Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Roll Call reporter John Stanton is tweeting that House Majority Leader Eric Cantor is whipping votes this morning for House Speaker John Boehner's no-taxes plan for a debt ceiling deal. President Obama made his case to the American people last night, explaining why we're so much in the red:
In the year 2000, the government had a budget surplus. But instead of using it to pay off our debt, the money was spent on trillions of dollars in new tax cuts, while two wars and an expensive prescription drug program were simply added to our nation's credit card.
As a result, the deficit was on track to top $1 trillion the year I took office. To make matters worse, the recession meant that there was less money coming in, and it required us to spend even more - on tax cuts for middle-class families; on unemployment insurance; on aid to states so we could prevent more teachers and firefighters and police officers from being laid off. These emergency steps also added to the deficit.
At the heart of all that is the set of Bush tax cuts, including tax cuts for the wealthy, that were billed as temporary but have proved politically difficult to get rid of. Below, the New York Times chart James Fallows says should be included in every discussion of the debt ceiling.
From the New York Times
Bonus chart: Despite Republicans' insistence that "job creators" pay no more in taxes, higher taxes and economic growth are kinda friendly.
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Leave a Comment:
"THEY DO IT TOO!!!"
wow, what a great argument. and nothing at all like a child. nope, nothing at all.
this kind of nonsense only resonates with those who see EVERYTHING through a partisan hack prism. nevermind the situation we're in, how can we show that "they" did....whatever.
sickening and useless. this adds nothing.
both parties suck. overspending was wrong under bush, it's wrong now.
people need to grow up, think of their country before their party (or emancipate themselves from their party), and put partisan hack crap like this out to pasture.
I agree that both major political parties in this country are hopelessly corrupt. But that doesn't alter the facts and Rachel is right on this. I'm VERY disappointed in our current president. He lost any feeling of support I had for him when he extended the Patriot Act. But, at present, I still view the Democrats as the lesser evil. That's in no way an endorsement, it's a bleak statement of the facts as they currently stand.
I think the big moral of this story is that THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HASN'T BEEN OVERSPENDING! Every time somebody accuses the Obama administration of being profligate I want to scream; tiny little bitty bit of stimulus spending, billions and billions more in tax cuts, unemployment benefts and all of a sudden he's the same as Bush? Did you even look at that second chart?
If anything, the Obama administration is spending too LITTLE. You talk about partisan hackery, but what about equivocating, waffling centrist hackery? People who indict "both parties" as though they're somehow equally responsible for this mess contribute to the problem by excusing the truly irresponsible - by giving the Republicans an excuse to keep doing what they're doing. Hold the wrongdoers accountable. The real ones. Barack Obama is - I'll go ahead and say it - wholly blameless for what's happening right now ... unless you want to blame him for not spending more.
thinking one of the 2 parties is slightly less evil than the other isn't unreasonable. it's the idea seen regularly here that dems are almost always right and the gop is always wrong. THAT is completely ridiculous. glad to see there are some reasonable people here.
The Democrats blaming the Republicans for it may not help that much but Republicans blaming Democrats is just dishonest. Deficits are not their real agenda, they are responsible for skyrocketing the deficit themselves more than once. And the Romney health care plan, including the individual mandate, was hailed as a "conservative way to solve the health problem" until Obama adopted it. They hate Obama and oppose everything he wants to do even if they favored it previously. They feel that they have the upper hand now, and they want to enshrine their failed "trickle-down" economic model in the Constitution so that even if Democrats get the majority again (which they are also trying to prevent by discouraging likely Democratic voters from voting), it will be nearly impossible to change. Look at countries with one-party systems. Do we want that?
get ready to screm, lem.
"THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HASN'T BEEN OVERSPENDING!"
it ain't just a river in Egypt, you know. and if it helps you feel better about it, they all spend too much...
2012 - $3.7 trillion (submitted 2011 by President Obama)
2011 - $3.8 trillion (submitted 2010 by President Obama)
2010 - $3.6 trillion (submitted 2009 by President Obama)
2009 - $3.1 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)
2008 - $2.9 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush)
2007 - $2.8 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush)
2006 - $2.7 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush)
2005 - $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush)
2004 - $2.3 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush)
2003 - $2.2 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush)
2002 - $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush)
2001 - $1.9 trillion (submitted 2000 by President Clinton)
do you honestly believe these increases match inflation?
and spare me the kneejerk anti-bush crap. I don't like him or the GOP either.
both parties suck, despite what RM, MSNBC and FOX want you to believe.
Joe - you are missing the point. This is to show that this debt ceiling "issue" isn't owned by Obama. And for the republicans to say they are "compromising" simply by raising the ceiling is a joke. I heard tea party idiot (R) Adam Kinzinger say several times that "yeah, we are meeting half way. We vote to raise limit IF the democrats give on their stance too". Thats not meeting half way! Raising the ceiling itself isnt the actual bargaining chip. It should be a given. AND its due to your handy work more than ours! Its like you guys broke the window while Bush was in the white house... and now we have to pay the bill with our credit card. But you guys wo..... you know what? I'm going to stop rambling. You cant argue with stupid.
Pointing out that the country would be better off if the very wealthy paid taxes at the rate that they did in 1999 instead of at the rate they do now is only partisan because a republican cut their tax rate and republicans now refuse to raise it. On this issue, the republicans are clearly in the wrong.
Oh, and also, you're mischaracterizing Laura's point. She's not saying "Republicans do it too." She saying "This Democrat doesn't do it."
And that's actually true! Of the four Presidents to sign a balanced budget since WWII, only ONE has been a Republican ... Richard Nixon. EVERY other balanced budget came from either Kennedy, Johnson or Clinton.
It's become fashionable to insist on it, but it just isn't so that Republicans and Democrats are equally profligate. Republicans are worse. There have of course been bad Democratic Congresses, but I can't think of any really bad Democratic Presidents when it comes to spending, and Obama certainly isn't the first. What Laura is saying is not an attempt to excuse Obama. She's saying quite simply that Obama hasn't done anything wrong at all.
"Scram?" I'm right here. And your own numbers prove you wrong.
"2010 - $3.6 trillion (submitted 2009 by President Obama)
2009 - $3.1 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)"
So, by your own accounting, President Bush raised the deficit by 3.1 trillion dollars; Barack Obama by 500 billion. President Bush led the country into the longest, deepest depression in a century, and he spend 3.1 trillion dollars we didn't have to get us there. President Obama spends less than a sixth of that and the recession ends.
