Democrats & Liberals Archives

This is why we can't have nice things.

Moody’s Analytics, one of the big ratings agencies just said we should give up on the debt ceiling entirely. Their reason? The uncertainty it creates in the market. Funny thing, though, this sucker’s literally been around since the First World War. What’s changed?

Well, what do you think? The uncertainty comes from the fact that the decision to raise the money to pay our bills on time has become politicized, and should Republicans make a habit of this, there is a risk the vote may not come when it has to, on time.

It may be hard for some Republicans to believe, but I've got quite a bit of a conservative streak in me. trouble is, my conservative streak isn't conservative in name only, a label for something that better deserves to be called radical and reckless. I like nice, stable institutions. I like programs that work, and careful modifications when modifications are made. I don't want government to do everything. I'm not a pacifist, and I'm not a big fan of running deficits when we can help it.

I have a strong belief in the value of social order, of cooperation and community values, and a strong sense of patriotism. When I decided I no longer would support Republicans back in the 1990s, the basic reason was that the party I had once seen as careful and protective of law and order in the country had become reckless, had come to endanger a system of rules and practices that protected our country.

I haven't seen much to change that opinion of mine since, and that's one of the primary reasons I'm such an aggressive opponent of the Republicans nowadays.

Especially in the current situation.

The report I linked to up there, between the lines is saying this: with the Republicans in charge of the House, Moody's Analytics doesn't have the same trust that the debt ceiling will be raised regularly and for certain, that America will avoid defaults.

This is what happens when what should be routine and efficient gets corrupted into a means of extorting policy changes. This is the recklessness and disdain for institutional integrity that drove me away from the Republicans in the first place.

The question here is when was the last time a Republican action actually reassured investors, reassured the markets in a positive fashion? The Republican's responses, as of late, to all the disruptions and disasters have been to withdraw government further, to regulate less, to give more free reign to those who just failed to police themselves and behave responsibly.

My best guess of the reasoning behind this is the hope that somehow, the markets will behave like they're supposed to according to party theory, that the economy will begin its recovery, that their way of running the system will be vindicated, and they'll be able to hold the line on big government.

To be honest, though, Republicans have become more effective at selling the need for greater government intervention, more effective at getting people to despair in the economic, environmental, and social future of this country, than they have been at bringing a promised second morning in America.

What do I want? A return to function and order. A return to markets that make sense, and do things that make sense, instead of taking these huge hazardous risks that we have to go further into debt to bail people out on. A return to government that operates as a third party that can intervene independently of what the corporations want, and act in the public interest. An economy where we actually make things, where we're not falling far behind our potential productivity just so some free market libertarians can force us to take decades to recover.

I want my country to work again, in short, on many different levels, and in many different ways. I'm sick of America being the place where mediocrity is confused with egalitarianism, and striving for excellence and integrity is seen as being elitist. I want Americans to take pride in themselves. I want them to know it isn't a crime to look out for each other, to seek out their own best interests, even as some guy tells them they have to sacrifice for his interests instead.

I want the Republican Party to stop holding the good fortunes of this country in bondage to their own electoral success. If they can't win political power without threatening to bring disaster on everybody's heads, then they deserve to go down to defeat.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at July 18, 2011 11:47 AM
Comments
Comment #325992

Stephen, We are spending ourselves into oblivion. Bush doubled the deficit in 8 years, Obama has almost in 3 years what Bush did in 8. The thing I see is that at least the Republicans are bringing ideas to the table more then I can say for the Democrats. Clinton did what Obama has in the begining but after Republicans took congress things straightened out the same needs to happens to Obama.

Posted by: KAP at July 18, 2011 1:08 PM
Comment #325997

SD writes; “The uncertainty (over the debt ceiling) comes from the fact that the decision to raise the money to pay our bills on time has become politicized, and should Republicans make a habit of this, there is a risk the vote may not come when it has to, on time.”

Well, that’s certainly one way to look at it. Here’s another…uncertainly is created when we continue to pass spending legislation without the revenue necessary to pay for it.

Let’s agree, that going forward we will fund all spending legislation from current revenues and not rosy future scenarios.

OH, WAIT, that’s what the house will be voting on this week, a Balanced Budget Amendment. A BBA if passed and ratified by the states, would eliminate all uncertainty. It would eliminate deficit spending.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 18, 2011 2:36 PM
Comment #325999

KAP-
The politics of panic won’t get us very far. Republicans have realized they’ve gotten this country into a big damn mess, and now they’re pointing at it, trying to pretend that all this new debt is Obama’s fault.

The problem is, in actual policy terms, most of Obama’s big spending items were emergency actions like the stimulus, which won’t be long term expenditures. So what are the long term aggravations of the deficit?

Well, Republican policies, not to put too fine a point on it, including their tax policies.

Except admitting that will gut your ability to stick it to the Democrats. So, it’s all Obama’s fault.

Your policies created the deficit we now deal with. Bush’s recession widened the deficit by reducing already too-low revenues. Republican refuse to ask for additional revenues, and instead propose spending cuts most economists say are inappropriate for our current economic situation, inappropriate and counterproductive.

Which is to say, if Republicans get their way on spending, it will create an economic drag which will take back some, if not all of the fiscal benefits.

Clinton did what Obama has in the begining but after Republicans took congress things straightened out the same needs to happens to Obama.

Clinton raised taxes on the rich, focused on improving the economy for the average person. Bush lowered taxes on the rich, focused on improving the economy for the job creators.

Clinton got a surplus. Bush created a deficit.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 18, 2011 2:40 PM
Comment #326000

Royal Flush-
I’m touched you’re so concerned about deficit spending now, after your party willfully deficit spent for the entire Bush Administration.

Your party had the choice to let the surpluses continue. Your party had the choice at every step of the way to ask for new revenues to cover new spending, spending your people deemed necessary.

You didn’t do it.

The Balanced Budget Amendment is a joke. Even Paul Ryan’s budget would fail it. It’s Republicans throwing around arbitrary numbers, ignoring economic impacts, and acting like they’re responsible.

Why don’t you ask yourself why the Framers didn’t write a balanced budget clause into the constitution in the first place? Maybe the basic reason was that this nation had to managed huge debts at the very beginning, and as such, weren’t stupid enough to lock the fate of the Republic to an arbitrary limit.

Instead, through a combination of taxes, tariffs, and bond issues, they paid down their debts, and made that debt manageable.

Republicans don’t want to have to confront the problem themselves, by statutory exercises. They don’t want to be seen as directly threatening the entitlements, which many of their constituents value just like all those liberals out there.

The real uncertainty out there is Republicans screwing around with this nation’s finances, trying to extort policy changes out of a nation whose leaders wouldn’t otherwise take the political risk of defying their constituents in order to pass.

Republicans are eroding the trust of the world in the quality of America’s ability to pay its bills, not the Democrats. The Democrats balanced the budget, the Republicans unbalanced it. Liberal policies will reduce the uncertainty, Republicans will increase it, through their patent recklessness.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 18, 2011 2:55 PM
Comment #326001

Would the republicans admit that bush’s deficit is much larger but he kept the wars off the books and Obama did not? WTF.

Posted by: Jeff at July 18, 2011 3:04 PM
Comment #326002

Stephen, First lets quit the BS that republicans realized they got us in this mess, both parties had a hand in this mess your party controled the purse from 2006-2010. You can defend Democrats all you want but if this mess dosen’t get straightened out I’ll continue to blame both EQUALLY. The stimulous proved to be a real winner didn’t it “UNEMPLOYMENT WON’T GO OVER 8%” here we are @9.2%. If Obama would have centered on the economy and jobs instead of the year long fight for HCR, maybe we wouldn’t be in such a mess and maybe people would have looked at raising taxes a bit more favorably. Like some have said Stephen “WE HAVE A SPENDING PROBLEM, NOT A REVENUE PROBLEM” and that goes for both sides, Bush spent like a drunken sailor now Obama is. Sorry to all the sailors for that statement but I was a sailor during Nam and that was the only way I could think of to describe this countries spending habits.

Posted by: KAP at July 18, 2011 3:05 PM
Comment #326004
This is what happens when what should be routine and efficient gets corrupted into a means of extorting policy changes. This is the recklessness and disdain for institutional integrity that drove me away from the Republicans in the first place.

SD
I couldn’t agree with you more. This should stop now!

Obama should get back on TV and tell the American people that he was extorting all Senior Citizens when he said he could not guarantee them their Social Security checks. That was really reckless and a disdain for institutional integrity. Boy! If that doesn’t beat all!!!!

Imagine all those little old gray people worrying themselves into a possible cardiac arrest that they may not get their checks. Sad but true. This is what the government has come to. I will fall a little short of lying by saying only that it is extortion. Oh wait…not much difference. So I take that last statement back.

Posted by: MAW at July 18, 2011 3:09 PM
Comment #326005

Most of the stimulus was tax cuts they don’t work. Subtract the cost of the wars and the bush tax cuts And BOOM most of the deficit is gone.

Posted by: Jeff at July 18, 2011 3:10 PM
Comment #326006


Since many of the programs that conservatives would like to eliminate are very popular with the people, a balanced budget would likely lead to higher taxes, especially on the wealthier members of our society. This is especially true in light of the fact that conservatives are highly protective of spending that they do approve of.

Posted by: jlw at July 18, 2011 3:13 PM
Comment #326007

Jeff

Would the republicans admit that bush’s deficit is much larger but he kept the wars off the books and Obama did not? WTF.

I for one will admit that if Dems stop using that piece as a reason for running up a deficit of over $3 Trillion in 2 ½ years. For one thing, just prior to TARP the deficit was only a little under $500 billion. TARP brought it to $1.4 trillion when he left office.

Just a little reminder. TARP got paid back! The dirty little secret here is that it got paid back on OBAMA’S Watch…. So what does that mean? He spent more than that perhaps?

