Politics

[chicago51]

That is the biggest problem. D's want to point figers at R's in the house, but the house has at least put something to a vote. The Senate doesn't want to. My question is, if the policies of the D's are so popular, why not vote on it to put pressure on the house to compromise?

Hey I agree 100% percent. Put something out there for people to see.

Policticians on both the left and the right see their constituents as more conservative than they actually are. If you look at polling I think the Democrats need to put their ideas out there. I don't see what there is to hide. If I was the Democrats chief strategist I would say put something reasonable (center left but not way out in left field) out there for the public to see. Then in every Congressional ad tie the Paul Ryan budget to every Republican candidate out there and paint the Republicans as the party for rich people.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

That is the biggest problem. D's want to point figers at R's in the house, but the house has at least put something to a vote. The Senate doesn't want to. My question is, if the policies of the D's are so popular, why not vote on it to put pressure on the house to compromise?

Why not just let your political opponents do the budget-passing, and then you can show videos of them pushing old women off cliffs?

I'd rather be the video-maker than the budget passer myself.

 

[GoIrish41]

That is the biggest problem. D's want to point figers at R's in the house, but the house has at least put something to a vote. The Senate doesn't want to. My question is, if the policies of the D's are so popular, why not vote on it to put pressure on the house to compromise?

Putting something to a vote that they know will absolutely never get passed and that is designed to provoke outrage and appeal to a radical base is not productive or impressive in any way.

 

[GoIrish41]

How does your government receive its funding without a budget passing???

We just rob our social security account.

 

[irishpat183]

I'll ask again. Why is nobody trying right now to push through legislation to require photo IDs to vote? Why did that issue die when the election was over? I'd say it is obvious what was going on with the voter ID laws. They were trying to keep people away from the polls by adding a requirement at the 11th hour. It was the timing that was troubling, not the idea. I'd support it if they were pushing for voter ID laws right now. But, if they wait until a month before the election and create chaos and confusion for voters who don't have an ID then I will be right back to being against it. Do it now and give people time to react and become compliant.

Or maybe the voters are just dumb enough to buy into people like Sheila Jackson Lee and Al Sharpton and believe that it's racist to require ID's to vote?

Just because theh issue has been quieted down, doesn't mean it's wrong. Everything the right does, is racist.

And it's the same Tatic that Barry used with the debt ceiling....(old people will die and not get their SS checks???) It's politics.

 

[irishpat183]

How does your government receive its funding without a budget passing???

By telling everyone that the rich guys is evil and it's owed to them. And that we need the money "right now" or people are gonna starve, die, lose their jobs...etc. Any number of doomsday senerios.

Spend a ton of money...pass budget and blame other party later. American economics.

 

[irishpat183]

We just rob our social security account.

LOL...That too

 

[GoIrish41]

Or maybe the voters are just dumb enough to buy into people like Sheila Jackson Lee and Al Sharpton and believe that it's racist to require ID's to vote?

Just because theh issue has been quieted down, doesn't mean it's wrong. Everything the right does, is racist.

And it's the same Tatic that Barry used with the debt ceiling....(old people will die and not get their SS checks???) It's politics.

I'm saying I agree with the voter ID laws. But they just can't be rolled out a month before the election. I would support them right now if they were pushing for it. The fact that they aren't probably shows that they were full of sh*t when they were claiming how important they were right before the presidential election.

 

[irishpat183]

Putting something to a vote that they know will absolutely never get passed and that is designed to provoke outrage and appeal to a radical base is not productive or impressive in any way.

Talk about a total f**king cop-out.


Come on. Like he said...if it was such a great idea, then dems would look like heros.

 

[irishpat183]

I'm saying I agree with the voter ID laws. But they just can't be rolled out a month before the election. I would support them right now if they were pushing for it. The fact that they aren't probably shows that they were full of sh*t when they were claiming how important they were right before the presidential election.

I'm actually dissapointed that they haven't followed up.

And most that lean left don't share your opinion on the matter. It's "disenfranchising".

 

[GoIrish41]

I'm actually dissapointed that they haven't followed up.

And most that lean left don't share your opinion on the matter. It's "disenfranchising".

I think you'd be surprised how many Dems would go along with this now that the election isn't right around the corner. I don't think most believe in and of itself it is disenfranchising, I think that they tried to ram it through right before the election and not give people time to come into compliance was the troubling piece. I don't know, I know I don't speak for everyone but that is how I think most would view it ... not everyone, but most.

