Politics

[Buster Bluth]

1. Robots are not taking American manufacturing jobs, China and India are. The robots are taking jobs from them.

Sorta irrelevant.

 

[Rizzophil]

The post office is going to be cutting back on Saturday service.

Back in 2006 the post office had a budget surplus.

Then the Postal Reform Act of 2006 forced the US Post Office to prefund its pension fund for 75 years. No other business in America has to prefund 75 years.

The post office does not operate on tax dollars despite being government ran. They are great for small businesses particularly in rural areas. They are also the 2nd biggest employer in US with evil Walmart being the first.

The government needs to repeal or replace the Postal Reform Act of 2006. The post office provides a ton of jobs. They don't need a tax payer bailout they just need the government take the handcuffs off with this stupid law that Bush put in.

USPS spends about 80% of it's budget on labor costs. Conversely, FEDEX and UPS spend about 50% of their budget on labor costs. The whole pension system needs to be scrapped.

 

[irishff1014]

USPS spends about 80% of it's budget on labor costs. Conversely, FEDEX and UPS spend about 50% of their budget on labor costs. The whole pension system needs to be scrapped.

I didn't know this but Fedex Ground sub contracts drivers out. They only make roughly 12-15 an hour with no benefits and insurance from fed ex but the company that they are actually employed through. That's how there cost is lower their. I know a guy that worked their that's how i know that.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

1. Robots are not taking American manufacturing jobs, China and India are. The robots are taking jobs from them.

2. Of course they hate Obama, he is a socialist Kenyan Muslim who hates America. At least the Obama they created in their mind is. The actual Obama is actually very centrist but they are too busy yelling to realize it.

No centrist runs on "fundamental transformation" of this country.

 

[Ndaccountant]

The post office is going to be cutting back on Saturday service.

Back in 2006 the post office had a budget surplus.

Then the Postal Reform Act of 2006 forced the US Post Office to prefund its pension fund for 75 years. No other business in America has to prefund 75 years.

The post office does not operate on tax dollars despite being government ran. They are great for small businesses particularly in rural areas. They are also the 2nd biggest employer in US with evil Walmart being the first.

The government needs to repeal or replace the Postal Reform Act of 2006. The post office provides a ton of jobs. They don't need a tax payer bailout they just need the government take the handcuffs off with this stupid law that Bush put in.

Hang on a second there.

Prior to that act being implemented, the retiree benefits were grossly under funded. Thanks to these prefunding payments, the Postal Service has greatly reduced its unfunded obligations for retiree health benefits. At the end of fiscal year 2010, these obligations were under $49 billion. If the Postal Service continues making its prefunding payments, its unfunded obligations for retiree health benefits will be around $33 billion by the end of the decade.

What is worse is what would happen if this wasn't implemented. Postal employees are federal employees. All federal pension and retirement benefits are paid from the U.S. Treasury. Since the Postal Service’s operating costs are collected from ratepayers, the Postal Service pays the U.S. Treasury for the costs of federal pension benefits postal workers are legally entitled to receive. Even if the Postal Service cannot or does not make these payments, postal workers are still entitled to pension benefits from the Federal government. So it’s ultimately taxpayers who get stuck with the bill if the Postal Service can’t pay the Treasury for the costs of pensions.

 

[chicago51]

You know that they could just scrap the USPS and privatize it for a fraction of the cost to the tax payers right?

...and then the private companies would use robots to replace most of the jobs, and unemployment would go through the roof. Annnnnnd were back to square one in terms of adding to the deficit.

The post office doesn't use tax dollars. It is government ran but operates on its own seperate budget. Having a postal service is in the Constitution.

 

[chicago51]

Hang on a second there.

Prior to that act being implemented, the retiree benefits were grossly under funded. Thanks to these prefunding payments, the Postal Service has greatly reduced its unfunded obligations for retiree health benefits. At the end of fiscal year 2010, these obligations were under $49 billion. If the Postal Service continues making its prefunding payments, its unfunded obligations for retiree health benefits will be around $33 billion by the end of the decade.