Posted by: MAW at July 18, 2011 3:16 PM
Comment #326008

Jeff

Most of the stimulus was tax cuts they don’t work. Subtract the cost of the wars and the bush tax cuts And BOOM most of the deficit is gone.

Tax cuts don’t work when the promised spending cuts don’t happen. As with Reagan. As with Bush the first,

Posted by: MAW at July 18, 2011 3:18 PM
Comment #326010

Stephen,
Best title for an article this year! I love it!

Posted by: phx8 at July 18, 2011 3:33 PM
Comment #326011
I want the Republican Party to stop holding the good fortunes of this country in bondage to their own electoral success. If they can’t win political power without threatening to bring disaster on everybody’s heads, then they deserve to go down to defeat.


Really Stephen? Really? This country is circling the drain as we write. Don’t look now or maybe you have been Van Winkle but Democrats have been in power. And not just by a little. They had a super majority and passed every spending bill on the planet. Is this the government you desire? Really?

I think I am apoplectic or in shock at this statement! Of course. It is all the fault of the Republicans. Democrats have no responsibility in this at all! What on earth could I have been thinking?


Posted by: MAW at July 18, 2011 4:06 PM
Comment #326012

KAP-

Stephen, First lets quit the BS that republicans realized they got us in this mess, both parties had a hand in this mess your party controled the purse from 2006-2010.

What were the primary drivers of the Deficit?

Tax cuts that undermined revenue directly. Democrats had a part in this, But this was a priority of the Republicans, and such tax cuts were repeated throughout the administration. The biggest ones were done under circumstances where Republicans controlled the White House and the House of Representatives, where budget items like this started. They were even passed under reconciliation rules, in order to make them unfilibusterable- an indication both that they feared Democrats could successfully block it, and that they were set on making it happen.

Medicare spending increases without revenue increases or offset to compensate. The Bill was brought out of committee and marked up for a vote in two Republican controlled chambers of Congress, and signed into law by a Republican President.

And two wars run for several years without so much as a tax increase to fund them. Additionally, Budgetary numbers on this were misleading, so budget deficits, if they had included war costs, would have been hundreds of billions of dollars greater. Again, much of this starting under Republicans who controlled the agenda, and maintained under President Bush for as long as he was in office

You’re ignoring the power that Republicans had and exercised to set the agenda their way, to do things how they wanted. You’re brushing aside the agenda setting power of Congress, and also the ability of the President to take items off the table.

You ignore a hell of a lot to shell out blame equally. Such as how power actually works in Washington. I’ve got too long of a memory of the actual dealings in Washington to buy your convenient partisan argument.

The stimulous proved to be a real winner didn’t it “UNEMPLOYMENT WON’T GO OVER 8%” here we are @9.2%. If Obama would have centered on the economy and jobs instead of the year long fight for HCR, maybe we wouldn’t be in such a mess and maybe people would have looked at raising taxes a bit more favorably.

Ignorance once again rears its head.

The 8% prediction was based on numbers that said the economy declined by 3.8% in the fourth quarter of 2008.

The real number turned out to be 6.3%, but we didn’t know this until the month AFTER the stimulus was passed.

The 8% unemployment prediction was based on a much shallower decline. It was more or less out the window once the evidence showed things had been worse than that. The question is, what was it going to be in that case. The estimate of what it could have been is something like 11.5%.

In other words, you’re blaming Obama for not having reached a target that was only plausible if the damage from the financial collapse hadn’t turned out to be as grave as it was. Maybe Obama should have been more pessimistic, and enacted a stronger stimulus. But you would object to that on principle.

Like some have said Stephen “WE HAVE A SPENDING PROBLEM, NOT A REVENUE PROBLEM” and that goes for both sides, Bush spent like a drunken sailor now Obama is.

We have a party who wants economic growth for free, and won’t pay one red cent more in taxes, even if it gets three cents worth of spending cuts.

We have a problem matching revenue to spending, but mostly a problem with revenue. Part of that is a crappy economy. Unemployed or underemployed people don’t pay the taxes that employed people do. Businesses that are failing or less profitable, who don’t get the customers they need aren’t going to fill the coffers.

And if every response to a fiscal problem is to demand more tax cuts, you’ll never resolve a single deficit, because despite all your propaganda, Republicans have never succeeded in improving the revenue picture by cutting taxes.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 18, 2011 4:22 PM
Comment #326013

MAW-
He was telling them the truth. What do you think happens when we can no longer raise money to cover government expenses? Where the hell do you think you get a social security check from?

The treasury. There are two places the treasury gets revenue from: taking in revenue, and issuing debt. We currently take in less than we pay for, so in order to pay for the rest, we have to issue debt.

Otherwise the treasure has to decide who to stiff, or what payments to delay. It’s an exercise in economic desperation, and an instant ten percent hit to our GDP.

Obama’s the one insisting on the debt ceiling being raised, the one who offered a debt ceiling increase clean and without all this BS. He treated it as the functional program it was, the necessary part of the process.

It’s Republicans who have failed to do their jobs, to do right by the country.

As for this country circling down the drain?

Look, from where I’m standing, it’s the Republicans who have decided that the most important thing for America is getting Republicans back in power. Our Federal courts face a crisis because Republicans are blocking the President’s choices. Agencies are having to do without appointed heads because the Republicans filibuster every choice the President makes. Republicans filibustered even basic functional legislation meant to keep folks who are unemployed off the streets

They seem intent on pushing this country closer and closer to the point of crisis.

You oppose everything we do to try to make things better on ideological grounds, and then turn around and wonder out loud why the Democrats aren’t doing anything to help anybody. You obstruct anything and everything, and call us feckless for being so hamstrung.

And now your people hold up a necessary increase in the debt limit so you can force otherwise unattainable concessions from the Democrats.

YES, it is the fault of the Republicans. It’s their actual political strategy: screw up the country so Obama doesn’t get re-elected.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 18, 2011 4:34 PM
Comment #326014

From Talking Points Memo:

As conservative anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist acknowledged on MSNBC Monday, “That’s why the present Republican Senate, every Republican Senator has agreed to a Constitutional amendment that requires a two-thirds vote to raise taxes and doesn’t simply allow you to get around the balanced budget amendment, because there’s an emergency. . This is — this has teeth.”

Even a simpler Constitutional requirement that the government maintain a balanced budget would be fraught with risk. What happens in an economic or foreign policy emergency? What happens if Congress recognizes the need to spend more money, but lacks the will to raise the revenue needed to pay for it.
The version of the BBA Republicans are pushing now goes much further. It would impose supermajority requirements — two-thirds of both the House and Senate — to raise taxes. That means it’s really a formula for slashing spending at an epic clip, and, invariably, for devastating key safety net programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. It just doesn’t say so explicitly.

You got Grover Norquist here saying its a good thing that it doesn’t have exceptions for emergency spending.

In other words, if we needed to save the banks? Nope! Go to war with some other country that just attacked us? Nope! Everything has to go by a two thirds vote, and that includes TAX INCREASES!

Once again, Republican rhetoric contains an unfortunate familiarity This business of making tax increases subject to a two thirds majority vote is part of what created California’s current fiscal situation.

We don’t need to write the failed policy of the past decade in stone, especially if our goal is actual budget balancing.

Fact is, the Republicans couldn’t even pass the Ryan Budget with this Balanced Budget Amendment. It’s Fiscal politics porn, not serious policy.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 18, 2011 4:45 PM
Comment #326015

stephen


“He was telling them the truth. What do you think happens when we can no longer raise money to cover government expenses? Where the hell do you think you get a social security check from?”


what happens when the creditors say “no more”. mark stein made an exellent point today. you can sit down with your wife and decide your debt ceiling will be 1.8 million dollars, but ultimately it is not your decision but that of the lenders as to whether you’ll be allowed to borrow that much.

we can’t keep raising the debt ceiling. at some point it has to stop. now is as good a time as any. we have to scale back the gov’t. raising the top tax bracket and eliminating depreciation of assets on business jets will not even come close to solving the problem.

Posted by: dbs at July 18, 2011 4:51 PM
Comment #326016

SD writes; “Why don’t you ask yourself why the Framers didn’t write a balanced budget clause into the constitution in the first place? Maybe the basic reason was that this nation had to managed huge debts at the very beginning, and as such, weren’t stupid enough to lock the fate of the Republic to an arbitrary limit.”

The Framers did allow for constitutional amendments. The Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) does not set “arbitrary limits”. It allows for increasing revenue at any time to match spending. The left will remain free to propose increasing taxes and spending as they wish.

The BBA merely asks for a balance between the two (revenue and spending) that…when placed on a ledger, zero each other out. WOW, what a radical and right-wing that idea is.

National emergencies requiring deficit spending come and go and provisions in the BBA can address that. It is not likely however, and this is what many politicians object to, that deficit spending could continue to be used for “Pork Projects” and other vote buying expenditures. Private business buyouts and rescues would be much more difficult as they should be. Subsidies also would require more revenue or cuts to other spending.

Our military budget would be forced to compete for revenue dollars as well. Foreign aid and many other useless expenditures would compete with domestic needs.

The left prefers the open checkbook concept of government funding. I doubt if any of our founders had this in mind.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 18, 2011 5:04 PM
Comment #326017

Stephen,
The BBA is economics for dumb people. It’s one of the stupidest ideas we’ve seen in quite a while. All those idiots coming out if favor of not increasing the debt ceiling, including presidential candidates, that was bad enough; but now we have to listen to the same idiots bray about this kind of stuff. It’s awful. It’s just awful. Obama and Geithner and Boehner and Ryan talked the ignoramuses off the debt ceiling ledge. They threatened to leap if something they didn’t understand was passed, until it was patiently explained to them by the leaders of their own party that not passing it rised catastrophe. Now, with the BBA, they know their dumbness has no chance of being enacted, yet we must listen to all the dumbness and the potentially poisonous provision in the BBA.

