Republican Leaders Voted for Debt They Blame on Obama
dre
Washington.
“In Washington, more spending and more debt is business as usual,” the
Republican leader from Ohio said in a televised address yesterday amid
debate over the U.S. debt. “I’ve got news for Washington - those days
are over.”
Yet the speaker, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, House Budget
Chairman Paul Ryan and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell all
voted for major drivers of the nation’s debt during the past decade:
Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts and
Medicare prescription drug benefits. They also voted for the Troubled
Asset Relief Program, or TARP, that rescued financial institutions and
the auto industry.
Together, a Bloomberg News analysis shows, these initiatives added
$3.4 trillion to the nation’s accumulated debt and to its current
annual budget deficit of $1.5 trillion. "
Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
veto?
Emperor Wonko the Sane
Gee, I wonder why they didn't mention the stimulus and Obumblecare?
Doug
Tom Enright
...and Obama said we should stop raising the debt ceiling. The
difference is Cantor and McConnell are tools (Ryan? Not yet) and I
recognize that, you, OTOH, blame every issue, no matter how trivial,
on Obama's opponents. Stop that.
-Tom Enright
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
> "House Speaker John Boehner often attacks the spendthrift ways of
> Washington.
>
> Republican leader from Ohio said in a televised address yesterday amid
> are over.?
>
> Yet the speaker, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, House Budget
> Chairman Paul Ryan and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell all
> Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts and
> Medicare prescription drug benefits. They also voted for the Troubled
> Asset Relief Program, or TARP, that rescued financial institutions and
> the auto industry.
>
> Together, a Bloomberg News analysis shows, these initiatives added
> annual budget deficit of $1.5 trillion. "
>
>
> http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-26/republican-leaders-voted-for-drivers-of-u-s-debt-they-now-blame-on-obama
>
So your argument is that if someone was an idiot a few years
ago, that justifies more idiotic behavior?
--
Some people have twenty years of experience, some people have
one year of experience twenty times over. -- Anonymous
Dennis J
through solid matter, for crying out loud. Who knows what's happened
to his brain? Maybe it's scrambled his molecules...
>What will come first, the collapse of the Republic or the line-item
>veto?
congress is terrified of line-item veto, it would kill pork and
influence for Congress-critters.
--
"It’s been so difficult to get out of this recession because of the disequilibrium in the real economy.”" -- Paul Volcker
"Education is the progressive discovery of our own Ignorance" Will Durant
"One can't have a sense of perspective without a sense of Humor" -- Wayne Thiboux
"the Glass is not only half full, it has been delicious so far!!" -- ME
To reply, SCRAPE off the end bits.
Dennis J
been through solid matter, for crying out loud. Who knows what's
happened to his brain? Maybe it's scrambled his molecules...
>On 2011-07-26, dre <andre...@gmail.com> wrote:
more like a leopard and spots man, or geriatric dogs...
add to it repeating stuff and sanity...
Eric Ramon
they're all crooks. I was counting on one hand the number of true
statements the President made, and on the other hand, the number of
lies/BS statements. I think the count was 1 good, 7 bad by the time he
got to Ronald Reagan. What a way to energize Democrats! I snickered
through the rest of his talk.
Then Boehner started. Jumping Jonah! woo-ee. If I were a Republican
I'd be embarrassed to have that guy as Speaker. He's obviously being
led around by the tea party. He wants to think he's in charge but it's
all "Here's where we stand...oh? no, we stand over here...is that
where you want me?"
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Well, if I can decipher that, it means something like "Well, we better keep up
this spending and taxing thing because if we don't, we're f***ed."
The American people, for the first time, are predisposed to engage in
fiscal sobriety. Unfortunately for the country, the power of one party
is completely invested in promising giveaways.
--
How far can you open your mind before your brains fall out?
TimV
Well, they are disposed to engage in fiscal sobriety, until you explain
what is needed to become fiscally responsible. Then they, like members
of both political parties, just stick their fingers in their ears and
make baby noises.
T
Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
> influence for Congress-critters.
Good.
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
That has been the deal with Social Security in the past. But if you
look at the polls, it isn't so true now.
But to be sure, people don't want to take cuts so that federal
employees can remain more likely to die on the job than be fired.
And that's what raising taxes means. It means you haven't done what
needed to be done first -- get rid of 140 seperate federal student aid
plans and replace them with 10. Get rid of 86 federal housing assistance
programs and replace that with state block grants.
If the axe is wielded, and we still need to take more cuts than that?
People will do it. But they won't do it to prop up the status quo.
--
Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. -- Francis Bacon
Thomas R. Kettler
<95b4a0b1-f5b3-4f05...@hd10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
To enact a line-item veto federally, there'll have to be a
Constitutional Amendment since the Supreme Court ruled the Line Item
Veto Act of 1996 unconstitutional by a 6-3 decision in 1998.
I'd love to see the person that believes you'll get a 2/3 majority in
Congress (unless a 2/3 majority of state legislatures request a
convention), and I doubt 3/4 of state legislatures would pass such an
amendment anyway.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_Item_Veto_Act_of_1996>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._City_of_New_York>
--
Remove blown from email address to reply.
Kyle T. Jones
I think you mean - middle class folk aren't willing to contribute more
while rich folk continue to contribute less *and* grab up every #$%^ing
crumb of that none-zero-sum-game pie y'all are always talking about.
The one that's growing all the time - yeah, they're grabbing 99% of that
growth.
And if you're gonna retort, I want to see evidence they aren't.
Cheers.