What is worse is what would happen if this wasn't implemented. Postal employees are federal employees. All federal pension and retirement benefits are paid from the U.S. Treasury. Since the Postal Service’s operating costs are collected from ratepayers, the Postal Service pays the U.S. Treasury for the costs of federal pension benefits postal workers are legally entitled to receive. Even if the Postal Service cannot or does not make these payments, postal workers are still entitled to pension benefits from the Federal government. So it’s ultimately taxpayers who get stuck with the bill if the Postal Service can’t pay the Treasury for the costs of pensions.

There needed to be retiree pension reform. 75 years in advance? You are funding for people not even born.

 

[Ndaccountant]

There needed to be retiree pension reform. 75 years in advance? You are funding for people not even born.

That too, is a myth.

The confusion over 75 years may be due to an "accounting" and not an "actuarial or funding" issue. They only have to fund the future liability of their current or former workforce. This would include some actuarial estimate about the mortality rates of their current workers (I.e. how long they live). So a 25 year old worker would have an average life expectancy (from birth) of 78.7 years. Thus, they would have to project future retiree health benefits for this individual up to about 54 years in the future.

But for accounting purposes they must estimate the future liability over a 75 year period (according to OPM financial accounting guidelines). In this case, they would make some assumptions about new entrants into the workforce. Theoretically, these new entrants could include someone who is not born yet. While they have to account for these future liabilities on their financial statements they do not have to fund them.

 

[chicago51]

A way to reduce the deficit without the Paul Ryan budget. This budget reduces the debt to GDP ratio just as much as the Ryan Budget.

Congressional Progressive Caucus : Budget for All

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/u4kC_73JNrE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The Economic Policy Institute Policy Center provided technical assistance in developing, scoring, and modeling the Budget for All. Their technical report is available here.
The Budget for All puts Americans back to work, charts a path to responsible deficit reduction, enhances our economic competitiveness, rebuilds the middle class and invests in our future. Our budget makes no cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security benefits, and asks those who have benefited most from our economy to pay a sensible share.

Our Budget Puts Americans Back to Work
• Our budget attacks America’s persistently high unemployment levels with more than $2.9 trillion in additional job-creating investments. This plan utilizes every tool at the government’s disposal to get our economy moving again, including:
• Direct hire programs that create a School Improvement Corps, a Park Improvement Corps, and a Student Jobs Corps, among others.
• Targeted tax incentives that spur clean energy, manufacturing, and cutting-edge technological investments in the private sector.
• Widespread domestic investments including an infrastructure bank, a $556 billion surface transportation bill, and approximately $2.1 trillion in widespread domestic investment.

Our Budget Exhibits Fiscal Discipline
• The Budget for All achieves $6.8 trillion in deficit reduction, hits the same debt to GDP ratio as the Republican budget, and has lower deficits in the last five years, but does so in a responsible way that does not devastate what Americans want preserved.
• We achieve these notable benchmarks by focusing on the true drivers of our deficit – unsustainable tax policies, the wars overseas, and policies that helped cause the recent recession – rather than putting the middle class’s social safety net on the chopping block.

Our Budget Creates a Fairer America
• Ends tax cuts for the top 2% of Americans on schedule at year’s end
)Already Done in Tax Payer Relief Act)
• Extends tax relief for middle class households and the vast majority of Americans
)Already Done in Tax Payer Relief Act)
• Creates new tax brackets for millionaires and billionaires
Top end currently at 39.6% millionares would be 41%, Billionares 49%
• Eliminates the tax code’s preferential treatment of capital gains and dividends
• Abolishes corporate welfare for oil, gas, and coal companies
• Eliminates loopholes that allow businesses to dodge their true tax liability
• Calls for the adoption of the “Buffett Rule”
• Creates a publicly funded federal election system that gets corporate money out of politics for good

Our Budget Brings Our Troops Home
• Responsibly and expeditiously ends our military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving America more secure at home and abroad
• Modernizes our military to address 21st century threats and stop contributing to our deficit problems This budget looks to cut military spending that is wasteful something Buster has long called for. Defense spending on things that create jobs like building a new aircraft carrier or whatever would stay. Would look to cut down on wasteful troop and resource demployments and audit the pentagon.

