Politics

[chicago51]

If both sides were serious, Simpson Bowles would be enacted.

The facts are spending has been somewhat reduced and taxes have been increased. But, neither side wants to give in to the other whether it is more taxes or reforming entitlements.

I agree if you are talking about the first Simpson Bowles plan.

Which Simpson Bowles. The first one which as half and half just like the president's plan (not exactly the same plan but in terms of revenue to taxes it is) or the 2nd Simpson Bowles which is now splitting the difference essentially between Obama and the GOP. The thing is Obama is already in the middle, it is not like he is out on the left were the democrat progressive caucus is with their budget.

If you split the difference between the progressive caucus budget and the ryan budget you pretty much get the first Simpson Bowles plan.

Also just want to say appreciate the conversation we can have. While disagree with you often I don't recall you being rude or nasty in any of your post.

 

[chicago51]

I would love hear the phone conversation when John Mccain has to ask President Obama for government money to fix this.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I still want to know what people think of the facts in the WSJ article previously posted that pointed to the cultural changes that have occurred over the last 40 years and what it means in the long run. We have a cultural problem in this country that has devalued marriage, family, religion and community.

Big time boom. There was once a time (I'm only 27) where America was revered for so many reasons, but one being the family.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Good luck to you as well. Didn't your governor just slash unemployment beneifits in your state so if any in NC loses their jobs it would be even worse now?

The funny thing is that I republicans say that is terrible and I hear democrats say this is terrible. If it sucks why not just not do it?

The thing is Congress can actually vote just to turn off the sequester. They can say "you know what we have to negoiate the budget anyway in the coming months there are real people that are going to get hurt by this thing lets just not do it". Sure they can vote on the Sentate Dems plan to replace it if they want but if they can not agree to anything by March 1st why not just turn the thing off?[/QUOTE]

No doubt it hurts people. But this is the fundemental problem with government spending....once enacted, it never goes away. These people were hired under the false pretense that the jobs were affordable. Not the fault of the employee, but the fault of the employer.

People say look at the hit to GDP if we don't spend this money. Now, what is that really telling us? If we don't spend money that we don't have, GDP falls. Doesn't that just infer that GDP was inflated to begin with and was not sustainable? People talk about housing bubbles, stock bubbles, credit bubbles, etc. But, what happens if we have a gov't spending bubble too?

The fact is, we simply cannot afford everything as it sits today. Long-term, taxes, spending and entitlements need to be addressed. But until that day comes, we need to get back to spending what we can afford (and no, I am not a balanced budget guy....that doesn't make sense under most conditions). I really feel for these people. It is incredibly unfortunate that the will have to take a pay cut in the near term. However, for some, this has been going on in the private sector for tha last 12 months. It's a harsh reality of the times we are currently living in.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Good luck to you as well. Didn't your governor just slash unemployment beneifits in your state so if any in NC loses their jobs it would be even worse now?

The funny thing is that I republicans say that is terrible and I hear democrats say this is terrible. If it sucks why not just not do it?

The thing is Congress can actually vote just to turn off the sequester. They can say "you know what we have to negoiate the budget anyway in the coming months there are real people that are going to get hurt by this thing lets just not do it". Sure they can vote on the Sentate Dems plan to replace it if they want but if they can not agree to anything by March 1st why not just turn the thing off?[/QUOTE]

No doubt it hurts people. But this is the fundemental problem with government spending....once enacted, it never goes away. These people were hired under the false pretense that the jobs were affordable. Not the fault of the employee, but the fault of the employer.

People say look at the hit to GDP if we don't spend this money. Now, what is that really telling us? If we don't spend money that we don't have, GDP falls. Doesn't that just infer that GDP was inflated to begin with and was not sustainable? People talk about housing bubbles, stock bubbles, credit bubbles, etc. But, what happens if we have a gov't spending bubble too?