I told you way back before the election that I'd support this after the election was over and that I suspected that it would fall off the face of the earth after the election and it appears I was right. I don't think voter IDs was ever a serious issue for the GOP. They were trying to keep people away from the polls. If that lightbulb would have just gone off for me about how full of sh*t my party was, I'd be disappointed too.

 

[GoIrish41]

Talk about a total f**king cop-out.


Come on. Like he said...if it was such a great idea, then dems would look like heros.

Come on yourself. You don't think Ryan in a million years believes that budget of his that made nuns go on a cross country protest was ever going to be adopted do you? If you are a Congressman and you know your actions are not going to result in anything productive, why would you do it? He's a shameless grandstander to his extreme right wing buddies.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Putting something to a vote that they know will absolutely never get passed and that is designed to provoke outrage and appeal to a radical base is not productive or impressive in any way.

You make look at it that way, but I look at it as a starting point for negotiation.

Look, the thing about Ryan is that you might not like how he gets there, but at least he is up front with problems. D's softly dance around the entitlements problem and, IMO, do a disservice to the American people because they point to the how (which is somehwat justified) but never talk about the why.

Frankly, as a country, we talk way too much about the how and not nearly enough about the why.

 

[chicago51]

You make look at it that way, but I look at it as a starting point for negotiation.

Look, the thing about Ryan is that you might not like how he gets there, but at least he is up front with problems. D's softly dance around the entitlements problem and, IMO, do a disservice to the American people because they point to the how (which is somehwat justified) but never talk about the why.

Frankly, as a country, we talk way too much about the how and not nearly enough about the why.

Dance around the entitlement problem?

President Obama has Medicare savings in his plan. He even does a chain CPI which will curb social security. As a liberal I think social security should even be on the table if anything do what Buster said and get rid of dawn trust fund; instead put it in an account. Besides a chain cpi takes time get real savings and by the time it does save significant amounts the boomers will almost all dead so it almost defeats the purpose.

Obamacare had over 700 billion in Medicare savings which Ryan keeps by the way. The Senate budget plan today had more Medicare savings that didn't hurt benefits.

You can make the argument that Democrats still are not doing enough on taking away earned benefits. It is hard not blame them when the other guys have said revenue is off the table even current reductions that have happened are over 2 to 1 in cuts to taxes, over 3 to 1 if the sequester stay in place.

 

[GoIrish41]

You make look at it that way, but I look at it as a starting point for negotiation.
Look, the thing about Ryan is that you might not like how he gets there, but at least he is up front with problems. D's softly dance around the entitlements problem and, IMO, do a disservice to the American people because they point to the how (which is somehwat justified) but never talk about the why.

Frankly, as a country, we talk way too much about the how and not nearly enough about the why.

This is a bit of a stretch. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on the first budget he released. He may well have been trying to establish a starting point. I don't think this is right, but I'll concede the point anyway. That was before the election happened, and although I think they were dillusional, they actually thought their message was selling and that the American people may have been on their side.

Then the election happened. The very points in his original budget were rejected out of hand by voters. Even many of those who voted for him and Romney, when polled, didn't agree with the lengths he went with his budget recommendations. I think it is clear that Ryan rejected that voter rejection. He choses to ignore the fact that his approach was not what the country wanted. Sure, he may lie to himself like a lot of others on the right do that it was just the delivery of the message that cost them the election, that the Dems pandered to the poor by lavishing them with gifts of food stamps and health insurance. The fact is that people don't agree with that radical right wing ideology -- not in enough numbers to matter anyway.

Earlier this week, Ryan released his second budget. This one far more radical than the first. In it he tries to abolish Obamacare, the signature piece of legislation of the previous four years. Thirty four times the House Republicans tried to repeal the law and 34 times they were rejected. During the election, the ACA didn't carry the baggage that the Republicans thought it did. Despite their aggressive efforts to demonize the law, voters chose Obama/Biden over Romney/Ryan. But, he ignores all of that and introduces the repeal of the law for a 35th time in his budget. That is not a starting point -- that is trying to p*ss the Dems off with something outrageous and insulting. He knows this budget doesn't have a shot of passage and that it is a million miles away from a "starting point." The guy who won the election gets to set the starting point, which he did with the grand bargain before the election and kept it on the table after he won the general election by more than 5 million votes and 130+ electoral votes.