Still wanna equate 3.1 trillion with 500 billion? Oh ... and did you see this part?
"2012 - $3.7 trillion (submitted 2011 by President Obama)
2011 - $3.8 trillion (submitted 2010 by President Obama)"
How the deficit is already on the way down? EVERY SINGLE YEAR President Bush was in office the deficit went up. Obama is the first president since ... the last Democrat, I guess, to seriously talk about balancing the budget.
Republicans waste peoples' money. Democrats spend peoples' money, sure, but we've got a passing grade as far as I'm concerned when it comes to doing so responsibly. Do we get an 'A', no, of course not. But we sure as heck get a C, maybe even a C+. You really gonna give Bush 42 or Reagan a C+ when it comes to deficits?
lem, I wrote "screm" leaving out the "a." I meant "scream." my bad. I'd never ask anyone to scram.
"So, by your own accounting, President Bush raised the deficit by 3.1 trillion dollars"
my own accounting? huh?
and no, those aren't deficit increase numbers, those are budget outlay numbers.
how did you miss that? want to try again?
btw, when did I say bush didn't spend too much?
oh, right. I didn't. you just can't help yourself, can you?
The President can only spend what congress authorizes.
Blaming President Obama is like a parent complaining about a child who has spent the allowance he has been given.
Cogress sets the Tax Rates and Congress authorizes the disbursement of the revenue generated from them. The President only administers these funds to carry out the task that has been authorized by congress.
Okay, it looks like we need to back up a bit and talk about how the budget process works.
Presidents don't start each year with a 0. They start with the previous year's budget and decide how much they're going to add. That's how it is under every party. It's plain wrong to impute all 3.6 trillion of Obama's budget to Obama since he didn't come up with 3.1 trillion of it. But that's beside the point.
You're right, I thought you were posting numbers about the size of the deficit, rather than total outlays. If you'll notice, you didn't exactly label what you'd put up, which is "how I missed that", but that's neither here nor there, and my point remains valid.
Let's - for the sake of the exercise - say that the only balanced budget on your table is Bill Clinton's. Let's also assume that revenues stayed flat this entire period. If the budget was balanced at 1.9 trillion, that means that President Bush raised the deficit by 1.2 trillion (3.1-1.9). And that President Obama raised it still more by 0.5 trillion (3.6-3.1). Once again, President Obama spends half what Bush spends and ends the worst recession in a century.
But you know what's funny about my assumptions? They're both true. The link below takes you to a handy dandy chart of government revenues and outlays since 1940, and tax revenues, after spiking in 2008, PLUMMET in 2009 to below where they were in 2000 before levelling off in 2010. The final deficit score? President Bush, 2008: 1.3 trillion. President Obama, 2009: 1.65 trillion. We made some pretty good predictions, huh?
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
A near-ten-year period of Republican control, soaring deficits, staggeringly low taxes and deregulation and we get flat government revenues and no job creation. See what I mean by wasting money?
I'll say it again. This is not President Obama's fault. Saying "when did I say bush didn't spend too much?" doesn't add credibility to your argument. If you'll notice, YOU'RE actually doing what you're accusing me of doing by saying that all sides are ALWAYS equally blameworthy. President Obama has done nothing wrong. Spending an extra 300 billion dollars in the face of the worst recession in a century is not a blameworthy overreach. It is, if anything, a failure to act.
This is not both parties' fault. It is one party's fault. I'll flip the script around. Can YOU help YOURself? Can you admit that this really might not be at all President Obama's fault? Because I've backed that part of my argument up with some real numbers now ... which I have been kind enough to label.
There is a time for increased government spending; that time is in the case of a severe economic down turn.
2012 - $3.7 trillion (submitted 2011 by President Obama)
2011 - $3.8 trillion (submitted 2010 by President Obama)
2010 - $3.6 trillion (submitted 2009 by President Obama)
2009 - $3.1 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)
2008 - $2.9 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush)
2007 - $2.8 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush)
2006 - $2.7 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush)
2005 - $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush)
2004 - $2.3 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush)
2003 - $2.2 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush)
2002 - $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush)
2001 - $1.9 trillion (submitted 2000 by President Clinton)
The problem is not the spending increases directly associated to the "Great Recession" by either President Bush or President Obama, the problem was between 2002 and 2008 when the expendatures rose to an additional Trillion Dollars a year when there was not economic down turn.
Dan, when did I say the debt ceiling was Obama's issue?
When did I mention Obama?
Never did on either count, but why let that stop you from kneejerking like you did?
Both parties are responsible. Both are corrupt. Both spend too much and deliver too little.
Both SUCK.
but it seems all one has to do here on the partisanship uber alles blog is say something that isn't 100% for dems and 100% anti-gop to get a silly, unserious, and blatantly kneejerk strawman argument like yours.
it's really amazing how similar reactionary leftists are to reactionary right wingers. it's just stunning.
The President can only spend what congress authorizes.
Blaming President Obama or President Bush is like a parent complaining about a child who has spent the allowance he has been given.
Cogress sets the Tax Rates and Congress authorizes the disbursement of the revenue generated from them. The President only administers these funds to carry out the task that has been authorized by congress.
so, so true! (with the minor corrective addition I added)
there is more than enough blame to go around to both sides. sadly, it seems far too many don't want to accept this fact because they have married their identities to one of the two cretin gangs that got us in this mess. and since most people are incapable of admitting fault, they'd rather argue over which cretin gang is the most cretinous.
and these are the adults!?!???!?! wow.
Joe, Joe, Joe...you are so right on. Yes, you can argue bits and pieces here and there but for the most part each sides are politically driven and that means looking out for their special interest and their re-election, not the LONG TERM concern for what's BEST for the COUNTRY.
It is amazing that the Democrats are blaming the Bush Tax cuts but they had the opportunity to address that before the 2010 election.
It is amazing that the Republicans have suddenly got principles they want to stand firm on when they created a large part of the mess and cry "reform the tax code" but have never made a credible attempt because that would mean loosing benefits for some big donors, etc.
Each side is saying, "Yea, but we are better/not as bad as them!"
Let's try not to forget that Bush was allowed to submit budgets that did not account for the Iraq or Afganistan wars, so the budget figures shown for Obama DO account for expenditures on the wars but the budget figures shown for Bush do not. A does not equal C.
lem, you really can't help yourself.