Kyle T. Jones
^^^^
non-zero-sum-game
Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
wrote:
> In article
> <95b4a0b1-f5b3-4f05-8bd1-55ddd1d94...@hd10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger" <damonhy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > congress is terrified of line-item veto, it would kill pork and
> > > influence for Congress-critters.
>
> > Good.
>
> To enact a line-item veto federally, there'll have to be a
> Constitutional Amendment since the Supreme Court ruled the Line Item
> Veto Act of 1996 unconstitutional by a 6-3 decision in 1998.
>
> I'd love to see the person that believes you'll get a 2/3 majority in
> Congress (unless a 2/3 majority of state legislatures request a
> convention), and I doubt 3/4 of state legislatures would pass such an
> amendment anyway.
Well shit, Plan B is a coup.
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Why? Because you think it is a zero-sum game?
The waste is waste. It needs to stop. The kicking and screaming is because
the power of a political party is invested in passing out more of it. It is
going to stop, like it or not, for the same reason it has always stopped.
Things collapse under their own weight, and we have another cycle. When we
can no longer muster the capital to have a cycle, a society collapses.
I'll wheel out the Heinlein quote one more time:
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man.
Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded -- here and there,
now and then -- are the work of an extremely small minority,
frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by
all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept
from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a
society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as "bad luck."
--
Fiction was invented the day Jonah arrived home and told
his wife that he was three days late because he had been
swallowed by a whale. -- Gabriel Garcia Marquez
TimV
It is possible to get 3/4, but it would be difficult. States depend
heavily on the Feds being able to bail them out when the economy is in
the crapper. With a BBA, that is unlikely to happen and states are on
their own. No sane state legislature is going to screw themselves over
like that.
Dennis J
yes we did that kind of stuff already under Bush 1 and Clinton, they
shrank the Fed and then made the states pay... 6 of one half a dozen
of the other....
>If the axe is wielded, and we still need to take more cuts than that?
>People will do it. But they won't do it to prop up the status quo.
everyone looks at everyone else and says "YOU first" so far Congress
isn't willing to cut their own budgets much less anyone else's'
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
That's the job of the big man, and that's why I hope we get a real
leader the next election.
--
The sun, with all those planets revolving around it and dependent on it,
can still ripen a bunch of grapes as if it had nothing else in the
universe to do. -- Galileo
Dennis J
you say THAT like it's a bad thing, perhaps we need USA 2.0 hell
France is on the 12th republic now...
>I'll wheel out the Heinlein quote one more time:
>
> Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man.
> Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded -- here and there,
> now and then -- are the work of an extremely small minority,
> frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by
> all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept
> from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a
> society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
>
> This is known as "bad luck."
I dig Heinlein, read a lot of his stuff when I was a Squid er sailor.
Jubal Harshaw made lots of sense...
Kyle T. Jones
No. I realize that even in a non-zero-sum game, there can be
net-losers. Why - do you think otherwise?
Because that's been the idiotic argument I've heard, basically - "It's
not a zero sum game, dumnass - nobody can lose!!!@!"
> The waste is waste. It needs to stop. The kicking and screaming is because
> the power of a political party is invested in passing out more of it. It is
> going to stop, like it or not, for the same reason it has always stopped.
> Things collapse under their own weight, and we have another cycle. When we
> can no longer muster the capital to have a cycle, a society collapses.
>
> I'll wheel out the Heinlein quote one more time:
>
> Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man.
> Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded -- here and there,
> now and then -- are the work of an extremely small minority,
> frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by
> all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept
> from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a
> society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
>
> This is known as "bad luck."
>
Heinlein's quote is a condemnation of Luddites. Luckily, we're well
past that. I'd be interested in your interpretation of "right-thinking
people" from the above quote, though.
Cheers.
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
People who want to dispossess the people who create the wealth,
of course. I don't even have to interpret it, Heinlein comes
right out and says it. 8-)
--
Any man who is under 30, and is not liberal, has not heart; and any man
who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has not brains.
-- unknown, often falsely attributed to Winston Churchill
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
I don't know if the French Revolution was a good or bad thing.
There were a few thousand people whose families thought it was
a bad thing, as they watched their loved ones heads fall into the
basket. And it created Napoleon, who certainly carved a swath
in Europe.
Was it good or bad? I am not even sure the perspective of
history tells us. It just was.
>
>
>>I'll wheel out the Heinlein quote one more time:
>>
>> Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man.
>> Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded -- here and there,
>> now and then -- are the work of an extremely small minority,
>> frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by
>> all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept
>> from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a
>> society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
>>
>> This is known as "bad luck."
>
> I dig Heinlein, read a lot of his stuff when I was a Squid er sailor.
> Jubal Harshaw made lots of sense...
Heinlein was the first libertarian I ran into.
Google Beta User
These guys don't care about the deficit. They just care about small
government or no government. Big difference.
xyzzy
> On 7/26/11 6:10 PM, Thomas R. Kettler wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > "Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger"<damonhy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> congress is terrified of line-item veto, it would kill pork and
> >>> influence for Congress-critters.
>
> >> Good.
>
> > To enact a line-item veto federally, there'll have to be a
> > Constitutional Amendment since the Supreme Court ruled the Line Item
> > Veto Act of 1996 unconstitutional by a 6-3 decision in 1998.
>
> > I'd love to see the person that believes you'll get a 2/3 majority in
> > Congress (unless a 2/3 majority of state legislatures request a
> > convention), and I doubt 3/4 of state legislatures would pass such an
> > amendment anyway.
