Politics

[Black Irish]

We extended the debt ceiling temporarily. Now both houses have to pass a budget.

I'm interested to see how much Paul Ryan's budget proposal screws poor people. I'm also interest to see if the Senate budget proposal will actually have tax reform that takes away loopholes that are only available to the wealthy like they say it will.

US Senate Passes 'No Budget, No Pay' To Extend Debt Ceiling

Can you elaborate on exactly why you think Ryan is going out of his way to screw poor people?

 

[Buster Bluth]

Because George Bush hates black people.

 

[MJ12666]

Chicago 51 can you please also provide a couple of examples of "loopholes" that are only available to the wealth" as well as where you obtained your US Federal tax expertise.

 

[chicago51]

Can you elaborate on exactly why you think Ryan is going out of his way to screw poor people?

Because he wants to cut things like food stamps.

Do you how much people get for food stamps $18 a week. Family's get a bit more. When are at rock bottom that ain't squat enough for say bread and eggs.

He wants to turn Medicare over the private sector so seniors have to pay more because the corporation has to profit.

He wants to cut back and possibly eliminate pell grants making it harder for low to lower middle class to get a college education.

He wants cut unemployment insurance.

He wants Medicaid Cuts and end the Medicaid expansion under Obamacare. Even though what is considered the poverty line is a joke.

Bottom he wants to balance the budget in 10 years with no tax increases and no defense cuts. Where is else is he going to get the money from? The American people

 

[Downinthebend]

You didn't answer the question.

Should we use our military to round up all 12 illegal immigrations? For reference, that's the entire state of Pennsylvania. You think that the military could forcefully remove 12 million people, many of whom will not go willingly and most of whom have communities supporting them? 25% of the military personnel are a minority, they'll all be down with this?

They interned 110,000 during World War II. Not even comparable to >12,000,000.

You say you support legal immigration, but is that a good system? America's immigration policy has been dreadfully racist for a long time. Read up on the caps on races that could come into the country back in the day, it hasn't been designed to get everyone in for a looooong time. This whole thing is equivalent to someone saying "don't speed on my 25mph neighborhood road, use the damn expressway!!" and the expressway is, well, permanently under construction and traffic jammed from here to Timbuktu. "Implementing current federal law" is a cop out.

Let's talk about taxes, do you think that removing the 12 million illegals would be beneficial to the state, which now has to take care of all of their children. If you think costs are bad now (they certainly are), what will happen when you have millions flooding the foster homes who need 100% care from the state. What if they take their children back home with them? What if they do! Now you have American citizens dying in the streets of Mexico, and/or joining Mexican drug cartels. Under current Federal law (see what I did there?), we'd be obliged to do something about that.

And just as much as they have been pandered to, the other side vilifies them for political reasons, knowing full well that it'd be a miracle to get their vote after citizenship. It's better for the GOP to have 12 million illegals rather than 12 million new Democrats.

I'd like to talk about comprehensive immigration reform, any takers? As this is the talk about anything politics thread, it isn't off topic.

We extended the debt ceiling temporarily. Now both houses have to pass a budget.

I'm interested to see how much Paul Ryan's budget proposal screws poor people. I'm also interest to see if the Senate budget proposal will actually have tax reform that takes away loopholes that are only available to the wealthy like they say it will.

US Senate Passes 'No Budget, No Pay' To Extend Debt Ceiling

You talk about the debt ceiling thing as if it is a good thing.

Do you know why loop holes are available to the super wealthy? Because they have the money to create them. Its stuff like that that makes me laugh when people think a larger government is the answer to social inequality because they don't realize that money talks, especially in government. And the larger the government the more impact it (the special interests) will have on you.

Apparently cutting spending can hurt the economy. Not saying the cutting spending is wrong. We need some cuts so the decifit doesn't keep growing faster than GDP. Unlike what some say government spending does help the economy and the deficit at least right now is what is hurting the economy.

Government is hurting the economy — by spending too little

I also though I would post a study on taxes and jobs. Study basically shows that taxes on the wealthy have not been shown to create or destroy jobs. Taxes have been shown to be job neutral. This was done by the US Congressional Research Committe, they are a non partison and simply exist to do research for Congress.