"Can you admit that this really might not be at all President Obama's fault?"
of course I never said it was, but why let that stop you?
also, despite the over-the-top anti bush rhetoric you undoubtedly participated in (as if his endless actual failures weren't enough!), the US is not a dictatorship. spending and budget issues are not the fault or blame of one party depending on who is in the white house. that is such silly, childish nonsense, it isn't even funny anymore.
congress controls the purse strings. ever hear that one before?
both sides spend too much. both sides are at fault. when there is one party control of the WH and congress, you can make an argument that one side is temporarily more at fault than the other, but I don't think it makes much difference because this problem is systemic and both sides trade free goodies for votes and $.
free your mind, lem. take it back from the party that might be .000000001% less despicable than the other.
"Each side is saying, "Yea, but we are better/not as bad as them!""
OF COURSE that's what we're saying! It's politics! We're liberals. Ipso facto we think conservatives are wrong. Ipso also facto we think we are right. If we don't think we're better than the other side, then what the heck are we doing here?!
This equivocation - false equivalency, "oh that side does it too", "both parties are the same" - is deeply, deeply toxic. You folks need to figure out what you want done and pick a freaking side. I'm not saying you need to agree with us, but never ONCE has any of the "centrists" in here stated an actual policy position. They've only said "O! Both sides are messed up! Woe is us!"
Do you favor tax cuts for corporate jet owners? A reduction in the corporate tax rate? The repeal of universal healthcare? The end of Medicare? Social Security? Medicaid? If so, say so. If not, then you're fighting with the good guys.
I'm not saying the Democratic party is perfect. Far from it. What I am saying is that assigning blame to the Democratic President for the natural consequences of conservative policies - even in part - is ridiculous. President Obama is trying to fix the problem, yet you're here lumping him in with the wrongdoers.
Bleep or get off the pot. Data like what's in this post demonstrates that there's a real fight here over real issues and real alternative views for the country. Saying "everybody's at fault" as a way to indict either side of this argument is fallacious, and it adds nothing. Call me a partisan if you want. I call myself a partisan. But partisanship in aid of good policy is not an evil.
... did I just semi-quote Goldwater?
"You folks need to figure out what you want done and pick a freaking side."
how demented.
there is no side for free thinkers, lem.
I prefer a lean, smaller fed govt close to (with provisions for modernism) what the constitution calls for. I'm also an atheist and believe in equal rights for minorities and gays. I think the drug war is a failure of epic proportions, I'm so pro-choice I'm all for coin-op abortions, and I think a flat tax with no income under $25K taxed.
so which "freaking side" should I choose so I can abandon half of what I believe in just so people like you won't have to face the fact that both parties suck ass and both parties are pretty much the same?
is this what you've done? have you given up on some of your beliefs so you can join the pop-culture "cool" party? I'm sure lots of people who aren't uptight bigots still join the GOP because they're really into jesus. are you a version of that?
my differences with the parties are far too profound to join either one. maybe you just go with the flow.
It would be completely counter to joe's apparent deconstructionist philosophy to actually propose a solution. He might actually have to be held accountable for an opinion that isn't borderline paranoid delusion at that point. He would then just be opening himself up to his own analysis, and we can't have that...
"I prefer a lean, smaller fed govt close to (with provisions for modernism) what the constitution calls for. I'm also an atheist and believe in equal rights for minorities and gays. I think the drug war is a failure of epic proportions, I'm so pro-choice I'm all for coin-op abortions, and I think a flat tax with no income under $25K taxed."
You've chosen a side, libertarian. Thanks for that. Oh, and thanks for the reductive solutions, too. That was helpful.
"Do you favor tax cuts for corporate jet owners?"
no. and no increases, either.
"A reduction in the corporate tax rate?"
yes, but with closed loopholes put there by pols from both parties as gifts to friends for campaign $.
"The repeal of universal healthcare?"
"buy this product from that private company OR ELSE!" is not constitutional, so I do want the recently passed legislature repealed. I think we can make it much more affordable and simpler than it is, but not like this.
"The end of Medicare? Social Security? Medicaid?"
no, no and no.
"you're fighting with the good guys."
major party lackeys are not the good guys
"I'm not saying the Democratic party is perfect."
sure seems like it, the way you defend them even when I knock both sides.
"What I am saying is that assigning blame to the Democratic President for the natural consequences of conservative policies - even in part - is ridiculous."
of course I never did that, but why let that stop you?
"President Obama is trying to fix the problem, yet you're here lumping him in with the wrongdoers."
wrongdoers!! LOL!! who are you, Lefty Bush?
"It would be completely counter to joe's apparent deconstructionist philosophy to actually propose a solution"
right, except that I did answer, when asked, what I thought would help.
I notice none of the circle jerkers here ask each other where their solutions are. all you have to do is be provocative, not be a fellow lemming, and then you get this kind of nonsense. of course doctrinaire lefties have all the solutions they need: more taxes. wow, great plan! almost as comprehensive as the other side's plan: less taxes, more jesus.
both sides are a disgrace. the sooner you accept this, the better.
Your proposed solutions are so general as to be functionally useless. So thanks again. You might as well say, "It's not working so I think we should fix it."
"You've chosen a side, libertarian."
close, but not exactly. unlike them, I do believe in national defense and a robust social safety net (among others).
Ah, so we have it then. You don't like liberal policies. Ergo, "both parties suck."
Both parties don't suck. One party is pretty good. Not great, but pretty good. One party is earnestly trying, in the name of cooperation, even though it cuts against a core tenet of its philosophy, to end deficit spending before the economy has recovered. Let's be clear about this: Democrats are compromising left and right (heheh). Democrats are trying - desperately - to say yes. Republicans are trying - desperately - to get them to say no.
Let's be clear about something else: to say "both parties suck" - to head-fake at and then abandon an attack on Obama's spending record - and then to say that you never blamed either the Democratic President or Democrats in general for the current state of affairs is disingenuous. Kneecapping the side you disagree with by flinging platitudes about "party lackeys" and "no side for free thinkers" is not genuine debate. It's not even phoney debate. I'm not really sure what it is.
I've also got some news for you. You agree with the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party. They've got a caucus in Congress and everything. You're in this fight just as deep as I am. You're just on the other side of it. You're not allowed to dive into the deep end and then criticize everybody else in the pool for being so wet.
If the people and policies on your side are so distressing you - if you feel uncomfortable standing up and advocating for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, for a cut to corporate tax rates and the maintenance of a tax credit for corporate jets - then maybe you need to reevaluate. But you're not being meta when you insist that you're above party while you throw non-argument rhetorical elbows to undermine the people you disagree with. You're actually being just as partisan as anybody else.