Well, I guess the Founding Fathers warned us that democracy did include some dangers. Holy cow. The BBA is head-slappingly stupid. This is what happens when we keep cutting investment in education.

Posted by: phx8 at July 18, 2011 5:22 PM
Comment #326018

Yes, this is why we can’t have nice things.

Posted by: phx8 at July 18, 2011 5:23 PM
Comment #326019

We demand, says the Left, that the debt limit be increased to fund all the spending already done that wasn’t covered by past debt increases and to allow for more required (in their opinion) spending.

We demand, says the Left, that those individuals who earn too much money (by our reckoning) give more of it to us who need it so we can spend it properly.

We demand, says the Left, on behalf of the poor, that it is the obligation of those who are not poor to share even more of their wealth in that endeavor.

We know, says the Left, that spending more money is the answer to all our problems.

How, one asks…has pouring more money into decades long poverty programs, our failing educational system, a myriad of government agencies and programs, fat federal employee wages and benefits, and much, much more helped us? If all the spending, including $14.2 trillion in debt hasn’t made us a stronger, more viable and independent nation of individuals why would anyone believe that more spending continues to be the answer.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 18, 2011 5:27 PM
Comment #326020

SD

Being forced to look out for each other in a certain way, others dictating what is in our best interests and some guy telling us that we have to sacrifice how, what and for who he says, is why so many are tired of so much debt.

There wouldn’t be so much division if government ran government, and stopped trying to run lives.

Posted by: kctim at July 18, 2011 5:29 PM
Comment #326021

stephen

“Once again, Republican rhetoric contains an unfortunate familiarity This business of making tax increases subject to a two thirds majority vote is part of what created California’s current fiscal situation.”

no it didn’t stephen. careful here you’re talking to a calif. native. what caused the the problem was spending, period!! it started with commiting a one time windfall excess, ie dot com boom funds to permanent programs. i might add this was done by gray davis and a dem majority legislture. when the economy retracted we were stuck with more expenses then funds. i thanked god for 2/3 majority rule on tax increases, but let’s be honest here, democrats have circumvented that requirement many times by raising fees which don’t require a super majority.

once this happened capping the budget at current levels for several years would have most likely solved the problem. what did the dem majority do? THEY CONTINUED TO INCREASE SPENDING, AND BORROWING. the sad thing is there were enough voting idiots to allow them to take over the fed. gov’t and do the same f#cking thing to the entire country. what is thier solution? the same failed policies they F#cked up calif. with.

that is one major reason why i left calif. my once great state was destroyed by marxism.

Posted by: dbs at July 18, 2011 5:36 PM
Comment #326022

SD

As of this moment you owe the federal government at least $50k. When are you going to pay up you pontificating patriot?

Posted by: tom humes at July 18, 2011 5:53 PM
Comment #326023

Well of course you hit the nail on the head dbs. The left builds its fiscal policies on sand, and when the waves come ashore, all is destroyed.

Would California be in better financial shape today if spending had not be reigned in? Can anyone make a plausible argument that California would be better off today with bigger budgets and bigger debts?

Yet, this is what the left is arguing for our national government. Simply stated, they argue that increased taxes and spending will solve our deficit crisis.

We need more jobs they cry. Let us borrow more money to create more jobs to pay more taxes. And, by the way, if you let us borrow enough, we will have full employment. With full employment the tax revenue will swell the treasury with cash. With all the cash we will pay down our deficit.

This, the Left insists, is the enlightened progressive view. Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Clause.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 18, 2011 5:57 PM
Comment #326024

SD writes; “Why don’t you ask yourself why the Framers didn’t write a balanced budget clause into the constitution in the first place.”

Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1798, “I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government; I mean an additional article taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 18, 2011 6:14 PM
Comment #326025

RF

when i left calif. three years ago they had a deficit some where in the neighborhood of 34 billion. it is a beautiful state with a lot to offer, but that has all been destroyed, by choking regulation, and loose fiscal policy. the bright side for me is after moving to ohio we elected john kasich. and a republican majority. things are actually looking up if reform continues. we have a two year budget cycle, and i understand he intends to eliminate the state income tax in the next round. i’ll keep my fingers crossed. the other thing i’ve considered if things don’t go well here is moving to texas. i bet that would warm stephens heart. LOL!!

Posted by: dbs at July 18, 2011 6:33 PM
Comment #326026

Moving to TEXAS…sure, that would warm SD’s heart. Hell, you can live in my garage apartment for awhile if you do ever move here. I use it as an office and a sewing room for my wife who loves quilting. But, we could both move those uses back to the house.

I am quite certain that SD would like TX to enact a state income tax. We just aren’t spending enough here. I wonder if SD ever thinks about moving to a liberal state where he will fit in better. I believe San Francisco would be just about right.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 18, 2011 6:43 PM
Comment #326027

Stephen asks “What were the primarie drivers of the Deficit?” Ans. DEMOCRATS.

Posted by: KAP at July 18, 2011 6:55 PM
Comment #326028

“Stephen asks “What were the primarie drivers of the Deficit?” Ans. DEMOCRATS”

KAP,

How can you argue with that? Of course, it is the Democrats. Seems entirely logical to me. We went from a budget surplus in 2001 to a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit in the last budget year of a Republican President who had a Republican Congress for all but two years of his administration. The largest tax cuts in history, two unfunded wars, Medicare drug program without the right to bargain, the largest economic collapse since the Great Depression, runaway medical inflation. etc. are clearly the fault of Democrats and liberals.

Posted by: Rich at July 18, 2011 7:19 PM
Comment #326029

Here’s an interesting revelation from the UN IPCC. Animating this report is the convenient notion that the world’s wealthier, industrialized nations owe a “climate debt” to less developed nations. Ottmar Edenhofer, the German co-chair of one of the working groups of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, explained:

“[D]eveloped countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

Hmmm…that sounds strangely familiar…this redistribution of wealth thing.

Can anyone name five formerly poor countries that have grown rich through wealth transfers from more economically advanced nations?

No? You are correct; not a single nation has ever grown wealthy by way of financial handouts from other, more well-to-do societies. That’s worth remembering when we consider how best to pull people out of poverty here in the US.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 18, 2011 7:20 PM
Comment #326031

SD is fond of writing that Obama’s stimulus failed to produce the projected jobs because the economy was worse off than he realized.

IN January 2009, Obama said with his Stimulus that by the end of last year, more than 3.5 million new jobs would have been created with a total workforce of 137.5 million people, having recovered to about the same as the pre-recession workforce size. He missed by 7.3 million. At the end of last year, only 130.2 million Americans had a job, which is why John Boehner keeps asking, “Mr. President, where are the jobs?”

Missing a projection by 7.3 million jobs is hardly a reason to send this person back to the Whitehouse. It is, rather, concrete evidence of incompetence.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 18, 2011 7:29 PM
Comment #326033

What we need to do is force the States to live within their means. A large part of government expenses goes into subsidizing States who contribute far below what they receive.

These States are literally WELFARE STATES. We need to stop it.


http://scatter.wordpress.com/2009/02/16/red-state-blue-state-welfare-state-subsidizing-state/

Posted by: Aldous at July 18, 2011 8:02 PM
Comment #326034

Royal Flush,

Hard to fix something when Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats sabotage everything you try to do.

Posted by: Aldous at July 18, 2011 8:03 PM
Comment #326035

Lets see Rich, the national debt was 10.625T when Bush left office close to 5T more then when he took office. Obama has added close to 4T since taking office just under 3 years ago and wants to add another 2.5T. adding more to our already bloted deficit. And as I recall I did blame both parties for this mess. So the question which Stephen seemed to dodge is Why didn’t Obama and company work on the economy and jobs instead of wasting over a years time on HCR. which is turning out to be another bust.

Posted by: KAP at July 18, 2011 8:06 PM
Comment #326037


Kap, not only did the Bush Administration add 5T to the debt, it left the country in such a mess that more debt was inevitable. They forced this mess on the country and the evidence suggests it was a deliberate act. Cutting trillions in taxes while borrowing trillions has nothing to do with economic theory and everything to do with political philosophy. Republicans should thank God that the American people are less attentive of government that they should be.

Posted by: jlw at July 18, 2011 8:19 PM
Comment #326039

jlw, Again the question, Why did Obama and company focus on HCR instead of the economy and jobs? Which held more importance?

Posted by: KAP at July 18, 2011 8:26 PM
Comment #326040

KAP

“jlw, Again the question, Why did Obama and company focus on HCR instead of the economy and jobs? Which held more importance?”

Because Health Care costs have grown exponentially each year, every year.

Because Health Care costs in supporting those without insurance were bankrupting Hospitals and States.

Because the saying, “An once of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure”, is completely true. Basic health services like checkups WILL reduce more expensive cancer treatments.

Because you have to start somewhere and HCR was in crisis too.

Also… for all you’re moaning about the conomy and jobs… what Bills did your GOP Congress introduce to actually raise the economy and jobs? Answer: NOTHING.

Posted by: Aldous at July 18, 2011 8:33 PM
Comment #326043

Aldous, Then why are over 1000 companies getting waviers from implementing HCR if it is such a great thing? 2006-2010 Democrats had both houses and 2009-2010 had the presidency to boot, what did they do for jobs except drive unemployment it up to 9.2%?

Posted by: KAP at July 18, 2011 8:42 PM
Comment #326044
MAW- He was telling them the truth. What do you think happens when we can no longer raise money to cover government expenses? Where the hell do you think you get a social security check from?

Revenue from Social Security will still be coming in and those are the checks that should be paid first. I don’t like scare tactics, but then we have a President that uses that card for just about everything.