High-End Tax Hikes Would Have 'Negligible' Impact On Growth, Revised CRS Report Says

Actual Study:
http://democrats.waysandmeans.house...use.gov/files/Updated CRS Report 12:13:12.pdf

Spending cuts can hurt the economy short term, yes, but aren't we don't we care about the long term more? There is no such thing as a sunny-day Keynesian-st. They advocate spending when times are tough, and spending when times are good (because it would hurt us!) When does that spending stop, according to them? Never.

I don't think the impact one's raised/lower taxes have on the economy is a legitimate justification for raising and or lowering their taxes. I'd prefer to have all taxes super low, and have more of the burden (which would likely feel like a pebble compared to atm) on the rich than the poor because they are more capable of carrying it. I'm not opposed to what people call a "progressive" tax system, I'm just opposed to unconstitutional spending.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

You didn't answer the question.

Should we use our military to round up all 12 illegal immigrations? For reference, that's the entire state of Pennsylvania. You think that the military could forcefully remove 12 million people, many of whom will not go willingly and most of whom have communities supporting them? 25% of the military personnel are a minority, they'll all be down with this?

They interned 110,000 during World War II. Not even comparable to >12,000,000.

You say you support legal immigration, but is that a good system? America's immigration policy has been dreadfully racist for a long time. Read up on the caps on races that could come into the country back in the day, it hasn't been designed to get everyone in for a looooong time. This whole thing is equivalent to someone saying "don't speed on my 25mph neighborhood road, use the damn expressway!!" and the expressway is, well, permanently under construction and traffic jammed from here to Timbuktu. "Implementing current federal law" is a cop out.

Let's talk about taxes, do you think that removing the 12 million illegals would be beneficial to the state, which now has to take care of all of their children. If you think costs are bad now (they certainly are), what will happen when you have millions flooding the foster homes who need 100% care from the state. What if they take their children back home with them? What if they do! Now you have American citizens dying in the streets of Mexico, and/or joining Mexican drug cartels. Under current Federal law (see what I did there?), we'd be obliged to do something about that.

And just as much as they have been pandered to, the other side vilifies them for political reasons, knowing full well that it'd be a miracle to get their vote after citizenship. It's better for the GOP to have 12 million illegals rather than 12 million new Democrats.

A) I don't know, but we would have options if we had the political will to enforce our own laws. We've got the financial and logistical resources to have how many Predators and Global Hawks taking out terrorists and capturing surveillence? I haven't even said I support rounding up 12 million people and sending them wherever. This is a big, complicated problem and I'm humble enough to say I don't have all the answers. This all came up when I said people here illegally are gaining more rights through presidential action that still has to get through Congress first.

B) Open borders and status quo is going to bankrupt us and is a cop out. Carrying out our laws as they stand now is the duty of our lawmakers and our military. When that doesn't happen at a federal level, states can take matters into their own hands (Arizona). If you want to amend the Constitution, go about it legally and see what you can do. Lawmakers and politicians don't get to sit there and pick which laws they enforce and which ones they don't. That's garbage.

C) Out of all the "what if" scenarios you're throwing out there, I'll keep it short and sweet. If you're here "undocumented" and not on the books, sorry. You're not an American citizen.

 

[Downinthebend]

A) I don't know, but we would have options if we had the political will to enforce our own laws. We've got the financial and logistical resources to have how many Predators and Global Hawks taking out terrorists and capturing surveillence? I haven't even said I support rounding up 12 million people and sending them wherever. This is a big, complicated problem and I'm humble enough to say I don't have all the answers. This all came up when I said people here illegally are gaining more rights through presidential action that still has to get through Congress first.

B) Open borders and status quo is going to bankrupt us and is a cop out. Carrying out our laws as they stand now is the duty of our lawmakers and our military. When that doesn't happen at a federal level, states can take matters into their own hands (Arizona). If you want to amend the Constitution, go about it legally and see what you can do. Lawmakers and politicians don't get to sit there and pick which laws they enforce and which ones they don't. That's garbage.

C) Out of all the "what if" scenarios you're throwing out there, I'll keep it short and sweet. If you're here "undocumented" and not on the books, sorry. You're not an American citizen.