>
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_Item_Veto_Act_of_1996>
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._City_of_New_York>
>
> It is possible to get 3/4, but it would be difficult. States depend
> heavily on the Feds being able to bail them out when the economy is in
> the crapper. With a BBA, that is unlikely to happen and states are on
> their own. No sane state legislature is going to screw themselves over
> like that.
The constitution does have provision for state conventions to ratify
amendments. That's how the 21st was ratified, for the very reason you
state (not enough support in state legislatures)
xyzzy
<consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
> On 2011-07-26, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "House Speaker John Boehner often attacks the spendthrift ways of
> > Washington.
>
> > ?In Washington, more spending and more debt is business as usual,? the
> > Republican leader from Ohio said in a televised address yesterday amid
> > debate over the U.S. debt. ?I?ve got news for Washington - those days
> > are over.?
>
> > Yet the speaker, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, House Budget
> > Chairman Paul Ryan and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell all
> > voted for major drivers of the nation?s debt during the past decade:
> > Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts and
> > Medicare prescription drug benefits. They also voted for the Troubled
> > Asset Relief Program, or TARP, that rescued financial institutions and
> > the auto industry.
>
> > Together, a Bloomberg News analysis shows, these initiatives added
> > $3.4 trillion to the nation?s accumulated debt and to its current
> > annual budget deficit of $1.5 trillion. "
>
>
> So your argument is that if someone was an idiot a few years
> ago, that justifies more idiotic behavior
When that behavior incurs debt, it behooves him to not block repayment
of that debt when the bills come due.
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
> On Jul 26, 3:48?pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
They aren't blocking paying the bills that come due. We can easily
fund interest payments. We can even keep essential military and police
personnel on the job. We can fund Social Security.
What has created the current situation is the stimulus and the
unbridled spending of the Pelosi- and Reid-led 111th Congress.
That is the spending where the bill is coming due.
The Democrats had every chance in the world to set the budget and
raise the debt ceiling on their terms. They didn't do it. For them
to stand in the way of doing it now, after having been so cowardly
and obtuse as to not have done their job? I am speechless at how
shameful it is.
--
Fast, reliable, cheap. Pick two and we'll talk.
-- unknown
Dennis J
matter, for crying out loud. Who knows what's happened to his brain?
Maybe it's scrambled his molecules...
>Boehners plan cut *1 billion* in 2012? Hahaha.
>
>These guys don't care about the deficit. They just care about small
>government or no government. Big difference.
cutting a billion is easy. keep a carrier in port and reassign the
crew to other ships. oh and cut recruitment by 3,000 people...
dre
> On Jul 26, 2:37 pm, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "House Speaker John Boehner often attacks the spendthrift ways of
> > Washington.
>
> > Republican leader from Ohio said in a televised address yesterday amid
> > are over.”
>
> > Yet the speaker, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, House Budget
> > Chairman Paul Ryan and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell all
> > Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts and
> > Medicare prescription drug benefits. They also voted for the Troubled
> > Asset Relief Program, or TARP, that rescued financial institutions and
> > the auto industry.
>
> > Together, a Bloomberg News analysis shows, these initiatives added
> > annual budget deficit of $1.5 trillion. "
>
> >http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-26/republican-leaders-voted-...
>
> difference is Cantor and McConnell are tools (Ryan? Not yet) and I
> recognize that, you, OTOH, blame every issue, no matter how trivial,
> on Obama's opponents.
I'm sure it would appear that way to *you*, Tom, since you never
notice or recognize the multiple times I blame Obama or the Democrats
for something.
dre
<consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
> On 2011-07-26, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "House Speaker John Boehner often attacks the spendthrift ways of
> > Washington.
>
> > Republican leader from Ohio said in a televised address yesterday amid
> > are over.?
>
> > Yet the speaker, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, House Budget
> > Chairman Paul Ryan and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell all
> > Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts and
> > Medicare prescription drug benefits. They also voted for the Troubled
> > Asset Relief Program, or TARP, that rescued financial institutions and
> > the auto industry.
>
> > Together, a Bloomberg News analysis shows, these initiatives added
> > annual budget deficit of $1.5 trillion. "
>
> >http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-26/republican-leaders-voted-...
>
Hardly. The difference, however, is that I recognize that authorizing
the Treasury to pay bills we already owe is responsible behavior, not
idiotic behavior.
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
> On Jul 26, 3:48?pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
Doing it without taking measures to prevent incurring more bills we
can't pay? That's idiotic.
And we can continue to pay no matter whether we raise the debt ceiling
or not. It is just that we would have to lay off a whole crapload of
government employees. I'd love to see it.
The Dems had two years of free rein, including 9 months of a filibuster-proof
Senate majority, to address the issue on their terms. They didn't do it,
and now they want to block it being done in a responsible manner.
Bottom line is that raising taxes is an endorsement of "business as
usual". And the American people don't want to endorse business as usual.
--
Experience is what allows you to recognize a mistake the second time you
make it. -- unknown
dre
wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 26, 2011 1:37:36 PM UTC-5, dre wrote:
> > "House Speaker John Boehner often attacks the spendthrift ways of
> > Washington.
>
> > Republican leader from Ohio said in a televised address yesterday amid
> > are over.”
>
> > Yet the speaker, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, House Budget
> > Chairman Paul Ryan and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell all
> > Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts and
> > Medicare prescription drug benefits. They also voted for the Troubled
> > Asset Relief Program, or TARP, that rescued financial institutions and
> > the auto industry.