Look, from where I’m standing, it’s the Republicans who have decided that the most important thing for America is getting Republicans back in power. Our Federal courts face a crisis because Republicans are blocking the President’s choices. Agencies are having to do without appointed heads because the Republicans filibuster every choice the President makes.

This could have all been avoided had Democrats passed a budget when they had power. Complete power. I have a budget. I am sure you have a budget. Companies all have budgets. This President presented a budget that got NO VOTES!

If you think Republicans will gain anything from this politically then you must have your head in a cloud. I think they will lose political ground on this. They have nothing to gain here but to make sure the government doesn’t spend money like it’s not theirs. But they may be too late to do anything.

If I spend too much money and don’t bring in enough to pay my bills, I have to cut spending. Simple fact that escapes most, if not all Libs.

Republicans filibustered even basic functional legislation meant to keep folks who are unemployed off the streets

That unemployment benefit kept my 23 year old Grandson from even trying to look for a job. Same with lots of other people I know. This is a populist agenda that is meant to garner votes. Who needs to look for a job? This is the basic difference. I think that having less unemployment is good. You think having more is good. Go figure!

As far as filibustering judges. This is a page out of the Democrats playbook. Unless you have another memory loss.


YES, it is the fault of the Republicans. It’s their actual political strategy: screw up the country so Obama doesn’t get re-elected.

Good one Stephen! The country is a mess. Every indicator has gone up starting with gas prices, the number of people on unemployment, number of federal employees, number of food stamps recipients, failed banks and the list goes on. The only thing that hasn’t gone up is the value of my home!


Why did Obama wait until the last minute to do anything about this impending disaster? This should have been done last May. He simply does not lead. He waits until there is a crisis, let others do the mud wrestling and then comes in and pretends that He did it. Watch and you will see. This man can not lead and is incompetent at anything other than community organizing! And maybe not even that because Chicago is still a mess. Didn’t do well there either and perhaps would have been better had he not done anything at all.


Posted by: MAW at July 18, 2011 8:53 PM
Comment #326045


Kap, Aldous gave some good reasons. I will add that it was partly political. Obama saw his chance for health care reform and he took it. He also took measures to help the economy. Republican resistance was about 100%, which was also a political ploy.

If Obama had not taken the lead on health care reform then, it would not have happened, Right.

If the tea party persists in it’s insistence that Republicans prove their conservative credentials by forcing default, that will spell the end for the tea party.

Posted by: jlw at July 18, 2011 8:58 PM
Comment #326046

MAW,

“Aldous, Then why are over 1000 companies getting waviers from implementing HCR if it is such a great thing? 2006-2010 Democrats had both houses and 2009-2010 had the presidency to boot, what did they do for jobs except drive unemployment it up to 9.2%?”

Because Democrats have traitors called Blue Dogs who will switch sides to show how “bipartisan” they are.

Because Corporations are people now and those 1000 companies can pay bribe… err… CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS to politicians or their opponents as needed.

The President managed to pass a Stimulus Package that, while full of worthless tax cuts, managed to reduce unemployment from 12% to only 9.2%

Posted by: Aldous at July 18, 2011 9:03 PM
Comment #326047

Aldous You mistook Maw for KAP, Obama is handing out those waviers to his UNION buddies, I have to admit there are a couple of good things in HCR like pre existing conditions but those could have been taken care of on a lot smaller scale and at a better time. jlw I agree he took his chance to pass HCR but at what price. For over 2 years Democrats had a chance to avoid this mess we are going through now but chose not to they had time to submit a budget but DID NOT and Obama’s budget got NO VOTES not even from Democrats. Now both sides are being stonewalled by their radical fringe.
I agree Aldous that was useless stimulous what I gained in take home pay ended up going back to the IRS anyway.

Posted by: KAP at July 18, 2011 9:22 PM
Comment #326048

“…2006-2010 Democrats had both houses..”

Minor point KAP, but Democrats did not assume power until 2007.

Posted by: Rich at July 18, 2011 9:27 PM
Comment #326049

All the left wants to do is put blame on Republicans for not raising the debt ceiling. When in actuality all they are trying to do is raise it responsibly. They have a plan in place that raises the debt ceiling! So why the argument? I don’t get it.

Responsible spending of money has been lacking here for quite some time. Yes even by Republicans. So don’t go there with me.

So now is the time to act like adults and put some strategy together that keeps things in check. Finally and for good reason! Why is this concept so hard for the left to understand? I can’t spend money with reckless abandon and neither should the government.

Even if you are a big government proponent, wouldn’t you want it spent responsibly? I simply don’t see an argument here.

Posted by: MAW at July 18, 2011 9:27 PM
Comment #326050

“Obama is handing out those waviers to his UNION buddies,..”

KAP,

The vast majority of waivers that have been sought and granted have gone to corporations. The union waivers that have been sought are for union sponsored health insurance programs for their members who may not have corporate coverage under an employment agreement.

Posted by: Rich at July 18, 2011 9:33 PM
Comment #326051

MAW,

Obama put $4 trillion on the table. What was the response of the Republicans? They walked.

Posted by: Rich at July 18, 2011 9:35 PM
Comment #326052


Kap, I think we know the true solution to runaway health care costs. Conservatives will deny it with their dying breaths and liberals are to chicken to stick their necks out that far. So, we got standard government fair, a compromise that many don’t like.

A 9.2% unemployed figure is better than what we should expect, considering the impact of the Republican/conservative agenda, the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs, and the collapse of the largest sector of our economy.

One of my best friends was a small businessman working in the housing industry. His company was on the ropes by the time Obama took office. He lost his business, his employees lost their jobs, and I guarantee you that McDonald’s, WalMart, and the Holiday Inn aren’t going to replace those housing jobs or the manufacturing jobs, no matter how much they are or are not paying in taxes.

So, while Obama and the Democrats struggle with the economy, Republicans are sitting on their asses, blocking the road while screaming cut taxes and increase defence spending.

And I really like the Republicans new found love for a balanced budget, considering they trashed this countries best opportunity to achieve that.

Posted by: jlw at July 18, 2011 9:36 PM
Comment #326053

Minor point Rich but Republicans have control of 1 house for 8 months and have to contend with a Democrat run senate and president where as democrats had control of everything for 2 years and did WHAT?

Posted by: KAP at July 18, 2011 9:39 PM
Comment #326054

MAW,

“All the left wants to do is put blame on Republicans for not raising the debt ceiling. When in actuality all they are trying to do is raise it responsibly. They have a plan in place that raises the debt ceiling! So why the argument? I don’t get it.”


Its really quite simple. Democrats want to negotiate with Republicans. Republicans want Democrats to 100% surrender. No surrender, country burns.

Simple.

Posted by: Aldous at July 18, 2011 9:39 PM
Comment #326057

UNIONS Rich Corporations that have UNION employees.

Posted by: KAP at July 18, 2011 9:56 PM
Comment #326058

Aldous, Now Democrats want to negotiate, Why didn’t they want to negotiate when they had control?

Posted by: KAP at July 18, 2011 9:59 PM
Comment #326060

I ran across this little story that plays right into the post written by Stephen Daugherty. I love this and I want to see how the liberals are able to spin this one.

A conference call from Steve Wynn, CEO of Wynn Resorts and Democrat, who supports Senator Harry Reid:

“Who doesn’t love a good rant?

We certainly do, and as usual, Steve Wynn, the CEO of casino company Wynn Resorts, delivered on his company’s quarterly conference call today.”

http://www.businessinsider.com/wynn-ceo-steve-wynn-conference-call-transcript-obama-2011-7

Or you can listen to the audio here:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/07/18/wynn_slams_obama_on_business_responsible_for_this_fear_in_america.html

Conservatives have been saying for 3 years the business community is scared to death of Obama and this is exactly why they are sitting on billions or trillions of dollars, and this proves it.

Posted by: Mike at July 18, 2011 11:40 PM
Comment #326061
Obama put $4 trillion on the table. What was the response of the Republicans? They walked.

$4 Trillion? Care to detail what that was?

Posted by: MAW at July 19, 2011 12:01 AM
Comment #326063
Its really quite simple. Democrats want to negotiate with Republicans. Republicans want Democrats to 100% surrender. No surrender, country burns.

So now it’s called surrender! Hmm. Interesting choice of words. You wouldn’t be trying to say something subliminal would you? Nah.. Of course not.

Don’t know what 100% surrender would look like. Republicans agreed to raise the debt ceiling, and to look at closing loopholes. It is because of loopholes that GE pays nothing in taxes and UPS pays over 37%. Could it be that GE and Obama are in the bed together. Nah…. not a Democrat. That is only what Republicans do….

So now you want them to tax corporate jets. That would last about 10 days. Anything else. If you tax corporations at 100% it would not be enough. Besides, they would just raise prices and consumers would end up paying for it anyway.

Posted by: MAW at July 19, 2011 12:07 AM
Comment #326064

MAW, don’t you just love the way the left throws numbers around. Today, I heard a freshman congressman, I believe from NY, announce that 65 freshmen congressman were going to present a letter to Obama in a few days; asking him to present his debt plan in writing to the congress. As of yet, he has not presented any plan; so how does the left get $4 trillion in cuts?

Posted by: Mike at July 19, 2011 12:08 AM
Comment #326065

Mike,
Well, that is quite a rant, considering the title of this article:

“Wynn’s 2Q profit more than doubles, beats street”

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iJQcW5LLc1yeskVwDT97nFzPUTtA?docId=6f9c6887b1284d7cb0edca9f96899968

The article ends with this memorable line from Mr Wynn:

“The numbers speak for themselves,” Steve Wynn told investors during a call Monday.

It seems his company’s stock has gone up considerably in after hours trading.

Posted by: phx8 at July 19, 2011 12:08 AM
Comment #326066

I also heard another congressman talking about the “Cut, Cap, and Balance” bill to be debated and voted on Tuesday. He said he had the only copy of the Bill in his possession and yet Obama, who had never read the Bill or knows what is in it, said he would veto it when it came to his desk. I say, send it to the SOB and let him veto.

