice President Joe Biden would begin meeting with legislators from both parties in early May with the aim of forging agreement on a deficit reduction plan by the end of June. According to the White House, the meetings would include eight Congress members and eight senators -- equally split between the two parties.
The president, however, strongly opposed the proposed Medicare and Medicaid overhaul outlined in Ryan's 2012 GOP budget proposal.
Under Ryan's plan, the government would stop directly paying Medicare bills for senior citizens in 2022. Instead, recipients would choose a plan from a list of private health insurance providers, which the federal government would subsidize. Individuals currently 55 or older would not be affected by the changes.
Medicaid, which provides health care for the disabled and the poor, would be transformed into a series of block grants to the states. Republicans believe state governments would spend the money more efficiently and would benefit from increased flexibility, while Democrats warn that such a move would shred the health care security provided to the most vulnerable Americans in recent generations.
"I will not allow Medicare to become a voucher program that leaves seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry, with a shrinking benefit to pay for rising costs," Obama said. "I will not tell families with children who have disabilities that they have to fend for themselves. We will reform these programs, but we will not abandon the fundamental commitment this country has kept for generations."
The Republican "vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America," the president asserted. "It ends Medicare as we know it."
At the same time, Obama said that Democrats also must recognize the need for significant change in America's fiscal structure and practices.
"To those in my own party, I say that if we truly believe in a progressive vision of our society, we have the obligation to prove that we can afford our commitments," the president said. "If we believe that government can make a difference in people's lives, we have the obligation to prove that it works -- by making government smarter, leaner and more effective."
GOP leaders, who were briefed by Obama at the White House before his blueprint was officially released, blasted the president's call for higher taxes on those making more than $250,000.
"We can't tax the very people we expect to reinvest in our economy and create jobs," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters. "Washington has a spending problem, not a revenue problem."
As Obama and the Republicans spar over long-term deficit reduction plans, they also need to tackle the budget for the remainder of the current fiscal year, which ends September 30.
The House is scheduled to vote Thursday on a deal reached late last week that would cut spending for the year by $38.5 billion.
The package cuts funding for a wide range of domestic programs and services, including high-speed rail, emergency first responders and the National Endowment for the Arts.
Under the terms of the deal, roughly $20 billion would be taken from discretionary programs while nearly $18 billion would come from what are known as "changes in mandatory programs," or CHIMPS, which involve programs funded for multiyear blocks that don't require annual spending approval by Congress.
Republicans generally opposed CHIMP cuts because they affect only one year, with funding returning to the preauthorized level in the following year.
Democrats and Republicans also have to contend with an impending vote to raise the nation's debt ceiling. Congress needs to raise the limit before the federal government reaches its legal borrowing limit of $14.29 trillion later this spring or risk a default that could result in a crashing dollar and spiraling interest rates, among other things.
Republicans have repeatedly stressed that any vote to raise the cap has to be tied to another round of spending cuts or fiscal reforms.
The administration, in contrast, has called for a "clean" vote on the cap, which would raise the limit without adding any conditions. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney has warned that trying to force the issue is tantamount to playing a game of "chicken" with the economy.
While meeting with reporters after his meeting with Obama, however, Boehner indicated that the president might be open to a compromise on that vote.
CNN's Dan Lothian contributed to this report
Apparently Obama surprised everyone and decided to go the full demagogue route today. Curious timing since the 2011 budget hasn't passed yet and many on both sides were getting cold feet. It's almost as if Obama wants the gov't to shut down.
Funny how Obama kept calling for an "adult conversation" on the budget and the first chance he had he goes off on an infantile rant. I doubt there will be a raising off the debt ceiling next month unless he grows up.
Quote from: KRonn on April 13, 2011, 02:58:48 PM
Pres Obama's budget plan was just announced. At first look, it seems to me like some good ideas for thought and progress in the budget debate. :hmm:
So you say but I have it on good authority that it was really just an infantile rant by a demagogue.
On second thought, scratch the word "good"
On third thought, scratch the word "authority"
In fact, scratch everything except "infantile rant". I definitely recall one of those.
And this is why the Teabaggers are pissed.
Arguments like this one - the basic premise that the Feds should forever and all time get an increasing bite of the GDP pie. There will *never* come a time when the Dems say "Yeah, that is the right amount - we should not need anymore than what we have now..."
The interesting part about the attacks on Ryans plan is to point out that it isn't feasible (likely true). But the response is NOT to say "Hey, cutting X% just isn't possible, how about we cut Y% instead?" Rather it is "Hey, cutting X% won't work, so obviously you guys are totally full of shit, so lets just keep increasing spending and taxes some more instead!"
The Teabaggers are not necessarily all that rational, but their anger is perfectly understandable, given these kinds of arguments, that are invariably of the form "We cannot possibly run the federal government on X% of GDP, therefore lets not try to cut ANYTHING ever, and just increase taxes instead!"
I have yet to see a single critique of the Ryan plan, for example, that included a alternative plan that cuts spending in an agressive manner, even if it also includes tax increases. Hell, I could probably even get behind some tax increases if that is what it takes to balance the budget - but I suspect that if we see tax increases, those increases will NOT go to reducing the deficit, but instead will just fund some more programs that will eventually be "untouchable" so we can later say "Gosh, there is just no way the federal government can possibly operate on 23% of GDP! That plan is not feasible!"
He also has some ideas for cuts, structural changes. Yes, some demagoguery, too much but he's playing to the Dem base, just as the Repubs would. But at least he's stepping up a good deal with some concrete ideas. Opens up the debate more, finally acknowledging the seriousness of the deficit/budget problem with some real ideas for debate and hashing out by both parties.
Quote from: KRonn on April 13, 2011, 03:08:52 PM
He also has some ideas for cuts, structural changes. Yes, some demagoguery, too much but he's playing to the Dem base, just as the Repubs would. But at least he's stepping up a good deal with some concrete ideas. Opens up the debate more, finally acknowledging the seriousness of the deficit/budget problem with some real ideas for debate and hashing out by both parties.
Outside of Pentagon cuts he only has some magical Medicare and Medicaid savings thru gains in efficiency. Weren't those magic reductions in waste, fraud, and abuse supposed to pay for Obamacare? They are complete bullshit numbers pulled out of his ass. Unless you fundamentally change Medicare and Medicaid you're not going to save anything.
Quote from: Berkut on April 13, 2011, 03:07:17 PM
Arguments like this one - the basic premise that the Feds should forever and all time get an increasing bite of the GDP pie. There will *never* come a time when the Dems say "Yeah, that is the right amount - we should not need anymore than what we have now..."
The interesting part about the attacks on Ryans plan is to point out that it isn't feasible (likely true). But the response is NOT to say "Hey, cutting X% just isn't possible, how about we cut Y% instead?" Rather it is "Hey, cutting X% won't work, so obviously you guys are totally full of shit, so lets just keep increasing spending and taxes some more instead!"
I am not sure if this was intended as a response to my long post.
But if it is . . . my point is that if you fully implement the Ryan proposal but assume a more realistic but still brutal trajectory for discretionary spending - say a 25% cut, you still need 22% or more of GDP in revenue. Acutally more over time, because the Ryan proposal doesn't tackle growth in social security spending.
this is not intended as advocacy of a point of view, just reporting results of calculations.
The simple fact is that the current federal revenue take is now so far below spending commitments that even relatively sharp cuts in spending won't bring the budget back into balance.
Don't shoot the messenger.
Quote from: Berkut on April 13, 2011, 03:07:17 PM
Arguments like this one - the basic premise that the Feds should forever and all time get an increasing bite of the GDP pie. There will *never* come a time when the Dems say "Yeah, that is the right amount - we should not need anymore than what we have now..."
This is a good point, and something that most dems generally don't think about. But I personally can imagine a point at which I would believe the government is doing the correct amount of things and should not take on more.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 13, 2011, 03:14:32 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 13, 2011, 03:07:17 PM
Arguments like this one - the basic premise that the Feds should forever and all time get an increasing bite of the GDP pie. There will *never* come a time when the Dems say "Yeah, that is the right amount - we should not need anymore than what we have now..."
The interesting part about the attacks on Ryans plan is to point out that it isn't feasible (likely true). But the response is NOT to say "Hey, cutting X% just isn't possible, how about we cut Y% instead?" Rather it is "Hey, cutting X% won't work, so obviously you guys are totally full of shit, so lets just keep increasing spending and taxes some more instead!"
I am not sure if this was intended as a response to my long post.
But if it is . . . my point is that if you fully implement the Ryan proposal but assume a more realistic but still brutal trajectory for discretionary spending - say a 25% cut, you still need 22% or more of GDP in revenue. Acutally more over time, because the Ryan proposal doesn't tackle growth in social security spending.
this is not intended as advocacy of a point of view, just reporting results of calculations.
The simple fact is that the current federal revenue take is now so far below spending commitments that even relatively sharp cuts in spending won't bring the budget back into balance.
Don't shoot the messenger.
The problem is that we currently have an extremely progressive tax system which will always lead to wild swings in revenue. We need a broader, lower tax base instead of the high marginal rate tax system we have now, which would ensure a more stable tax income than the current feast or famine system. Curiously, changes in income tax rates over the last few decades have had almost no impact on federal revenue on the aggregate, except for the increasingly wild swings in revenue during the economic cycle.
Would the impact of simply canceling all deductions be significant enough?
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 13, 2011, 03:49:17 PM
The problem is that we currently have an extremely progressive tax system which will always lead to wild swings in revenue. We need a broader, lower tax base instead of the high marginal rate tax system we have now, which would ensure a more stable tax income than the current feast or famine system.
Except that salary and wage income doesn't swing that much. Interest and capital gains is more variable, but those are less subject to progressive rate taxation.
A even bigger source of variability is the corporate income tax, which probably should be scrapped altogether. Again, progressive rates are not the source of the problem there.
Of course, if you want both less variability and less progressivity, the obvious solution is a VAT or some similar variant . . .
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 13, 2011, 04:30:00 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 13, 2011, 03:49:17 PM
The problem is that we currently have an extremely progressive tax system which will always lead to wild swings in revenue. We need a broader, lower tax base instead of the high marginal rate tax system we have now, which would ensure a more stable tax income than the current feast or famine system.
Except that salary and wage income doesn't swing that much. Interest and capital gains is more variable, but those are less subject to progressive rate taxation.
A even bigger source of variability is the corporate income tax, which probably should be scrapped altogether. Again, progressive rates are not the source of the problem there.
Of course, if you want both less variability and less progressivity, the obvious solution is a VAT or some similar variant . . .
I would like a low across the board tax rate that is applied to all income, with refundable tax credits for health care and children to create a little bit of progressiveness without the whole "punish the rich" approach dems seem to favor. Eliminate all other deductions. Eliminate the corporate tax rate and replace it with a VAT.
The whole thing would be much more equitable and much easier to administer as well as not subject to exploitation by lobbyists. Hence, it has no chance of passing.
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 13, 2011, 04:51:15 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 13, 2011, 04:30:00 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 13, 2011, 03:49:17 PM
The problem is that we currently have an extremely progressive tax system which will always lead to wild swings in revenue. We need a broader, lower tax base instead of the high marginal rate tax system we have now, which would ensure a more stable tax income than the current feast or famine system.
Except that salary and wage income doesn't swing that much. Interest and capital gains is more variable, but those are less subject to progressive rate taxation.
A even bigger source of variability is the corporate income tax, which probably should be scrapped altogether. Again, progressive rates are not the source of the problem there.
Of course, if you want both less variability and less progressivity, the obvious solution is a VAT or some similar variant . . .
I would like a low across the board tax rate that is applied to all income, with refundable tax credits for health care and children to create a little bit of progressiveness without the whole "punish the rich" approach dems seem to favor. Eliminate all other deductions. Eliminate the corporate tax rate and replace it with a VAT.
The whole thing would be much more equitable and much easier to administer as well as not subject to exploitation by lobbyists. Hence, it has no chance of passing.
I'm profoundly dissapointed by Obama's proposal. Only 480 billion over 10 years, and leaves that fucking retarded Schumer line intact.
If only the Republicans would put up a sane candidate.
I really wish that Dems would get serious about tax increases, if that's their solution. Raising taxes on $250k+ isn't really going to cut it, the Bush tax cuts that gutted federal income were much more broad-based than that. To be clear, Democrats can never approach the lack of seriousness of the Republicans on that matter, but you'd hope they wouldn't use Republicans as their sole benchmark.
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 13, 2011, 03:49:17 PM
The problem is that we currently have an extremely progressive tax system which will always lead to wild swings in revenue. We need a broader, lower tax base instead of the high marginal rate tax system we have now, which would ensure a more stable tax income than the current feast or famine system. Curiously, changes in income tax rates over the last few decades have had almost no impact on federal revenue on the aggregate, except for the increasingly wild swings in revenue during the economic cycle.
Extremely progressive? You have got to be kidding. Think of all the taxes people pay: income tax, SS/Medicare, investment income, sales taxes, or property taxes. Not all of those are federal taxes, but at the end of the day those taxes have to be paid. Only the income tax is progressive of the bunch. The rest are flat or regressive. The totality of them is hardly "extremely progressive". Think before you plagiarize some groupthink tank talking point.
Quote from: DGuller on April 13, 2011, 05:48:28 PM
I really wish that Dems would get serious about tax increases, if that's their solution. Raising taxes on $250k+ isn't really going to cut it, the Bush tax cuts that gutted federal income were much more broad-based than that.
Good for you.
QuoteTo be clear, Democrats can never approach the lack of seriousness of the Republicans on that matter, but you'd hope they wouldn't use Republicans as their sole benchmark.
You're a kook.
Quote from: DGuller on April 13, 2011, 05:53:39 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 13, 2011, 03:49:17 PM
The problem is that we currently have an extremely progressive tax system which will always lead to wild swings in revenue. We need a broader, lower tax base instead of the high marginal rate tax system we have now, which would ensure a more stable tax income than the current feast or famine system. Curiously, changes in income tax rates over the last few decades have had almost no impact on federal revenue on the aggregate, except for the increasingly wild swings in revenue during the economic cycle.
Extremely progressive? You have got to be kidding. Think of all the taxes people pay: income tax, SS/Medicare, investment income, sales taxes, or property taxes. Not all of those are federal taxes, but at the end of the day those taxes have to be paid. Only the income tax is progressive of the bunch. The rest are flat or regressive. The totality of them is hardly "extremely progressive". Think before you plagiarize some groupthink tank talking point.
If you look at only federal income tax I guess.