Protects American Families
• Provides a Making Work Pay tax credit for families struggling with high gas and food cost 2013-2015
• Extends Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child and Dependent Care Credit
)Already Done in Tax Payer Relief Act)
• Invests in programs to stave off further foreclosures to keep families in their homes
• Invests in our children’s education by increasing Education, Training, and Social Services

 

[Black Irish]

1. Robots are not taking American manufacturing jobs, China and India are. The robots are taking jobs from them.

2. Of course they hate Obama, he is a socialist Kenyan Muslim who hates America. At least the Obama they created in their mind is. The actual Obama is actually very centrist but they are too busy yelling to realize it.

Come on, man. I don't think even Obama cheerleaders are claiming this. He's only appeared centrist lately because that's the line he had to toe in order to get things done. I'd rather him be honest about his hard-left politics as opposed to being a phony centrist. Be who you are and deal with the consequences.

 

[Black Irish]

The Congressional Progressive Caucus budget that chicago51 put up seems to, at first glance, offer up a fair amount of wishful thinking and assumptions to go along with hard numbers. Putting people into government funded jobs may reduce unemployment, but will it increase the deficit? And if the budget looks to cut "wasteful defense spending" then why can't it look at entitlement spending as well? Why shouldn't we consider raising the Social Security eligibility age? An age limit that hasn't been adjusted in almost 80 years!? Aren't progressives fond of change? Then let's look at changing entitlements.

 

[GoIrish41]

Come on, man. I don't think even Obama cheerleaders are claiming this. He's only appeared centrist lately because that's the line he had to toe in order to get things done. I'd rather him be honest about his hard-left politics as opposed to being a phony centrist. Be who you are and deal with the consequences.

Obamacare -- Republican idea that he adopted and was promply accused of being a socialist

Assault weapons ban -- supported Reagan, but when Obama wants it he is a facist who wants to take away everyone's guns so he can easily take over the country

Immigration reform -- his plan is essentially the same as W's plan, but he is accused of "giving away gifts" to minorities to gain their favor

As governor of California, Reagan signed into law the largest tax increase in the history of any state up till then. Meanwhile, state spending nearly doubled. As president, Reagan “raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office,” including four times in just two years. As president, Reagan raised taxes 11 times but today's GOP is a slave to their pledge to Grover Norquist and Obama is a tax and spend Democrat because he suggests raising taxes to ease the deficit.

Obama is a Democrat and an advocate for Democratic principles. Obama is a centrist in the traditional sense of the word. It is just that the GOP is so far right today that the gap between them and the center is huge. Just because they paint him as a lefty does not make it so.

 

[DSully1995]

Obamacare -- Republican idea that he adopted and was promply accused of being a socialist

Assault weapons ban -- supported Reagan, but when Obama wants it he is a facist who wants to take away everyone's guns so he can easily take over the country

Immigration reform -- his plan is essentially the same as W's plan, but he is accused of "giving away gifts" to minorities to gain their favor

As governor of California, Reagan signed into law the largest tax increase in the history of any state up till then. Meanwhile, state spending nearly doubled. As president, Reagan “raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office,” including four times in just two years. As president, Reagan raised taxes 11 times but today's GOP is a slave to their pledge to Grover Norquist's pledge and Obama is a tax and spend Democrat because he suggests raising taxes to ease the deficit.

Obama is a Democrat and an advocate for Democratic principles. Obama is a centrist in the traditional sense of the word. It is just that the GOP is so far right today that the gap between them and the center is huge. Just because they paint him as a lefty does not make it so.

Quoting this so that people see it more. Reps

 

[chicago51]

Obamacare -- Republican idea that he adopted and was promply accused of being a socialist

Assault weapons ban -- supported Reagan, but when Obama wants it he is a facist who wants to take away everyone's guns so he can easily take over the country

Immigration reform -- his plan is essentially the same as W's plan, but he is accused of "giving away gifts" to minorities to gain their favor

As governor of California, Reagan signed into law the largest tax increase in the history of any state up till then. Meanwhile, state spending nearly doubled. As president, Reagan “raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office,” including four times in just two years. As president, Reagan raised taxes 11 times but today's GOP is a slave to their pledge to Grover Norquist's pledge and Obama is a tax and spend Democrat because he suggests raising taxes to ease the deficit.