Posted by: Mike at July 19, 2011 12:14 AM
Comment #326067

So what are you saying phx8? Are you saying Wynn is not a democrat who supports Harry Reid and probably voted for Obama? Or are you saying he is a liar? Or are you saying that because his company is making money, he does not have the right to criticize Obama? I believe he said he is just one businessman, of many, who are of the same opinion, but are afraid to say so.

Posted by: Mike at July 19, 2011 12:21 AM
Comment #326068

Please do not pretend I am saying something other than what I write. What I am saying is perfectly clear. It is quite literally there, in writing. Wynn’s business made a lot of money this past quarter, a lot of profit, more than anyone was expecting. That is what I am saying. Mr Wynn can say whatever he wants. The facts- THE FACTS, THE NUMBERS- are there for all to see. Business is going GREAT for Mr Wynn. It doesn’t get much better than blowing Street quarterly profit estimates out of the water on the upside.

Posted by: phx8 at July 19, 2011 12:38 AM
Comment #326069
So, while Obama and the Democrats struggle with the economy, Republicans are sitting on their asses, blocking the road while screaming cut taxes and increase defence spending.
Republicans are sitting on their asses! How many days have the Democrats gone without a budget? I know of no company, NOT ONE, not even a household that does not have a budget. But you say Republicans are sitting on their asses! And Obama waits until July to start talking about a debt ceiling increase. Where is the leadership in that? All Democrats have done is sit on their asses.

Obama and Democrats are struggling with the economy because this is exactly where they want us to be. A second rate country with a second rate military. This is what Obama has been writing about for years. He has said so in his books. It is not a secret.


Posted by: MAW at July 19, 2011 12:39 AM
Comment #326070
Wynn’s business made a lot of money this past quarter, a lot of profit, more than anyone was expecting.

You don’t suppose the reason was that he had a budget and more importantly did not recklessly spend more than he made! That may have had a lot to do with it. Nah!

Posted by: MAW at July 19, 2011 12:43 AM
Comment #326072

phx8, “Please do not pretend I am saying something other than what I write.”

I don’t understand what you are saying. Are you sending a subliminal message? Wynn said what he and other business leaders were doing with their excess cash or not doing and he gave the reasons. I don’t understand what this has to do with company profits. Obama and the left have been accusing companies of sitting on trillions of dollars, which according to them, should be reinvested in new employment. Wynn gives legitimate reasons for sitting on the money and not reinvesting it. But you, as is common among liberals, have tried to change the subject and make a democrat businessman the object of evil, simply because his company makes money. As stated on WB many times, the problem with liberals is they eat their own offspring. Rather than comment on the content of his remarks, the left would rather attack the messenger.


What other possible reason could you have for your comment?

Posted by: Mike at July 19, 2011 12:53 AM
Comment #326073

KAP,

“Aldous, Now Democrats want to negotiate, Why didn’t they want to negotiate when they had control?”

They did. Republicans uniformly said no. They even said no to saluting Mothers during Mother’s Day.

Posted by: Aldous at July 19, 2011 12:56 AM
Comment #326074

Mike,

Companies are sitting on their money because there is no demand for their products. There’s no demand for their products cause majority of people have no money.

Posted by: Aldous at July 19, 2011 12:59 AM
Comment #326075

MAW,

Raising the debt ceiling is the job of CONGRESS, not the Presidency. I know you Repugs have problems understanding how the 3 branches of government works but its not that complicated.

Posted by: Aldous at July 19, 2011 1:12 AM
Comment #326076

First, Mike, get your facts straight. Mr Wynn is a Republican. In the past thirty years he has donated $233,730 to Republicans and $87,700 to Democrats. Although he plays both sides of the aisle, he is a Republican, and he is a conservative.

Mr Wynn is making profit both at home and abroad.

And yes, MAW, sometimes business owners like Mr Wynn spend more money than they actually own. They take loans to build and buy casinos and they pay interest on their debts. They typically use lines of credit (although Mr Wynn has become so wealthy I doubt he needs to bother with that anymore). Your suggestion that Mr Wynn succeeded because he did not spend more than he made is charmingly naive. It’s refreshing to see such an innocent view of big business. If only the real world behaved that way!

When Obama took office in January 2009, Mr Wynn’s stock price was in the id-30’s. Today it is over 150 dollars per share.

Posted by: phx8 at July 19, 2011 1:19 AM
Comment #326080

Hmmm. One site says Wynn is a registered Democrat. Another, that he is a Republican. This much is sure: He gives more money to the GOP, he talks like a Republican when he throws around terms like ‘socialism,’ and he really hates Obama. Then again, he’s a Vegan, and I’ve never heard of a conservative Vegan, though of course that’s possible.

Posted by: phx8 at July 19, 2011 2:07 AM
Comment #326085

Blaming Obama for the lack of corporate investment and cash hoarding ignores the fact that corporations have been increasingly doing this for the past 30 years. It is not a new phenomena. It started during the Reagan administration and has continued on an accelerating path since that time. http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/07/corporate-cash-has-been-piling-up-since-1982/

What’s the cause? A 2006 study, cited in the above link, found that corporations have perceived an increase in risk for investments. That study attributed the increase in perceived risk to volatility in the marketplace. A kind of here today gone tomorrow phenomena. The advent of increased globalization since the 80s presents clear risk to corporate investment. Why invest in new production facilities if the market could be preempted tomorrow by a Chinese firm flooding the market with a cheaper product. Financialization is another phenomena. Why invest in products when you can make more from financing the purchase of products and debt instruments?

Whatever the reasons, it is not something new and didn’t start with Obama.

Posted by: Rich at July 19, 2011 8:21 AM
Comment #326086

dbs-

what happens when the creditors say “no more”.

Well, that certainly would be bad, wouldn’t it?

That said, bond yields on treasuries are low, so it’s a moot point. Creditors aren’t saying no more, so your people are on their way to prematurely destroying their faith in our ability to pay them back?

You might think it is moral and right to precipitate such a c crisis, I think it is a betrayal of our country. You will put every American interest, from the economy to our ability to keep the world’s greatest military (and most expensive) doing what you want it to be doing.

mark stein made an exellent point today. you can sit down with your wife and decide your debt ceiling will be 1.8 million dollars, but ultimately it is not your decision but that of the lenders as to whether you’ll be allowed to borrow that much.

Me and my hypothetical wife are not a sovereign country. The debt ceiling is not about how much others will lends us, it’s the constitutional authorization from Congress for treasury to finance our debt on our nation’s full faith and credit.

Plus, your Congress decided on the budget that’s bringing this crisis to a head. You agreed to a budget that, on the current schedule, was inevitably going to require such debt financing. We’ve already signed into law the spending that this covers.

On the California tax law, give me a ****ing break.

Really. It’s a “not paying for spending” problem. It’s a problem of having spending easy to increase, but taxation difficult to increase. So, it’s very easy for them to part ways. Unfortunately, it parts ways in such a manner as to encourage large structural shortfalls in hard.

I believe that it’s best, when you can, to pay for what you’re spending. It also provides a natural defense against excessive increases in spending. You see, if that new program means new taxes for you, you might not be so eager to see it made law.

Your side, though, encourages a situation where structural deficits are created, and then tries to use that deficit to force spending cuts that are otherwise unwanted. Rather than operating with a system that gives people feedback when too much government spending is being done, your system essentially allows them that spending for free, and they don’t really feel the increases, because it’s not coming out of their pocket.

That’s how you get a trillion dollar deficit from a surplus. You detach spending from taxation, like the Republicans have done.

On the subject of Kasich and the Republicans? Don’t get too attached to them. They’re digging themselves into a hole in every way possible. They aren’t going to do anything worthwhile in terms of closing up shortfalls. Cutting taxes is the worst possible way to eliminate a deficit. It’s simple math that Republicans expect complex social feedbacks to overwhelm, and which those feedbacks never have overwhelmed. Schwarzennegger cut taxes, and never had a decently balanced budget after that.

Really, Republicans have no credibility on fiscal matters if they can’t see that all budgets are two sided, that cutting revenues doesn’t improve deficits, and that some spending will be spending that Americans will miss, and punish conservatives and Republicans for doing away with.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 19, 2011 9:00 AM
Comment #326089

When you lend do not expect to be paid back. Consider it to be a gift, and extract no interest. Principles from the “Holy Bible.”
The cynic is nothing more than a realist who has the ability to laugh at the absurd.

Posted by: Stephen Hines at July 19, 2011 11:05 AM
Comment #326090
Raising the debt ceiling is the job of CONGRESS, not the Presidency. I know you Repugs have problems understanding how the 3 branches of government works but its not that complicated.

I think the ones having a problem with understanding the 3 branches of government here are Demorats (pun intended).

This may be a news bulletin for most of them, but the 3 branches are CO-EQUAL and Obama is not the KING.

Especially when he slams the Supreme Court or when he storms out of meetings like a spoiled child.

Posted by: MAW at July 19, 2011 11:26 AM
Comment #326091
Again the question, Why did Obama and company focus on HCR instead of the economy and jobs? Which held more importance?

Did they KAP? First came the stimulus or ARRA in Feb. ‘09 then came the HCR. The stimulus program was in place and working before HCR was put on the table in Congress.

The jobs for main street act was signed into law in December of ‘09. The HIRE law was signed into law in Mar of ‘10 which was the same month HCR was signed into law.

So I think this bit of conservative propaganda is about as useless and misinformed as the half truth “Obama is handing out those waviers to his UNION buddies,..” you keep on trying to tell us is some conspiracy that proves the HRC is bogus.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 19, 2011 11:32 AM
Comment #326092
Your suggestion that Mr Wynn succeeded because he did not spend more than he made is charmingly naive. It’s refreshing to see such an innocent view of big business. If only the real world behaved that way!

phx8,

My suggestion is that he acted responsibly and spent money as if he had to follow guidelines and a budget and make a profit. Something that must be an evil word in this column.