>
> > Together, a Bloomberg News analysis shows, these initiatives added
> > annual budget deficit of $1.5 trillion. "
>
> >http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-26/republican-leaders-voted-...
>
Gee, I don't know...maybe because, despite the fact that "Obamacare"
is actually scored by the CBO to _reduce_ the deficit, both of those
measures can actually be attributed directly to Obama's presidency?
dre
http://www.offthechartsblog.org/what%E2%80%99s-driving-projected-debt/
"As Kathy and Jim note, simply letting the Bush tax cuts expire on
schedule (or paying for any portions that policymakers decide to
extend) would stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio for the next decade.
While we’d have to do much more to keep the debt stable over the
longer run, that would be a huge accomplishment."
dre
<consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
I agree. Which is why I'm so baffled at the Republican insistence on
doing so without increasing revenue. AT ALL.
Ok, I'm not really baffled. I know what they're doing: They're
trying to protect their business buddies and screw with the economy
enough to make Obama a one-term president. Nevermind the little
people who get hurt in the process.
> And we can continue to pay no matter whether we raise the debt ceiling
> or not. It is just that we would have to lay off a whole crapload of
> government employees. I'd love to see it.
Uh, no, we can't. The Treasury has already said this is an
impossibility. They've used up all their tricks to avoid default back
on May 17th.
> The Dems had two years of free rein, including 9 months of a filibuster-proof
> Senate majority, to address the issue on their terms. They didn't do it,
All in the name of trying to build bipartisan "consensus".
> and now they want to block it being done in a responsible manner.
Right, because balancing the budget on the backs of the poor and the
elderly is somehow "responsible".
> Bottom line is that raising taxes is an endorsement of "business as
> usual". And the American people don't want to endorse business as usual.
Bottom line is that thinking is ridiculous, and the vast majority of
American people have already said that raising taxes should be an
option. Even a sizable percentage of voting Republicans have agreed
with that stance.
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
>
> http://www.offthechartsblog.org/what%E2%80%99s-driving-projected-debt/
>
> "As Kathy and Jim note, simply letting the Bush tax cuts expire on
> schedule (or paying for any portions that policymakers decide to
> extend) would stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio for the next decade.
> longer run, that would be a huge accomplishment."
That's assuming, as tax-raising scenarios always do, that taxable
revenues stay the same. And they never do. So the estimates always
overstate actual collections. Not sometimes -- always.
--
There comes a time when you should stop expecting other people to make
a big deal about your birthday. That time is age 12. -- Dave Barry
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
><consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2011-07-27, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jul 26, 3:48?pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
>> ><consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On 2011-07-26, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > "House Speaker John Boehner often attacks the spendthrift ways of
>> >> > Washington.
>>
>> >> > ?In Washington, more spending and more debt is business as usual,? the
>> >> > Republican leader from Ohio said in a televised address yesterday amid
>> >> > debate over the U.S. debt. ?I?ve got news for Washington - those days
>> >> > are over.?
>>
>> >> > Yet the speaker, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, House Budget
>> >> > Chairman Paul Ryan and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell all
>> >> > voted for major drivers of the nation?s debt during the past decade:
>> >> > Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts and
>> >> > Medicare prescription drug benefits. They also voted for the Troubled
>> >> > Asset Relief Program, or TARP, that rescued financial institutions and
>> >> > the auto industry.
>>
>> >> > Together, a Bloomberg News analysis shows, these initiatives added
>> >> > $3.4 trillion to the nation?s accumulated debt and to its current
>> >> > annual budget deficit of $1.5 trillion. "
>>
>> >> >http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-26/republican-leaders-voted-...
>>
>> >> So your argument is that if someone was an idiot a few years
>> >> ago, that justifies more idiotic behavior?
>>
>> > the Treasury to pay bills we already owe is responsible behavior, not
>> > idiotic behavior.
>>
>> Doing it without taking measures to prevent incurring more bills we
>> can't pay? That's idiotic.
>
> I agree. Which is why I'm so baffled at the Republican insistence on
> doing so without increasing revenue. AT ALL.
>
> Ok, I'm not really baffled. I know what they're doing: They're
> trying to protect their business buddies and screw with the economy
> enough to make Obama a one-term president. Nevermind the little
> people who get hurt in the process.
>
>> And we can continue to pay no matter whether we raise the debt ceiling
>> or not. It is just that we would have to lay off a whole crapload of
>> government employees. I'd love to see it.
>
> Uh, no, we can't. The Treasury has already said this is an
> impossibility. They've used up all their tricks to avoid default back
> on May 17th.
They're lying. We can pay interest from cash flow, and Social Security
can pay by redemptions.
>
>> The Dems had two years of free rein, including 9 months of a filibuster-proof
>> Senate majority, to address the issue on their terms. They didn't do it,
>
> All in the name of trying to build bipartisan "consensus".
Bull. From cowardice. We showed how much they cared about bipartisan with the
health care bill. They had the chance, and they didn't take it.
>
>> and now they want to block it being done in a responsible manner.
>
> Right, because balancing the budget on the backs of the poor and the
> elderly is somehow "responsible".
Quit the demagoguery. It doesn't fly here.
>
>> Bottom line is that raising taxes is an endorsement of "business as
>> usual". And the American people don't want to endorse business as usual.
>
> Bottom line is that thinking is ridiculous,
Why? People don't want to endorse business as usual. The congressional
approval percentage of 10% shows that.
Stop. Spending. There, it's that simple. Raising taxes is continuing
spending. And poll after poll shows that people don't want to borrow
any more.