The fact that Ryan left tax cuts on the richest of Americans in place, the ones that during the election he insisted would crush the economy and cost jobs, is comical. And while he removed the "care" portion of Obamacare, he left the "taxes" from the program in place. He has no credibility and I have no idea why the Republicans hold him in such high regard.

 

[Redbar]

The fact that he left tax cuts on the richest of Americans in place, the one during the election he insisted would crush the economy and cost jobs in droves, he left those in place too. And while he removed the "care" portion of Obamacare, he left the "taxes" from the program in place. He has zero credibility. He has no credibility and I have no idea why the Republicans hold him in such high regard.

They don't, really, they just hate the other guy. So it's the enemy of my enemy thing. They spent the last four years looking for the right guy to sell austerity to the middle class. They'll spend the next four doing the same, regardless of whether the economy turns around or not. It's not the message, they just need the right messenger.

 

[GoIrish41]

You make look at it that way, but I look at it as a starting point for negotiation.

Look, the thing about Ryan is that you might not like how he gets there, but at least he is up front with problems. D's softly dance around the entitlements problem and, IMO, do a disservice to the American people because they point to the how (which is somehwat justified) but never talk about the why.

Frankly, as a country, we talk way too much about the how and not nearly enough about the why.

Not sure I understand what you are saying here. To the GOP the how is to lower taxes on the rich and the why is because it gives "job creators" a reason to create jobs. Additionally the how includes massive cuts in spending without regard to how it is going to affect poor people or the middle class and the why is because that is how you get to deficit reduction without irritating their rich doners. The problem is that their ideas are based on a disproven theory and are objectionable to most people in this country, which is evidenced by their loss in the past election.

To the Dems, the how is a balanced plan to both raise taxes on the wealthy and make spending cuts to get to deficit reduction. Why? Because it does not put the entire deficit on the backs of the middle class and it chips away at the deficit without people suffering needlessly.

I think the Dems are up front about the problems. That the GOP does not agree with them about the most pressing problems is the issue. And, again, the voters have spoken on which approach they support.

 

[GoIrish41]

They don't, really, they just hate the other guy. So it's the enemy of my enemy thing. They spent the last four years looking for the right guy to sell austerity to the middle class. They'll spend the next four doing the same, regardless of whether the economy turns around or not. It's not the message, they just need the right messenger.

Completely agree with first bolded part.

Don't disagree with the rest but I would point out that their is not a shred of evidence that if they would have won their would be anything that looks like austerity. Indeed, every Republican president since Reagan were out of control spenders. Bush 1 might have been the exception and he didn't get a second term. Afterall, if one thing was crystal clear during the election it was that Romney and Ryan were not above changing positions and/or outright lying in the election. Why would anyone believe they would have even tried to do what they said they were going to do. Austerity is for the Democrats' administration. They would have slashed taxes and spent way more money on Defense, just like the almost always do.

 

[chicago51]

I was listening to CSPAN on the radio during the Senate budget proposal hearing/announcement. I heard Senator C. Grassley Republican from Iowa say he was against the proposed Democrat budget because he said that a trillion dollars could not be raised from just closing loopholes.

I didn't think much of it at the time.

However I thought of Paul Ryan's budget how he claims he cut taxes to 25 percent on several of the top brackets and make up for it by closing loopholes and deductions. Romney the campaign wanted to drop it to 28 percent and that was 5 trillion dollar cut. So Ryan's cut is at least a 6 trillion dollar tax mostly on rich people. Ryan claims we can get the same amount of revenue though. Ryan reduces the debt through cuts but he does state the revenue is the same.

So a republican Senator says we can't get one trillion from closing tax loopholes but I am supposed to believe Paul Ryan can somehow get 6 trillion. I know some have questioned my intelligence but I am not that stupid. .

 

[GoIrish41]

I was listening to CSPAN on the radio during the Senate budget proposal hearing/announcement. I heard Senator C. Grassley Republican from Iowa say he was against the proposed Democrat budget because he said that a trillion dollars could not be raised from just closing loopholes.

I didn't think much of it at the time.

However I though Paul Ryan's budget how he claims he cut taxes to 25 percent on several of the top brackets and make up for it by closing loopholes and deductions. Romney the campaign want to drop it to 28 percent and that was 5 trillion dollar cut. So Ryan's cut is at least a 6 trillion dollar tax mostly on rich people. Ryan claims we can get the same amount of revenue though. Ryan reduces the debt through cuts but it does state the revenue is the same.