I've got some more news for you. Those data at the top go to prove that those Tea Party ideas are bad ideas. That's why they're there. Laura was laying out the empirical case against the substance of the other side. That's why we're actually here. And we come full circle.
Just to be clear, if I had my druthers, I would probably oppose any tax increases, too. But I would probably also continue to increase spending, take the savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and do a second stimulus, somewhere on the order of two to three times the size of the first - education, aid to states, infrastructure, science grants, a major homeowner bailout. I wouldn't be anywhere near trying to balance the budget until unemployment came all the way back down.
The fight, unfortunately, is no longer over grounds on which I can get my ideal outcome. My answer? I'm going to steadfastly oppose any effort to balance the budget solely on the back of the programs that I think are the only thing keeping this country afloat right now. SNAP, unemployment insurance, relief to states - stimulus spending saved us, and cutting spending even one cent more than absolutely necessary to keep this country politically afloat is something I can't abide. Add in that you guys refuse to raise taxes and the injustice of the thing becomes too much for me.
I favor aggressive, unabashed Keynesian stimulus. No tax increases, maybe even tax cuts, but WAY more spending than we've got now. I'm of the mind that the fact that we're even talking about the deficit ten years out is bonkers.
"Your proposed solutions are so general..."
it's a blog, sport. do you really expect a fully-detailed plan on how to run a country of 300 million people on a blog? are you serious? or just desperate to have something to say?
then again, your political philosophy fits on a bumper sticker, so maybe I can see why you would expect something so absurd.
it really bugs you to be reminded just how similar you are to the side you detest, doesn't it? you are no less intolerant and rigid as the stereotypical xian right wing reactionary. two sides of the same coin.
"Ah, so we have it then. You don't like liberal policies. Ergo, "both parties suck."
umm...yeah. that must be it.
must have been my stated pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-legalization, pro-social safety net, anti-corporate welfare, anti-religion, and pro-publicly funded campaign beliefs that gave away my dislike of liberal policies.
fabulous analysis, champ.
"One party is earnestly trying, in the name of cooperation..."
now, about that bridge I want to sell you...
"...to head-fake at and then abandon an attack on Obama's spending record..."
paranoid much? I've consistently attacked govt spending and I have consistently stated that both parties are at fault. making a claim like this makes me question your grasp on reality, if only in the context of a political discussion. can you really be this conditioned to experience everything through the partisan hack prism?
"Kneecapping the side you disagree with by flinging platitudes about "party lackeys" and "no side for free thinkers" is not genuine debate. It's not even phoney debate. I'm not really sure what it is."
I think I got my answer.
tell me, if the DNC declared their hatred of puppies and ordered all puppies to be horrifically turned inside out and hung from light poles, how are you going to support that? (because we both know you ARE going to support that!)
"You're not allowed to dive into the deep end and then criticize everybody else in the pool for being so wet."
I am, and I do. I could care less if robotic thinkers are made uncomfortable by it. that's your problem to deal with. not everyone is a fawning hack.
"If the people and policies on your side..."
slow on the uptake, huh? I don't have a side. but like most controlled thinkers, you need to cram everyone into a category so you can ignore what you like and dislike and then just whitewash groups with your approval or opprobrium. I find that rather sad. try climbing out of the box you've put yourself in.
"Just to be clear, if I had my druthers, I would probably oppose any tax increases, too."
wow. the most radical on your side now thinks you're a racist.
"a second stimulus, somewhere on the order of two to three times the size of the first"
very unrealistic. where does this money come from? how in debt are you willing to put the country? is $14 trillion not enough? are the unfunded mandates coming in the next few decades, which are in the 10s of trillions, not enough?
you do know what debt service is, don't you? what happens when that starts overtaking ss? where will this money come from?
like you, I think we can cut military severely. but we can't eliminate it. maybe cut it in half, but this still will not be enough to do what you propose.
also, any minute now you know JustAnotherBear is going to tell you "Your proposed solutions are so general as to be functionally useless."
right? Ha!!
Joe, dude, I hate to break it to you, but you're a libertarian, Paulian, Tea Party Republican. You're not unique. I've met guys like you a dozen times. You're not any more "free thinkers" than liberals are.
Do you really think that liberals don't come to their opinions on their own? That we take orders blindly? That only YOUR positions could ever rationally be arrived at by an independent mind? How bigoted. And how un-American.
Liberals are not robots. That you think we are should say something to you about your own understanding of politics. I have arrived at my positions - each and every one of them - independently and after careful thought and deep attention paid to world events, economics, law and morality. My conclusions are my own, and I think your view of the world is wrong. Independently of anybody else. I'm not some proxy for some mindless mass of unthinking human drones. This is me. A free American. Telling you. I think you are wrong.
And I have every right to hold that belief. To attribute unthinking-ness to everybody who disagrees with you is undemocratic, prejudicial intransigence and it makes you unworthy of serious engagement on my part. If you're willing to admit that I'm thinking just as hard and just as free as you are, then we can get somewhere. But this mindset - that the people who disagree with you just aren't thinking hard enough - is more toxic as your initial foray into "nonpartisanship".
Enough with the gimmicks. If you think I'm wrong, prove it. Prove to me that Keynsian stimulus is a bad idea. Prove to me that tax cuts coupled with dramatic spending cuts - that "leaner government" - will grow the economy. Debate me. Not with Hertiage Foundation platitudes about freedom or capitalism or whatever. With numbers.
But first, acknowledge that I am your equal. Recognize your own elitism - your own assigning of worthlessness to those you deem to be "less free thinkers" - and realize how horrifying it is. Liberals will be here waiting.
"I hate to break it to you, but you're a..."
yes, I must be all those things since you say so and, as you well know, you know better than anyone about me, right?
riiiiiight. small "l" libertarian, like I said, is close.
but Paulian? Tea Party Republican? hilarious and ridiculous, with no base in reality. just your wishful thinking and desperate need to categorize.
by the same "logic" and silly reasoning, you're a marxist socialist communist. is that the kind of moronic label-fest you prefer? I don't.
"Do you really think that liberals don't come to their opinions on their own?"
some do. many, clearly, do not. it's the same with cons, if it makes you feel any better.
"How bigoted. And how un-American." said the bigoted, un-American hypocrite who is blatantly intolerant of other ideas.
Which you are. How are my criticisms different than yours?
"Liberals are not robots." I think many are. If this opinion of mine is so bothersome to you, tough darts. I think socially liberal people are right. I think economically liberal/Keynsians are wrong. I think economic cons are mostly right. I think social cons are the worst of all and as wrong as can be.