I think Obama's plan is superduper. Bleed the fucking rich.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 13, 2011, 06:28:31 PM
I think Obama's plan is superduper. Bleed the fucking rich.
They don't have enough money to take, unfortunately.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 13, 2011, 06:30:29 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 13, 2011, 06:28:31 PM
I think Obama's plan is superduper. Bleed the fucking rich.
They don't have enough money to take, unfortunately.
Then get their assbuddies the corporations. What's the worse that can happen? They already outsource, so we don't have to worry about "the jobs", which Republicans don't care about anyway.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 13, 2011, 06:28:31 PM
I think Obama's plan is superduper. Bleed the fucking rich.
That would be fine. Put a plan on the table that bleeds the fucking rich of every penny they have. But don't put one on the table that reduces the deficit by three dollars and eighty-five cents over ten years. That number is a fucking joke.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 13, 2011, 06:13:24 PM
You're a kook.
Based on that? I mean, obviously Dorsey is a kook, but no one can deny that the Republican tax strategies haven't been very successful.
Quote from: Neil on April 13, 2011, 06:50:33 PM
Based on that? I mean, obviously Dorsey is a kook, but no one can deny that the Republican tax strategies haven't been very successful.
I take it back. Me culpa. I thought he said Democrats were more serious about deficit reduction.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 13, 2011, 06:44:29 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 13, 2011, 06:28:31 PM
I think Obama's plan is superduper. Bleed the fucking rich.
That would be fine. Put a plan on the table that bleeds the fucking rich of every penny they have. But don't put one on the table that reduces the deficit by three dollars and eighty-five cents over ten years. That number is a fucking joke.
The staggering, apocalyptic cuts in the deficit the GOP are parroting (without revenue increases, of course) would be too destabilizing.
It has to go nice and slow, so's you don't feel it coming out as much.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 13, 2011, 06:34:25 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 13, 2011, 06:30:29 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 13, 2011, 06:28:31 PM
I think Obama's plan is superduper. Bleed the fucking rich.
They don't have enough money to take, unfortunately.
Then get their assbuddies the corporations. What's the worse that can happen? They already outsource, so we don't have to worry about "the jobs", which Republicans don't care about anyway.
So taxing, say, 75% of the profits of corporations and, say, 90% of income of "the rich" should cover the deficit, right?
Quote from: Habbaku on April 13, 2011, 06:58:36 PM
So taxing, say, 75% of the profits of corporations and, say, 90% of income of "the rich" should cover the deficit, right?
This is going into goofytown now.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 13, 2011, 06:58:36 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 13, 2011, 06:34:25 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 13, 2011, 06:30:29 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 13, 2011, 06:28:31 PM
I think Obama's plan is superduper. Bleed the fucking rich.
They don't have enough money to take, unfortunately.
Then get their assbuddies the corporations. What's the worse that can happen? They already outsource, so we don't have to worry about "the jobs", which Republicans don't care about anyway.
So taxing, say, 75% of the profits of corporations and, say, 90% of income of "the rich" should cover the deficit, right?
Well http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ) this is a graphic illustration how this is of course utter nonsense.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 13, 2011, 06:56:23 PM
The staggering, apocalyptic cuts in the deficit the GOP are parroting (without revenue increases, of course) would be too destabilizing.
It has to go nice and slow, so's you don't feel it coming out as much.
You know what would be destabalizing? A junk rating on Treasuries, that's what.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 13, 2011, 06:53:09 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 13, 2011, 06:50:33 PM
Based on that? I mean, obviously Dorsey is a kook, but no one can deny that the Republican tax strategies haven't been very successful.
I take it back. Me culpa. I thought he said Democrats were more serious about deficit reduction.
Deficit reduction is the 'third rail' of American politics.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 13, 2011, 06:23:32 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 13, 2011, 05:53:39 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 13, 2011, 03:49:17 PM
The problem is that we currently have an extremely progressive tax system which will always lead to wild swings in revenue. We need a broader, lower tax base instead of the high marginal rate tax system we have now, which would ensure a more stable tax income than the current feast or famine system. Curiously, changes in income tax rates over the last few decades have had almost no impact on federal revenue on the aggregate, except for the increasingly wild swings in revenue during the economic cycle.
Extremely progressive? You have got to be kidding. Think of all the taxes people pay: income tax, SS/Medicare, investment income, sales taxes, or property taxes. Not all of those are federal taxes, but at the end of the day those taxes have to be paid. Only the income tax is progressive of the bunch. The rest are flat or regressive. The totality of them is hardly "extremely progressive". Think before you plagiarize some groupthink tank talking point.
If you look at only federal income tax I guess.
Nope, all taxes including Social Security.
The top quintile pays %52.8 of all taxes, the bottom quintile a whopping %2.6.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivity_in_United_States_income_tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivity_in_United_States_income_tax)
That the rich are somehow not paying their fair share of taxes is pure democrat demagoguery.
Needs more Bill Clinton.
Actually, let's just pass his 2000 budget again. Who needs homeland security anyway.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 13, 2011, 07:09:10 PM
Actually, let's just pass his 2000 budget again. Who needs homeland security anyway.
Bubba's revenues got fat off of capital gains. We would need to engineer another stock market bubble.
I think CdM has amply demonstrated now why is is such a fan of Fidel Castro. That approach has worked wonders for Cuba, after all. :lmfao:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 13, 2011, 07:09:10 PM
Needs more Bill Clinton.
Actually, let's just pass his 2000 budget again. Who needs homeland security anyway.
After seeing that 6 year old girl getting a TSA patdown, might as well. This country is fucked.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 13, 2011, 02:57:24 PM
In 2010, federal revenue as % of GDP was under 15 percent. This number was cyclically impacted but absence a significant increase in tax, it is unlikely to get above 19%.
Total actual federal spending is at 23.8%.
Net interest is 1.4%. That is almost certainly only going to increase at this time, as interest rates paid by the feds are unusually low.
Of this 13.2% is mandated: social security (4.4), medicare and medicaid (5.0), other (3.7) (figures are netted out and rounded).
The "other" consists, in descending order by amount of: unemployment benefits, retirement benefits for federal employees, earned income and child tax credits, food stamps, and veterans benefits.
One can expect unemployment benefits to decline significantly in the future; however this is more than offset by the fact that in 2010, "other" included a $110 billion profit from TARP, which is unlikely to recur.
Let's take these in order:
1) Social security - if untouched, these outlays will only increase in the future. The likelihood of significant cuts being made can perhaps be gauged by the fact that the Ryan plan, which probably represents the maximal starting point for discussions about cuts, does not touch social security. Ryan's earlier roadmap plan did discuss social security reform, but would actually have increased outlays even more until around 2055 (though at the same time increasing payroll tax).
2) Medicare/Medicaid: Absent massive restructuring of the provision of health care in the US, costs are not likely to decrease. realistically that limits what can be done in the short term to cut federal outlays. Again, the Ryan proposal does not contemplate decreasing these outlays, indeed it would involve increasing them as a percentage of GDP, just much more slowly than under the current anticipated baseline.
3) "Other" - cuts in this amount will be complicated by the disapperance of the massive TARP windfall in future years. But let's say for the sake of argument you could cut 25% across the board for everything else in this category. Assuming a return of unemployment benefit costs to "normal levels" that gives back about 1 percent of GDP.
So the mandated baseline + interest is about 13.6% assuming strenuous, Ryan-like efforts to cut. With interest costs and social security likely to arise, I think a 15 percent baseline is reasonable, again assuming stringent cuts in "other" and a Ryan-style gutting of medicare and medicaid.
That leaves 4% for all discretionary spending if balance is to be obtained at the current tax structure.
Actual discretionary spending in 2010 is 9.3%
Defense alone is at 4.7%.
Interestingly, the way the Ryan proposal deals with this problem is to ignore it. The Ryan proposal would cut all spending other than social security and health benefits to 6% of GDP by 2022 and to 3.5% of GDP by 2050. This is not remotely feasible.
It should be apparent that even if determined efforts are made to cut down the federal budget, taxes have to rise. My rough guess would be a rise until revenue levels ar reached 22 percent of GDP assuming strenuous efforts to cut spending, 24 percent if moderate but still significant efforts. This would involve an increase in revenue take of over 15% in the strenuous case or 25% in the moderate case.
Thanks for trying to stir up a sane and informed discussion on the issue. You picked the wrong forum, but
I, at least, appreciate the effort.
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 13, 2011, 07:08:54 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 13, 2011, 06:23:32 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 13, 2011, 05:53:39 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 13, 2011, 03:49:17 PM
The problem is that we currently have an extremely progressive tax system which will always lead to wild swings in revenue. We need a broader, lower tax base instead of the high marginal rate tax system we have now, which would ensure a more stable tax income than the current feast or famine system. Curiously, changes in income tax rates over the last few decades have had almost no impact on federal revenue on the aggregate, except for the increasingly wild swings in revenue during the economic cycle.
Extremely progressive? You have got to be kidding. Think of all the taxes people pay: income tax, SS/Medicare, investment income, sales taxes, or property taxes. Not all of those are federal taxes, but at the end of the day those taxes have to be paid. Only the income tax is progressive of the bunch. The rest are flat or regressive. The totality of them is hardly "extremely progressive". Think before you plagiarize some groupthink tank talking point.
If you look at only federal income tax I guess.
Nope, all taxes including Social Security.
The top quintile pays %52.8 of all taxes, the bottom quintile a whopping %2.6.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivity_in_United_States_income_tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivity_in_United_States_income_tax)
That the rich are somehow not paying their fair share of taxes is pure democrat demagoguery.
How about some numbers that don't come from the Tax Foundation by way of Wiki? Or at least some data that's newer than 2004? Come to think of it, the implication that the low quintile aren't paying their fair share is pretty silly, since that includes not only zero earners but also earners below the poverty line who basically can't afford to be taxed.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 13, 2011, 06:13:24 PM
You're a kook.
No, I'm just not a "pox on both houses" kind of guy. Sometimes one side really is less serious than the other, there is no magical self-balancing mechanism I'm aware of that keeps Democrats and Republicans equally serious and nutty at every point in time.
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 13, 2011, 07:08:54 PM
The top quintile pays %52.8 of all taxes, the bottom quintile a whopping %2.6.
Next time you should plagiarize from a grouthink tank with a knowledge of basic math, or at least a basic sense of intellectual honesty. This kind of non-sequitor sounds like something straight out of WSJ editorial page.
This kind of statistic is meaningless when you want to make a statement about tax system progressivity. I hope it is obvious why it's meaningless: you cannot separate higher taxes paid because of progressivity, and higher taxes paid due to higher income. Only a head tax would look level with this statistic. Even with a perfectly flat tax system top quintile can pay 90% of the taxes, if they earn 90% of the income.
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 13, 2011, 07:03:00 PM
Well http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ) this is a graphic illustration how this is of course utter nonsense.
Amusing. But we already know this. Also, his halting speech is annoying.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 13, 2011, 09:41:08 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 13, 2011, 07:03:00 PM
Well http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ) this is a graphic illustration how this is of course utter nonsense.
Amusing. But we already know this. Also, his halting speech is annoying.
That "we" apparently doesn't include CdM. Or the Obamateur.
Quote from: DGuller on April 13, 2011, 08:47:25 PMNext time you should plagiarize from a grouthink tank with a knowledge of basic math, or at least a basic sense of intellectual honesty. This kind of non-sequitor sounds like something straight out of WSJ editorial page.
This kind of statistic is meaningless when you want to make a statement about tax system progressivity. I hope it is obvious why it's meaningless: you cannot separate higher taxes paid because of progressivity, and higher taxes paid due to higher income. Only a head tax would look level with this statistic. Even with a perfectly flat tax system top quintile can pay 90% of the taxes, if they earn 90% of the income.
Before you said something that stupid you might have simply glanced at the adjacent column that listed that information.
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 13, 2011, 09:47:08 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 13, 2011, 08:47:25 PMNext time you should plagiarize from a grouthink tank with a knowledge of basic math, or at least a basic sense of intellectual honesty. This kind of non-sequitor sounds like something straight out of WSJ editorial page.
This kind of statistic is meaningless when you want to make a statement about tax system progressivity. I hope it is obvious why it's meaningless: you cannot separate higher taxes paid because of progressivity, and higher taxes paid due to higher income. Only a head tax would look level with this statistic. Even with a perfectly flat tax system top quintile can pay 90% of the taxes, if they earn 90% of the income.
Before you said something that stupid you might have simply glanced at the adjacent column that listed that information.
I didn't glance at anything, I just glanced at the fallacious argument you made in this thread. It's not my job to make sense of your nonsense. Making a fallacious argument when trying to support a point does not automatically make the point invalid, but it does display either a lack of competency or a lack of honesty on the past of someone making the argument.
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 13, 2011, 07:11:18 PM
I think CdM has amply demonstrated now why is is such a fan of Fidel Castro. That approach has worked wonders for Cuba, after all. :lmfao:
A nation that keeps '58 Studebakers and Edsels running is doing something right. How many of them do you see on America's highways?
I rest my case.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 13, 2011, 10:05:21 PM
A nation that keeps '58 Studebakers and Edsels running is doing something right. How many of them do you see on America's highways?
I rest my case.
Well, there seem to be quite a few Studebakers hanging around Bridgeto- OH RIGHT. :P
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 13, 2011, 09:43:54 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 13, 2011, 09:41:08 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 13, 2011, 07:03:00 PM
Well http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ) this is a graphic illustration how this is of course utter nonsense.
Amusing. But we already know this. Also, his halting speech is annoying.
That "we" apparently doesn't include CdM. Or the Obamateur.
Being that Captain Kirk is a CdM hero, of course not.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 13, 2011, 07:20:13 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 13, 2011, 07:09:10 PM
Needs more Bill Clinton.
Actually, let's just pass his 2000 budget again. Who needs homeland security anyway.
After seeing that 6 year old girl getting a TSA patdown, might as well. This country is fucked.
I saw that; it was absolutely ridiculous!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 13, 2011, 10:05:21 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 13, 2011, 07:11:18 PM
I think CdM has amply demonstrated now why is is such a fan of Fidel Castro. That approach has worked wonders for Cuba, after all. :lmfao:
A nation that keeps '58 Studebakers and Edsels running is doing something right. How many of them do you see on America's highways?
I rest my case.
If we had no choice but to keep '58 Edsels and Studebakers running, I'd say we were really fucked up.
:huh: Studebakers from 1950ies go for $50k+ on average in the auctions. I'd say the Cubans are doing very well if that's all everyone is driving.