> and the vast majority of
> American people have already said that raising taxes should be an
> option. Even a sizable percentage of voting Republicans have agreed
> with that stance.
I disagree. But it doesn't matter. There are going to have to be real
cuts this time, whether they like it
--
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation." - Bob Carter
Dennis J
been through solid matter, for crying out loud. Who knows what's
happened to his brain? Maybe it's scrambled his molecules...
>On 2011-07-27, dre <andre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thought y'all would enjoy this little graph:
>>
>> http://www.offthechartsblog.org/what%E2%80%99s-driving-projected-debt/
>>
>> "As Kathy and Jim note, simply letting the Bush tax cuts expire on
>> schedule (or paying for any portions that policymakers decide to
>> extend) would stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio for the next decade.
>> While we?d have to do much more to keep the debt stable over the
>> longer run, that would be a huge accomplishment."
>
>That's assuming, as tax-raising scenarios always do, that taxable
>revenues stay the same. And they never do. So the estimates always
>overstate actual collections. Not sometimes -- always.
of course, Bush wanted them Temporary... too bad the GOP ignored that,
like most other things that make some sense.
lein
Unless we all stop paying any taxes starting August 3rd, then only
Obama can block servicing the debt.
dre
<consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
> On 2011-07-27, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thought y'all would enjoy this little graph:
>
> >http://www.offthechartsblog.org/what%E2%80%99s-driving-projected-debt/
>
> > "As Kathy and Jim note, simply letting the Bush tax cuts expire on
> > schedule (or paying for any portions that policymakers decide to
> > extend) would stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio for the next decade.
> > While we?d have to do much more to keep the debt stable over the
> > longer run, that would be a huge accomplishment."
>
> That's assuming, as tax-raising scenarios always do, that taxable
> revenues stay the same. And they never do.
Nope, they don't. They typically increase, because the GDP grows at a
faster rate than when taxes are cut.
> So the estimates always
> overstate actual collections. Not sometimes -- always.
Uh, so? Tax cut estimates are even *more* wildly overstated.
dre
And the Treasury would still have to pick and choose who to pay and
who not to pay, because cash flow is less (significantly less) than
obligations, and it will be completely unable to borrow additional
funds. Bottom line: They're not lying.
> >> The Dems had two years of free rein, including 9 months of a filibuster-proof
> >> Senate majority, to address the issue on their terms. They didn't do it,
>
> > All in the name of trying to build bipartisan "consensus".
>
> Bull. From cowardice. We showed how much they cared about bipartisan with the
> health care bill. They had the chance, and they didn't take it.
It's interesting that you accuse me of demagoguery later on, since you
clearly have ignored the multiple rewrites to the HCR bill that were
done in an attempt to get Republican support. The single-payer option
was by far the biggest casualty of this.
> >> and now they want to block it being done in a responsible manner.
>
> > Right, because balancing the budget on the backs of the poor and the
> > elderly is somehow "responsible".
>
> Quit the demagoguery. It doesn't fly here.
Fuck that. It's not demagoguery. Who has this recession hit the
hardest? Who is going to be affected the most by these budget cuts?
Who *isn't* seeing any of their pet programs and/or tax breaks and
subsidies being affected?
> >> Bottom line is that raising taxes is an endorsement of "business as
> >> usual". And the American people don't want to endorse business as usual.
>
> > Bottom line is that thinking is ridiculous,
>
> Why? People don't want to endorse business as usual.
Business as usual is tax *cuts*, genius. Taxation is at it's lowest
level since 1950, and that is an easily verified *fact*.
>The congressional
> approval percentage of 10% shows that.
>
> Stop. Spending.
And watch the economy tank.
> There, it's that simple. Raising taxes is continuing
> spending.
False.
> And poll after poll shows that people don't want to borrow
> any more.
They don't want to borrow any more, but they sure as hell aren't
opposed to tax increases to reduce the debt:
> > and the vast majority of
> > American people have already said that raising taxes should be an
> > option. Even a sizable percentage of voting Republicans have agreed
> > with that stance.
>
> I disagree. But it doesn't matter. There are going to have to be real
> cuts this time, whether they like it
No. It's a false dilemma, and the heads of the GOP know it. The
problem is that they've done such a good job of convincing the
American public of it, it's backfiring in their faces. You think
Boehner's going to be such a hardass on the next time the debt ceiling
needs to be raised the next time a Republican president's in office?
Hell no. Because he knows the truth.
We could solve this "debt" problem in 30 seconds with a ten-year plan
that doesn't cut a single social program. Easily. Simply. But
between the GOP's eagerness to slash programs they hate, and the Tea
Party's eagerness to slash government programs *period*, we get this
stupid impasse.
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
> On Jul 27, 2:35?pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
><consta...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2011-07-27, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Thought y'all would enjoy this little graph:
>>
>> >http://www.offthechartsblog.org/what%E2%80%99s-driving-projected-debt/
>>
>> > "As Kathy and Jim note, simply letting the Bush tax cuts expire on
>> > schedule (or paying for any portions that policymakers decide to
>> > extend) would stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio for the next decade.
>> > While we?d have to do much more to keep the debt stable over the
>> > longer run, that would be a huge accomplishment."
>>
>> That's assuming, as tax-raising scenarios always do, that taxable
>> revenues stay the same. And they never do.
>
> Nope, they don't. They typically increase, because the GDP grows at a
> faster rate than when taxes are cut.
But you are talking about raising them.