I can see now why Dems want to spend more money. Especially other people’s money. They can not add!

Posted by: MAW at July 19, 2011 11:33 AM
Comment #326093
This much is sure: He gives more money to the GOP, he talks like a Republican when he throws around terms like ‘socialism,’ and he really hates Obama.

Phx8

Most likely to offset all the Union money that Harry Reid has in his pocket! How else could someone with that low of an IQ win all the time?

Posted by: MAW at July 19, 2011 11:36 AM
Comment #326095

Companies are sitting on their money because there is no demand for their products. There’s no demand for their products cause majority of people have no money.

Posted by: Aldous at July 19, 2011 12:59

Let me add…so, it is only right, fair and just, according to the Left, to relieve them from the money they won’t spend.

SD writes; “That’s how you get a trillion dollar deficit from a surplus. You detach spending from taxation, like the Republicans have done.”

Hmmm…the remedy then would be to link spending with taxation. I believe that is call the Balanced Budget Amendment.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 19, 2011 12:06 PM
Comment #326096

Most of the rants are interchangable, just trade out Rebublican/Democrat with the other and repost. Don’t like NAFTA? Then you should have voted for who? Both parties had thier pens all picked out to sign it. Don’t like bail-outs? Don’t like wars? Don’t like borrowing money for downpayments on programs that will get more expensive every year? Don’t like class warfare? How about the evil Bush tax cuts that Obama extended? Just admit it, Democrats and Republicans are like two junkies negotiating over a plastic spoon. Just pledge never to vote for an uncumbant of either party ever again. Keep cycling them out every election and maybe we can get real people in there eventually and end politics as a career path. I’m almost to the point of saying do away with elections and hold a lottery, we could not possibly do worse than what we have today.

Posted by: Robert West at July 19, 2011 12:30 PM
Comment #326097


Robert W., each party has it’s role to play. The Republican role is to demand capitulation on behalf of wealth. The Democratic role has been to determine how much they can capitulate and remain viable as a political party.

Posted by: jlw at July 19, 2011 1:21 PM
Comment #326105

Royal Flush,

If you love balanced budgets so much then why do you favor Republican fiscal and economic policies? The only balanced budgets in the last 50 years have been under Democratic administrations, i.e., Johnson and Clinton. Republican administrations beginning with Reagan talked a lot about balanced budgets and then proceeded to blow the roof off with deficit spending. The last budget years of the Bush administration were record deficit years, e.g., 2008-2009 was $1.4 trillion. Its always Alice in Wonderland when debating conservatives on this issue.

If Democrats are tax and spend, then Republicans are spend and just use a credit card. Just yesterday, Cheney was saying that Ronald Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter. Now all of a sudden, deficits do matter. In fact, we now need a Constitutional amendment.

As I said before, the “Reagan Revolution” would never have happened if he had to conform to a balanced budget Constitutional requirement during a severe recession with decreased tax revenues. No tax cuts,rather tax increases. No increased spending on defense, rather drastic cuts in defense and all other areas of government. The impact on the economy would have been catastrophic. The Reagan legacy would have been that of the president who presided over the collapse of the US rather than the collapse of the Soviet Union.

There is a time for increased deficit spending and tax cuts to stimulate the economy (Reagan). There is a time for decreased government spending and increased taxation to avoid inflationary consequences pumping too much money into the economy (Clinton). There is no simple formula like a balanced budget.


Posted by: Rich at July 19, 2011 5:59 PM
Comment #326107

Royal Flush-
The Balanced budget amendment is bad economic policy, and bad fiscal policy, according to AEI scholar Norm Ornstein.

It’s not simply asking for a balanced budget, it’s asking for it to be a specific percentage of GDP. It’s also making oft-used reconcilation methods like tax increases (which Reagan used when it turned out that his tax cuts would actually bring revenues too far down.) far more difficult to employ.

The Framers were faced with a considerable debt when they got done freeing their country. For years, it languaged under the Articles of Confederation government, which had a hard time funding itself. So, they changed to a system where Congress had clear authority to levy taxes and take out debts. They didn’t set some arbitrary limit on how much debt the government could incur, perhaps because they did not want to bet this nation’s future on the wrong number.

You say the left prefers the open checkbook method. Funny you say that, because for all your words, that’s how your party deliberately decided to pay for all its new spending in the last decade. Why? Because keeping the budget balanced was less important than opposing tax increases or new taxes.

There, I said it.

That’s why we have such a monstrous deficit now. Republicans refused to raise the money directly from the American people, and especially from the rich, for all their new spending. So, now we have a great big debt, and in these troubled economic times, not much room to raise taxes without causing economic friction.

We demand, says the Left, that the debt limit be increased to fund all the spending already done that wasn’t covered by past debt increases and to allow for more required (in their opinion) spending.

We demand, says the Right, that the debt limit stay where it is, so that all the spending the Republican House passed will fail to be paid for.

We demand, says the Left, that those individuals who earn too much money (by our reckoning) give more of it to us who need it so we can spend it properly.

We demand, says the Right, that all those who have been bailed out by taxpayers be left alone, and that the cost of these massive bailouts and economic hardship be born on the backs of those its hitting hardest.

(just a note here, it’s not a matter of spending it better. It’s a matter of paying for that government they’ve seen fit to use so much recently to protect their own interests)

We demand, says the Left, on behalf of the poor, that it is the obligation of those who are not poor to share even more of their wealth in that endeavor.

We demand, says the Right, that all those who have taken up a higher share of the wealth since the Great Depression be allowed to keep even more of the money, and that the poor be made even poorer so that the comfort of the rich is not disturbed.

We know, says the Left, that spending more money is the answer to all our problems.

We allege, says the Right, that Democrats are the real spendthrifts, even though most of the budget and debt problems trace right back to policies worth trillions. We just don’t have the balls to take responsibility for the negative effects of our own policy, and the failures of our economic and fiscal theory.

How, one asks…has pouring more money into decades long poverty programs, our failing educational system, a myriad of government agencies and programs, fat federal employee wages and benefits, and much, much more helped us? If all the spending, including $14.2 trillion in debt hasn’t made us a stronger, more viable and independent nation of individuals why would anyone believe that more spending continues to be the answer.

Don’t be coy. You’re claiming it hasn’t. Yet what have your policies in answer to this done? Poverty and unemployment have increased as a result of Republican policies. The educational system seems to have been stultified, not helped by reforms aimed at forcing numbers and score-based competition imposed on the federal level. Republican reforms of agencies have yielded and FDA that passes bad drugs to the market, an SEC that misses billion dollar swindles, and a CFTC that is completely hamstrung in its ability to defuse the timebomb that was and is the derivatives market.

The ironic thing is, much of that 14.2 trillion dollars in debt is due to your own unpaid for military spending, and tax cuts your people insisted would create jobs, but instead failed to prevent a job market worse than any since WWII. But you’ll blame the programs that were paid for, until your people came along and started monkeying with things.

As for Thomas Jefferson and debt financing?

The Lousiana Purchase was debt-financed. Should Jefferson have just stuck to his political grounds, or are you uncomfortable with him having bought part or all of Louisiana, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, and Oklahoma?

As for an income tax in TX? Well let me be honest here: we pay around eight percent sales tax, and the other money for government comes from property taxes. You get so focused on income taxes, that you don’t stop to think that there might just be a price to pay, for property owners and merchants, for having the State of Texas depend on Jim Bullock called the two legged stool.

Republicans love to complain about spending, even after they make deliberate moves to cut taxes, moves that takes spending that could be afforded, and makes it part of the deficit.

My State is weathering a Deep fiscal crisis, as are many other states, because they rely on property taxes, and property values have gone down. If you think it’s wise to depend on such things, fine. But there’s a reason that Texas is near the bottom in terms of so many services, so many measures of the well-being of its population.

As for your balanced budget Amendment? Two things. First is that it creates supermajority requirements for raising taxes, which is a move that helped California go to the dogs fiscally. Like I said, it should be as easy to raise taxes as it is to raise spending. Why? Because new government spending should be accompanied by new revenue. Then people can judge for themselves whether it’s worth it. If Government spending can increase more freely than revenues to pay for it, inevitably, deficits result.

The other thing is, sometimes we need the flexibility to maintain necessary government services and social safety nets, so that the fortunes of the country don’t decline. What we really need isn’t a constitutional amendment, what we need is for a different paradigm to run Washington, one based on paying for what we spend, to the extent that is both possible and wise.

One thing that particularly galls me about what the Republicans did politically during the past few years, is that they’ve stifled emergency spending just when it was needed, just when it was justified.

When we had a growing economy, and productivity at near a hundred percent, Republicans were content to pile on the debt on the national credit card. Having crashed the economy, though, they know that they would be blamed for the huge deficit. So, instead of taking responsibility, they’ve decided to scapegoat Democrats, and cast their emergency spending, meant to restore and strengthen the economy as a permanent attempt to spend the economy into bankruptcy.

Unfortunately they’ve gotten their economics so twisted that they’re on the verge of crashing us both fiscally and economically in order to get their way. This seems to me to mark the pathology of the Republican position. They’re so out of touch, they’d defeat their own stated purposes in order to win and keep political power, and fulfill their political agenda.

The GOP doesn’t need to depart from Conservatism, so much as rediscover the variety that meant taking care, recognizing when things were going bad, and not adding to the country’s woes The GOP needs to rediscover a conservatism that can operate in consistence with the reality of our situation, not merely in consistence with its own dogma and propaganda.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 19, 2011 6:32 PM
Comment #326109

So both parties do the same thing, heading to the same point, getting the same result. But for some on here it is ok the way their party does it but wrong for the way the other party does it. That is like butchering with a knife or with a saw. The result is the same.