Quote from: DGuller on April 14, 2011, 12:16:52 PM
:huh: Studebakers from 1950ies go for $50k+ on average in the auctions. I'd say the Cubans are doing very well if that's all everyone is driving.
That's 'cause all we have are those that someone has
chosen to preserve.
Well I did my part for the cause today. Finished my tax return and paid the feds a bit over six grand. :weep:
Oh, shit.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 13, 2011, 04:06:52 PM
Would the impact of simply canceling all deductions be significant enough?
Bigger than eliminating Medicare.
On tax I agree with Hans. Get rid of most deductions and get a low, broad income tax system for individuals and companies. Of course I'd then try and align it with capital gains, establish a VAT and a carbon tax.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 15, 2011, 02:43:55 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 13, 2011, 04:06:52 PM
Would the impact of simply canceling all deductions be significant enough?
Bigger than eliminating Medicare.
On tax I agree with Hans. Get rid of most deductions and get a low, broad income tax system for individuals and companies. Of course I'd then try and align it with capital gains, establish a VAT and a carbon tax.
Fortunately it seems both parties and the President are at least adressing that. For instance, cutting out some of the tax loopholes for corps but lowering the tax rate. It was kind of a scandalous news item GE made billions last year but paid no taxes; but not GE's fault. They just followed the tax code and took advantage of the Byzantine stuff there. At least the politicians paying lip service - who knows if they'll do even much of a limited change.
Carbon taxes are inherently immoral.
Is a gasoline tax inherently immoral too?
Quote from: Fate on April 15, 2011, 04:26:57 PM
Is a gasoline tax inherently immoral too?
No, because it is used for good things, like building roads. Carbon taxes are used to attempt to curb progress.
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 13, 2011, 07:08:54 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 13, 2011, 06:23:32 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 13, 2011, 05:53:39 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 13, 2011, 03:49:17 PM
The problem is that we currently have an extremely progressive tax system which will always lead to wild swings in revenue. We need a broader, lower tax base instead of the high marginal rate tax system we have now, which would ensure a more stable tax income than the current feast or famine system. Curiously, changes in income tax rates over the last few decades have had almost no impact on federal revenue on the aggregate, except for the increasingly wild swings in revenue during the economic cycle.
Extremely progressive? You have got to be kidding. Think of all the taxes people pay: income tax, SS/Medicare, investment income, sales taxes, or property taxes. Not all of those are federal taxes, but at the end of the day those taxes have to be paid. Only the income tax is progressive of the bunch. The rest are flat or regressive. The totality of them is hardly "extremely progressive". Think before you plagiarize some groupthink tank talking point.
If you look at only federal income tax I guess.
Nope, all taxes including Social Security.
The top quintile pays %52.8 of all taxes, the bottom quintile a whopping %2.6.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivity_in_United_States_income_tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivity_in_United_States_income_tax)
That the rich are somehow not paying their fair share of taxes is pure democrat demagoguery.
The top 1% get almost 25% of the income in the US, if you expand that to the top quintile then that increases massively as well. You need to look at that to get a concept of a "fair share" rather than the tax take.
Hans believes that Bill Gates should pay the same amount in taxes as a homeless man.
That's probably why 8 years of Republican government has left the US with an equality index more or less the same as Russia I guess.
Quote from: mosschops on April 15, 2011, 05:01:25 PMThe top 1% get almost 25% of the income in the US, if you expand that to the top quintile then that increases massively as well. You need to look at that to get a concept of a "fair share" rather than the tax take.
But even if you adjust for that the US system's an outlier. I can't find the chart but there was one recently of OECD countries that compared the top earners share of income tax with their share of national income. Countries with high countries, like France and Sweden, actually are close to 1-to-1, because everyone pays for their welfare state. The US was the most extremely out-of-sync.
Edit: I'd also add that I believe in a universal welfare state because I think it ties society together as opposed to a welfare state that only helps the extremely poor. In addition I think that sort of very means tested system breeds contempt and that, bluntly, a welfare state for the poor is a poor welfare state. But I think there's a similar bargain with tax and paying for it which means you can't depend on taxing the rich, or property or whatever.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 15, 2011, 05:25:09 PM
Quote from: mosschops on April 15, 2011, 05:01:25 PMThe top 1% get almost 25% of the income in the US, if you expand that to the top quintile then that increases massively as well. You need to look at that to get a concept of a "fair share" rather than the tax take.
But even if you adjust for that the US system's an outlier. I can't find the chart but there was one recently of OECD countries that compared the top earners share of income tax with their share of national income. Countries with high countries, like France and Sweden, actually are close to 1-to-1, because everyone pays for their welfare state. The US was the most extremely out-of-sync.
Edit: I'd also add that I believe in a universal welfare state because I think it ties society together as opposed to a welfare state that only helps the extremely poor. In addition I think that sort of very means tested system breeds contempt and that, bluntly, a welfare state for the poor is a poor welfare state. But I think there's a similar bargain with tax and paying for it which means you can't depend on taxing the rich, or property or whatever.
The US is an outlier though due to the massive disparity. The very rich there are increasing their share of national income at the expenses of the middle classes and has done for the past 30 years or so. The top level paying more as a percentage is a function of that. If Hans wants them to pay less as a percentage then they should be looking to make the majority richer, rather than reducing the burden on the rich.
Quote from: mosschops on April 15, 2011, 05:44:30 PM
The US is an outlier though due to the massive disparity. The very rich there are increasing their share of national income at the expenses of the middle classes and has done for the past 30 years or so. The top level paying more as a percentage is a function of that. If Hans wants them to pay less as a percentage then they should be looking to make the majority richer, rather than reducing the burden on the rich.
He would say the one leads to the other, of course.
And yet you get countries like Brazil who have tightened their income disparities having very strong economies at the moment. I thought trickle-down theory went out with the 80s.
Quote from: mosschops on April 15, 2011, 05:44:30 PMThe US is an outlier though due to the massive disparity. The very rich there are increasing their share of national income at the expenses of the middle classes and has done for the past 30 years or so. The top level paying more as a percentage is a function of that. If Hans wants them to pay less as a percentage then they should be looking to make the majority richer, rather than reducing the burden on the rich.
I don't think the disparity matters as they're adjusting for it. They're comparing amount of income tax receipts from the rich with share of national income of the rich.
But I don't buy this. First of all I don't like the deification of the middle class they have a social responsibility to pay their fair share of taxes just as they have rights under a universal welfare state. Secondly, though I'm a strong redistributionist, the tax system's a monstrous inefficient way of doing it.
To be honest I find this one of the most frustrating aspects of the American left - it was woefully on display in the argument over extending the Bush tax cuts. It seemed like the entire goal and purpose of the policy was simply to tax the rich more almost for the sake of it.
I do think inequality's an issue generally. My own sense is that what's really happening though isn't quite so simple. My impression is that there's a growing gap between the merely rich and the truly rich which has been exacerbated by the norms in the finance sector and, in the UK, the odd oligarch and the like. That I think's distorting figures, so the respectable rich are still not too distant from the 'middle class', but the filty rich are moving on.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 15, 2011, 06:05:38 PM
To be honest I find this one of the most frustrating aspects of the American left - it was woefully on display in the argument over extending the Bush tax cuts. It seemed like the entire goal and purpose of the policy was simply to tax the rich more almost for the sake of it.
You make that sound like a bad thing.
I would be interested to know what radical life change Seedy experienced in the last four months or so that changed him from a tribalist to a dyed-in-the-wool Kucinichite.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2011, 06:43:23 PMI would be interested to know what radical life change Seedy experienced in the last four months or so that changed him from a tribalist to a dyed-in-the-wool Kucinichite.
It's been gestating much longer than that, and you know it. It's just gained substantially more momentum during my beloved black President's term.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 15, 2011, 06:45:31 PM
It's been gestating much longer than that, and you know it. It's just gained substantially more momentum during my beloved black President's term.
No I don't. It seems one day you just pushed a button.
The tea party would make any sane man froth. I know they push my buttons.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2011, 06:48:30 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 15, 2011, 06:45:31 PM
It's been gestating much longer than that, and you know it. It's just gained substantially more momentum during my beloved black President's term.
No I don't. It seems one day you just pushed a button.
I think Wisconsin did it. That, and all you Teabagger fucks around here, what with your Teabaggery and Teabagging ways and whatnot.
How many ultra-rich people does the US have compared to other places, anyway? How much does that contribute to the difference?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 15, 2011, 06:50:18 PM
I think Wisconsin did it.
I think it fired up my old UMWA sympathies. This country needs a couple more bloody Harlans.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 15, 2011, 06:55:06 PM
How many ultra-rich people does the US have compared to other places, anyway? How much does that contribute to the difference?
According to Forbes' Mar 2011 List of Richest People (http://www.forbes.com/wealth/billionaires/list)
3 of the Top 5
4 of the Top 10
8 of the Top 20
14 of the Top 30
18 of the Top 50
32 of the Top 100
Are listed as from the United States
QuoteBum economy puts executive pay in ugly new light
No shock that shareholders of Beazer Homes howled with pain a few weeks ago over the pay of CEO Ian J. McCarthy.
More than half them rejected a nonbinding resolution to "hereby approve" the pay of McCarthy and other Beazer bigwigs. After the results were known, Beazer directors said earnestly that they would "seek to determine the causes of any negative voting result."
They could start and finish with their own financial filings, which show McCarthy making $21 million over the past three years even as the company, builder of numerous Maryland communities, lost $1 billion. Beazer's stock trades around $5, down from $79 a few years earlier.
Get used to this. More shareholders than ever will have a nonbinding "say on pay" this year, thanks to the Dodd-Frank financial reform act. Already shareholders have voted against executive enrichment schemes at Hewlett-Packard, Jacobs Engineering Group and Shuffle Master, as well as at Beazer.
But shareholders may not be the most important constituency.
The renewed ascent of executive pay in a miserable job market sets the stage for unprecedented public disgust. Or at least it should.
Median CEO pay at 200 top corporations was $9.6 million last year, up 12 percent from the year before, The New York Times reported Sunday. Viacom's Philippe Dauman made $84.5 million, Occidental Petroleum's Ray Irani made $76.1 million, and Stanley Black & Decker's John Lundgren made $32.6 million.
Meanwhile, 13.5 million Americans are unemployed — 8.8 percent. Even conservatives, inclined to give corporate chieftains their lead, seem to be increasingly fed up.
Last year, 57 percent of Republicans told the Harris Poll they favored stricter regulation of executive pay and bonuses. In the same survey, 83 percent of Democrats and 69 percent of independents also wanted government to clamp down on executive boodle.
A year earlier, in a similar Gallup poll, 42 percent of Republicans favored government "taking steps to limit the pay of executives." (Seventy-seven percent of Democrats and 56 percent of independents felt the same way in that survey.)
Huge CEO pay at a time of layoffs ought to be "a political litmus test for conservative Republicans, liberal Democrats and radical independents," conservative columnist Cal Thomas wrote recently. "The moral issue in executive pay is whether management deserves these high salaries while employees are laid off, or denied pay increases."
Lucre and layoffs aren't just coincidental at such companies. They are intimately connected. At the newly combined Stanley Works and Black & Decker, Executive Chairman Nolan Archibald will probably make tens of millions in bonuses tied to cost cutting, much of which will be accomplished by putting thousands of his co-workers out of a job.
Such corporate "rightsizing" has been defended as a way to increase efficiency and build societal wealth. As remaining workers at downsized firms become more productive, the theory goes, their pay will increase proportionally. Meanwhile, higher profits resulting from downsizing will be reinvested in promising industries, creating jobs for those laid off.
But it hasn't worked out that way recently. Most of the productivity gains in recent decades lined the pockets of shareholders and top management, not workers. Historically high executive pay combined with historically high joblessness make that more shockingly clear than at any time since the early 1990s, when the productivity spurt began.
"It's no use pretending that what has obviously happened has not in fact happened," Joseph E. Stiglitz, winner of the Nobel Prize in economics, writes in the latest issue of Vanity Fair. "The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation's income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent."
Now even corporate shareholders are mad.
Beazer Homes gave several reasons why its suffering owners should be thrilled with $6.9 million in pay for CEO McCarthy last year. He hasn't gotten a base-pay raise since 2005. He didn't get any free stock between 2005 and 2010. Blah blah blah.
Shareholders didn't use up much Kleenex, to judge by their vote.
But don't expect miracles from such "say on pay" requirements at annual meetings. As noted, these votes are nonbinding. Boards can act concerned yet do anything they want.
Perhaps the CEO haircut will instead come from Congress and the Internal Revenue Service. Many executives owe their jobs and their incomes — directly and indirectly — to bailouts from the U.S. taxpayer.
Anger at corporate pay is rising. The country faces huge deficits. Raising the top personal income-tax rate from its present level of 35 percent would be a great way for CEOs to start paying America back.
Someone please explain to me how a higher income tax rate on top earners is supposed to help out the shareholders of Beazer Homes.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 16, 2011, 07:15:07 AM
Someone please explain to me how a higher income tax rate on top earners is supposed to help out the shareholders of Beazer Homes.
Not Beazer. America. Like the man wrote.
Nice try.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 16, 2011, 07:18:01 AM
Not Beazer. America. Like the man wrote.
Nice try.
The man wrote an article which was roughly 2/3 about shareholders, with a deus ex machina conclusion that we should tax CEOs more.
BTW the claim that GEO got a tax refund after paying no taxes on huge profits which your bestest new friend Bernie Sanders put up on his US Senate web site has been debunked.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 16, 2011, 07:36:12 AM
The man wrote an article which was roughly 2/3 about shareholders, with a deus ex machina conclusion that we should tax CEOs more.
Here's a deus ex machina conclusion: fuck you.
QuoteBTW the claim that GEO got a tax refund after paying no taxes on huge profits which your bestest new friend Bernie Sanders put up on his US Senate web site has been debunked.
I don't believe you.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 16, 2011, 07:38:25 AM
Here's a deus ex machina conclusion: fuck you.
That's fine, but tell me who that article was aimed at. Who on Languish did you think would be persuaded to support an increase in the top tax rate because owners of Beazer Home stocks are pissed off?
I don't answer Yi questions, particularly those that corkscrew in the very Yi-specific tradition of selective reduction. That's been ROE policy for years. You know that.