>
> http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/490751-josh-dowlut/185282-gdp-growth-rates-pre-reagan-tax-cuts-vs-post-regan-tax-cuts
>
>> So the estimates always
>> overstate actual collections. Not sometimes -- always.
>
> Uh, so? Tax cut estimates are even *more* wildly overstated.
Ah, the old red herring. Here, fishie fishie fishie!
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
> On Jul 27, 2:40?pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
>> > doing so without increasing revenue. ?AT ALL.
>>
>> > Ok, I'm not really baffled. ?I know what they're doing: ?They're
>> > trying to protect their business buddies and screw with the economy
>> > people who get hurt in the process.
>>
>> >> And we can continue to pay no matter whether we raise the debt ceiling
>> >> or not. It is just that we would have to lay off a whole crapload of
>> >> government employees. I'd love to see it.
>>
>> > impossibility. ?They've used up all their tricks to avoid default back
>> > on May 17th.
>>
>> They're lying. We can pay interest from cash flow, and Social Security
>> can pay by redemptions.
>
> And the Treasury would still have to pick and choose who to pay and
> who not to pay, because cash flow is less (significantly less) than
> obligations, and it will be completely unable to borrow additional
> funds. Bottom line: They're not lying.
It isn't default. Bottom line: you're trying to weasel out of it.
>
>> >> The Dems had two years of free rein, including 9 months of a filibuster-proof
>> >> Senate majority, to address the issue on their terms. They didn't do it,
>>
>> > All in the name of trying to build bipartisan "consensus".
>>
>> Bull. From cowardice. We showed how much they cared about bipartisan with the
>> health care bill. They had the chance, and they didn't take it.
>
> It's interesting that you accuse me of demagoguery later on, since you
> clearly have ignored the multiple rewrites to the HCR bill that were
> done in an attempt to get Republican support.
And there was never a serious chance of getting it. It was in lip service
of bipartisan support.
> The single-payer option was by far the biggest casualty of this.
Single-payer never had a chance.
>
>> >> and now they want to block it being done in a responsible manner.
>>
>> > Right, because balancing the budget on the backs of the poor and the
>> > elderly is somehow "responsible".
>>
>> Quit the demagoguery. It doesn't fly here.
>
> Fuck that. It's not demagoguery. Who has this recession hit the
> hardest? Who is going to be affected the most by these budget cuts?
> Who *isn't* seeing any of their pet programs and/or tax breaks and
> subsidies being affected?
You can pour money down a hole forever. It doesn't create jobs.
>
>> >> Bottom line is that raising taxes is an endorsement of "business as
>> >> usual". And the American people don't want to endorse business as usual.
>>
>> > Bottom line is that thinking is ridiculous,
>>
>> Why? People don't want to endorse business as usual.
>
> Business as usual is tax *cuts*, genius. Taxation is at it's lowest
> level since 1950, and that is an easily verified *fact*.
I am not interested in your semantic gymnastics. Income tax rates are
very high compared to the rest of the word.
>
>>The congressional
>> approval percentage of 10% shows that.
>>
>> Stop. Spending.
>
> And watch the economy tank.
Fine. Then it will come back. It didn't come back by spending more,
that's a fact.
>
>> There, it's that simple. Raising taxes is continuing spending.
>
> False.
Yet you don't say how.
>
>> And poll after poll shows that people don't want to borrow
>> any more.
>
> They don't want to borrow any more, but they sure as hell aren't
> opposed to tax increases to reduce the debt:
>
> http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/19/polls-americans-want-compromise-in-debt-ceiling-standoff/
Then simply bring spending back to 2008 levels then raise taxes. Anyone
would go for that.
>
>> > and the vast majority of
>> > American people have already said that raising taxes should be an
>> > option. ?Even a sizable percentage of voting Republicans have agreed
>> > with that stance.
>>
>> I disagree. But it doesn't matter. There are going to have to be real
>> cuts this time, whether they like it
>
> No. It's a false dilemma, and the heads of the GOP know it. The
> problem is that they've done such a good job of convincing the
> American public of it, it's backfiring in their faces. You think
> Boehner's going to be such a hardass on the next time the debt ceiling
> needs to be raised the next time a Republican president's in office?
> Hell no. Because he knows the truth.
>
> We could solve this "debt" problem in 30 seconds with a ten-year plan
> that doesn't cut a single social program. Easily. Simply. But
> between the GOP's eagerness to slash programs they hate, and the Tea
> Party's eagerness to slash government programs *period*, we get this
> stupid impasse.
Your party needs to keep handing out the goodies, and they can't any
more. Too bad, bud.
TimV
> On 2011-07-29, dre<andre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Business as usual is tax *cuts*, genius. Taxation is at it's lowest
>> level since 1950, and that is an easily verified *fact*.
>
> I am not interested in your semantic gymnastics. Income tax rates are
> very high compared to the rest of the word.
>
That is not even remotely true. Our nominal corporate rate is quite
high, but the effective rate is very low as long as you hire good tax
attorney and accountants. On an individual basis, our nominal rates are
even better than almost any other developed country. Add in all the
deductions, you're seeing effective rates not matched anywhere.
T
Kyle T. Jones
>> Business as usual is tax *cuts*, genius. Taxation is at it's lowest
>> level since 1950, and that is an easily verified *fact*.
>
> I am not interested in your semantic gymnastics. Income tax rates are
> very high compared to the rest of the word.
>
You're response to this is, seriously, the Politics of Today in a
nutshell. The loons have taken over, And Facts Won't Get In Their Way!!@!
Everyone's for less spending, friend. Some of us just want to couple
that with increased revenue.