I think having the "political will" to use predators around the world on pretty much anyone (including american children without trials) is one of the sickest, most depressing, terrifiying, government-hate inspiring things in the world. And thats coming from someone that pretty strongly dislikes our government and many of the people associated with it. Its also coming from an american citizen that would prefer to not be murdered with or without a trial. Obama said he wouldn't want his son to play football. Would he want his son murdered by one of his drones?

If the answer to that question is anything but yes, how the **** (f-u-c-k) (I believe describing this should be done in the frankest of words) does he sleep at night? I don't believe anyone deserves to be murdered with or without a trial, but if anyone is, it would be someone sanctioning, ordering, or condoning the murder of an american citizen that was 16 ****ing years old. Noble peace prize lol bullshit.

 

[DSully1995]

I think having the "political will" to use predators around the world on pretty much anyone (including american children without trials) is one of the sickest, most depressing, terrifiying, government-hate inspiring things in the world. And thats coming from someone that pretty strongly dislikes our government and many of the people associated with it. Its also coming from an american citizen that would prefer to not be murdered with or without a trial. Obama said he wouldn't want his son to play football. Would he want his son murdered by one of his drones?

If the answer to that question is anything but yes, how the **** (f-u-c-k) (I believe describing this should be done in the frankest of words) does he sleep at night? I don't believe anyone deserves to be murdered with or without a trial, but if anyone is, it would be someone sanctioning, ordering, or condoning the murder of an american citizen that was 16 ****ing years old. Noble peace prize lol bullshit.

Being the devils advocate here, most presidents have to do horrendous things, with the intent of safeguarding the people ( Hiroshima/Nagasaki)(iraq war) (etc) But really I do believe the presidents just go along with the advice of the CIA/Military command ( and theyre realists no doubt, they dont view anything as too far)


and nobel peace prize to obama is bullshit

 

[Buster Bluth]

Do you how much people get for food stamps $8 a week. Family's get a bit more. When are at rock bottom that ain't squat enough for say bread and eggs.

I'm 100% sure that a family of four gets, on average, $18 a day.

He wants to turn Medicare over the private sector so seniors have to pay more because the corporation has to profit.

This is silly. They can make a profit by reducing costs too. You know, reduce that bureaucracy thingy that tends to **** up a lot.

I'm too busy to rant about the rest.

 

[Downinthebend]

Being the devils advocate here, most presidents have to do horrendous things, with the intent of safeguarding the people ( Hiroshima/Nagasaki)(iraq war) (etc) But really I do believe the presidents just go along with the advice of the CIA/Military command ( and theyre realists no doubt, they dont view anything as too far)


and nobel peace prize to obama is bullshit

I'd question the moralness of "having" to put a large missile into an American kid of 16 years old. I'd also question the moralness of "having" to put a large missile in (insert ethnicity here) kid of 16 years old. Need I continue? I thought that the price of liberty was the blood of tyrants not children, I'm sorry for my mistake.

 

[DSully1995]

I'd question the moralness of "having" to put a large missile into an American kid of 16 years old. I'd also question the moralness of "having" to put a large missile in (insert ethnicity here) kid of 16 years old. Need I continue? I thought that the price of liberty was the blood of tyrants not children, I'm sorry for my mistake.

Not disagreeeing with you, just trying to show my point of view, its sad but reality, #AnimalMentality

 

[MJ12666]

I hate to repeat this but to those who are ranting about "loopholes" can you please provide me with some examples and where you acquired your tax expertise.

Additionally, the following statements:

"I'd question the moralness of "having" to put a large missile into an American kid of 16 years old. I'd also question the moralness of "having" to put a large missile in (insert ethnicity here) kid of 16 years old."

Where and when is this medical procedure being done?

 

[Irish#1]

It would be very easy to get the economy under control. Start running all of the federal government like private enterprise. Take a good hard look at the budgets and slash them. I'm pro military, but we could not buy another jet fighter, tank, etc. for a year,and still be in good shape. The billions saved would be a god send. Of course this will never happen.

 

[chicago51]

I'm 100% sure that a family of four gets, on average, $18 a day.



This is silly. They can make a profit by reducing costs too. You know, reduce that bureaucracy thingy that tends to **** up a lot.

I'm too busy to rant about the rest.