Writer claims executive pay is under increasing scrutiny. Writer gives an example of such scrutiny. Writer closes with executive pay should be taxed more, for the benefit of all America. Yi bitches about example. Roll credits.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 16, 2011, 07:53:28 AM
Writer claims executive pay is under increasing scrutiny. Writer gives an example of such scrutiny. Writer closes with executive pay should be taxed more, for the benefit of all America. Yi bitches about example. Roll credits.
Yi bitches about argumentation. The example was fine.
Otherwise your article was better than the one you posted.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 16, 2011, 08:02:56 AMOtherwise your article was better than the one you posted.
Then stop asking questions about a premise that wasn't there. That's chick thinking.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 15, 2011, 06:05:38 PM
I do think inequality's an issue generally. My own sense is that what's really happening though isn't quite so simple. My impression is that there's a growing gap between the merely rich and the truly rich which has been exacerbated by the norms in the finance sector and, in the UK, the odd oligarch and the like. That I think's distorting figures, so the respectable rich are still not too distant from the 'middle class', but the filty rich are moving on.
You know, I was just thinking about this. At least part of the income disparity is caused by the fact that they have something that most of the rest of the developed world simply doesn't: The masters of global capitalism.
Then again, I don't really think that income disparity is a problem. I have no problem with the idea of a very rich person making more than me, while I make more than a poor person.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 16, 2011, 07:53:28 AM
I don't answer Yi questions, particularly those that corkscrew in the very Yi-specific tradition of selective reduction. That's been ROE policy for years. You know that.
Writer claims executive pay is under increasing scrutiny. Writer gives an example of such scrutiny. Writer closes with executive pay should be taxed more, for the benefit of all America. Yi bitches about example. Roll credits.
Actually, Seeds, it does kinda sound like a bait and switch. Everything in the article that's not the last paragraph points to finding a way to cap exec pay, not increase their tax burden. When an author starts talking "executive pay," they're talking about amounts, not percentages. These shareholders would have been just as pissed if the guy had "only" made $5 million with a higher tax rate than $7 million without. (edited to remove weasels)
It is interesting the way it is taken as a matter of faith that the "rich" have enough cash to fund the infinite desires of the socialist state that the Seedys of the world demand - even when the data makes it clear that it simply is not the case.
It is like they think that if they want it to be true hard enough, then it will become true. It *should* be the case that the State can take care of everyone, therefore it MUST be the case that they can, if only the "rich" weren't being so selfish...
Quote from: Neil on April 16, 2011, 10:37:18 AM
You know, I was just thinking about this. At least part of the income disparity is caused by the fact that they have something that most of the rest of the developed world simply doesn't: The masters of global capitalism.
That could be part of it, but then of the OECD, the country with the highest percent of national income in fewest hands is Italy. The US doesn't have unique income inequality, it's simply different income inequality.
QuoteThen again, I don't really think that income disparity is a problem. I have no problem with the idea of a very rich person making more than me, while I make more than a poor person.
I agree. If I was American I'd be more worried about income effectively freezing for many people - that in itself should be a reason for healthcare reform - than about the very rich.
In the UK I think the problem's social and not helped by this government's complete lack of understanding for the middle class. I'm quite London in my politics. So I'm intensely relaxed about oligarchs and bankers getting millions in bonuses. But there's real, intense, burning anger about this. And it's not just a thing of the left.
QuoteIt is interesting the way it is taken as a matter of faith that the "rich" have enough cash to fund the infinite desires of the socialist state that the Seedys of the world demand - even when the data makes it clear that it simply is not the case.
It is like they think that if they want it to be true hard enough, then it will become true. It *should* be the case that the State can take care of everyone, therefore it MUST be the case that they can, if only the "rich" weren't being so selfish...
To be fair the US's socialist state that needs funding isn't that massive. A pension scheme, healthcare for the elderly, the poor and the disabled; that is hardly infinite and is actually pretty basic. And it is broadly speaking true that if income tax revenues as a percent of GDP went back to what they were before Bush then you'd have a controllable, healthy deficit.
For myself I think tax and welfare have to part of a social contract which means everyone gets the benefits and you don't pay for it by soaking the rich.
The truth is, I think, most Americans actually want their welfare state, not least because it is minimal. Also, with austerity across the board - I know it's already happening at a state level - I think people will turn more to tax.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 16, 2011, 06:44:13 AM
Quote"It's no use pretending that what has obviously happened has not in fact happened," Joseph E. Stiglitz, winner of the Nobel Prize in economics, writes in the latest issue of Vanity Fair. "The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation's income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent."
Here is the article for those interested:
http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105?fb_ref=social_fblike&fb_source=profile_multiline
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 16, 2011, 10:57:30 AM
Actually, Seeds, it does kinda sound like a bait and switch. Everything in the article that's not the last paragraph points to finding a way to cap exec pay, not increase their tax burden. When an author starts talking "executive pay," they're talking about amounts, not percentages. These shareholders would have been just as pissed if the guy had "only" made $5 million with a higher tax rate than $7 million without. (edited to remove weasels)
It's not an article, it's an opinion piece.
Quote from: Berkut on April 16, 2011, 11:10:11 AM
It is interesting the way it is taken as a matter of faith that the "rich" have enough cash to fund the infinite desires of the socialist state that the Seedys of the world demand - even when the data makes it clear that it simply is not the case.
They don't have to fund it; they should just have to do their part. Which they'd haven't done for quite some time.
QuoteIt is like they think that if they want it to be true hard enough, then it will become true. It *should* be the case that the State can take care of everyone, therefore it MUST be the case that they can, if only the "rich" weren't being so selfish...
You're such a GOP Uncle Tom.
We make CEO pay contingent on the number of employees. 10k employees, you get 2 million. 20k, 3 million. See? An incentive to create jobs. :lol:
CdM's signature reminded me of something I saw written somewhere, probably a newspaper. They wrote General Sherman's name as William "Tecumseh" Sherman. Wasn't that his real middle name or was a it a stage or ring name like Andre "The Giant" Roussimoff?
Tecumseh was, indeed, his middle name. Papa Sherman liked the Indian Tecumseh, and named his kid after him.
Quote from: sbr on April 16, 2011, 03:31:18 PM
CdM's signature reminded me of something I saw written somewhere, probably a newspaper. They wrote General Sherman's name as William "Tecumseh" Sherman. Wasn't that his real middle name or was a it a stage or ring name like Andre "The Giant" Roussimoff?
It was Tecumseh. If I remember my Ohio history classes, Tecumseh was fairly common in Ohio.
His ring name would be 'rebelsmasher'
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 16, 2011, 12:26:15 PM
To be fair the US's socialist state that needs funding isn't that massive. A pension scheme, healthcare for the elderly, the poor and the disabled; that is hardly infinite and is actually pretty basic. And it is broadly speaking true that if income tax revenues as a percent of GDP went back to what they were before Bush then you'd have a controllable, healthy deficit.
For myself I think tax and welfare have to part of a social contract which means everyone gets the benefits and you don't pay for it by soaking the rich.
The truth is, I think, most Americans actually want their welfare state, not least because it is minimal. Also, with austerity across the board - I know it's already happening at a state level - I think people will turn more to tax.
The problem is, Sheilbh, for the Berkuts and Yis and derspiesses of America, it's just a matter of what they see and what they don't see. They don't see the results of the sheer greed and venality that powers the 1% to obscene amounts of wealth and even greater damage to this nation. CEO Daddy Warbucks cashes in $44 million in compensation? That's not their world. CEO Daddy Warbucks slashes 15,000 jobs? That's in another state. They don't see that.
But they DO see the unemployed nigger on the street getting his Independence card cash from the ATM when they're at a red light. They see an unwed mother of 5 buying WIC-discounted groceries in front of them at the cash register. They drive past the community clinic giving out free healthcare to those that can't afford it. With THEIR tax dollars.
They see that, but they don't see the damage Wall Street and their GOP sugardaddies cost this nation at a hell of a lot more a year than our social net programs ever could. One's tangible, and one isn't.
If GOPtard sympathizers only realized they have more in common with the unemployed niggers, the unwed mothers of 5, and the indigent patients at free clinics than they do with Wall Street and the Masters of the Universe who would hate them if they knew them, politics in America would be a different story.
Social contract, Shielbh? Not in America.
DAMN YOU KLEVES!
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 16, 2011, 10:57:30 AM
Actually, Seeds, it does kinda sound like a bait and switch. Everything in the article that's not the last paragraph points to finding a way to cap exec pay, not increase their tax burden. When an author starts talking "executive pay," they're talking about amounts, not percentages. These shareholders would have been just as pissed if the guy had "only" made $5 million with a higher tax rate than $7 million without. (edited to remove weasels)
Teabagger.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 16, 2011, 03:26:00 PM
We make CEO pay contingent on the number of employees. 10k employees, you get 2 million. 20k, 3 million. See? An incentive to create jobs. :lol:
And would completely kill all development towards replacing humans with robots. :(
You want the rich to pay their fair share? It's simple--leave the tax rate itself alone, get rid of all deductions, abolish the capital gains tax, and tax capital gains as ordinary income.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 16, 2011, 12:26:15 PM
In the UK I think the problem's social and not helped by this government's complete lack of understanding for the middle class. I'm quite London in my politics. So I'm intensely relaxed about oligarchs and bankers getting millions in bonuses. But there's real, intense, burning anger about this. And it's not just a thing of the left.
The problem is social only because of the mentality of class warfare that has poisoned British society. Getting angry because somebody makes more than you do is intensely damaging to society.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 16, 2011, 03:36:12 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 16, 2011, 12:26:15 PM
To be fair the US's socialist state that needs funding isn't that massive. A pension scheme, healthcare for the elderly, the poor and the disabled; that is hardly infinite and is actually pretty basic. And it is broadly speaking true that if income tax revenues as a percent of GDP went back to what they were before Bush then you'd have a controllable, healthy deficit.
For myself I think tax and welfare have to part of a social contract which means everyone gets the benefits and you don't pay for it by soaking the rich.
The truth is, I think, most Americans actually want their welfare state, not least because it is minimal. Also, with austerity across the board - I know it's already happening at a state level - I think people will turn more to tax.
The problem is, Sheilbh, for the Berkuts and Yis and derspiesses of America, it's just a matter of what they see and what they don't see. They don't see the results of the sheer greed and venality that powers the 1% to obscene amounts of wealth and even greater damage to this nation. CEO Daddy Warbucks cashes in $44 million in compensation? That's not their world. CEO Daddy Warbucks slashes 15,000 jobs? That's in another state. They don't see that.
But they DO see the unemployed nigger on the street getting his Independence card cash from the ATM when they're at a red light. They see an unwed mother of 5 buying WIC-discounted groceries in front of them at the cash register. They drive past the community clinic giving out free healthcare to those that can't afford it. With THEIR tax dollars.
They see that, but they don't see the damage Wall Street and their GOP sugardaddies cost this nation at a hell of a lot more a year than our social net programs ever could. One's tangible, and one isn't.
If GOPtard sympathizers only realized they have more in common with the unemployed niggers, the unwed mothers of 5, and the indigent patients at free clinics than they do with Wall Street and the Masters of the Universe who would hate them if they knew them, politics in America would be a different story.
Social contract, Shielbh? Not in America.
Fuck the social contract, I didn't sign on to having millions of worthless pieces of shit demanding handouts while contributing no effort themselves. Why should those who work hard, save money for the future, and take responsibility for themselves be required to bail out all the worthless layabouts who blow all their money and then some ob big-screen TVs and XBOX 360's and then want a handout because working would distract from their play time.
Fuck em all. There is nothing more antisocial than the "social contract", which rewards bad behavior and punishes responsibility. This is why the poor shouldn't be allowed to vote: they end up voting to rob the public until eventually society collapses under their irresponsibility.
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 17, 2011, 06:40:31 PM
Fuck the social contract, I didn't sign on to having millions of worthless pieces of shit demanding handouts while contributing no effort themselves. Why should those who work hard, save money for the future, and take responsibility for themselves be required to bail out all the worthless layabouts who blow all their money and then some ob big-screen TVs and XBOX 360's and then want a handout because working would distract from their play time.
Fuck em all. There is nothing more antisocial than the "social contract", which rewards bad behavior and punishes responsibility. This is why the poor shouldn't be allowed to vote: they end up voting to rob the public until eventually society collapses under their irresponsibility.
For the same reason we bailout incompetent banks and financial institutions entrusted with the money of those people who work hard/save money, and then piss it away by betting on those aforementioned worthless layabouts who had taken out untenable adjustable-rate mortgages?
Wall Street bankers probably shouldn't be allowed to vote either.
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 17, 2011, 06:46:48 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 17, 2011, 06:40:31 PM
Fuck the social contract, I didn't sign on to having millions of worthless pieces of shit demanding handouts while contributing no effort themselves. Why should those who work hard, save money for the future, and take responsibility for themselves be required to bail out all the worthless layabouts who blow all their money and then some ob big-screen TVs and XBOX 360's and then want a handout because working would distract from their play time.
Fuck em all. There is nothing more antisocial than the "social contract", which rewards bad behavior and punishes responsibility. This is why the poor shouldn't be allowed to vote: they end up voting to rob the public until eventually society collapses under their irresponsibility.
For the same reason we bailout incompetent banks and financial institutions entrusted with the money of those people who work hard/save money, and then piss it away by betting on those aforementioned worthless layabouts who had taken out untenable adjustable-rate mortgages?
Wall Street bankers probably shouldn't be allowed to vote either.
Of course the whole cause of the crisis was that the gov't required banks to make mortgage loans to people who couldn't afford it as part of their idea of a social contract. The whole subprime market was a symptom of the same disease.
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 17, 2011, 06:40:31 PM
Fuck the social contract, I didn't sign on to having millions of worthless pieces of shit demanding handouts while contributing no effort themselves. Why should those who work hard, save money for the future, and take responsibility for themselves be required to bail out all the worthless layabouts who blow all their money and then some ob big-screen TVs and XBOX 360's and then want a handout because working would distract from their play time.
Fuck em all. There is nothing more antisocial than the "social contract", which rewards bad behavior and punishes responsibility. This is why the poor shouldn't be allowed to vote: they end up voting to rob the public until eventually society collapses under their irresponsibility.
So is this the new Republican talking points? I have feeling it won't play well in Peoria.
Hmmm, I am pretty sure the only institutions that the government would have enough control over to "force" them to give out a loan might be Fanny Mae/Freddie Mac.
If Bank of America/Washington Mutual, etc., were being forced to finance bad mortgage investments, I am pretty sure they would have complained about it a bit before they went belly-up and down the tubes.