That is also why the left has so much trouble scripting their role.

It is all about symantics. Is it uptown or downtown. It is really a sombering experience see what is put in writing and sometime how many words it takes to prove what you don’t know or understand. It is a daily exercise and for some they just have to show why they don’t belong in mensa.

Posted by: tom humes at July 19, 2011 7:15 PM
Comment #326110

SD wrote much and, as usual, said nothing of value. Just the same old…you bad, I good crap. But this comment was just too good to pass up…

He writes; “Like I said, it should be as easy to raise taxes as it is to raise spending. Why? Because new government spending should be accompanied by new revenue. Then people can judge for themselves whether it’s worth it.”

Let’s see now, with nearly 50% not paying income tax why in the hell should they care about taxes. And, why wouldn’t they want even more government largess at someone else’s expense.

I suspect that many lefties writing here are on the dole and are just drooling at the thought of more. I don’t think they give a damn about the country or their neighbor. They just want more for themselves.

What a joke…let those who pay no taxes vote to increase spending. Mental disorder on steroids anyone?

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 19, 2011 7:39 PM
Comment #326113

“Let’s see now, with nearly 50% not paying income tax why in the hell should they care about taxes. And, why wouldn’t they want even more government largess at someone else’s expense.”

Royal Flush,

All workers, regardless of income level, pay SS and Medicare taxes. It is only high income earners who have their payroll taxes capped at a little more than $100,000.


Posted by: Rich at July 19, 2011 9:21 PM
Comment #326114

RF,
It’s a matter of decency, and if that isn’t enough, paying higher taxes is a matter of enlightened self-interest. I don’t want to be a rich man in a poor country. I want to live in a country where people are safe, healthy, and well educated; where opportunity is available, and poverty and misery are rare; where infrastructure and a thriving culture make living a pleasure. Higher taxes not only help other people, they help me too.

I benefitted from the Bush tax cuts. Those saved my wife and me thousands of dollars a year. However, the poor business environment- a recession, a jobless recovery, and then an even worse recession- cost me TENS of thousands of dollars per year, every year.

Posted by: phx8 at July 19, 2011 9:22 PM
Comment #326115

tom humes-
I hate this equivalency rhetoric. It’s a symptom of ideological paralysis. It seems to go a little like this: Republicans do a great job of selling their policies, which take things to the right in American politics. Democrats, earlier, trying to ride the coattails of that success and avoid being in the way, end up imitating the Republicans in some respects, often going along with Republicans.

Republican policies fail, their popularity goes down. Still, you have a generation of Democratic Leaders who came to power in the Republican times. So, when the Republicans get hit on their policies, instead of taking responsibility for what they spent the last few generations creating, they point to the Democrats, and say, they did the same thing.

Other Democrats make similar arguments, resentful of the Republican influence, which even in the midst of a large majority, helps hinder Democratic Party policy by aiding the Republican’s record breaking filibustering.

But with both sides making that argument, what do you get? Closer margins, with Republicans better able to push the same BS in their policies.

No, it’s not merely semantics. What it is is a country that’s had its political imagination stagnate for so long in the conservative vision that their counterparts have only begun to remember what it is like to be true, active, policy oriented liberals, not just Democrats making noises about Republican ascendance from the sidelines.

Democrats have the advantage over the Republicans in that they can adapt and they want to adapt. But the Republicans were too successful in destroying their counterbalance, so the liberal tradition in this country is having to slowly, painfully regrow as the demand for different ideas grows, and people begin to wake up to why we had all those government protections in our regulations in the first place.

People are beginning to understand that a market without strong laws to prevent cheating and manipulating the system is a system that’s going to drown itself in its own falsehoods. People are beginning to understand that they have to stand up for their own interests, and look out for themselves, rather than simply defer to the interests of the rich and powerful in fear that they might otherwise lose their jobs or economic growth.

And part of the reason? Because they’ve seen what happens when the policies of the GOP are actually carried out as far as they can logically go. They’ve seen the failure of multiple tax cuts to the taxes of the so-called job creators to spur growth or jobs. They’ve seen where letting a whole industry police itself leads to.

The Democrats are going to distinguish themselves, sooner or later, and Americans are going to seek alternatives, sooner or later, to the Republicans and their policies.

Royal Flush-
Royal Flush, as usual, started his arguments dismissively, not proving anything, not bringing any facts, just setting an emotional tone of negativity for those who read his comment

He brings up the large proportion of people who don’t pay income taxes, and forgets to mention to people, unfortunately, that a large part of that has to do with chronic unemployment he doesn’t really give a **** about doing anything but cutting taxes for those who, as a matter of fact, take in just about that much of a share of the income.

We’ve cut and cut and cut their taxes. The joke is, let’s cut some more, and see whether what failed multiple times before is all of a sudden going to succeed.

I suspect that many lefties writing here are on the dole and are just drooling at the thought of more. I don’t think they give a damn about the country or their neighbor. They just want more for themselves.

I suspect Royal Flush here is trying to paint Democrats and Liberals, especially those who take their well-earned or qualified share of social safety-net programs as leeches on the bodies of the job creators. Funny thing, though, since your party has started beating up on these programs, even majorities in your own party have come out against benefits cuts.

Perhaps its because most people alive now have drawn paychecks with hundreds of dollars each being shunted towards paying for those programs. They earned those benefits, and now you want to tell them to go **** themselves, because a bunch of people and corporations who are not spending the money they have in the service of job creation aren’t yet comfortable enough in their wealth.

Look, I don’t mind people making profits, but having the gall to say, that with cash reserves at their highest in decades, that job creators don’t have enough money left over to create jobs, is something else entirely.

What a joke…let those who pay no taxes vote to increase spending. Mental disorder on steroids anyone?

Here, Royal Flush calls liberalism a mental disorder, because he’s got no convincing arguments, so what he’s going to do is provoke, insult, and generally belittle the other side, rather than prove that he’s right.

We pay taxes. We pay FICA taxes, we pay sales taxes, we pay property taxes. most Americans end up spending everything they get to make ends meet. But you feel so eager to proclaim that those who live in comfort, who were rich when their top bracket was taxed at 70%, creating jobs when the highest rate was 50%, starting up businesses when the top rate was something like 36%. To you, these people are the victims, the folks in need of help. It doesn’t matter that the deal’s gotten sweeter and sweeter for them, you won’t rest until the rest of us are carrying the whole load.

It’s financial elitism, dressed up in economic theory and populist rhetoric. But deep down it remains the belief that those who are poor or middle class are there because of the poverty of their characters, or the mediocrity of their virtues, and that programs that keep these people from falling through the cracks or becoming burdens on their families are simply socialist redistribution, instead of economic problem-solving.

The joke is that you identify people who look out for their own interests as crazy. Well, I think it’s crazy, moreover humiliating to beg at the table of the rich for our jobs and for economic recovery. I think we should set about the task of bringing this nation’s economy back, because I think it’s crazy to live with a long term economic slump, both on financial terms, and on fiscal ones.

I think we shouldn’t be so crazy as to expect the infrastructure of our parents and grandparents time to continue to function as it long has, and should invest in modernizing it, and improving this nation’s internet connmectivity.

I think it’s crazy to sit around, and wait for the Chinese to surpass us on every count. I think it’s crazy not to stick up for your own country and your own jobs in the worldwide market place. I think it’s crazy not to develop the technology of this century in order to replace the energy economy of the century before.

I think the Republican’s policy on Global warming is nuts. I think the Republican’s tendency to try to break down the wall between church and state is nuts, too, and on more than just secular grounds. I’ve seen in my own church the price of letting concerns of worldly power and worldly reputation overwhelm the need to do what’s right. I don’t that gets better when you let government policy and religious goals become intertwined. The rights of conscience must be preserved.

I think it’s crazy that the only sign of Christianity in most campaigns is in vague pronouncements of family values, and the specfic references to gay rights and abortion. I think it’s crazy that people call themselves Christians, yet advocate for merciless death penalty practices, throwing the needy off of government programs, savagely defaming their opponents, and so on and so forth. Is it any wonder that the young lose faith in organized religion, when it’s appeal is turned into the last refuge of many a two-faced scoundrel?

You talk about mental disorders because you don’t want to have to face that it’s your party that’s hurtled towards the extreme, the paranoid, the psychologically screwed-up. Liberalism has to be the philosophy going off the rails.

Otherwise, you might wake up and realize that your party is the one dealing with the budget like a bunch of economic suicide bombers.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 19, 2011 10:31 PM
Comment #326117

MAW and KAP:

Here you go. Ignorance has always been a GOP characteristic.


“Benefits and union membership. Healthcare workers generally receive standard benefits, such as health insurance, paid vacation and sick leave, and pension plans. However, benefits can vary greatly by occupation and by employer.

Although some hospitals have unions, the healthcare industry is not heavily unionized. In 2008, 17 percent of workers in hospitals were members of unions or covered by union contracts, while all other healthcare sectors had rates below the 14 percent average for all industries.”

http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs035.htm

Posted by: Aldous at July 20, 2011 6:21 AM
Comment #326118

Aldous, Where did I mention anything about Healthcare workers and Unions? I’ll tell you NOWHERE! I was mentioning all the WAVIERS that mostly UNION shops have gotten well over 1000 since HCR was passed or is it a liberal trait that they read something that was never written because this isn’t the first time this has happened on this blog.

Posted by: KAP at July 20, 2011 10:32 AM
Comment #326119

KAP-
The waivers are for provisions that will be moot points when the insurance mandate and the other systems come into existence in 2014.

Also, most union shops have already gone to regular, unwaivered coverage, so your notion of it being a gimmee is and unfounded argument.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 20, 2011 10:44 AM
Comment #326120

Stephen, The question remains, If this, HCR, is so great why the waviers? And why mostly UNION shop?