Obama is a Democrat and an advocate for Democratic principles. Obama is a centrist in the traditional sense of the word. It is just that the GOP is so far right today that the gap between them and the center is huge. Just because they paint him as a lefty does not make it so.

Glad you mentioned Grover. I would argue taking that tax pledge is unconstitutional. The oath of office pledges allegiance to citizens. Yet you have an alternate allegiance/oath that can be a conflict of interest. You can hate tax increase that is fine but taking that pledge with Grover and actually taking an oath that affects your ability to govern goes against your oath of office were your sole allegiance is supposed to be to the United States.

As far as centrist go. Obama is certainly a centrist even if he is a left centrist. We have not had a true liberal since LBJ.

 

[chicago51]

The Congressional Progressive Caucus budget that chicago51 put up seems to, at first glance, offer up a fair amount of wishful thinking and assumptions to go along with hard numbers. Putting people into government funded jobs may reduce unemployment, but will it increase the deficit? And if the budget looks to cut "wasteful defense spending" then why can't it look at entitlement spending as well? Why shouldn't we consider raising the Social Security eligibility age? An age limit that hasn't been adjusted in almost 80 years!? Aren't progressives fond of change? Then let's look at changing entitlements.

What I am about to post many economic scholars will back up.

You when look to make cut you have understand the effect. When you add jobs you have to understand the effect.

Say you raise social security age eligibility? Then people stay in the work force longer thus more unemployment more people on unemployment insurance and food stamps. Are really saving money?

Say you cut Medicare? Do nursing homes lay people off?

Say you cut government jobs and investment? Then you lose those jobs the tax income and have to pay those people unemployment. For better or worse right now the government is 20 percent of GDP if cut it too much too fast your economy is unlikely to thrive. Then with all these that lost their will consume less goods and services hence more job loss.

Now say you add a bunch of jobs the through government spending. That is less people on food stamps and unemployment. The big deal though is now all these people go out and consume more goods and services. Higher demand for goods and services means you need a greater supply. To meet that supply you need more jobs. More jobs means more demand for goods and services hence more demand and the cycle continues.

This multiplier effect is not as good as it could be because of low wages country but it is still significant.

You want to fix the debt? Put people to work. Let's try trickle up economics and have the money move up to billionaires which it will instead of money trickling down.

 

[GoIrish41]

What I am about to post many economic scholars will back up.

You when look to make cut you have understand the effect. When you add jobs you have to understand the effect.

Say you raise social security age eligibility? Then people stay in the work force longer thus more unemployment more people on unemployment insurance and food stamps. Are really saving money?

Say you cut Medicare? Do nursing homes lay people off?

Say you cut government jobs and investment? Then you lose those jobs the tax income and have to pay unemployment. The government is 20 percent of GDP if cut it too much your economy is unlikely to thrive. Then with all these that lost their will consume less goods and services hence more job loss.

Now say you add a bunch of jobs the through government spending. That is less people on food stamps and unemployment. The big though is now all these people go out and consume more goods and services. Higher demand for goods and services means you need a greater supply. To meet that supply you need more jobs. More jobs means more goods and services hence more demand and the cycle continues.

This multiplier effect is not as good as it could be because of low wages country but it is still significant.

You want to fix the debt? Put people to work. Let's try trickle up economics and have the money move up to billionaires which it will and not down.

love it

 

[Buster Bluth]

What I am about to post many economic scholars will back up.

Doubtful, but here goes...

Say you raise social security age eligibility? Then people stay in the work force longer thus more unemployment more people on unemployment insurance and food stamps. Are really saving money?

Many of those just aren't being replaced with younger workers. They are just eliminating the jobs.

Say you cut Medicare? Do nursing homes lay people off?

I'm not a fan of cutting medicare, but there is a ton of abuse in it.