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 17, 2011, 06:59:27 PM
Hmmm, I am pretty sure the only institutions that the government would have enough control over to "force" them to give out a loan might be Fanny Mae/Freddie Mac.
If Bank of America/Washington Mutual, etc., were being forced to finance bad mortgage investments, I am pretty sure they would have complained about it a bit before they went belly-up and down the tubes.
Yeah, it's a canard that right has been using for a while now.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2011, 06:56:15 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 17, 2011, 06:40:31 PM
Fuck the social contract, I didn't sign on to having millions of worthless pieces of shit demanding handouts while contributing no effort themselves. Why should those who work hard, save money for the future, and take responsibility for themselves be required to bail out all the worthless layabouts who blow all their money and then some ob big-screen TVs and XBOX 360's and then want a handout because working would distract from their play time.
Fuck em all. There is nothing more antisocial than the "social contract", which rewards bad behavior and punishes responsibility. This is why the poor shouldn't be allowed to vote: they end up voting to rob the public until eventually society collapses under their irresponsibility.
So is this the new Republican talking points? I have feeling it won't play well in Peoria.
Meh, remember it's Hansy: the same guy that was going to quit the Army depending on who the Commander-in-Chief was. As squirrelly as Siege, without fucking through holes in bedsheets.
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 17, 2011, 06:59:27 PM
Hmmm, I am pretty sure the only institutions that the government would have enough control over to "force" them to give out a loan might be Fanny Mae/Freddie Mac.
If Bank of America/Washington Mutual, etc., were being forced to finance bad mortgage investments, I am pretty sure they would have complained about it a bit before they went belly-up and down the tubes.
Remember Fanny Mae/Freddie Mac were intermediate agnets for the real estate market, which due to their gov't sponsorship could borrow at rates below market for commercial enterprises. What the gov't did is tell the banks that if they didn't participate in the subprime market they couldn't get access to FM&FM. That left the banks with little choice (other than exiting the real estate market entirely, of course). Furthermore, the gov't basically guaranteed the banks that they could sell the mortgages in the aftermarket to FM&FM, which meant that there was no risk for the banks.
Thus, due to gov't intervention the market became dominated by the gov't, with banks guaranteed a profit with no risk to get them to play along. All part of the social contract to provide everybody with a right to own a home, whether they could afford it or not.
Thus when it all went bad the gov't ended up shouldering the losses, as was designed by the system.
And now the gov't is repeating the same maneuver, just now with the FHA in charge of the process. The person who designed the subprime mortgage market for FM&FM was appointed by the Obamateur to oversee the FHA to that end. Thus, we are guaranteed another collapse and bailout down the line.
All because there is a large segment of the electorate which is incapable to take care of itself because they have been conditioned to have big government do the thinking for them. Just look at the health care debate which boils down to one party believing people shouldn't be free to make health care decisions by themselves, they need enlightened philosopher-bureaucrats to rule over them and treat the masses like serfs.
You end up with a new feudal society with the masses having their lives directed by an all-powerful bureaucracy, with little choices left for themselves because the bureaucrats deem the unwashed masses unfit to govern themselves. It's funny how the modern left has embraced aristocracy as a form of government.
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 17, 2011, 06:40:31 PM
Fuck the social contract, I didn't sign on to having millions of worthless pieces of shit demanding handouts while contributing no effort themselves. Why should those who work hard, save money for the future, and take responsibility for themselves be required to bail out all the worthless layabouts who blow all their money and then some ob big-screen TVs and XBOX 360's and then want a handout because working would distract from their play time.
Fuck em all. There is nothing more antisocial than the "social contract", which rewards bad behavior and punishes responsibility. This is why the poor shouldn't be allowed to vote: they end up voting to rob the public until eventually society collapses under their irresponsibility.
You don't get to opt out of the social contract, no matter who John Galt is. That is the obligation you owe for everything that society provides you.
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 17, 2011, 06:40:31 PM
Fuck the social contract, I didn't sign on to having millions of worthless pieces of shit demanding handouts while contributing no effort themselves. Why should those who work hard, save money for the future, and take responsibility for themselves be required to bail out all the worthless layabouts who blow all their money and then some ob big-screen TVs and XBOX 360's and then want a handout because working would distract from their play time.
Fuck em all. There is nothing more antisocial than the "social contract", which rewards bad behavior and punishes responsibility. This is why the poor shouldn't be allowed to vote: they end up voting to rob the public until eventually society collapses under their irresponsibility.
:wacko:
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 17, 2011, 07:21:34 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 17, 2011, 06:59:27 PM
Hmmm, I am pretty sure the only institutions that the government would have enough control over to "force" them to give out a loan might be Fanny Mae/Freddie Mac.
If Bank of America/Washington Mutual, etc., were being forced to finance bad mortgage investments, I am pretty sure they would have complained about it a bit before they went belly-up and down the tubes.
Remember Fanny Mae/Freddie Mac were intermediate agnets for the real estate market, which due to their gov't sponsorship could borrow at rates below market for commercial enterprises. What the gov't did is tell the banks that if they didn't participate in the subprime market they couldn't get access to FM&FM. That left the banks with little choice (other than exiting the real estate market entirely, of course). Furthermore, the gov't basically guaranteed the banks that they could sell the mortgages in the aftermarket to FM&FM, which meant that there was no risk for the banks.
Just out of curiosity, which law was this where the government told the banks all this?
Quote from: Neil on April 17, 2011, 07:29:39 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 17, 2011, 06:40:31 PM
Fuck the social contract, I didn't sign on to having millions of worthless pieces of shit demanding handouts while contributing no effort themselves. Why should those who work hard, save money for the future, and take responsibility for themselves be required to bail out all the worthless layabouts who blow all their money and then some ob big-screen TVs and XBOX 360's and then want a handout because working would distract from their play time.
Fuck em all. There is nothing more antisocial than the "social contract", which rewards bad behavior and punishes responsibility. This is why the poor shouldn't be allowed to vote: they end up voting to rob the public until eventually society collapses under their irresponsibility.
You don't get to opt out of the social contract, no matter who John Galt is. That is the obligation you owe for everything that society provides you.
Yeah, I think it's obvious that someone here went out and caught a matinee.
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 17, 2011, 07:21:34 PM
What the gov't did is tell the banks that if they didn't participate in the subprime market they couldn't get access to FM&FM.
Is this another way of saying they had to meet the CRA minimums to sell to Freddie and Fannie?
QuoteFurthermore, the gov't basically guaranteed the banks that they could sell the mortgages in the aftermarket to FM&FM, which meant that there was no risk for the banks.
And yet banks and other financial institutions did in the end choose to hold onto some portion of their subprime portfolio, either as mortgages or as CDOs. Because they thought they offered a reasonable rate of return. And banks and other financial institutions were more than happy to expose themselves to the subprime market by selling CDS.
On the other hand people like Tonto seem to keep forgetting that the bank bailouts were loans which the Treasury made an average 15 1/2 percent return on, and which were mandated by the government, often over the objections of the borrowers.
It's hilarious to see Neil, an actual conservative, absolutely not even come close to the level of comprehension of modern American proto-conservatism.
See what we're dealing with down here, Neil?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 17, 2011, 07:50:28 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 17, 2011, 07:21:34 PM
What the gov't did is tell the banks that if they didn't participate in the subprime market they couldn't get access to FM&FM.
Is this another way of saying they had to meet the CRA minimums to sell to Freddie and Fannie?
QuoteFurthermore, the gov't basically guaranteed the banks that they could sell the mortgages in the aftermarket to FM&FM, which meant that there was no risk for the banks.
And yet banks and other financial institutions did in the end choose to hold onto some portion of their subprime portfolio, either as mortgages or as CDOs. Because they thought they offered a reasonable rate of return. And banks and other financial institutions were more than happy to expose themselves to the subprime market by selling CDS.
On the other hand people like Tonto seem to keep forgetting that the bank bailouts were loans which the Treasury made an average 15 1/2 percent return on, and which were mandated by the government, often over the objections of the borrowers.
You are correct. On all counts. Of course the reason they held on to them because they were perceived as risk-free investments since they could always sell to FM&FM in the end.
I remember back in 2009 reading an article in Businessweek about a small bank in Texas that weathered the crisis well because they refused to participate in the subprime market. The CEO was remarking how thru they decade he was constantly harrassed and threatened by federal regulators for refusing to participate in the subprime market. He of course was feeling a littlebit smug about the whole thing because his refusal to cave in to banking regulators left him standing strong after the collapse.
People just don't realize how heavily banking is regulated and how much they are forced to dance to the tune of the gov't. Alas, in the end it is just much easier to go along to get along, which is what most banks do, particularly since it can be quite profitable to swim with the stream. At least for a little while.
Quote from: DGuller on April 17, 2011, 07:33:44 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 17, 2011, 06:40:31 PM
Fuck the social contract, I didn't sign on to having millions of worthless pieces of shit demanding handouts while contributing no effort themselves. Why should those who work hard, save money for the future, and take responsibility for themselves be required to bail out all the worthless layabouts who blow all their money and then some ob big-screen TVs and XBOX 360's and then want a handout because working would distract from their play time.
Fuck em all. There is nothing more antisocial than the "social contract", which rewards bad behavior and punishes responsibility. This is why the poor shouldn't be allowed to vote: they end up voting to rob the public until eventually society collapses under their irresponsibility.
:wacko:
Hans doesn't seem to have noticed who signs his paycheck.
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 17, 2011, 07:21:34 PM
What the gov't did is tell the banks that if they didn't participate in the subprime market they couldn't get access to FM&FM. That left the banks with little choice (other than exiting the real estate market entirely, of course). Furthermore, the gov't basically guaranteed the banks that they could sell the mortgages in the aftermarket to FM&FM, which meant that there was no risk for the banks.
I don't think this is accurate.
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 17, 2011, 07:59:38 PM
You are correct. On all counts. Of course the reason they held on to them because they were perceived as risk-free investments since they could always sell to FM&FM in the end.
The banks thought that Freddie and Fannie would buy up their mortgages at face value even after they'd defaulted? That doesn't sound right.
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 17, 2011, 07:21:34 PM
You end up with a new feudal society with the masses having their lives directed by an all-powerful bureaucracy, with little choices left for themselves because the bureaucrats deem the unwashed masses unfit to govern themselves. It's funny how the modern left has embraced aristocracy as a form of government.
I may have slept through my medieval government class, but I am pretty sure that definition is absolutely nothing like a feudal society.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 17, 2011, 07:54:06 PM
It's hilarious to see Neil, an actual conservative, absolutely not even come close to the level of comprehension of modern American proto-conservatism.
See what we're dealing with down here, Neil?
It's funny how prosperity seems to sometimes convince people that rolling back the last seven thousand years of social progress might be a good idea. It's not so much neoconservative as it is neolithic.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 17, 2011, 07:54:06 PM
It's hilarious to see Neil, an actual conservative, absolutely not even come close to the level of comprehension of modern American proto-conservatism.
See what we're dealing with down here, Neil?
It could be because American conservatives are reactionaries at best.
Quote from: DGuller on April 17, 2011, 09:50:18 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 17, 2011, 07:54:06 PM
It's hilarious to see Neil, an actual conservative, absolutely not even come close to the level of comprehension of modern American proto-conservatism.
See what we're dealing with down here, Neil?
It could be because American conservatives are reactionaries at best.
I think Hans just lost his composure again and let slip what he, and other conservatives, really think.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2011, 09:57:15 PM
I think Hans just lost his composure again and let slip what he, and other conservatives, really think.
Hard to see how this is not the case. You don't say such things unless you really mean them (and are too stupid to censor them).
Quote from: DGuller on April 17, 2011, 10:10:26 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2011, 09:57:15 PM
I think Hans just lost his composure again and let slip what he, and other conservatives, really think.
Hard to see how this is not the case. You don't say such things unless you really mean them (and are too stupid to censor them).
Last time he did this was back in 2005 when he was gloating about the imminent demise of the Democratic Party. I Kept the quote in my Sig for a while, so all would remember it. Unfortunately, it didn't work. Cause I forgot exactly what he said. :(
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 17, 2011, 07:59:38 PM
I remember back in 2009 reading an article in Businessweek about a small bank in Texas that weathered the crisis well because they refused to participate in the subprime market. The CEO was remarking how thru they decade he was constantly harrassed and threatened by federal regulators for refusing to participate in the subprime market. He of course was feeling a littlebit smug about the whole thing because his refusal to cave in to banking regulators left him standing strong after the collapse.
Actually I think I heard an interview with this guy on NPR around that time. Was the bank in like Amarillo, Lubbock or Waco, or another of the smaller Texas cities?
Standard & Poor's issued a negative outlook for US Treasuries today, which is what is causing the carnage in the stock market.
Those of you who think the deficit discussion is just a popularity contest please take note.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 18, 2011, 12:44:58 PM
Standard & Poor's issued a negative outlook for US Treasuries today, which is what is causing the carnage in the stock market.
Those of you who think the deficit discussion is just a popularity contest please take note.
Honest question: does the rating of the US debt matter? You'd think if there ever were an item where everyone would do their own due diligence rather than rely on outside ratings, US bond rating would be it.
I also wonder what the reason for the downgrade is. Is it because the debt level is dangerous from a financial standpoint, or is it due to the game of chicken being played with the debt ceiling?
Probably because Congress is ass.
Quote from: DGuller on April 18, 2011, 01:34:51 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 18, 2011, 12:44:58 PM
Standard & Poor's issued a negative outlook for US Treasuries today, which is what is causing the carnage in the stock market.
Those of you who think the deficit discussion is just a popularity contest please take note.
Honest question: does the rating of the US debt matter? You'd think if there ever were an item where everyone would do their own due diligence rather than rely on outside ratings, US bond rating would be it.
I also wonder what the reason for the downgrade is. Is it because the debt level is dangerous from a financial standpoint, or is it due to the game of chicken being played with the debt ceiling?
Plenty of institutions have rules or guidelines based on bond ratings.
Quote from: DGuller on April 18, 2011, 01:34:51 PM
Honest question: does the rating of the US debt matter? You'd think if there ever were an item where everyone would do their own due diligence rather than rely on outside ratings, US bond rating would be it.
Probably not for pros. From what I've read ratings follow the market. It might make a difference for retail investors.
Quote from: Barrister on April 18, 2011, 01:44:04 PM
Plenty of institutions have rules or guidelines based on bond ratings.
Insurance companies and pension funds are limited to investment grade (at least BBB??). I don't think a drop from AAA to AA would *force* anyone to unload.