"My conclusions are my own, and I think your view of the world is wrong."
OK, so you are against gay marriage, you are against publicly funded elections, you are against ending the drug war, you are against ending corporate welfare, you are against closing tax loopholes...and you call yourself a liberal? what nerve!
"And I have every right to hold that belief." oh, please, with the dramatics and histrionics. who the hell said you don't? are you one of those people who think criticism equals total condemnation of everything about you and the lack of gushing praise equals an attempt to deny you your rights? how silly.
"worthlessness"?? are you serious? I believe people who can't think outside the partisan box are not thinking. who said anything about worthlessness?
you need to calm down. a lot.
"But first, acknowledge that I am your equal."
show me where I said you weren't.
as for "proving," I already asked you how you think we can afford your XXXL stimulus. ball's in your court, lem, dude.
You have called me and others on this list who have disagreed with you: "slow", "racist", "robotic", "lackeys", "controlled", "intolerant" and "stereotypical". That's just after a cursory examination. And you JUST accused me of being unthinking. Again. Then you challenge me to respond to you? Why should I even bother? Why should I take your opinions seriously? Your opinion of my opinions?
I think you're demonstrably wrong about the size of government, because I think deficit spending in a recession is the smart fiscal move. And I have data to back up my position. You wanna play ball? "How can we afford a stimulus?" Really? Do you know what a bond is? Where are those numbers I asked for? Babytown frolics, I swear.
I think I'll take my ball and go. In the meantime, try to take somebody seriously who disagrees with you at least once before the end of the year. Call it a mid-year resolution.
"You have called me..."
This from the person who called me unAmerican, bigoted, tea party republican, prejudiced, undemocratic, unworthy...all in one message.
What a whining hypocrite you are.
"And you JUST accused me of being unthinking. Again."
I did?!? Where?
"Then you challenge me to respond to you?"
I did?!? Where?
"...I think deficit spending in a recession is the smart fiscal move..."
You mean "even more, potentially ruinous and bankrupting, deficit spending" don't you? In case you didn't know, we've been deficit spending about 38 of the last 40 years.
Yeah, I know what a bond is. You think there is an endless supply of buyers in an economic climate like this? You do? Are you aware of the bridge bonds I'd like to sell you?
The numbers you asked for after I asked you for numbers? Are you kidding me? And you have the data, but won't share it. What a fraud.
"I think I'll take my ball and go."
I knew you only had one.
and I was just going to ask you again why you're against gay marriage, you are against publicly funded elections, you are against ending the drug war, you are against ending corporate welfare, you are against closing tax loopholes.
Well, best of luck to you. And try not to freak out when somebody disagrees with you about half of what you believe, at least once before your birthday. Call it an "end of my teen years resolution."
You never called him unthinking?
"tell me, if the DNC declared their hatred of puppies and ordered all puppies to be horrifically turned inside out and hung from light poles, how are you going to support that? (because we both know you ARE going to support that!)"
Strangely. I don't feel the need to go back and call you out on all your crap. It doesn't really matter much anyway. You never did manage an adequate response to lem's 1-11. You just changed the goal posts with poor interpretation. Again.
"You never called him unthinking?"
get it right. he said "And you JUST accused me of being unthinking. Again."
as in, I did it in the previous post.
which, of course, I did not.
but you keep trying there, kiddo. because it's all about me, right? it's not about the fact that both parties suck, it's all about me.
obsession noted.
unaffiliated joe - cause that is who you are,
it would help people understand you a lot better if you were more clearer in your position. my son makes me fish for answers too - and then he blames me for not understanding him. he reason is that i don't ask the right question.
you want a social net and you want a robust military?
that my friend takes big government...and revenue.
as for spending, we just need to shift our spending into more of an investing style - instead of corporate welfare style.
taking our subsidies for any corporate and setting up a fund-lend-borrow for small businesses and for people who want to build american made production companies. make it easier for new american production to happen.
more work force will lessen the strains on social nets and will increase a more rounded revenue.
i also want to see a change in our trade system. make it harder and not as economical to outsource the jobs and ship the wants and needs back.
what america needs is jobs.
"unaffiliated joe - cause that is who you are" - I have no quarrel with that
"it would help people understand you a lot better if you were more clearer in your position" - perhaps. but I think I am very clear. in fact, my position can be summed up in three words: Both Parties Suck
I can't help it if this causes multiple conniptions from people so obviously used to an echo chamber.
with all due respect, I disagree that a big govt is needed for national defense and a reasonable social safety net. I think we can cut the military budget by up to half (as soon as we get the hell out of iraq and afghanistan, as promised). by social safety net, I mean along the lines of unemployment insurance. remember when clinton signed the welfare reform bill? the howls from the left on the coming apocalypse never really panned out like the poverty pimps insisted it would, did it? there is so much waste and fat and cheating in social services we could probably fully fund it with the amount it is cheated out of!
a recent news item mentioned over $100B in erroneous charges to medicare annually. what does that tell you?
"as for spending, we just need to shift our spending into more of an investing style - instead of corporate welfare style"
I agree, but I also think we need to spend much less than we do. if, under clinton, we got by spending less than $2T, how is it that we got to over $3T in such a short amount of time? because we spend too much. wayyyyy too much.
bush-obama spending policies are killing us.
Excuse me, but that's an empirical question that can be answered by data in the charts above. Your characterization, "bush-obama spending policies" is, at best, hyperbole, considering that Bush initiated over 5T in new spending, and Obama's 2T in spending is geared mostly towards fixing the economic aftermath of Republican policies.
I read your characterization of your views - you want to be a social liberal but a conservative economist. That's a repackaging of the "compassionate conservative" dreck Bush was pushing. The two-party system is a reality; the third-party choices are too radical for consideration.
The Democratic party is an essential balance to the greed that drives the free market. It is the only party that has demonstrated self-control when it comes to preserving balance between the essential forces that drive the American economy. I don't think the Republican party is capable of self-control or restraint, nor can I ignore their dissembling and propaganda. They have a basic problem with every kind of fact there is that makes it impossible for me to vote for them. Everywhere I look, there is another Republican doing something despicable.
To put these two parties on an equal footing, even with such an immature, Bart-Simpsonesque, comparator as "suckiness" is laughable. IMHO, your mantra, "They both suck" is immoral fence-sitting. In an obviously intelligent individual such as yourself... it's a disgrace.