Say you cut government jobs and investment? Then you lose those jobs the tax income and have to pay those people unemployment. For better or worse right now the government is 20 percent of GDP if cut it too much too fast your economy is unlikely to thrive. Then with all these that lost their will consume less goods and services hence more job loss.

That's still no reason to waste tax dollars. Besides, important services will still be made up by the private sector. Your could fully privatize the USPS and the would operate better (that would mean going nonunion).

Now say you add a bunch of jobs the through government spending. That is less people on food stamps and unemployment. The big deal though is now all these people go out and consume more goods and services. Higher demand for goods and services means you need a greater supply. To meet that supply you need more jobs. More jobs means more demand for goods and services hence more demand and the cycle continues.

This would work if we made those goods in the US. Demand from goods from China made by US corporations owned by the 1% doesn't make this country richer, it makes the 1% richer.

You want to fix the debt? Put people to work. Let's try trickle up economics and have the money move up to billionaires which it will instead of money trickling down.

I think you've failed to grasp the biggest issue of our time. "Putting people back to work" isn't the goal of proper economics, it's productivity. Jobs will continue to be replaced and simplified by automation, only unions stand in the way of that (until their company is unsuitable for competition).

Even if they have jobs, the uneducated will have jobs so simple and worthless (e.g. Walmart) that their wage will not be a liveable one.

 

[chicago51]

First off when it comes to automation and robictics you are only talking about manufactoring. You are discounting the whole service industry which has nothing to do with manufactoring.

Second despite China manufactoring in the United States is making a big comeback. If we can get a government to take care of currency manipulation we can get even more jobs.

Eliminating Currency Manipulation Could Restore Lost US Manufacturing Jobs | Global Economy content from IndustryWeek

Not mention what would happen if we had fair trade laws.

There is some inefficency in government ran operations but is also inefficencies in the private section. How fix the waste and inefficency in Medicare or the USPO instead of eliminating?

I am sorry I just share your doom and gloom view of the world that 80% of the population is done for. Sure we got issue but nothing at this point doesn't have a solution.

Eventually people are going to revolt (not an armed rebellion) and demand a fair tax and trade system. I think both the occuppy movement and grass roots portion of the tea party movement are signs of this revolution. While I think the Tea Party folks are misguided I think the message of both those groups is the same. Something is not right I am upset about. If we as a nation really get focused I don't see any of these economic issue being unfixable at least at this point.

 

[RDU Irish]

So lets send every US citizen $3000 and see how that trickles up? I bet that would be much more stimulative than the $1 trillion stimulus bill (at the same cost) and much fairer. Lots of that would pay down debt and bail out small fries with creditors breathing down their necks, thus bailing out banks from the bottom up. Not to mention hospitals are high on the list of creditors to the poor and middle class, they would see an influx of that cash too.

Family of four gets $12,000 which would be 3 or 4 months worth of expenses for the "average". Whether it is spent, saved or used to pay down debt it improves the lot of that family and the individual decisions made would have the maximum benefit for the overall economy, and within days of the checks hitting the mail box.

You argue trickle up economics but then will surely defend bailing out banks and GM. Why not equitably print money for all citizens if you are going to do it. Economically wouldn't it be immediate stimulus which is supposedly the goal?

The US has huge economic potential, simply normalizing our idiotic repatriation taxation and cutting the corporate income tax in half would create a boom like we cannot imagine. That is action that "costs" little to nothing in the near term and actually grows "revenues" dramatically down the road.

 

[RDU Irish]

Social security is simple. Add one month to all elligibility levels for every year of age under 55. If you are 43 it will be one more year to start collecting and one more year to your maximum benefit. Cap it at a three years so that 19 and under will all be the same. That would probably solve 80% of the problem and actually improve consumer sentiment sense anyone I talk to under 50 honestly thinks there won't be SS for them.

Why can't they just do it?