Quote from: DGuller on April 18, 2011, 01:34:51 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 18, 2011, 12:44:58 PM
Standard & Poor's issued a negative outlook for US Treasuries today, which is what is causing the carnage in the stock market.
Those of you who think the deficit discussion is just a popularity contest please take note.
Honest question: does the rating of the US debt matter? You'd think if there ever were an item where everyone would do their own due diligence rather than rely on outside ratings, US bond rating would be it.
I also wonder what the reason for the downgrade is. Is it because the debt level is dangerous from a financial standpoint, or is it due to the game of chicken being played with the debt ceiling?
Doesn't the rating going down mean the US owes more interest on its borrowing, increasing the amount of budget that goes towards interest? For one thing anyway. More expensive to finance the debt, which isn't going down so fast anytime soon.
It seems to me that questions on the amount of debt have been lingering for a long while, so I'd think it's more that at present than questions on the debt ceiling.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 18, 2011, 01:39:55 PM
Probably because Congress is ass.
Kind of. I think they're basically worried that the US system won't be able to set a medium-term deficit reduction plan:
QuoteDespite these exceptional strengths, we note the U.S.'s fiscal profile has deteriorated steadily during the past decade and, in our view, has worsened further as a result of the recent financial crisis and ensuing recession. Moreover, more than two years after the beginning of the recent crisis, U.S. policymakers have still not agreed on a strategy to reverse recent fiscal deterioration or address longer-term fiscal pressures.
In 2003-2008, the U.S.'s general (total) government deficit fluctuated between 2% and 5% of GDP. Already noticeably larger than that of most 'AAA' rated sovereigns, it ballooned to more than 11% in 2009 and has yet to recover.
security discretionary spending to levels similar to those proposed by the Fiscal Commission in December 2010, holding growth in base security (excluding war expenditure) spending below inflation, and further cost-control measures related to health care programs. Revenue would be increased via both tax reform and allowing the 2001 and 2003 income and estate tax cuts to expire in 2012 as currently scheduled–though only for high-income households. We note that the President advocated the latter proposal last year before agreeing with Republicans to extend the cuts beyond their previously scheduled 2011 expiration. The compromise agreed upon in December likely provides short-term support for the economic recovery, but we believe it also weakens the U.S.'s fiscal outlook and, in our view, reduces the likelihood that Congress will allow these tax cuts to expire in the near future. We also note that previously enacted legislative mechanisms meant to enforce budgetary discipline on future Congresses have not always succeeded.
Key members in the U.S. House of Representatives have also advocated fiscal tightening of a similar magnitude, US$4.4 trillion, during the coming 10 years, but via different methods. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's plan seeks to balance the federal budget by 2040, in part by cutting non-defense spending. The plan also includes significantly reducing the scope of Medicare and Medicaid, while bringing top individual and corporate tax rates lower than those under the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.
We view President Obama's and Congressman Ryan's proposals as the starting point of a process aimed at broader engagement, which could result in substantial and lasting U.S. government fiscal consolidation. That said, we see the path to agreement as challenging because the gap between the parties remains wide. We believe there is a significant risk that Congressional negotiations could result in no agreement on a medium-term fiscal strategy until after the fall 2012 Congressional and Presidential elections. If so, the first budget proposal that could include related measures would be Budget 2014 (for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, 2013), and we believe a delay beyond that time is possible.
Quote from: ulmont on April 15, 2011, 01:15:02 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 15, 2011, 11:52:55 AM
Oh, shit.
You have until Monday.
Whew, finally filed it in the nick of time. Didn't take that much time. If only filing the tax return were as simple as filing the extension. :(
S & P says there's a 1/3 chance of a ratings downgrade in the next two years.
Quote from: Caliga on April 18, 2011, 07:16:08 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 17, 2011, 07:59:38 PM
I remember back in 2009 reading an article in Businessweek about a small bank in Texas that weathered the crisis well because they refused to participate in the subprime market. The CEO was remarking how thru they decade he was constantly harrassed and threatened by federal regulators for refusing to participate in the subprime market. He of course was feeling a littlebit smug about the whole thing because his refusal to cave in to banking regulators left him standing strong after the collapse.
Actually I think I heard an interview with this guy on NPR around that time. Was the bank in like Amarillo, Lubbock or Waco, or another of the smaller Texas cities?
That sounds about right, they had about five branch offices in total. They found it incredulous that the Feds would take such a large interest in what they were, or in this case weren't, doing. They did loans the old-fashioned way: loaning money to locals with good credit and holding the loans until maturity. Imagine that!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 17, 2011, 08:18:17 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 17, 2011, 07:59:38 PM
You are correct. On all counts. Of course the reason they held on to them because they were perceived as risk-free investments since they could always sell to FM&FM in the end.
The banks thought that Freddie and Fannie would buy up their mortgages at face value even after they'd defaulted? That doesn't sound right.
Think of it as playing musical chairs, just as with the dotcom bubble. They ended up believing the hype of zero risk, I didn't say they were smart. Herd mentality at it's worst. As soon as 2005 Businessweek ran a cover story on how rising home prices made homes unaffordable fr the middle class in many cases, especially california and south Florida. In most California coastal cities around 98% couldn't afford traditional mortgages. Anybody with half a brain should've jumped ship at that time, just as with the dotcom bubble. It is amazing the herd mentality that leads supposedly smart people off the cliff.
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 18, 2011, 11:08:22 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 17, 2011, 08:18:17 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 17, 2011, 07:59:38 PM
You are correct. On all counts. Of course the reason they held on to them because they were perceived as risk-free investments since they could always sell to FM&FM in the end.
The banks thought that Freddie and Fannie would buy up their mortgages at face value even after they'd defaulted? That doesn't sound right.
Think of it as playing musical chairs, just as with the dotcom bubble. They ended up believing the hype of zero risk, I didn't say they were smart. Herd mentality at it's worst. As soon as 2005 Businessweek ran a cover story on how rising home prices made homes unaffordable fr the middle class in many cases, especially california and south Florida. In most California coastal cities around 98% couldn't afford traditional mortgages. Anybody with half a brain should've jumped ship at that time, just as with the dotcom bubble. It is amazing the herd mentality that leads supposedly smart people off the cliff.
Yet these are the very people you keep wanting to reward with tax cuts.
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 18, 2011, 11:08:22 PM
Think of it as playing musical chairs, just as with the dotcom bubble. They ended up believing the hype of zero risk, I didn't say they were smart. Herd mentality at it's worst.
When you tried to pass all the blame to government regulation you implied very much that bankers were smart during the subprime bubble. Or at least not stupid.
We're officially screwed:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/most-support-budget-deal-but-oppose-cuts-to-major-programs/2011/04/19/AFK5077D_graphic.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Frw%2F2010-2019%2FWashingtonPost%2F2011%2F04%2F20%2FNational-Politics%2FGraphics%2Fweb-poll20-g.jpg&hash=eb34967476b7d5941ff98cf86e9b5a34a4d1676c)
Nothing will be done to fix the biggest budget expenses, doom and gloom, etc.
Ahhh, Dem populism is alive and well.
We've increased the Fed budget from $2.9 trillion a year 3 years ago to $3.8 trillion a year now.
And a proposal to ONLY increase it a further 2.8% a year is seen as ridiculously radical and fantasy by the Dems.
But no worries, we can just "tax the rich" and that will make it all work out. Even if it doesn't.
Yeah, and that's less populists then "Lets just cut aid to those damn welfare mom's".
Quote from: Razgovory on April 20, 2011, 04:09:37 PM
Yeah, and that's less populists then "Lets just cut aid to those damn welfare mom's".
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg607.imageshack.us%2Fimg607%2F7969%2Fpurplez.jpg&hash=79f793a9a7cdc1b8194100e13240a41cebad73af) (http://img607.imageshack.us/i/purplez.jpg/)
Quote from: Berkut on April 20, 2011, 01:39:52 PM
But no worries, we can just "tax the rich" and that will make it all work out. Even if it doesn't.
I don't think it's necessarily populism. I think the truth is - and I thought this during Hans's rant earlier - that most Americans like and support Medicare and Social Security. Any deficit reduction plan that rests on cost control that won't actually guarantee they'll continue to do what they do just won't have support from what I can see.
No doubt you need to reform the way they work - though again I think the real issue is the uniquely American healthcare inflation problem - to be sustainable in the medium term, but similarly you need tax reform and, in the short term, spending cuts. As S&P point out you need a mix of revenue and spending measures. It's not enough to decry Dem populism when Ryan (who was on Bowles-Simpson but voted against it, as did all the other elected Republicans, because it increased taxes and didn't abolish healthcare reform) has published a plan that is based on mythical economic figures (as is Obama's budget, in fairness), that is politically implausible in terms of Medicare, that actually cuts taxes and that simply halves discretionary spending over the next decade without explaining quite how. KRonn's point earlier about Ryan's plan taking until the 2030s to eliminate the deficit is right, but that's because he cuts taxes and spending - which isn't the most efficient way to cut deficits. For what it's worth the mix in Obama's proposals - as reported over here - are 75% spending cuts and a reduction of 8% of GDP over the next few years, both are roughly equivalent to our deficit reduction programme and have been approvingly quoted by the government.
To be fair to the Democrats they've passed a number of cost control measures for Medicare and are proposing more. Hans dismissed them earlier but the Kaiser Foundation and the OECD think they could be significant - though neither, nor the CBO are sure. The reforms have, for the most part, never been done on a large scale so no-one actually knows how they'll work.
But you're right taxing the rich won't work. Reduce tax expenditure, lower rates, broaden the base; reform Medicare; and, in the short term, cut defence and other discretionary budgets. However I do worry you may need a crisis for anything to get passed - and one will come.
I would include some sort of guidance mechanism. I do like the idea of a % of GDP hard spending cap. Or something similar which would be difficult to overcome during normal times.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 20, 2011, 04:54:11 PM
I would include some sort of guidance mechanism. I do like the idea of a % of GDP hard spending cap. Or something similar which would be difficult to overcome during normal times.
To be honest I think that's flim-flam for politicians to look good. If Congress chooses to respect it they will - and it doesn't necessarily address deficits. I mean the pay as you go rules are an example. I think Congress and Clinton started creative accounting to get round it, then they expire and you get the Bush tax cuts and Medicare D. They're brought back in but they've been changed this year so tax cuts don't count as expenditure. It's a nice idea but what really matters is the political will.
Things are going to have to get much worse before most Americans will tolerate serious spending cuts.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 20, 2011, 04:35:21 PM
To be fair to the Democrats they've passed a number of cost control measures for Medicare and are proposing more. Hans dismissed them earlier but the Kaiser Foundation and the OECD think they could be significant - though neither, nor the CBO are sure. The reforms have, for the most part, never been done on a large scale so no-one actually knows how they'll work.
What are you referring to? The only cost control measures I'm aware of are reducing the overall Medicare budget, computerizing medical records, and death panels. Oh yeah, and the new proposal to appoint a commission to study it.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 20, 2011, 04:23:05 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 20, 2011, 04:09:37 PM
Yeah, and that's less populists then "Lets just cut aid to those damn welfare mom's".
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg607.imageshack.us%2Fimg607%2F7969%2Fpurplez.jpg&hash=79f793a9a7cdc1b8194100e13240a41cebad73af) (http://img607.imageshack.us/i/purplez.jpg/)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ft1.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcTU6mBa3Ste_z850H72QVSNc4hiYAbf8Y2xxibzH8ooUOLmYebz%26amp%3Bt%3D1&hash=2e0cb96e4e477483b2f991ba5d4fa6c59d01615f)
Quote from: Berkut on April 20, 2011, 01:39:52 PM
But no worries, we can just "tax the rich" and that will make it all work out. Even if it doesn't.
Well, you sure punched the shit out of that strawman! Feel like a hero, now?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2011, 07:44:43 PM
What are you referring to? The only cost control measures I'm aware of are reducing the overall Medicare budget, computerizing medical records, and death panels. Oh yeah, and the new proposal to appoint a commission to study it.
Who is proposing death panels?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 20, 2011, 04:54:11 PM
I would include some sort of guidance mechanism. I do like the idea of a % of GDP hard spending cap. Or something similar which would be difficult to overcome during normal times.
You talkin' about the Social Security Lock Box?
Doesn't work. Pure hype and bullshit. I hate those kinds of gimmicks, because they avoid actual decision-making.
I say we go back to the "pay - go" statute that was in effect before Dubyah came into office.
Quote from: Neil on April 20, 2011, 08:12:36 PM
Who is proposing death panels?
It got slipped back in by executive order.
I'm sure that even if you give them a chance, Congress will still find a way to avoid making a decision.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2011, 08:13:50 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 20, 2011, 08:12:36 PM
Who is proposing death panels?
It got slipped back in by executive order.
I don't think they used the term 'death panels'. Using such emotive terms is useless, and poisons understanding and dialogue. I think that you are a liar.
Quote from: Neil on April 20, 2011, 08:23:08 PM
I don't think they used the term 'death panels'. Using such emotive terms is useless, and poisons understanding and dialogue. I think that you are a liar.
Kay.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2011, 08:23:54 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 20, 2011, 08:23:08 PM
I don't think they used the term 'death panels'. Using such emotive terms is useless, and poisons understanding and dialogue. I think that you are a liar.
Kay.
So we are in agreement then?
Quote from: Neil on April 20, 2011, 08:28:34 PM
So we are in agreement then?
No. But that's OK too.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2011, 08:29:28 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 20, 2011, 08:28:34 PM
So we are in agreement then?
No. But that's OK too.
Indeed. You have the right to disagree with Me, but it's not the optimal thing to do.
Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2011, 08:07:42 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 20, 2011, 01:39:52 PM
But no worries, we can just "tax the rich" and that will make it all work out. Even if it doesn't.
Well, you sure punched the shit out of that strawman! Feel like a hero, now?
Man, I sure wish that was a strawman.
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2011, 05:59:45 AM
Man, I sure wish that was a strawman.
Your wish has come true. Well, actually, it was true all along, but the effect is the same.
Quote from: grumbler on April 21, 2011, 06:23:37 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2011, 05:59:45 AM
Man, I sure wish that was a strawman.
Your wish has come true. Well, actually, it was true all along, but the effect is the same.
Right, because nobody has argued that the solution to the debt problem is to raise taxes, and specifically on the wealthy. Clearly a strawman.
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2011, 06:36:44 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 21, 2011, 06:23:37 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2011, 05:59:45 AM
Man, I sure wish that was a strawman.