The fact is, we simply cannot afford everything as it sits today. Long-term, taxes, spending and entitlements need to be addressed. But until that day comes, we need to get back to spending what we can afford (and no, I am not a balanced budget guy....that doesn't make sense under most conditions). I really feel for these people. It is incredibly unfortunate that the will have to take a pay cut in the near term. However, for some, this has been going on in the private sector for tha last 12 months. It's a harsh reality of the times we are currently living in.[/QUOTE]

Or longer. This is brutal, it's affected millions since 2007, hit the private sector first and for the psat few years has been trickling down to the public sector. Entitlement programs still account for 62% of our budget...

 

[BobD]

We had "Furlough Fridays" for state workers here in California. It was tough on them, but in the end, they experienced basically the same thing everyone in the private sector did. Now things are slowly improving and it looks like we might have weathered the storm.

Side note: One Friday afternoon I had a state employee in my store complaining that he was off work because of a furlough day. After he found the items he needed he said he was going to buy them online to avoid paying state sales tax. The irony.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

...No doubt it hurts people. But this is the fundemental problem with government spending....once enacted, it never goes away...

Bingo. Spending cuts are like having kids -- there's never really a "good time" to have them.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I think someone once said there's nothing closer to eternal life than a government program...

 

[GoldenIsThyFame]

SIAP, any Beaufort, NC residents here?

 

[chicago51]

 

[chicago51]

 

[Ndaccountant]

SIAP, any Beaufort, NC residents here?

Cannot stop giggling at the csection comment.

 

[DSully1995]

SIAP, any Beaufort, NC residents here?

I think thats a republican trying to do a mockery of democrats or a very foolish person who should not be in a newspaper representing a serious party

 

[GoIrish41]

There you go again, introducing facts into the discussion. geesh!

 

[Irish Houstonian]

There you go again, introducing facts into the discussion. geesh!

lol under no circumstances is that 1.4% figure not entirely misleading

Revisionist History: Obama and Spending | American Action Forum

 

[Bluto]

I still want to know what people think of the facts in the WSJ article previously posted that pointed to the cultural changes that have occurred over the last 40 years and what it means in the long run. We have a cultural problem in this country that has devalued marriage, family, religion and community.

Can't find it. Repost?

 

[Bluto]

Its rather disingenuous to name that as the cause in the european countries and not their massive spending programs, in my opinion.

Not really. The country that has often been cited as an example of massive spending gone awry, Greece has wallowed in corruption and huge levels of tax evasion for years. Those two factors have played a huge role in its current predicament.

 

[chicago51]

I still don't why the country is even talking about the deficit right now. At least as the main talking point.

You are not going to get the debt under control without a good economy.

I have said this before but I have to say it again. Fixing the debt will not fix the economy but fixing the economy is part of fixing the debt. The national media has switch the narrative on the country.

That is not say you do not cut. You cut programs that don't work and don't stimulate the economy.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Can't find it. Repost?

http://www.irishenvy.com/forums/leprechaun-lounge/69266-just-out-curiosity-president-154.html

 

[DSully1995]

Not really. The country that has often been cited as an example of massive spending gone awry, Greece has wallowed in corruption and huge levels of tax evasion for years. Those two factors have played a huge role in its current predicament.

plug in boomerang by Michael lewis, great book on the cultures of different countries how how theyre affect by their culture, for good or for bad. Big part of the book looks at greece

 

[Bluto]

http://www.irishenvy.com/forums/leprechaun-lounge/69266-just-out-curiosity-president-154.html

The biggest problem I have with this article is this notion that "whites" in America shared some idea of "civic virtue" and a "common culture". This ignores so much of the historical record that I have a hard time buying the premiss that he presents. It would be pretty easy to argue that the only driving principal that whites in this country have shared throughout much of the country's history is white supremacy.

For instance I read a history of Wyoming awhile back and there was nothing "virtuous" or "civic" about the place. It was lawless and quite savage. Add to that episodes like the Civil War, the constant and often violent tension between the working class and the elites that arose during industrialization and continued into the violent labor strikes of the 1950's and this whole idea of "white" culture being one big love fest wrapped in religion, civic pride and marriage until the dreaded 60's arrived rings pretty false.

I would say the unraveling of this "civic virtue" that he describes that maybe arose for a brief period post WW2 has more to do with the unintended results of free market capitalism, the emergence and dominance of multi national corporations and the concentration of wealth and power that has taken place over the past 30 years than any loss of a common culture.