If Obama just would have let the tax cuts expire like most of the progressives wanted, he wouldn't be in this mess. He also would have rallied his base that were very much for allowing these tax cuts to expire. In my opinion he asked for this fight he has with the radical Right that he is getting.
so you believe the fed govt still needs more money to spend?
seriously?
or do you just want to stick to the 10% who pay 70% of the taxes? because that's not enough of a shared sacrifice...or something.
So very true !! If the democrats had let the tax cuts expire
when they had both houses of congress we wouldn't be in this mess.
"10% who pay 70% of the taxes?"
Prove it Hannity.
Joe, I'm not sure of the exact percentages currently, but when GWB was president, he lamented that the top 1% of US earners paid 35% of the taxes - but failed to mention that the top 1% earn 70% of the money!!
Not exactly paying their "fair share" to me!
Joe - I think if that 10% isn't going to create some good jobs with some of that money, thereby making it HARDER for the rest of us to contribute to our country, we need to do it for them.
GovHater: "Prove it" - those stats are from the IRS. look it up.
Juli: "Not exactly paying their "fair share" to me!" - correct. the 10% paying 70% of the bills isn't fair. it's far too much.
susan: who says they aren't creating jobs? hasn't there been many months of private sector job growth? who do you think is creating those jobs, $9 an hour workers? as for "we need to do it for them" that sounds a bit fascistic to me. what right do you have to tell someone else what to do with their money?
Here's a look at individual tax rates and shares by income in 2007, the most recent data available from the Internal Revenue Service:
An important side note: While the tax burden on this country's largest wage-earners has continued to grow since the Bush tax cuts were passed, the impact has been substantially muted.
The income gains made by the wealthiest Americans far outpaced that for the remaining workers, according to an analysis conducted for the Washington-based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
In fact, two-thirds of the nation's total income gains from 2002 to 2007 flowed to the top 1 percent of households, the 2009 analysis of IRS data by economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez showed.
That top 1 percent held a larger share of income in 2007 than at any time since 1928, their analysis found.
so from this is looks like the Tax issue affects LESS then 5% since its for income levels of 250,000 a year and up.
Dawn, good post. good info.
however, you might want to reconsider this:
"...the Tax issue affects LESS then 5% since its for income levels of 250,000 a year and up."
who do you think hires people? who owns small businesses that have staffs of people making a livable wage with benefits?
it isn't people making $40K. or $80K. or $120K.
also, the $250K is for couples. single people at $200K will be hit. I know too many people in that range who own businesses who are reluctant to move, not just because of taxes, but taxes are a component of their concern and inactivity. extrapolate my anecdote as you deem reasonable. ;-)
ok so a single person making 200,000 a year would go from paying 66,000 to 72.000 right? Not including any deductions blah blah blah, and a couple at 250,000 82,500 to 90,000 right?
and as for jobs, where are they now? you mean all this time they have not been hiring because of Obama? really? Not jus taxes of course but everything?
Shoot most business people I know already have figured out work arounds to make sure they are not affected by tax changes or the health care bill at least untill someone closes the loopholes there...
I have yet to see how lowering taxes on the upper brackets help those in the lower, Shoot check out the airlines right now. They are not being charged certain federal taxes cause of the FAA shut down and they adjusted their pricing so the Fare is the same price to the customer and pocketing the differance.
And what about Capitol Gains taxes? I feel they should be raised as well you?
joe, you mean the same WINNING job numbers we had under Bush? 1 million jobs in 8 years? That's the policy we should keep running with?
I will totally agree with your comment. All Obama had to do was let the Bush tax cuts expire - but it seemed after the 2010 elections he looked defeated. He just has to be real, the Republicans want you out, AT ALL COSTS, point blank period. He tries to be the bigger man and good guy, but as they say, 'good guys finish last'. With this debt ceiling, all he had to do was call the Republicans bluff. Boehner been up there for 20+ years, he knew that the debt ceiling had to be raised but he didn't have the votes, Obama should have seen that and called their bluff. Just like on Lawrence O'Donnell last night, he asked a Republican senator a simple question, why did she vote in '07 for a raise in the debt ceiling but now it's a problem, she couldn't answer. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, it's going to continue to be that way and it won't ever change.
DawesDes: that's exactly my question. Why is it that no one is talking about that. I see and hear a lot of anger about tax cuts/increases, but no one talks about ALL THE JOB creations due to Bush's tax cuts? Where are the jobs that Bush's tax cuts supposedly created? Let's be honest and yes we need to clean up Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid. There is much mismanagement in those agencies, but let's not hurt the people who really depend on those entitlements. And what happened to our sense of community and helping each other? I am, of course, referring to the very rich many of whom are willing to pay more taxes.
the tax cuts really haven't created new jobs - maybe replaced a few - but mostly we have even less employed year after year.
the tax cuts have allowed the ceo's to give themselves nice raises and make record profits.
i do realize obama and the democrats were swindled into extending them, through filibuster, but the tax cuts on that top is holding america back as a whole.
Don, must I repeat that I did not and do not support bush? Or is that all you can do, no matter what is said? If I showed you his severed head in my steamer trunk with photos of me celebrating its removal, would you still whine to me about bush this and bush that?
And you wonder why the empty talking heads on FOX are obsessed with lefties who are obsessed with bush. In the 4% of the time they are right, they are talking about broken records like you.
"Where are the jobs that Bush's tax cuts supposedly created?"
good question. I think they are somewhere next to all the jobs the stimulus was going to create in the Summer of Recovery.
so much evidence of so much failure on both sides, yet so many want to only blame one side.
how ridiculous. how counterproductive. I mean, what are the odds that so many free thinking minds would end up agreeing with nearly every last thing either party pretends to stand for? astronomical. which leads one to see that we're not talking about free minds, we're talking about self-shackled minds beholden to despicable liars and thieves.
are you one of them?
No I don't swallow everything that anyone tries to shove down my throat.
I am not discussing the jobs via Stimulus right nwo because that is not on the table for this debate.
we are talking Taxes, removing a cut, Raising them or closing all the loopholes. Either way raising revenue. I do believe that to really tackle all the issues with the economy right now needs a mixture of cuts, proper management, and raising revenue *ie taxes*
I would be tickled pink if we got the Jet fuel tax issue and the capital gains taxes raised. Thats not Hard earned money by Mom and Pop of the small business, if they have private jets they are no longer small. and if they have to worry about the capitol gains issue then cash in your stocks and don't worry about it.