 

[Black Irish]

Obamacare -- Republican idea that he adopted and was promply accused of being a socialist

Assault weapons ban -- supported Reagan, but when Obama wants it he is a facist who wants to take away everyone's guns so he can easily take over the country

Immigration reform -- his plan is essentially the same as W's plan, but he is accused of "giving away gifts" to minorities to gain their favor

As governor of California, Reagan signed into law the largest tax increase in the history of any state up till then. Meanwhile, state spending nearly doubled. As president, Reagan “raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office,” including four times in just two years. As president, Reagan raised taxes 11 times but today's GOP is a slave to their pledge to Grover Norquist and Obama is a tax and spend Democrat because he suggests raising taxes to ease the deficit.

Obama is a Democrat and an advocate for Democratic principles. Obama is a centrist in the traditional sense of the word. It is just that the GOP is so far right today that the gap between them and the center is huge. Just because they paint him as a lefty does not make it so.

You are missing my point. I'm not talking about playing GOP vs. Democrat compare and contrast. Obama may have said and done things that play to the center, but that is dealing with political reality, the same as Reagan raising taxes (or having to sign off on what the legislature passes). I'm not calling Obama hard left as an insult, I calling him that because that is what he is. Look at the things he has said and done, who and what he supports. Just because he has not instituted a overreaching leftist agenda doesn't mean that he doesn't want to.

 

[Black Irish]

Here's my plan to fix my personal economic situation. I'm going to max out my credit card buying a variety of hard goods (consumer electronics, furniture, etc). I'm going to turn around and sell those goods on Ebay and Craiglist for cash. I'm going to take that cash to the poker tables. Since I'm a net positive cash winner at poker over the past 5 years, I have an expectation to win. I'll will then use my winnings to pay off my debt and the excess money will go towards bettering my personal financial situation for the foreseeable future.

That plan makes about as much sense as pumping a bunch of government money into the economy and hoping that the multiplier effects somehow both 1.) kick start our economy immediately 2.) generate enough revenue to pay off the debt and interest accumulated, with enough left over to sustain a long term robust economy. It may make sense to some on paper, but do you really want to make that kind of a gamble in reality?

 

[GoIrish41]

You are missing my point. I'm not talking about playing GOP vs. Democrat compare and contrast. Obama may have said and done things that play to the center, but that is dealing with political reality, the same as Reagan raising taxes (or having to sign off on what the legislature passes). I'm not calling Obama hard left as an insult, I calling him that because that is what he is. Look at the things he has said and done, who and what he supports. Just because he has not instituted a overreaching leftist agenda doesn't mean that he doesn't want to.

I'm not suggesting that you were trying to be insulting Black Irish. The things I listed are the things he's done or is attempting to do. What exactly are the things that he has "said and done" that make him hard left? IMO, it is obvious that Obama is a centrist. The center doesn't move because the GOP goes so dramatically right. The center is where it has always been -- in the mainstream of American political thought.

 

[Black Irish]

I'm not suggesting that you were trying to be insulting Black Irish. The things I listed are the things he's done or is attempting to do. What exactly are the things that he has "said and done" that make him hard left? IMO, it is obvious that Obama is a centrist. The center doesn't move because the GOP goes so dramatically right. The center is where it has always been -- in the mainstream of American political thought.

You are right, the center does not move, but neither does the left or right. Obama's political leanings have nothing to do with where the GOP is on the political scale. Obama is a leftist. Take into account all of the things he has said in unguarded moments with regard to: same sex marriage, gun control, unions, the constitution, taxes, energy policy, single payer health care. Sorry I don't have any specific quotes for you, but I don't want to back myself into a corner with paraphrasing and I don't feel like trawling through Google to find suitable Obama quotes right now. Like I said before, just because Obama is signing off on some centrist things is more a result of bowing to political realities, taking half a loaf. I genuinely do not believe that is his true political self.

 

[DSully1995]

Social security is simple. Add one month to all elligibility levels for every year of age under 55. If you are 43 it will be one more year to start collecting and one more year to your maximum benefit. Cap it at a three years so that 19 and under will all be the same. That would probably solve 80% of the problem and actually improve consumer sentiment sense anyone I talk to under 50 honestly thinks there won't be SS for them.

Why can't they just do it?