Posted by: KAP at July 20, 2011 10:51 AM
Comment #326125

SD wrote; “We pay taxes. We pay FICA taxes, we pay sales taxes, we pay property taxes. most Americans end up spending everything they get to make ends meet. But you feel so eager to proclaim that those who live in comfort, who were rich when their top bracket was taxed at 70%, creating jobs when the highest rate was 50%, starting up businesses when the top rate was something like 36%. To you, these people are the victims, the folks in need of help. It doesn’t matter that the deal’s gotten sweeter and sweeter for them, you won’t rest until the rest of us are carrying the whole load.”

If SD read what I wrote instead of what he conjured up, he would note that I said nearly 50% of Americans pay no INCOME TAX. I am not, and have not, advocated for any income tax reductions for anyone.

SD whines about Rep spending without increasing taxes to pay for it. Since I am not a Rep, I agree with him and place equal damnation upon the Dems.

SD and I are opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to our political philosophy. I am a fiscal conservative all the time. He is a fiscal liberal most of the time.

The Left believes that we can cure our deficit and budget problems by increasing taxes on those earning more than $200 or $250K per year. Never mind that taking even 100% of their income in taxes would not solve our debt and spending problems.

The Left is nearly always clamoring for more spending and more taxes to pay for it. The Reps, in the past, have also went along with more spending with no increases in taxes to pay for it. So, in some ways, the Dems are more honest about spending than the Reps are.

SD should understand that the TEA party has its roots and growth in the fact that Reps are big spenders also. Since the TEA party, comprised of Rep, Dem and Ind conservatives, believe that we are Taxed Enough Already, they have aligned themselves with the goal of cutting and capping spending.

This is not a Rep agenda, but a conservative agenda. This is not politics as usual. The last election is evidence that many voters agree with our conservative position on taxes and spending. Should the Rep cave on the desire by liberals to increase both taxes and spending they will be routed from office in 2012 along with many liberal politicians.

The TEA party and conservative movement will continue to fire those politicians who advocate for ever bigger government, ever more spending, and ever more taxes. Continuing our current path, whether practiced by Reps or Dems is truly a mental disorder on steroids.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 20, 2011 11:27 AM
Comment #326130

Royal Flush-
You site that figure of 50% of people not paying income taxes in order to create the impression among people that the poor and middle class aren’t contributing as much to supporting government. It’s misleading, and that’s why I emphasized the taxes that take up much of what people are paid out there.

What’s also misleading about your rhetoric is that you try to make me look like the extremist.

In truth, I have a much more rational point of view than you do.

I allow for economic circumstances (say, like the worst recession since the time of FDR) when judging fiscal policy. You don’t. You’re applying a solution of austerity as if we had high interests rates and inflation, neither of which are the case.

When circumstances were right, when we had the money, I was advocating for a match between what we spent and what we took in. While my goals and programs were liberal, my view on fiscal matters was that new spending should be accompanied by new taxes. Yours was likely that we should continue the tax cuts and the wars, and you likely weren’t the loudest voice calling for a rollback of medicare drug benefits.

I believe a balanced budget and a paying down of the debt is a good thing, and hope we can get around to it as fast as possible. However, I do not think we should do something so counterproductive as wreck our economy in order to balance the budget. The balanced budget is supposed to serve the economic good, not simply be a good in and of itself.

For my realistic point of view, you consider me radical. Fine. If I’m considered radical from your point of view, then that means, at the very least, that I am not in agreement with you, and that is a good thing.

It seems like public opinion is changing, and not in your favor. My impression is that the more people know about what a failure to raise the debt ceiling will do, the more they feel it needs to be raised immediately, and the less they feel like tolerating the BS.

The problem for Republicans is that their ideology is allowing them to tolerate the thought of provoking critical failures in American policy, foreign and domestic. Unfortunately for you, these are the kind of failures that get politicians run out on a rail, and you end up having to rebuild your party’s appeal

The Tea Party, to me, represents an attempt to rebuild that appeal by becomeing purist on the policy questions, and tolerating no more compromises. Unfortunately, with most of the rest of the elected branches of government under Democratic control, Republicans aren’t equipped to win that way. It’s like setting a range where the minimum threshold is higher than the maximum. With a range between 8 and 5, respectively, there are absolutely no members in that set, and there never can be.

The Democrats have been easier on themselves, and their goal is not only more achieveable, it’s simpler to achieve. All they have to do is outlast you and get a debt ceiling vote passed. They can afford a little compromise, too, so even if it’s not completely clean, they’ll still be able to claim some success, even while your people are tearing them apart for not holding out for absolute victory.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 20, 2011 1:44 PM
Comment #326133

SD writes; “Royal Flush-
You site that figure of 50% of people not paying income taxes in order to create the impression among people that the poor and middle class aren’t contributing as much to supporting government. It’s misleading, and that’s why I emphasized the taxes that take up much of what people are paid out there.”

That’s total baloney. We were speaking of federal spending and federal income taxes. You throw in payroll taxes, along with state income, sales and property taxes to merely confuse an issue with which you are uncomfortable and unable to properly refute.

SD writes; “I allow for economic circumstances (say, like the worst recession since the time of FDR) when judging fiscal policy.”

And I allow for economic circumstances with the worst recovery since the time of FDR.

SD writes; “The Democrats have been easier on themselves, and their goal is not only more achieveable, it’s simpler to achieve. All they have to do is outlast you and get a debt ceiling vote passed.”

That’s true. It is usually more difficult to do the right thing, over the most political thing. That is certainly one of the reasons we are in such a financial mess.

I don’t believe a debt ceiling increase with no additional taxes and significant reductions in spending is a cause for conservative angst. Conservatives will have achieved many more of their goals than the liberal Left.

Obviously SD is not a poker player. He doesn’t know how to read or win a hand. Will liberals be delighted with nothing more than a debt limit increase? I can assure you that this conservative will be greatly pleased in passing a debt limit increase with no new taxes and trillions in spending cuts.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 20, 2011 3:07 PM
Comment #326134

SD speaking to RF

“In truth, I have a much more rational point of view than you do.”

Stephen you once again have proven you are an elitist. That meaning that only your viewpoint has any value. An elephant terd has more integrity than that.

Posted by: Jake at July 20, 2011 3:30 PM
Comment #326156

Royal Flush-
Tax burden should be considered overall, not simply by level of government. Taxes are taxes (not a song cue), and what people pay in them, they don’t pay for other things. In better times, when I used to go and buy books, I’d have to set aside so much money in my calculations simply to absorb the tax. It sometimes meant I didn’t buy as many books, since I had a strict limit on how much I could spend.

What a person pays in property taxes, they don’t pay for other products. What they pay in sales taxes, comes out of their budget. In states with income taxes and whatever, that, too, comes out.

The question at the end of the day, is how much that person has to spend, if anything, over what they earn. That hasn’t been an abstract question for me, during times of the past year. That’s been a very real thing for me. So don’t play your semantic BS with me, I’m talking about a very real question of marginal utility- how much every dollar is worth to the person paying it in taxes.

If I can bring in a dollar from elsewhere in my budget to substitute, if I have income on top of what I need to pay my bills and everything, then folks don’t have to step as carefully to keep me spending at the same rate I tend to do.

So, if we are going to spread the burden around, do we do it by taking away money that people need, or by taxing or cutting spending for those capable of replacing the economic good that money does.

You really don’t even have to appeal to class warfare, it’s just a simple matter of social economics, and its effect on how people spend.

In your view, it’s the poor and middle class who have drug down the economy. That’s why you go after programs that help them. You seem to think that if you squeeze blood from the stone, and give more money back to the rich, they’ll create jobs. But that didn’t happend the last time you tried it, and the rounds of layoffs from state governments aren’t making things any better in the jobs market.

Isn’t funny that six months after Obama gets in to office, the job cuts slow, the recession is broken, and growth rekindles, and six months after the Republicans have come back into charge at the House, jobs are stagnating again, the economy’s stumbling, and people are feeling worse about things? I don’t think that’s a coincidence. When Obama set about creating jobs, that’s exactly what he did. When Republicans pushed their ideas on job creation, all they did was grant tax cuts that made deficits worse, and then threw people out of their jobs, in the hopes that so many more unemployed would somehow lower wages, so that more jobs would come about.

Republicans seem to think just because it’s counterintuitive, and counter liberal, it has to work. But it hasn’t. Republicans are straining once again to make reality catch up to their rhetoric. It won’t work.

As for the Tea Party? They’re going to force a situation where they’re going to get a lot less than what they asked for, maybe even nothing if things stall. Truth of the matter is, they picked something to hold up that really has no room for error in it, and they’ve put their finger prints all over holding it up, and for the wrong reasons.

Republicans are playing into the worst stereotypes of their party.

Democrats, can be satisfied with a lot less, so they’ll win a lot easier. And Americans who find their finances strained will be a lot happier with a situation that resolves with no major changes than one like you want it.

Jake-
Elitism, huh? Well, you know, you’re defending cutting the taxes of the rich and the aid of the poor, so I think you need to review what the definition of elitist is.

As for the rest? Trash-talk seems to be all the proof Republicans require of themselves these days. And that’s how you get such counterproductive policy in the first place. Bravado and big rhetoric doesn’t beat being correct and careful.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 20, 2011 10:12 PM
Comment #330892

has won the popularity.cheap nike shoxThe high upper reflect the beauty of streamline.The characteristic of these boots is the button on the upper nike shox r4 silverof the 1873 UGG Bailey Button Triplet.don`t look down on such a little button,it is the bright spot ofnike shox r4 gold the design which has got rid of the drab design.so,what are you waiting for?such a pair of boots is the one you are looking for.

Posted by: rtyu at October 22, 2011 4:14 AM
Post a comment