One last thing about this I think, I would like to say I'm for smaller gov't, but thats only going to really be fesable if some how the whole Human Nature of Greed is cured...
I'm really sorry for any grammer, Misspelling and yadda yadda. I have a very sick 20 month old and a jealous 3 year old that have run me ragged today.
Thanks for listening
If there had been no Bu@!$%# tax cuts, we would not be near the problem we are in. The election of GWBu@!$%#, which was stolen, should have never happened. There would have been no Iraq war and no debt increases. \\
unfortunately the bush era is still playing havoc on the american people.
rick golub: you are right, but the tea partyers and their supporters are so opposed to the Obama presidency that the fact that he inherited such a mess is not even an issue. Their goal is to get Obama out, to make him a one-term president. Of course, now all the problems are Obama's policies. They really believe that people are imbeciles, but many of us do see the light.
Wow. Harsh comments.
But then again, I agree that both parties have led us into this mess, if only because the Dems didn't fight harder, ask more questions when we started our wars; if only because the Dems and Repubs both declined to put appropriate regulations in place to safeguard the housing market and the derivatives markets; if only because all our politicians are afraid to raise taxes in the end, even on those who are making the biggest profits.
Here's what I would like to have answered: Republicans/Conservatives insisted
preserving the tax cuts would equal job growth. That didn't happen and I want to
know why, especially given that 'corporations' are wealthier now than ever.
It didn't happen because Big Business is "scared" that, once those jobs are created and filled by Americans Obama will start closing tax loopholes on corporate entities and end the days of companies like GE actually paying NO taxes while making record profits. It didn't happen because Big Business is doing quite well without new workers and the costs they bring, thank you very much. In essence, Big Business is holding American jobs hostage until they are somehow promised that they will never have to pay a reasonable percentage of their profits in taxes, EVER. Nothing short of that kind of crushing victory for them will loosen their purse strings. And even then, why should they hire Americans? As has already been noted, they are making record profits RIGHT NOW while the rest of us sink into oblivion. Why on earth would they change such a successful business model?
greed...the disease of capitalism.
So who controls our economy? If we continue to let corporations do it, the people suffer, a little now and much more later. If the government has the guts, it can regulate business. Why not close the corporate tax loopholes and make them actually pay 20% of their earnings to the government? Because Republicans wil refuse to let that through Congress. Republicans are allowing business/corporations to rule the country via the economy. Voters must wise up and vote these traitors to the people out of office. Congress must regulate business and keep them in their proper role in our society.
"greed...the disease of capitalism."
yep. from the business owners, to the corrupt politicians on both sides of the aisle, to the regular guy trying to make a quick buck flipping a house.
Germany has done just fine with the economy provided by America through the Marshall Plan after WW2, they KEPT their manufacturing sector and the workers work closely with the managers and the owners.
We exported all nearly all of our manufacturing, where the owners learned to fatten their bottom lines by using cheap labor in weakly regulated third world countries. Oh. What's this? Workers not employed in America don't produce payroll taxes. A deficit. And the middle class starts melting.
"But wait" say the Republicans, "you can't expect the job creators to employ people if they are being taxed so high!" So the wealthy who make their fortune employing factory workers overseas get their taxes cut. Compounding the deficit, shredding the social safety net.
Japan had their version of the Marshall Plan. Infrastructure rebuilt, facories constructed. And they were kicking our asses too. They had everything that fiscal would consider winning combinations...anti-worker, anti-union, anti-regulation, pro-business. Corporatist straight down the line. They were so into deregulation that it was discovered that they were saving a fortune by not sterilizing their blood supply or buying blood that had been sterilized of the HIV/AIDS virus. As for those who had gotten infected because of it. Well...details. Can't make an omlet without giving people AIDS. Then their entire economic system collapsed, brought down by their banking and investment sector. Sound familiar?
You know the difference between us and Japan during the Clinton Administration? They were never stupid enough to off-shore their manufacturing!
Are you really comparing us to a country without a military?
LMAO!!!
Who allows manufacturers (the ones you childishly believe are all mean republicans) to offshore their word? Both parties. Why? Campaign contributions. Yes, it is tragic that so many blue collar jobs are gone. But to think this is one party's fault is just laughable.
Corporatists exist on both sides Don. Don't be so naive.
And I seem to recall Ross Perot predicting this. That "sucking sound" and all. Who took him seriously? Not the Dems or the Reps. Why not? He wasn't one of them. And now look.
And you want to blame this on one side only? Oh, please.
Republicans are good at getting their followers to vote against their best interests with twisted rhetoric and lies.
"Republicans are good at getting their followers to vote against their best interests with twisted rhetoric and lies."
so true. one day they may be as good as democrats.
regardless, both parties suck. both are corrupt. both are corporate owned. both are beholden to wall st and wealthy donators. both are bankrupting us.
how anyone can be an enthusiastic cheerleader, believing their bs blame games, for either side is stockholm syndrome personified.
how anyone can be an enthusiastic cheerleader, believing their bs blame games, for either side is stockholm syndrome personified.
I don't know, Joe, I'm just a working class fool and not a corporation or lobbyist so my vote doesn't count.
"I don't know, Joe, I'm just a working class fool and not a corporation or lobbyist so my vote doesn't count."
so true, in so many ways. which is why I cannot understand working class people who are such incredibly mindless suck-ups to either party.
unless you are sending in 4- or 5- figure checks to these cretins on a regular basis, they couldn't care less about you.
the biggest difference between the two parties is the lies they tell on TV. and despite decades of proof, people who work for a living continue to support them. total insanity.
So, Joe ... What's the answer?
so true, in so many ways. which is why I cannot understand working class people who are such incredibly mindless suck-ups to either party.
I'm not a mindless suck-up. And, in typical Republican style, you have no answers, Joe.
"So, Joe ... What's the answer?"
some ideas...
term limits, publicly funded campaigns, balanced budget amendment, legalize and tax drugs, reduce fed participation in what states already do (education, environment, etc) severely, restore the 10th amendment, make cheating the taxpayers punishable by unimaginable torture (I keed, I keed, but you get the idea), end corp welfare, close loopholes, do NOT raise taxes on anyone ever again, perhaps tie budget outlays to GDP, no pensions for elected officials.
I'm for the maximum in personal and economic freedom. I lean right economically (because neither party can be trusts with $100, let alone trillions!) and I am a flaming, flaming liberal on personal freedom. for example, the idea of a constitutional amendment against gay marriage is as offensive as a political party can be.
the fantasy answer is making membership in the Dem or Rep party not only illegal, but worthy of public scorn with the pointing and hissing and shunning.
only a nut thinks either is worth a bag of dog turds.