 

[chicago51]

It kind of goes along with the shoot Santa Clause theory that liberals like me have about the GOP.

Okay Social Security Medicare Medicaid food stamps unemployment insurance were democrat policies. If you look at polling these are pretty popular even with republican voters. So any republican lead government killing Santa would have a great deal of backlash against them.

So what do about Santa if you are the GOP?

The answer is be the party of tax cuts so in way you to are Santa. You cut taxes though to a level that raises the national debt significantly when you have the power. As representatives and senators of the GOP you are to keep quiet on the debt when you hold the White House. Then when a democrat holds the presidency you yell and scream about the debt. Then you yell and scream about a democrat trying to raise anybody's taxes.

Why? To get the democrats to shoot Santa Clause and kill their own programs because it is too unpopular for a GOP president to do. Then when a democrat does that you blame the democrats for the cuts.

This goes along with my post above. How come Mitch Mcconnell as both Senate minority and majority leader never complained about George W Bush spending too much? Ditto for Johne Boehner we has majority whip at the time in the House, how come he didn't complain we were overspending?

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kmXi3shNeMM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Black Irish]

The way I see it, neither side is really serious about revenue growth or deficit reduction.

On the Right/GOP side: These people have to get off the tax cuts. Get spending under control, simplify the tax code, and be willing to do unpopular things like cut military spending and Social Security (over 65 conservatives like getting their pyramid system checks like everyone else). I can live without a tax cut. I'd rather see spending and taxation get brought into at least spitting distance of sanity, so work on that.

On the Left/Democrat side: Get real about revenue. Upper income tax hikes won't nearly solve the revenue problem. First off, you are taxing income, not wealth, so people like Warren Buffet are not going to be paying nearly what people think they will. Secondly, have the courage to propose tax increase on the middle class. That is where the real money is. Present Americans with a choice; if you want this country to keep providing you with all the things that you believe you are entitled to, then pony up.

I am not confident that this will happen anytime soon on either side. Neither party wants to be the champion of eating your vegetables (although I think the GOP is a bit more likely to encourage people to eat veggies, but not even close to the extent that we require).

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

The way I see it, neither side is really serious about revenue growth or deficit reduction.

On the Right/GOP side: These people have to get off the tax cuts. Get spending under control, simplify the tax code, and be willing to do unpopular things like cut military spending and Social Security (over 65 conservatives like getting their pyramid system checks like everyone else). I can live without a tax cut. I'd rather see spending and taxation get brought into at least spitting distance of sanity, so work on that.

On the Left/Democrat side: Get real about revenue. Upper income tax hikes won't nearly solve the revenue problem. First off, you are taxing income, not wealth, so people like Warren Buffet are not going to be paying nearly what people think they will. Secondly, have the courage to propose tax increase on the middle class. That is where the real money is. Present Americans with a choice; if you want this country to keep providing you with all the things that you believe you are entitled to, then pony up.

I am not confident that this will happen anytime soon on either side. Neither party wants to be the champion of eating your vegetables (although I think the GOP is a bit more likely to encourage people to eat veggies, but not even close to the extent that we require).

Yes sir. Some of these politicians are talking like there was no fiscal cliff. Democrats and the president got what they wanted, higher tax rates. Not nearly enough to feed this beast. It isn't now and will never be.

 

[GoIrish41]

The way I see it, neither side is really serious about revenue growth or deficit reduction.


On the Left/Democrat side: ... Secondly, have the courage to propose tax increase on the middle class. That is where the real money is.

Present Americans with a choice; if you want this country to keep providing you with all the things that you believe you are entitled to, then pony up.

I am not confident that this will happen anytime soon on either side. Neither party wants to be the champion of eating your vegetables (although I think the GOP is a bit more likely to encourage people to eat veggies, but not even close to the extent that we require).

I agree with this point and have made it several times in this thread. However, raising taxes and eliminating loopholes for those at the top of the tax code MUST happen first or you would have a revolt on your hands. No group of people should be left to shoulder the burden alone.

I don't like the word "entitlement" because, in many cases, I believe this places a negative conotation where it does not belong. The republicans have long been masterful at defining the language we use to talk about isses and the democrats too often go along with it and talk about issues in the same way. I get your point though.