Yea because private insurance is so cheep everyone else we can trust them to act in seniors best interest.

Ryan is budget calls for no tax increases or cuts in military. So he is balancing the budget on the poor and middle class. You may think America is a nation of takers and agree with it. You can have your opinion on it but tell me who Ryan's budget is going to end up hurting.

 

[MJ12666]

Unfortunately you cannot run the government like a private enterprise, nor you your really want to. However, the governments accounting systems (and budgets) do not reflect the its current financial condition. For example, let's say the five years ago the budget included $1 billion dollars to buy X number of tanks. That doesn't mean that these funds will be spent and the tanks delivered that year. They might be paid for and delivered next year for all we know. So you could in theory cut the defense budget this year and next year still get new tanks. This is just an example but basically the government spending bills appropriate funds for current and future use. It is really a very bad system that is easily manipulated.

 

[MJ12666]

Chicago51, I am still waiting for some examples of "loopholes" that only apply to the rich.

 

[Downinthebend]

Yea because private insurance is so cheep everyone else we can trust them to act in seniors best interest.

Ryan is budget calls for no tax increases or cuts in military. So he is balancing the budget on the poor and middle class. You may think America is a nation of takers and agree with it. You can have your opinion on it but tell me who Ryan's budget is going to end up hurting.

I dislike Ryan's budget. I also dislike most of the budgets I have seen the democrats propose. None of this is to mention that budgets don't generally bind future congresses, so they are just predictions, predictions that are incentivized to be optimistic.

Anyone who doesn't think that the military budget could be cut by 30% by tomorrow and have near 0 impact on our armed forces is operating from a position of logical fallacy.

I have heard various politicians views on bi-partisanship. One amusing position is that lack of bi partisanship is good when its the Rs but not the Ds. Another is that people that don't share your view should be convinced to join you. My definition of it is that work to accomplish what you desire regardless of party line, to me, that would mean working with the dems for less pro-war stuff and less military spending (My bad, I forgot that the dems don't care about that) and working with the republicans to stop some of the welfare stuff and budget stuff (**** the repubs don't care too much about that either)

 

[GoIrish41]

I dislike Ryan's budget. I also dislike most of the budgets I have seen the democrats propose. None of this is to mention that budgets don't generally bind future congresses, so they are just predictions, predictions that are incentivized to be optimistic.

Anyone who doesn't think that the military budget could be cut by 30% by tomorrow and have near 0 impact on our armed forces is operating from a position of logical fallacy.

I have heard various politicians views on bi-partisanship. One amusing position is that lack of bi partisanship is good when its the Rs but not the Ds. Another is that people that don't share your view should be convinced to join you. My definition of it is that work to accomplish what you desire regardless of party line, to me, that would mean working with the dems for less pro-war stuff and less military spending (My bad, I forgot that the dems don't care about that) and working with the republicans to stop some of the welfare stuff

I work for the Department of the Army, and for the past several weeks we have been running budget scenarios based on cuts of 10, 15 and 25%, and if you think getting to a 25% budget cuts are possible without affecting military readiness, you are not being realistic. These cuts should not be made in a rush. That wouldn't be good for the military and it would not be good for the economy. There aren't many on this board who are more liberal than I am, but massive cuts such as your suggested 30% "by tommorow" are not a good way to shrink the military. Have you considered how many people would be out of work with such a sudden jolt to the system?

 

[Downinthebend]

I hate to repeat this but to those who are ranting about "loopholes" can you please provide me with some examples and where you acquired your tax expertise.

Additionally, the following statements:

"I'd question the moralness of "having" to put a large missile into an American kid of 16 years old. I'd also question the moralness of "having" to put a large missile in (insert ethnicity here) kid of 16 years old."

Where and when is this medical procedure being done?

Can't tell if you are being serious. Read that statement in context if you are being serious, if you have further questions ask me.

I work for the Department of the Army, and for the past several weeks we have been running budget scenarios based on cuts of 10, 15 and 25%, and if you think getting to a 25% budget cuts are possible without affecting military readiness, you are not being realistic. These cuts should not be made in a rush. That wouldn't be good for the military and it would not be good for the economy. There aren't many on this board who are more liberal than I am, but massive cuts such as your suggested 30% "by tommorow" are not a good way to shrink the military. Have you considered how many people would be out of work with such a sudden jolt to the system?