Cheers.
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
> On 7/29/2011 4:22 PM, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
>> On 2011-07-29, dre<andre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Business as usual is tax *cuts*, genius. Taxation is at it's lowest
>>> level since 1950, and that is an easily verified *fact*.
>>
>> I am not interested in your semantic gymnastics. Income tax rates are
>> very high compared to the rest of the word.
>>
>
> That is not even remotely true. Our nominal corporate rate is quite
> high, but the effective rate is very low as long as you hire good tax
> attorney and accountants.
And ship jobs and revenues overseas where tax rates are lower.
> On an individual basis, our nominal rates are even better than
> almost any other developed country. Add in all the deductions,
> you're seeing effective rates not matched anywhere.
And up until this last administration, you are seeing economic
vitality not matched elsewhere, either.
44% of people pay no income tax at all. Where is that matched?
--
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in
overalls and looks like work. -- Thomas Edison
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
> Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
>
>>> Business as usual is tax *cuts*, genius. Taxation is at it's lowest
>>> level since 1950, and that is an easily verified *fact*.
>>
>> I am not interested in your semantic gymnastics. Income tax rates are
>> very high compared to the rest of the word.
>>
>
> You're response to this is, seriously, the Politics of Today in a
> nutshell. The loons have taken over, And Facts Won't Get In Their Way!!@!
This supposed "fact" is a measurement. Measurements, like statistics,
are mutable and are interpreted in the eye of the beholder.
And the fact is that tax rates are high. Whether there are loopholes
are another matter. I am all in favor of a fair tax, all income taxed
at the same rate. It would be a huge gain in efficiency. Oh, but the
government jobs that would be lost. A pity.
>
> Everyone's for less spending, friend.
Sure you are. Except where that means, like, spending less.
> Some of us just want to couple that with increased revenue.
Love the euphemism.
TimV
So basically, you admit you have no facts to back up your silly assertions.
T
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
What, that jobs are being shipped overseas to avoid taxes? I would
think that should be apparent to anyone. I'll let that one stand
for evaluation on its merits, and I think that most would agree that
US companies have specialized in diversifying their interests overseas
to avoid taxation. After all, GE paid no US income taxes last year
for a reason.
--
An empty head is not really empty; it is stuffed with rubbish. Hence
the difficulty of forcing anything into an empty head. -- Eric Hoffer
TimV
It doesn't even make sense that jobs would be exported due to taxes. You
ship jobs overseas because the costs of production are lower. Taxes are
irrelevant to that equation because you still pay the same tax rate
here. In fact, you might actually pay more in taxes by shipping the jobs
simply because your profit margins, and thus earnings, are higher.
Now, there are plenty of issues with the corporate tax rate, including
the fact that companies are less likely to repatriotize their overseas
earnings and the fact that companies themselves will move their
headquarters overseas into tax havens.
Hey, I'd be all for eliminating the corporate tax altogether and
increasing the dividend and capital gains tax rates to match your
individual income tax bracket. But when savvy companies pay 0-10% in
effective tax rates, when Warren Buffett pays 16%, it is completely
stupid to argue we have the highest tax rates around. Let me state that
again: it is completely stupid to argue that income tax rates are some
of the highest in the world (especially since you are apparently
confusing income tax and corporate taxes).
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
Of course it does. You arrange for profits to be made where they
will be taxed at the lowest levels. If you are a multinational,
there are a multitude of ways to do that. Locate cost centers
in the US, locate profit centers elsewhere. You don't think
GE lost money worldwide, do you? They made record profits in
their non-US entities.
> You ship jobs overseas because the costs of production are lower.
Of course. But it isn't as simple as wages, as you should know.
> Taxes are irrelevant to that equation because you still pay the same
> tax rate here.
You are naive.
> In fact, you might actually pay more in taxes by shipping the jobs
> simply because your profit margins, and thus earnings, are higher.
Ha.
> Now, there are plenty of issues with the corporate tax rate, including
> the fact that companies are less likely to repatriotize their overseas
> earnings and the fact that companies themselves will move their
> headquarters overseas into tax havens.
>
> Hey, I'd be all for eliminating the corporate tax altogether and
> increasing the dividend and capital gains tax rates to match your
> individual income tax bracket. But when savvy companies pay 0-10% in
> effective tax rates, when Warren Buffett pays 16%, it is completely
> stupid to argue we have the highest tax rates around. Let me state that
> again: it is completely stupid to argue that income tax rates are some
> of the highest in the world (especially since you are apparently
> confusing income tax and corporate taxes).
You are confusing marginal rate with effective tax rate. I am all
for a fair tax. Let's tax everyone at 15%, across the board. Make
everyone a stakeholder.
Right now you have half the population who pays taxes, and half who
doesn't. This is the reason Democrats even have power. They are led
by the government-employed elites, whose livelihoods depend on taxes,
and get votes from the 50% that don't pay taxes. The tax burden falls
on the middle class who pay all the taxes, and they are sick of it.
Let everyone have a stake in the game. Make tax increases pull money
out of everyone's pocket, and there will be a much greater incentive
for efficiency.
Effective tax rates are low right now because of the recession. People
are buying fewer goods, and making less money. That's why effective
levels of taxation are on the low end. Sales taxes play their part,
as well as lower income reducing tax brackets.
But raising taxes will do nothing to remedy that. Cutting spending
will hurt in the short term, but eventually it will result in greater
economic activity. It is clear that austerity works. And it is clear
that taking us to Greek levels of indebtedness won't work. So our path
is clear.