So a republican Senator says we can't one trillion from closing tax loopholes but I am supposed to believe Paul Ryan can somehow get 6 trillion. I know some have questioned my intelligence but I am not that stupid. .

There is absolutely nothing serious about Ryan's budget. I said it before and I'll say it again. Romeny would have said absolutely anything to become president and as is clear by the fuzzy math he did all through the election when he talked about his budget plan. That Ryan's makes Romney's look sane is saying something.

 

[Redbar]

Completely agree with first bolded part.

Don't disagree with the rest but I would point out that their is not a shred of evidence that if they would have won their would be anything that looks like austerity. Indeed, every Republican president since Reagan were out of control spenders. Bush 1 might have been the exception and he didn't get a second term. Afterall, if one thing was crystal clear during the election it was that Romney and Ryan were not above changing positions and/or outright lying in the election. Why would anyone believe they would have even tried to do what they said they were going to do. Austerity is for the Democrats' administration. They would have slashed taxes and spent way more money on Defense, just like the almost always do.

I completely agree with your statement. All this austerity stuff is a ploy in response to the Tea Party crowd, but if you go back through the checkbook a lot of the big ticket items were signed by the Republicans or necessitated by Republican policies.

 

[chicago51]

I must give Republicans credit and blame the mainstream media. We should be talking about jobs more than the deficit. Yet the media's main focus is on the debt. Can somebody ask hey what about the unemployment? If the media wants to be critical of liberal policies not creating enough jobs fine, I don't agree but please start talking about jobs.

I really want someone to ask: You've had your tax cuts for 10 years where are the jobs?

 

[GoIrish41]

I must give Republicans credit and blame the mainstream media. We should be talking about jobs more than the deficit. Yet the media's main focus is on the debt. Can somebody ask hey what about the unemployment? If the media wants to be critical of liberal policies not creating enough jobs fine, I don't agree but please start talking about jobs.

I really want someone to ask: You've had your tax cuts for 10 years where are the jobs?

Republicans are masters of setting the dialogue and the Dems could learn a lot from the way they do it. For decades they have given us terms like "job creators" when we talk about the beneficiaries of tax breaks for the wealthy. We talk about "the right to life" instead of talking about women's health issues. We talk about "the defense of marriage" instead of talking about denying gays their rights. It's why large numbers of people dislike Obamacare but like each provision that makes up the program. Frankly, their ability to define dozens of topics is the only thing that keeps them in the game.

 

[Downinthebend]

I was listening to CSPAN on the radio during the Senate budget proposal hearing/announcement. I heard Senator C. Grassley Republican from Iowa say he was against the proposed Democrat budget because he said that a trillion dollars could not be raised from just closing loopholes.

I didn't think much of it at the time.

However I thought of Paul Ryan's budget how he claims he cut taxes to 25 percent on several of the top brackets and make up for it by closing loopholes and deductions. Romney the campaign wanted to drop it to 28 percent and that was 5 trillion dollar cut. So Ryan's cut is at least a 6 trillion dollar tax mostly on rich people. Ryan claims we can get the same amount of revenue though. Ryan reduces the debt through cuts but he does state the revenue is the same.

So a republican Senator says we can't get one trillion from closing tax loopholes but I am supposed to believe Paul Ryan can somehow get 6 trillion. I know some have questioned my intelligence but I am not that stupid. .

I'm inclined to agree with what you're saying: that there won't be a trillion dollars raised by closing "loopholes", and that both Obama's budget and Ryan's have "beneficial" projections of it.

Republicans are masters of setting the dialogue and the Dems could learn a lot from the way they do it. For decades they have given us terms like "job creators" when we talk about the beneficiaries of tax breaks for the wealthy. We talk about "the right to life" instead of talking about women's health issues. We talk about "the defense of marriage" instead of talking about denying gays their rights. It's why large numbers of people dislike Obamacare but like each provision that makes up the program. Frankly, their ability to define dozens of topics is the only thing that keeps them in the game.

Eh, to me "narrative" is just a matter of opinion, about what about the issue you think is most important.

I'd imagine I'd agree with you that denying people the (religious) right to marriage based on sexual preference is wrong, but I'd imagine you would disagree with me on the issue, because I don't think the government should have any role in marriage (as its a religious rite, let each church/individual practice their own interpretation).