Ive got a big theory that they have been told they dont really need to. I mean, isnt one of the main ways to promote keynesian economics through government spending? Its one of the easiest ways to *increase* the money supply, since the debt has hardly ever been wanted completely paid off. I just think if Bernanke sat down the heads of the republican party and democratic party in a private room and told them listen fix this or america crashes, theyd be paying off the debt in no time. Any thoughts?

 

[GoIrish41]

You are right, the center does not move, but neither does the left or right. Obama's political leanings have nothing to do with where the GOP is on the political scale. Obama is a leftist. Take into account all of the things he has said in unguarded moments with regard to: same sex marriage, gun control, unions, the constitution, taxes, energy policy, single payer health care. Sorry I don't have any specific quotes for you, but I don't want to back myself into a corner with paraphrasing and I don't feel like trawling through Google to find suitable Obama quotes right now. Like I said before, just because Obama is signing off on some centrist things is more a result of bowing to political realities, taking half a loaf. I genuinely do not believe that is his true political self.

In modern politics, it seems that the expectation of one side is that the Center moves to compensate for their shifts. For example, if the Democrats would move dramatically left -- like LBJ style -- some might have the expectations that the Center would also shift slightly that way to remain that happy medium between the right and left. You clearly agree personally that this is a flawed expectation. That is not what is happening in today's Republican party. It would be difficult to argue that party has shifted dramatically to the right over the past couple of years with the emergence of the Tea Party. When those on the right talk about Obama being a socialist, it is a head scratcher for me. Their expectation is that their shift right should move the Center to the right as well. The reason that many liberals got upset with Obama in his first term is that it seemed this is how he viewed negotiations on things like the debt ceiling and settled for solutions too far right. It appears that he grew a pair in his second term and is holding firm to democratic principles. while you and I agree that the center does not move, there are a lot of people who do, and their rhetoric about him being a bleeding heart, socialist, lefty are way off base. Without specific evidence as to why you think he is hard left, it is difficult for me to rebut, so we can just leave it there and disagree.

 

[Black Irish]

How Liberal Is President Obama? - NYTimes.com

I pasted the link rather because the whole article is too long to copy. Here are some brief highlights. The article indicates that Obama falls between the hard left and center of his party. So by that estimation, I was wrong to call Obama "hard left" in that he is not as liberal in comparison to other Democrats like Dennis Kucinic or Nancy Pelosi. But as I articulated before, I'm not talking strictly about his voting record, I am talking about what his actual political beliefs are. Political realities force him to play more to the center in order to get things done. He also does not seem to have the political skill or "pair" that GoIrish41 references to realize a more progressive agenda. That doesn't mean he doesn't want one.

I also think that conservatives are more willing to honestly define their own politics as conservative, while many liberals believe that their own leftist politics are moderate or in the center.

The article also states that the GOP has moved more to the right overall than the Democrats have moved leftward. But the Republicans have not paid as heavy a political price for rightward shifts than the Democrats have for lurching left. IMO, the Democrats have gotten about as liberal as they can get away with while the GOP have room to move rightwards without significant penalty. Again, there are a multitude of factors involved, but Obama has to play more to the center to survive while the GOP has the luxury of playing more to the right.

And as far as a concrete example of Obama's leftism, how about his administration issuing waivers of the TANF law, aka the workfare bill signed into law by Bill Clinton? I can't see that as anything but a leftward move on welfare.

 

[Ndaccountant]

5 Tax Breaks on the Chopping Block - Yahoo! Finance

 

[chicago51]

Want to fix social security? Right now the cap on it is $110k of income meaning after that amount you don't any more SS tax. My solution is eliminate the cap so millionaires and billionaires pay into significantly. Maybe you keep the cap at 110k and then have 1 to 2 percent tax for income beyond the cap. It will make social security solvent forever.

 

[Downinthebend]

Want to fix social security? Right now the cap on it is $110k of income meaning after that amount you don't any more SS tax. My solution is eliminate the cap so millionaires and billionaires pay into significantly. Maybe you keep the cap at 110k and then have 1 to 2 percent tax for income beyond the cap. It will make social security solvent forever.

And if you gave Charles Ponzi an army to terrorize people with he could keep his scheme going for eternity.