Your wish has come true. Well, actually, it was true all along, but the effect is the same.
Right, because nobody has argued that the solution to the debt problem is to raise taxes, and specifically on the wealthy. Clearly a strawman.
It's comforting to isolate and focus on one item, and concentrate on that, isn't it? How tre' Republican.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 21, 2011, 06:46:19 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2011, 06:36:44 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 21, 2011, 06:23:37 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2011, 05:59:45 AM
Man, I sure wish that was a strawman.
Your wish has come true. Well, actually, it was true all along, but the effect is the same.
Right, because nobody has argued that the solution to the debt problem is to raise taxes, and specifically on the wealthy. Clearly a strawman.
It's comforting to isolate and focus on one item, and concentrate on that, isn't it? How tre' Republican.
Except that my post was actually about the ballooning budget, not about taxing the rich - that is just the part that grumbler chose to include in his response. So yeah...not at all concentrating on just one item at all - in fact, my post was pretty clearly focused more on the vastly increasing federal budget than it was on the fantasy solution you've proposed.
Of course, even if I had chosen to only concentrate on one item, that would not make it a strawman in any case.
And YOU certainly seem to think that the solution is to just raise taxes - I haven't ever heard you advocate for reducing spending, or even slowing down the increase in spending.
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2011, 06:36:44 AM
Right, because nobody has argued that the solution to the debt problem is to raise taxes, and specifically on the wealthy. Clearly a strawman.
I was noting the strawman you actually used, "we can just "tax the rich" and that will make it all work out," not the weasel-wording you now use to avoid conceding the strawman.
And I don't think anyone has argued that the solution to the deficit is just to raise taxes. Even the most ardent tax-solution types concede that some kind of spending cuts are necessary.
Just in case you are actually interested in debating this and not simply engaging in hyperbole.
Quote from: grumbler on April 21, 2011, 07:11:36 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2011, 06:36:44 AM
Right, because nobody has argued that the solution to the debt problem is to raise taxes, and specifically on the wealthy. Clearly a strawman.
I was noting the strawman you actually used, "we can just "tax the rich" and that will make it all work out," not the weasel-wording you now use to avoid conceding the strawman.
Ahh, right, weasel wording. That is what I thought this was about. Carry on.
Quote
And I don't think anyone has argued that the solution to the deficit is just to raise taxes. Even the most ardent tax-solution types concede that some kind of spending cuts are necessary.
Incorrect.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/tax-day-events_b_849840.html
Quote
In the latest budget deal, our politicians could have tackled the deficit by stopping the flow of these ill-gotten billions to corporations. Instead they cut billions from "wasteful" programs that do "wasteful" things, like create new jobs, drive economic growth, and help the needy and our nation's children. It's democracy in reverse and it sickens me.
I think that is exactly the message that some on the left are sending.
Another example:
QuoteUnnecessary Austerity, Unnecessary Shutdown
By Chuck Collins, Alison Goldberg, Scott Klinger, Sam Pizzigati
Reversing tax giveaways to the super-rich and the nation's largest corporations could raise $4 trillion within a decade and avert possible government closures.
Opening title and summary of the article here:
http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/unnecessary_austerity_unnecessary_government_shutdown (http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/unnecessary_austerity_unnecessary_government_shutdown)
Another:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leon-friedman/fixing-the-deficit-by-get_b_850655.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leon-friedman/fixing-the-deficit-by-get_b_850655.html)
QuoteThe latest Congressional compromise on the federal budget reduces funds for police and fire agencies and cuts $600 million from community health care centers. Is there another way to reduce the deficit, rather than depriving the lower and middle classes of necessary government benefits, such as Medicaid and Medicare or educational grants?
...
Instead on increasing income taxes, which might arguably affect single proprietorships and small businesses, we could impose a tax based on wealth. We do consider the total wealth of an individual in determining the estate tax when a person dies. And local government units assess an annual tax based on the value of a person's real property. Many European countries also have a wealth tax -- that is, a tax on the total wealth (net worth) of each individual household, which must be paid annually.
Our federal government could impose such a tax on an emergency basis, to be applied only during the immediate financial crisis, say for the next five years or even ten years.
Quote
Budget Crisis? Duh, Tax the Rich!
By Robert Parry February 24, 2011
A great tragedy of the United States is that the answer to many of the country's domestic problems is obvious, even simple, but can't be done because of a dominating political/media dynamic that rules that solution out.
The solution to these many problems – from the budget deficit to crumbling infrastructure, from mass joblessness to income inequality, from environmental degradation to educational shortfalls -- is to raise taxes on the rich and to use that money to get the United States back on track and advancing toward the future.
...
However, it may be the most important debate for the future of the United States and the health of the American Republic. If the government doesn't intervene through its taxing authority to redistribute some wealth that now is concentrating among the ultra-rich, the middle class is likely to continue shrinking and the ranks of the poor swelling.
As the rich increasingly dominate the political process through unlimited campaign spending and the financing of sophisticated propaganda – like Fox News and right-wing talk radio – the policy battles will continue to be fought on ground favorable to the Right: more cuts in public spending, more reductions in retirement and health programs, more union-busting.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2011/022411.html (http://www.consortiumnews.com/2011/022411.html)
Just google "tax the rich" and you can find lots of articles from people claiming that taxing the wealthy, or taking their wealth in some fashion or another, is a necessary and sufficient solution to the problem.
I guess actually citing people making this argument is just more weasel words though.
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2011, 07:19:18 AM
Quote
And I don't think anyone has argued that the solution to the deficit is just to raise taxes. Even the most ardent tax-solution types concede that some kind of spending cuts are necessary.
Incorrect.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/tax-day-events_b_849840.html
Quote
In the latest budget deal, our politicians could have tackled the deficit by stopping the flow of these ill-gotten billions to corporations. Instead they cut billions from "wasteful" programs that do "wasteful" things, like create new jobs, drive economic growth, and help the needy and our nation's children. It's democracy in reverse and it sickens me.
I think that is exactly the message that some on the left are sending.
I think you need to re-read what you just posted. Moore isn't saying that the deficit could be solved in this fashion, he just notes that it could have been "tackled" in the latest budget deal but cutting tax breaks rather than cutting the spending that they cut. I don't agree (Moore is the most extreme moron one can find on the topic, which makes your failure to find even him saying what you claim in your strawman even more telling), but there you are.
You claimed "I don't think anyone has argued that the solution to the deficit is to just raise taxes". I just provided you with several examples of people claiming that the solution to the deficit is to raise taxes on the rich. They don't mention anything else, and in several instances (including Moore) explicitly cite raising taxes in counter-point to complaints about reducing spending.
Hell, if that won't convince you that people are making the argument, I don't think anything will. talk about weasel words.
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2011, 07:31:58 AM
Just google "tax the rich" and you can find lots of articles from people claiming that taxing the wealthy, or taking their wealth in some fashion or another, is a necessary and sufficient solution to the problem.
I guess actually citing people making this argument is just more weasel words though.
None of the people you cite use the words you use, or propose that taxation alone solves the problem.
Now, I am sure that if you crawl far enough up the asshole of the left, you will find someone in some blog somewhere arguing that taxation alone is enough, but they are not arguing that here.
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2011, 08:14:08 AM
You claimed "I don't think anyone has argued that the solution to the deficit is to just raise taxes". I just provided you with several examples of people claiming that the solution to the deficit is to raise taxes on the rich. They don't mention anything else, and in several instances (including Moore) explicitly cite raising taxes in counter-point to complaints about reducing spending.
Hell, if that won't convince you that people are making the argument, I don't think anything will. talk about weasel words.
I believe people are making an argument when you show me people making an argument. Showing people who make part of the argument and asserting that they must reject any part they don't explicitly mention is engaging in strawman argumentation.
Quote from: grumbler on April 21, 2011, 08:31:38 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2011, 07:31:58 AM
Just google "tax the rich" and you can find lots of articles from people claiming that taxing the wealthy, or taking their wealth in some fashion or another, is a necessary and sufficient solution to the problem.
I guess actually citing people making this argument is just more weasel words though.
None of the people you cite use the words you use
So I have to use the exact same words they use in order to NOT be creating a strawman?
Quote, or propose that taxation alone solves the problem.
QuoteBudget Crisis? Duh, Tax the Rich!
By Robert Parry February 24, 2011
A great tragedy of the United States is that the answer to many of the country's domestic problems is obvious, even simple, but can't be done because of a dominating political/media dynamic that rules that solution out.
Hmm, seems like he is in fact saying that THE answer is to get the money from the rich.
And yes, some of them do in fact claim that the sole solution to the problem is to raise taxes on the wealthy. When you make an argument of the form "We have a problem, and the solution is A" then you are in fact claiming that the sole solution is A. I guess we could assume that they really mean the solution is A+B+C, but since they only state A, I think assuming they really mean AB and C would be the strawman, not assuming that what they say is in fact what they mean.
Quote from: grumbler on April 21, 2011, 08:33:45 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2011, 08:14:08 AM
You claimed "I don't think anyone has argued that the solution to the deficit is to just raise taxes". I just provided you with several examples of people claiming that the solution to the deficit is to raise taxes on the rich. They don't mention anything else, and in several instances (including Moore) explicitly cite raising taxes in counter-point to complaints about reducing spending.
Hell, if that won't convince you that people are making the argument, I don't think anything will. talk about weasel words.
I believe people are making an argument when you show me people making an argument.
I've given you several examples of people arguing that the solution to the deficit problem is to raise taxes on the wealthy.
Of course, I only need a single example to refute your claim that "nobody" has made such an argument, but I am kind like that.
And like I said, you can find plenty of other examples of this attitude out there, in blog posts, op-eds, comments, etc., etc.
Quote
Showing people who make part of the argument and asserting that they must reject any part they don't explicitly mention is engaging in strawman argumentation.
Showing people who make a complete argument, and claiming that they are making that argument is a pretty fool-proof refutation of a accusation of creating strawmen.
Berkut got trolled.
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2011, 08:44:10 AM
None of the people you cite use the words you use
So I have to use the exact same words they use[/quote]
You can use whatever words you want.
QuoteBudget Crisis? Duh, Tax the Rich!
By Robert Parry February 24, 2011
A great tragedy of the United States is that the answer to many of the country's domestic problems is obvious, even simple, but can't be done because of a dominating political/media dynamic that rules that solution out.
Hmm, seems like he is in fact saying that THE answer is to get the money from the rich.[/quote]
The answer "to many of the country's domestic problems." Not THE answer to all budget woes.
QuoteAnd yes, some of them do in fact claim that the sole solution to the problem is to raise taxes on the wealthy.
Then why don't you cite those arguments instead of quote mining a bunch of people who don't say that and then arguing that they reject anything they do not specifically propose?
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2011, 08:53:00 AM
I've given you several examples of people arguing that the solution to the deficit problem is to raise taxes on the wealthy.
You have given examples of people who have said that raising taxes on the wealthy was necessary. That's not an argument that raising taxes on the wealthy was the
only action necessary.
QuoteOf course, I only need a single example to refute your claim that "nobody" has made such an argument, but I am kind like that.
Yes, that's all you still need. Someone here would be best, since this is a discussion taking place here, but anyone would be a start.
QuoteShowing people who make a complete argument, and claiming that they are making that argument is a pretty fool-proof refutation of a accusation of creating strawmen.
When you do that you won't be making a strawman argument. Until then, though, you are putting words in their mouth (aka creating a strawman).
Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2011, 10:21:52 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 21, 2011, 10:17:18 AM
Berkut got trolled.
I think you are right. :(
That's a better weasel than the others, anyway! :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2011, 07:44:43 PM
What are you referring to? The only cost control measures I'm aware of are reducing the overall Medicare budget, computerizing medical records, and death panels. Oh yeah, and the new proposal to appoint a commission to study it.
There's the death panels and computerising records - which has had huge efficiency impacts in the UK, actually, the US is the worst in the developed world for health IT. The death panel could have a major impact:
http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/8150.pdf
I believe the commission will be pushing local pilots of cost control. Of the top of my head the ones explicitly in the bill are changing payment from per-procedure to bundled ones and charging hospitals for above average infection rates (our government's pushing a similar idea of paying by 'health outcomes').
But most important is changing the costs of healthcare generally. Medicare's got a lot more expensive but it's actually the overall changes - such as taxing the 'cadillac plans' or, hopefully, the development of more of a market (Hewitt and Towers Watson both think the bill encourages high deductible insurance, which the right's long argued should make individuals more responsible) that will control costs. But healthcare reform - like Medicare or public sector pension reform - is really a medium to long-term project that won't have an immediate impact on the budget but is essential.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 22, 2011, 08:43:20 AM
But most important is changing the costs of healthcare generally. Medicare's got a lot more expensive but it's actually the overall changes - such as taxing the 'cadillac plans' or, hopefully, the development of more of a market (Hewitt and Towers Watson both think the bill encourages high deductible insurance, which the right's long argued should make individuals more responsible) that will control costs. But healthcare reform - like Medicare or public sector pension reform - is really a medium to long-term project that won't have an immediate impact on the budget but is essential.
Agree with the last bit (and add social security to it). Those aren't really budgetary issues.
But it will take a sea change to get costs under control in the US, since the US is where the major drug companies make the vast majority of their profits, and where everyone has been accustomed to seeing absolutely ludicrous price tags and ignoring them, because "nobody pays retail." I have a CPAP machine for which the plastic mask costs $275 "retail." The plastic "humidifier" which has an internal plastic water case but which contains no moving (or even metal) parts is $305. I have a high-deductible ($1500 a year) health care plan that is basically wrecked if I have to replace anything on this CPAP machine at anything like retail prices (I am told to replace the mask every three months!) And I have no way to appeal or to shop around, because this is the provider my plan allows for. Not much scope here fr cost controls.
If everyone had a plan like mine, and the plan didn't mandate providers, then there would be market forces at work in health care. As it is, I don't see anything changing unless the government gives itself the power to negotiate prices with providers, and I don't see that happening.
This just shows that free market mechanisms are highly effective. Give the free market perverse incentives, and you'll get one hell of a perversion in return.
I liked the monthly wheelchair rental of 200+ bucks when you can buy one for 200. Nope, had to rent one before they would let me out.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 22, 2011, 11:08:16 AM
I liked the monthly wheelchair rental of 200+ bucks when you can buy one for 200. Nope, had to rent one before they would let me out.
Probably a rule required by their malpractice insurer.