Eh, to me the issue about taxes isn't an economic one-- in that I'd like lower taxes for everyone regardless of whether it was beneficial or not for the economy. I'm also perfectly fine with the rich paying a higher percent than everyone else, I just think that all the taxes should be much lower than they are lol.

I don't agree with your framing of the abortion issue.

 

[Irish YJ]

Love this song.... My damn poor grandfathers approve of this message.
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0t24TXeFXuU?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/I
MG]

[QUOTE]Sometimes I wonder where my next dollar gonna come from

Keep my head up and something falls out of the sky

Daddy taught me how to use my bootstraps and carry on

He said God will be good to you son if you try



Uncle Sam comes around getting both hands in your pocket

People out there, just barely are gettin by

Render unto Caesar no more than you got to

Keep the Lord in your heart, and keep your powder dry..

But do you good in mean time

While you're waiting on a good time,draw the line.



Well you might wanna think about getting yourself a shotgun

You might wanna think about growing you a garden patch

You might have to go out and shoot something and drag it home

But don't never count your chickens before they hatch

But do you good in mean time

While you're waiting on a good time, draw the line.



I'm pretty sure that the government ain't gonna save you

The good lord helps the ones that help themselves

You wanna stand on your own 2 feet,and use some backbone

Don't go crawling on your knees, begging for help

But do you good in mean time

While you're waiting on a good time,draw the line.

Yeah in the mean time,draw the line.[/QUOTE]

 

[Redbar]

Republicans are masters of setting the dialogue and the Dems could learn a lot from the way they do it. For decades they have given us terms like "job creators" when we talk about the beneficiaries of tax breaks for the wealthy. We talk about "the right to life" instead of talking about women's health issues. We talk about "the defense of marriage" instead of talking about denying gays their rights. It's why large numbers of people dislike Obamacare but like each provision that makes up the program. Frankly, their ability to define dozens of topics is the only thing that keeps them in the game.

Totally agree. As I see it Capitalism is the best economic system, it does provide the best opportunity for people to advance their station, but as people achieve they have a tendency to try to exert their wealth and influence on the process so that they can continue to reap benefits. This is normal and natural, I guess. The problem is when you look at the population in any country, there are more people that could be considered middle class or less, than there are rich. Since many of the rich choose to use their assets in the political arena to directly benefit their bottom line and that further enrichment that they seek is often not in the wider population's best interest, they run into a numbers problem. Hence you have groups like the 99%ers, or you admit ("in private") that there is 47% you don't even try to talk to. My point is if you are trying to sell people something that is not in their best interest you better have a pretty good pitch and a damm good salesman. If marketing and framing the narrative doesn't work make it hard for them to express their will, i.e. vote.

 

[RDU Irish]

Let me tell the tale of two doctors I have recently dealt with.

Plastic surgeon doing great, no impact from ACA, highly elective, discretionary work is as good as ever.

Podiatrist is crapping his pants. Needs to buy an $80,000 software package at the same time deal with reduced medicare reimbursements and more time to manage each patient. Big expense for a one office, solo-practitioner and he would shut down and retire rather than deal with it if he were 10 years older.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Big picture philosophical question for everyone:

At what percentage of a tax rate does one go from citizen to servant?

 

[GoIrish41]

And where would that be?

If it were that simple, why wouldn't the government spend $5T on everything?

The whole idea of a stimulus is to jump start the economy. The increased economic activity raises demand because people are working (albeit supported by the public sector) and have money to spend. That arrangement doesn't come crashing down after bridges are fixed because demand creates private sector jobs. People change jobs all the time. Couldn't people hired under a stimulus package to work on roads take a job in the private sector doing something else once the stimulous money runs out? Of course they could.

In today's political landscape, the government doesn't use stimulous more often because the republican party insists on austerity measures. Obama has been pushing for additional stimulus for years.

 

[BobD]

Let me tell the tale of two doctors I have recently dealt with.

Plastic surgeon doing great, no impact from ACA, highly elective, discretionary work is as good as ever.

Podiatrist is crapping his pants. Needs to buy an $80,000 software package at the same time deal with reduced medicare reimbursements and more time to manage each patient. Big expense for a one office, solo-practitioner and he would shut down and retire rather than deal with it if he were 10 years older.

No good gynecologist stories?