I, don't work for the Department of the Army, or for that matter any other department. As discussion is exceedingly useful for formulating opinions, I ask you, Do you think the military ought to be cut, if so, in what manner? If not, for what reasons? What type of military readiness do we require? What is the purpose of the military?

 

[GoIrish41]

Can't tell if you are being serious. Read that statement in context if you are being serious, if you have further questions ask me.



I, don't work for the Department of the Army, or for that matter any other department. As discussion is exceedingly useful for formulating opinions, I ask you, Do you think the military ought to be cut, if so, in what manner? If not, for what reasons? What type of military readiness do we require? What is the purpose of the military?

I absolutely think the military should be cut, and I'm even disagreeing with the percentage by which suggest it should be cut. My issue with your post was your timeline for making the cuts. It just isn't as simple as that. The military, the civilian workforce that supports it, and the industries that support the whole stucture, have a massive economic impact. I'm not suggesting that I have any sort of plan -- I'll leave that to people much smarter than me. I'm just saying that hacking the budget with a meat ax without thinking it through is sure to cause readiness, economic and political problems that many are not considering. As for your question about military readiness, I submit that even if we think we have too many soldiers, we signed them on. In doing so, we took on the responsibility to ensure for their saccrifices, we guarantee that they have the best equipment to ensure they are as safe as possible, that their family's are cared for, and that we will take care of them when they return home injured. The degree to which we want to live up to that responsibility is the amount of readiness we require.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Yea because private insurance is so cheep everyone else we can trust them to act in seniors best interest.

That's totally irrelevant. It would all be subsidized. The question is getting "the most bang for your buck." The federal government isn't exactly known for that sorta thing.

 

[Black Irish]

Because he wants to cut things like food stamps.

Do you how much people get for food stamps $18 a week. Family's get a bit more. When are at rock bottom that ain't squat enough for say bread and eggs.

He wants to turn Medicare over the private sector so seniors have to pay more because the corporation has to profit.

He wants to cut back and possibly eliminate pell grants making it harder for low to lower middle class to get a college education.

He wants cut unemployment insurance.

He wants Medicaid Cuts and end the Medicaid expansion under Obamacare. Even though what is considered the poverty line is a joke.

Bottom he wants to balance the budget in 10 years with no tax increases and no defense cuts. Where is else is he going to get the money from? The American people

OK, Chicago, I'm going to make this simple; it's late, I've had a few drinks, I'm too tired to Google stats, but I'm still going to be honest and take your points one-by-one:

1.) I can't counter your food stamp numbers with anything but personal experience. When I was working a grocery store cash register in college 15 years ago, the food stamp crowd had more than $18 to spend. Your numbers seem a bit low, even by late 90s standards. Additionally, food stamps are for short term survival (at least they should be) not medium to long term sustenance. The idea is to move people off them as quickly as possible (in a perfect world, anyway).

2.) This statement with regard to Medicare seems like left-wing hyperbole more than anything. I really can't justify it with a response until you provide a real example/quote of Paul Ryan saying that he wants to make old people pay more for Medicare so that corporations can profit. I will say this, though; there are more than a few senior citizens out there who can afford to pay more for their Medicare coverage. IMO, why shouldn't they? Why should we foot the medical bill for those who are capable of paying their own way?

3.) Pell grants. This seems more like a privilege than a right. Since when is it the federal government's responsibility to ensure that everyone has the money to get a college education? We aren't Europe, not yet., And if you think I'm being hard-hearted, I financed my entire college education almost entirely with a combination of my own funds, grants, loans, and scholarships. The amount that my parents were able to kick in was less than $1000 over 4 years. And I paid my loans back within a year.

4.) Cutting unemployment insurance. You may not want to hear this, but there are lots of people coasting on unemployment until it runs out. I know people like this, personally. They turn down perfectly good jobs in the hope of something better because they know they check will be there every week. I don't want to see people starve in the street, but I also believe that taking away the net makes people cling tighter to the rope (to paraphrase P.J. O'Rourke).