Quote from: DGuller on April 22, 2011, 11:04:15 AM
This just shows that free market mechanisms are highly effective. Give the free market perverse incentives, and you'll get one hell of a perversion in return.
Yeah. I remember reading a report that said in areas of healthcare where the US system is designed to be efficient it's one of the most cost-effectiv in the world; in everything else it's just massively expensive.
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 17, 2011, 06:52:42 PM
Of course the whole cause of the crisis was that the gov't required banks to make mortgage loans to people who couldn't afford it as part of their idea of a social contract. The whole subprime market was a symptom of the same disease.
We had this discussion before in 09 - the thread is around somewhere. To the extent there is a conservative spin to put on the financial crisis that makes sense, the proper target is the role of Frannie and Freddie, not CRA which did not contribute significantly and is small potatoes anyway. But that doesn't let the private actors off the hook b/c even the at the end of the day, the parastatals were only powerful facilitators; it took a fundamentally disfunctional banking culture to make it happen.
One thing that bothers me about the narrative that has taken hold about the 07-09 financial crisis is the tendency to describe it as crisis in subprime. If subprime had the only problem, we wouldn't have had the crisis, or at least not that big of one. Even at its height, subprime was not a big enough market in dollar numbers alone .
The IMF estimates that total US bank writeoffs from the financial crisis amounted to $885 billion. Of this $370 billion can be traced to writedowns on residential mortgages or mortgage backed securities. That includes all mortgages, whether subprime, alt-a or prime. I don;t have the figures that break this down specifically, and there is probably no way to do that because of the way mortgages were sliced and combined into securities. Deliquency rates for subprime reached 25-30% in subprime as compared to "only" 8+% in prime (ie more than triple), but then again prime mortgages were a much bigger piece of the overall market than prime in terms of dollar value -probably at least 3 times as much as subprime issurance.
Meanwhile, banks additionally wrote down:
$180 billion in consumer credit
$135 billion in commercial RE loans or commercial RE backed securities
$72 billion in corporate loans and loan securities
$118 billion on exposures to foreign entity loans ans securities.
Put simply this was a full-fledged finance-asset bubble meltdown, with the problems arising and the consequences felt across all the asset classes. As a weak asset class, subprime was one of the first to experience troubles. And because the asset bubble was more pronounces in residential RE than elsewhere, it is fair to say that subprime was more than just the canary in the coal mine - it was a significant contributor in its own right, probably about 25% overall if I had to put a number on it. But the retrospective focus on subprime misses the bigger picture.
When you talk about "banks" are you including the losses of nonbanks like Merryl, AIG, Countrywide, etc?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 22, 2011, 07:52:02 PM
When you talk about "banks" are you including the losses of nonbanks like Merryl, AIG, Countrywide, etc?
It's not totally clear but it appears they are including everything except insurance, hedge funds, PE, etc. So yes to Countrywide and Merrill but no to AIG. However, AIG's problems went well beyond specific problems with subprime.
Quote
http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/26/real_estate/february_case_shiller/index.htm?hpt=T2
Home prices in 'double dip'
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Home prices in February sank 3.3% to just above the post-crisis lows reached in April 2009. It was the eighth straight month of declines.
Home values are down 32% from their peak set in May of 2006, according to the S&P/Case-Shiller index of home prices in 20 cities.
"There is very little, if any, good news about housing," said David Blitzer, spokesman for S&P. "Prices continue to weaken, trends in sales and construction are disappointing."
The drop has come in two stages. First, the index recorded 36 months of nearly uninterrupted declines after reaching the spring 2006 peak. Then came a 13-month upswing during which the index recorded a 5% gain. That rebound ended last June.
Since then, the index has recorded losses every month and it has now edged closer to a new bottom -- the dreaded double-dip. (8 best shrinking places to live)
The index now stands at 139.27, just a whisker above the first low, which came in April of 2009, when the index was at 139.26.
Of the 20 housing markets covered by the index, only Washington recorded a price increase from last year -- 2.7%.
In Phoenix, where prices are off a whopping 56% from their peak, prices fell 8.4% over the past 12 months, more than any other metro area. Minneapolis was close behind with a 8.3% drop and Chicago prices plunged 7.6%.
Price rebound a distant memory
Economists say the initial rebound after the financial crisis was artificially inflated by government initiatives.
Lawmakers implemented a tax credit for home buyers. And the Federal Reserve helped keep mortgage rates low.
Also artificially supporting prices at the time was a decrease in the supply of foreclosed properties. That was the result of government loan modification programs, but many foreclosed properties have again come back to market.
Distressed properties -- bank repossessions and short sales -- now account for more than 30% of sales, and they've been selling at about a 34% discount to conventional sales. ('10 foreclosure hotspots')
Peter Morici, who teaches finances at the Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland, is one pessimist. He thinks homebuyers are hunkering down, unconvinced that conditions will improve.
"There is deep pessimism about the economy," Morici said, "and people are reluctant to make the commitment to buy homes."
On the other hand, according to Mark Fleming, chief economist for CoreLogic, housing markets may not really be as bad as the data indicate.
Fleming thinks you have to discount the impact of foreclosed properties. Exclude them, he said, and you see more stability.
When home prices decline, it can lead to more foreclosures. Price drops force mortgage borrowers underwater. They then owe more on their loan balances than their homes are worth. That, in itself, leads to more foreclosures.
Underwater borrowers have no home equity to tap should they run into financial hot water. Being underwater can also freeze them out potential mortgage refinancings because banks won't approve new loans for homes whose values have dropped below old loan balances.
"That puts more homeowners at risk of foreclosure," said Anthony Sanders, director of Real Estate Entrepreneurship at George Mason University. "Refinance credit has evaporated for many borrowers."
It's a vicious cycle of home price decreases, which cause more foreclosure, which depress prices and so on and on.
"Now you know why Mr. Bernanke has been trying to inflate home prices," said Sanders, referring to the Federal Reserve chairman.
Prices will likely continue to fall for a while, according to Chen. Conditions will start to improve once the economic recovery gains traction and job growth improves.
Am I just kind of stupid to think that while this may be painful, trying to stop it from happening has and will continue to have more negative long term consequences than positive?
The market needs to correct - right? Trying to artificially inflate housing prices - how is that a good thing?
Yeah, but are they overcorrecting...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcr4re.com%2Fcharts%2Fchart-images%2FNominalHousePricesFeb2011.jpg&hash=a0030413542c1d582b265b714699afdee1d0fbff)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcr4re.com%2Fcharts%2Fchart-images%2FRealHousePriceFeb2011.jpg&hash=6e7076e9dfbabe2888a33914c2e0e41edb916779)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcr4re.com%2Fcharts%2Fchart-images%2FPriceRentFeb2011.jpg&hash=7c3014c334e42aaf252bbeb4fc8fd25a84cf29e0)
It looks on the surface like we've hit the rational historical price points again. I don't know though.
Well, perhaps - but isn't that also the nature of bubbles? Hence the reason why to NOT artificially infalte housing prices in the first place, because the adjustment is always rather nasty?
I don't think saying "Gee, artifically increasing housing prices was a bad thing, and cause the mess we are in now, but now that we are in the mess, the way to combat the over-correction is more of what got us all screwed up to begin with!"
Perhaps if there was some kind of possible short term way of dampening the over-correction, that would make sense. Of course, the reality is that anything that is done won't go away even after the need for it has, so we are almost certainly just better off taking our lumps and letting the market get back on track, as painful as that might be...
We won't do that, of course. To much political hay to be made propping up housing prices - the same hay that got us into this mess to begin with.
Quote from: Berkut on April 26, 2011, 12:49:36 PM
Am I just kind of stupid to think that while this may be painful, trying to stop it from happening has and will continue to have more negative long term consequences than positive?
The market needs to correct - right? Trying to artificially inflate housing prices - how is that a good thing?
I am not sure that anyone is trying to "artificially inflate" housing prices. I think that they will re-inflate on their own, as the common sense of consumers convinces them that buying is better than renting, or that moving up is better than continuing to live in a house that is too small.
Who says Republicans can't get serious about the deficit?
Quote
Boehner opens door to cutting U.S. oil tax breaks
(Reuters) - Congress should consider cutting multibillion-dollar subsidies to oil companies amid rising concern over skyrocketing gas prices, House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner said on Monday.
"It's certainly something we should be looking at," Boehner said in an ABC News interview. "We're in a time when the federal government's short on revenues. They ought to be paying their fair share."
"Everybody wants to go after the oil companies and frankly, they've got some part of this to blame," he said.
But Boehner said he also wanted to "see all the facts" first.
Boehner's remarks echoed concerns expressed this month by President Barack Obama, who asked Congress to repeal $3.6 billion in annual oil, natural gas and coal subsidies, a move that would total $46.2 billion over a decade and help pay for clean energy initiatives.
But Boehner's comments go against Republican orthodoxy because the party traditionally is very supportive of the oil and gas industry and rejects most policies that would raise the costs of domestic energy production.
Boehner also suggested that Obama could lose the 2012 election if gas prices do not decline.
Rising fuel prices are a persistent concern for the White House, which is worried about their impact on the economy as Obama mounts his run for re-election.
A New York Times-CBS News poll found that 70 percent of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track and analysts believe gas prices are a main reason for this.
The Obama administration tried unsuccessfully during the last Congress to cut tax breaks and subsidies for fossil fuels.
The attempt to end the subsidies has been strongly condemned by oil and gas companies, which argue that abolishing the tax breaks would reduce domestic drilling, cost jobs and increase U.S. reliance on foreign energy suppliers.
"This is a tired old argument we've been hearing for two years now. If the president were serious about job creation, he would be working with us to develop American oil and gas by American workers for American consumers," the American Petroleum Institute's chief economist John Felmy said.
Unrest in the Middle East has pushed crude oil prices above $110 a barrel. U.S. retail gasoline prices hit $3.88 a gallon over the last week, the highest level since the summer of 2008 when prices reached a record $4.11 a gallon, the Energy Department said on Monday.
Asked who the American people should blame for high gas prices, Boehner pointed the finger at Obama and said the president won't win re-election of gas prices are "$5 or $6" a gallon.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/26/us-usa-oil-boehner-idUSTRE73P03H20110426
...But I want to see all the facts first. We can't just go slashing corporate welfare willy-nilly.
Quote from: Berkut on April 26, 2011, 12:49:36 PM
Am I just kind of stupid to think that while this may be painful, trying to stop it from happening has and will continue to have more negative long term consequences than positive?
The market needs to correct - right? Trying to artificially inflate housing prices - how is that a good thing?
I agree to a point. Home prices need to fall from the highs, since the highs were kinda caused by a bubble. However, you don't want the drop in prices to be self-perpetuating. Let the whole thing free-fall, and not only do the people who deserve it lose their houses, but even the responsible homeowners who simply didn't plan for a catastrophe will get it.
It's a tricky tight rope to walk. It's extremely hard to engineer a soft landing from asset price bubbles, without causing needless collateral damage, which is why it's a good idea to avoid them in the first place.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 26, 2011, 01:00:32 PM
Yeah, but are they overcorrecting...
It looks on the surface like we've hit the rational historical price points again. I don't know though.
It looks close, but IMO we're not there yet. I think the early 90ies level was about where we should be, and we're still 10 points off on the real price graph. The real prices should stay about flat, historically the real returns are zero for house prices.
Quote from: DGuller on April 26, 2011, 01:58:41 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 26, 2011, 12:49:36 PM
Am I just kind of stupid to think that while this may be painful, trying to stop it from happening has and will continue to have more negative long term consequences than positive?
The market needs to correct - right? Trying to artificially inflate housing prices - how is that a good thing?
I agree to a point. Home prices need to fall from the highs, since the highs were kinda caused by a bubble. However, you don't want the drop in prices to be self-perpetuating. Let the whole thing free-fall, and not only do the people who deserve it lose their houses, but even the responsible homeowners who simply didn't plan for a catastrophe will get it.
How so?
I don't really understand that - if a responsible homeowner could afford their house payments before, why can't they afford their house payments after the correction? I certainly did not buy my house under an assumption that my ability to afford to make my payments was contingent on the price of my house not falling...
Quote from: Berkut on April 26, 2011, 02:23:00 PM
How so?
I don't really understand that - if a responsible homeowner could afford their house payments before, why can't they afford their house payments after the correction? I certainly did not buy my house under an assumption that my ability to afford to make my payments was contingent on the price of my house not falling...
Being underwater does not have to be fatal, but it does severely restrict your options. You can't move without realizing the loss, for example, or do anything that involves selling your house in general. Also house equity is a rainy day option for many people, even if they don't plan to tap into it. With that gone, many people's finances are on a more shaky ground.
DG and Berkut: are we actually discussing an actual, existing policy here, or just expressing theoretical points about a hypothetical "artificially inflating" of home prices?
Quote from: grumbler on April 26, 2011, 02:42:37 PM
DG and Berkut: are we actually discussing an actual, existing policy here, or just expressing theoretical points about a hypothetical "artificially inflating" of home prices?
Both for me. My points are mainly hypothetical, but things like credits for new home buyers weren't hypothetical.
Quote from: DGuller on April 26, 2011, 02:44:58 PM
Both for me. My points are mainly hypothetical, but things like credits for new home buyers weren't hypothetical.
I thought the credits for new home buyers was long since expired. If that's the concrete example, I'd say it seemed to cost a lot for what good it did.
Quote from: grumbler on April 26, 2011, 02:48:36 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 26, 2011, 02:44:58 PM
Both for me. My points are mainly hypothetical, but things like credits for new home buyers weren't hypothetical.
I thought the credits for new home buyers was long since expired. If that's the concrete example, I'd say it seemed to cost a lot for what good it did.
They did expire a while ago, hence the second dip in house prices.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 26, 2011, 01:52:02 PM
Who says Republicans can't get serious about the deficit?
QuoteA New York Times-CBS News poll found that 70 percent of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track and analysts believe gas prices are a main reason for this.
...
Asked who the American people should blame for high gas prices, Boehner pointed the finger at Obama and said the president won't win re-election of gas prices are "$5 or $6" a gallon.
...But I want to see all the facts first. We can't just go slashing corporate welfare willy-nilly.
Too funny. Like the government has anything to do with the price of a fungible commodity traded globally on a single currency. They'd be better off going back to bitching about his birth certificate.
At least as of a few months ago Obama was propping up the home market through ongoing losses at Freddie and Fannie.
Money is right about the global nature of the oil and gas markets (don't know about coal). The original rationale was to increase domestic exploration and production, i.e. "lessen dependence on imported oil." If we don't care about that any more that's cool.