As with every conservative, I simply don't believe Congress when they
say they will cut spending in the future. Tax increases now and "cuts"
later is business as usual. And it is clear that the American people
don't want any more business as usual.
Obama is a clown, and he has killed the recovery that would have
occurred under better stewardship. The Democratic congress is
criminal, as they have abdicated their responsibility to set
a budget. Is it any wonder the business community and financial
markets are spooked?
--
Being against torture ought to be sort of a bipartisan thing.
-- Karl Lehenbauer
Edwin Gooshapee
<blah blah blah>
> later is business as usual. And it is clear that the American people
OK - when some nondescript rsfcker start saying "the American people"
want this or don't want that, I know we're in trouble, I absolutely
HATE it when politicians throw that phrase around. The fact is that
neither they nor you know jack about what "the American people" want or
don't want. "The American people" is not some monolithic entity - and
right now, the American people are pretty damn divided about what they
want and don't want.
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
You might have some room to say that if the approval rating
for Congress was greater than 12%.
--
I don't want to get to the end of my life and find I have just
lived the length of it. I want to have lived the width of it as
well. -- Diane Ackerman
TimV
I'm not the one claiming that we are one of the most taxed countries in
the world. Who gives a rip about what the marginal tax rate is. If you
are going to give me enough tax breaks that it reduces my effective tax
rate to 10%, you can marginally tax me 99% if you like.
>
> Right now you have half the population who pays taxes, and half who
> doesn't. This is the reason Democrats even have power. They are led
> by the government-employed elites, whose livelihoods depend on taxes,
> and get votes from the 50% that don't pay taxes. The tax burden falls
> on the middle class who pay all the taxes, and they are sick of it.
>
> Let everyone have a stake in the game. Make tax increases pull money
> out of everyone's pocket, and there will be a much greater incentive
> for efficiency.
>
> Effective tax rates are low right now because of the recession. People
> are buying fewer goods, and making less money. That's why effective
> levels of taxation are on the low end. Sales taxes play their part,
> as well as lower income reducing tax brackets.
Effective tax rates have nothing to do with the recession. They have
everything to do with the tax law and how tax breaks and income
exemptions exist.
>
> But raising taxes will do nothing to remedy that. Cutting spending
> will hurt in the short term, but eventually it will result in greater
> economic activity. It is clear that austerity works. And it is clear
> that taking us to Greek levels of indebtedness won't work. So our path
> is clear.
>
> As with every conservative, I simply don't believe Congress when they
> say they will cut spending in the future. Tax increases now and "cuts"
> later is business as usual. And it is clear that the American people
> don't want any more business as usual.
>
> Obama is a clown, and he has killed the recovery that would have
> occurred under better stewardship. The Democratic congress is
> criminal, as they have abdicated their responsibility to set
> a budget. Is it any wonder the business community and financial
> markets are spooked?
>
Obama might be a clown, but you're arguments are completely full of
holes. They sound like pulling the string on a Rush Limbaugh
non-sequitur doll. And have nothing at all to do with the stupendously
odd statement that we are one of the most taxed countries in the world.
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
So you are willing to fund a huge tax-avoidance machine? I don't want
to do that.
>
>>
>> Right now you have half the population who pays taxes, and half who
>> doesn't. This is the reason Democrats even have power. They are led
>> by the government-employed elites, whose livelihoods depend on taxes,
>> and get votes from the 50% that don't pay taxes. The tax burden falls
>> on the middle class who pay all the taxes, and they are sick of it.
>>
>> Let everyone have a stake in the game. Make tax increases pull money
>> out of everyone's pocket, and there will be a much greater incentive
>> for efficiency.
>>
>> Effective tax rates are low right now because of the recession. People
>> are buying fewer goods, and making less money. That's why effective
>> levels of taxation are on the low end. Sales taxes play their part,
>> as well as lower income reducing tax brackets.
>
> Effective tax rates have nothing to do with the recession. They have
> everything to do with the tax law and how tax breaks and income
> exemptions exist.
Mathematically challenged? If there are fewer sales and more savings,
there are fewer sales taxes paid. Simple fact.
As far as tax law, couldn't agree more. So let's simplify it.
>
>>
>> But raising taxes will do nothing to remedy that. Cutting spending
>> will hurt in the short term, but eventually it will result in greater
>> economic activity. It is clear that austerity works. And it is clear
>> that taking us to Greek levels of indebtedness won't work. So our path
>> is clear.
>>
>> As with every conservative, I simply don't believe Congress when they
>> say they will cut spending in the future. Tax increases now and "cuts"
>> later is business as usual. And it is clear that the American people
>> don't want any more business as usual.
>>
>> Obama is a clown, and he has killed the recovery that would have
>> occurred under better stewardship. The Democratic congress is
>> criminal, as they have abdicated their responsibility to set
>> a budget. Is it any wonder the business community and financial
>> markets are spooked?
>>
>
> Obama might be a clown, but you're arguments are completely full of
> holes. They sound like pulling the string on a Rush Limbaugh
> non-sequitur doll. And have nothing at all to do with the stupendously
> odd statement that we are one of the most taxed countries in the world.
I never made that statement. I said we have some of the highest tax
*rates* in the developed world. Big difference.
Let's go with a simple flat tax. No deductions beyond the standard
ones. Eliminate much of the huge amount of systemic inefficiency caused
by trying to manipulate things to avoid paying taxes. If you can't
avoid the taxes with your energy, you might as well spend your energy
earning income.
--
Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently equipped fool. -- unknown