5.) Medicaid and Medicare. Between all the waste and fraud and the people who have the means to pay more of their own way, I don't see why there can't be some cuts to these programs. Show me someone who can't find a way to make cuts in a government program and I'll show you someone who isn't looking hard enough. The cuts in Medicaid don;t necessarily have to hit to end users; they can hit the providers who aren't mired in poverty. And as I said previously, there are plenty of old people who can contribute more to their Medicare benefits; one size shouldn't fit all here, I think we need to see more means testing.

6.) Defense cuts. I'm a pro-military conservative, but I'm practical enough to believe that a large scale federal agency like the DOD can stand to be trimmed down. I won't stand for cuts in veterans benefits or troop safety; hell, I'll take a tax increase for that. But I'm sure our defense budget can take some fat-trimming just like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. And as far as getting the money from "the American people" is concerned, if you want broad-based social welfare spending, be prepared to pay for it (hello, new taxes).

 

[chicago51]

Chicago51, I am still waiting for some examples of "loopholes" that only apply to the rich.

Maybe we should ask Mitt Romney he campaigned on tax reform.

The biggest thing is the offshore tax havens. We got to have a mechanism that goes after money folks hide in swiss, camen islands, and other offshore havens.

I'll do some digging and post some more possibilities.

 

[Black Irish]

Maybe we should ask Mitt Romney he campaigned on tax reform.

The biggest thing is the offshore tax havens. We got to have a mechanism that goes after money folks hide in swiss, camen islands, and other offshore havens.

I'll do some digging and post some more possibilities.

I spent about a minute on Google and here's what I came up with:

The mortgage interest deduction is responsible for about $100 billion in lost tax revenue.
Offshore tax dodging is responsible for about $150 billion in lost tax revenue. That is between individuals and corporations, so not exactly apples and oranges I know. But since a corporation is headed by a rich guy who is trying to shield his income (even liberal icons like billionaires Warren Buffet and Bill Gates) the numbers probably aren't that divergent even after you take corporations out of the equations.

My point is that if you think that "the biggest thing" is offshore tax havens with regard to tax reform, well, I got some unpleasant news for you.

 

[Ndaccountant]

"In the accompanying video, Engler says taxes aren’t the only factor that makes U.S. companies less competitive. Talent is another. That's why another policy priority for The Roundtable is immigration reform. The Roundtable’s 2013 CEO Growth Agenda calls for a “national priority to attract the world’s best and brightest innovators, especially those who hold advanced STEM [science, technology, engineering, mathetmatics] degress from colleges and universities around the world.""

X1000 on the importance of immigration reform. This is a social, fiscal and national security issue.

Wall Street Tells Washington: Cut Corporate Taxes in 2013 | Daily Ticker - Yahoo! Finance

 

[Black Irish]

"In the accompanying video, Engler says taxes aren’t the only factor that makes U.S. companies less competitive. Talent is another. That's why another policy priority for The Roundtable is immigration reform. The Roundtable’s 2013 CEO Growth Agenda calls for a “national priority to attract the world’s best and brightest innovators, especially those who hold advanced STEM [science, technology, engineering, mathetmatics] degress from colleges and universities around the world.""

X1000 on the importance of immigration reform. This is a social, fiscal and national security issue.

Wall Street Tells Washington: Cut Corporate Taxes in 2013 | Daily Ticker - Yahoo! Finance

Why don't we just keep things the way they are? We have illegal immigrants come here and take the entry-level unskilled jobs from the poor and young, we outsource our working class manufacturing jobs, and then bring in legal immigrants to do the high-end technology jobs. If we keep this up, none of us citizens will ever have to work again. Sweet!

 

[Buster Bluth]

Why don't we just keep things the way they are? We have illegal immigrants come here and take the entry-level unskilled jobs from the poor and young, we outsource our working class manufacturing jobs, and then bring in legal immigrants to do the high-end technology jobs. If we keep this up, none of us citizens will ever have to work again. Sweet!

 

[chicago51]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ukkJYkANZ98" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Downinthebend]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ukkJYkANZ98" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I'll watch yours if you watch mine.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/mvOU-czQnl8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[chicago51]

I'll watch yours if you watch mine.

Deal.

Obama is done running for elections I could care less of what people think of him now. Ryan however ever is on my list of the top 2 people I do not want to be president, Rand (not to be confused with Ron) Paul being the other.