 

[chicago51]

This what I think is happening:

So you have the republicans who want spending cuts and entitlement reforms. Then you have democrats that want increased tax revenue. So what do you do? Compromise

So there is the Obama grand bargain that we have heard about a couple times during these self created DC deadlines. So this grand bargain is a bit less than 50/50 tax cuts to spending cuts. It is like $2 in tax revenue to $3 in spending cuts.

Okay now I don't think there should be any entitlement reform just like some people don't think there should be any tax increases. Again we compromise I'll accept some reform to entitlements and who knows maybe the entitlement reform really won't be cuts but saving by better efficency, different type of payments to hospital. Bottom line we should compromise and I shouldn't judge something to I see it.

What I think we have now is two first graders ready to trade desserts at lunch time. One kid goes "you give more yours first" then other kid says"no you give yours first" and then finally agree to do it at the same. Sometimes though you have a kid that really had no intention of trading and really only wanted to take the other guys desert. That is what I think is happening.

From what I have read on this board. There conservatives that are willing to give up some tax loopholes for changes in the social welfare system. Truthfully if we were in the position on Congress and the President we would have a deal done.

The reason I don't think it is working in Washington is because the DC republicans are not letting the grand bargain happen. Why? Is because they don't want to anger their rich corporate donors? Perhaps for some. Certainly though there are some are decent American republicans that are willing to do the right thing.

I think a big reason is the Grover Norquist tax pledge. I think that many republicans in Congress believe that if they raise tax and break this pledge then they will get primaried.

See I think the oath to Grover Norquist should be unconstitutional because it prevents a conflict of interest to your oath of office. Just a Democrat pledge to never cut Social Security would be. You can stand for something. When you take an oath that directly affects your ability to govern I think it is a violation of your oath of office.

Remember with American Tax Payer Relief Act the Congress technically cut taxes for almost 99 percent of Americans. As technically the Bush tax cuts had expired. The Bush tax cuts were passed under resolution (budget proposal) because Bush did not have the votes have the votes to overcome a democrat filibuster to make them permanent.

I think the president will do some entitlement changes. It may not be the amount some people want. You can't expect him to just make those entitlement savings though until he knows he is going to get the revenue wants from the other guys.

 

[Buster Bluth]

As I said before. Take one freakin' moment to step back from the Obama circlejerk and see what they are wrong on. This one is particularly easy.

 

[chicago51]

As I said before. Take one freakin' moment to step back from the Obama circlejerk and see what they are wrong on. This one is particularly easy.

I am not sure what you trying to get me to see here?

If you are pointing out the phrase figures never lie but liars figure okay fine. Maybe the 1.4% is misleading. I honestly hope you right about that as I don't think we spending enough right now; well at least not spending enough in right areas.

Sure I do think Obama is wrong on a some things. I think he is wrong because he like every president since Reagan we are not enforcing the Sherman Anti Trust Act. There I named something.

As far the general issues in terms of taxes, deficits, and economic policy I am not sure what you expect me or anyone else to see. Supply side economics is a sham. Demand is what drives an economy. The way I see demand being created is when people who spend nearly 100% percent of their income have a bit more income, so they are in spend to increase demand. That is the essential framework of progresive economics.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I am not sure what you trying to get me to see here?

That graph you posted is a measure of one President's spending in relation to the fiscal year immediately before his term. It insinuates that Obama is being fiscally conservative, and it isn't true.

It isn't true because George Bush's last fiscal year had TARP and other bailouts and Obama has continued the trillion-dollar deficits.

Oh gee what are the odds that information from one party is made to insinuate something that isn't actually relevant? All of those guys went to law school, they know how to lie without lying. Diversify your news.

 

[woolybug25]

It isn't true because George Bush's last fiscal year had TARP and other bailouts

Timothy Geithner approved the use of $300 Billion of TARP funds on March 23, 2009, almost two months after Obama was elected. That is one third of the total TARP issuance.


It's funny how conservatives want to use TARP as reasoning for why Obama is an idiot, but then use it as an excuse for why Bush wasn't moments later.