"I'm not a mindless suck-up."
I didn't say you were. I didn't imply you were, either. In fact, I was commiserating with what you said!
"And, in typical Republican style..."
Are you ok? What part of "both parties suck" is lost on you? Also, you might want to get that jerky knee looked at.
I'm not a fan of term limits - but, I'm not completely against them either. I do think they would fly in the face of your "personal and economic" freedoms to some degree. By removing a choice (via term limits) we automatically remove a freedom, which seems a bit counter-intuitive.
I do like the publicly funded campaign idea. How would you implement it?
Balanced budget amendments are risky ... depending on how they're drafted. If they're overly restrictive, you risk lacking options when dealing with future crises or conflicts - too lax and they become useless law.
Not a fan of legalizing drugs. I've heard most of the arguments and there is some rationale there, but something about it still makes me skiddish. It makes some degree of sense economically, but I think there are a variety of legal, social and cultural issues that need to be considered.
I would prefer to see some national standards in education, environmental mandates and other programs that are then supplemented by state efforts. I honestly don't trust the states to handle some of these things on their own and would rather have a "check & balance" approach between the Fed and the states instead of giving any one group a disproportionate amount of authority on many of these issues.
I like the 10th: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." But, I also wonder what the standard is to determine what falls under the purview of the States and what stays in the hands of the people. I've never studied it in depth, so I'm not sure if there is any major precedent as to who gets what?
I would like to see some overhaul on how taxes are legislated, implemented, collected and enforced. Something simpler would have a lot less likelihood of being abused and a strict enforcement focusing on fines rather than jail time would be preferred.
I think any welfare program (corporate or otherwise) should have defined parameters that stipulate corrective action and eventual termination of welfare support when warranted. And yes, loopholes should be closed as they become apparent. A nice clause in most laws permitting the governing Executive agency to automatically close loopholes might be a fitting solution.
"... do NOT raise taxes on anyone ever again ..." This does not seem realistic to me. The ability to raise taxes must continue to exist. There are reasons now, as well as future reasons we've never considered, why this power must continue to exist. However, rational justifications for raising taxes and creating new taxes should also exist. I think this falls under the area of "checks and balances" that is no longer effectively happening in our government. It should be monitoring and correcting itself, but doesn't. That ability needs to be restored and enforced.
"... perhaps tie budget outlays to GDP ..." A definite option.
"... no pensions for elected officials ..." I think a pension option should exist that is in line with private sector pensions. However, if term limits are used, this is a moot point as no one would be in office long enough to qualify.
"I am a flaming, flaming liberal on personal freedom." This confuses me a bit considering some of your other comments. If personal freedoms are that high on your list, aren't the other posters free to have their opinions without the name name calling? Can't we just agree to not agree and move on. Making partisan memberships illegal ... as well as adding the public scorn ... also seems to fly in the face of personal freedoms. I just don't get that.
I'm not a huge fan of either party (I'm a listed independent), but this is the current situation we have to work with. Under this framework ... what do we do? While some of your ideas are good ... and some are interesting ... what steps to citizens take to implement change. I vote, I have been known to write a few letters (mostly via e-mail) to my representatives in the House and Senate, and I've been an occasional voice on the local level in those things that attract my attention. What else can we do here?
There are numerous posts pointing figures and reciting various data, with the expected spin. But, as you said earlier ... "this adds nothing" ... which seems to still be the case. Talk is good, ideas are great, but action is better. And, the most common action people find useful is to join together with those of similar political ideologies to form a united force through which they are able to make change. Thus, political parties.
Unfortunately, these parties seem to have mismanaged the trust placed in them over time. And, that mismanagement has flowed through into our government. The only solution I see is a reaffirmation of the will of the people - with each of us giving voice and enforcing our will with our votes.
The system is broken, but name calling and whining about it don't seem to be effective tools to fix it. I think we each need to have a presence with our representatives and political parties (if you have one). Subscribe to their Web-sites and news feeds. Share what you hear with your friends ... talk about it. Fire off an e-mail and let your rep's and party know when they done something wrong ... and when they've done something right. And, when they do something really wrong ... raise hell!
I'm no absolutist, so if term limits are a limit on personal freedom, so be it. I don't think they are, but I can live with some people disagreeing with that. It is a privilege to be elected and serve, not a right.
Publicly financed campaigns...same $ and same free airtime (the public owns the airwaves, right?) for each candidate. I'd also like a rule where the candidate cannot mention the other candidate. I only want to know what you will do, not your psychotically twisted interpretation of that time that guy said that thing at that place taken completely out of context. Draconian, sure, but the political class has put us all on notice that they cannot be honest when speaking about their opponents. Thus, very strict rules. VERY strict. I dont just want the big $ out of elections, I want the BS and intelligence-insulting ads out too.
BBA - I'm resigned to the fact that even with a BBA, there will be myriad useless and narrowly channeled programs left. So when an emergency comes, there will always be fat to trim. Again, they have proven that they cannot be trusted with $100, let alone trillions. I'd make the exception to the rule if we are invaded by a foreign enemy, then we can defecit spend.
Legal drugs will surely cause some social problems. Nothing close to alcohol's social costs, but how did prohibition work then? Hello, Mafia. Hello underground economy. Hello contempt for the law. The $ saved fighting the drug war (law, prisons, reduced economic opportunities for all convicted, etc) plus the money made on taxing it...I think we'll have the dough to pay for treatment as needed.
"I would prefer to see some national standards in education, environmental mandates and other programs"
I agree, and that is all these departments should do. For example, the increase in budget of the dept of ed. (federal) is nearly inversely proportionate to declining test scores. it's like we're paying more for ever decreasing results. insanity. so the dept of ed should be about 100 people making sure the states are all maintaining national standards. the cost would be about 5-10% of what it is now.
"I honestly don't trust the states to handle some of these things on their own..."
why not? and could they possibly be as bad as the feds?
"I also wonder what the standard is to determine what falls under the purview of the States and what stays in the hands of the people"
good point, but at the very least we know what should not in the hands of the feds.
"The ability to raise taxes must continue to exist." true, and I am ok with that as long as they have been lowered from where they are now. in some ways, I see the fed govt as a fire and money is gasoline.
"If personal freedoms are that high on your list, aren't the other posters free to have their opinions without the name name calling?"
two things: one, I don't initiate personal name calling, but I will respond in kind. that said, how does my name calling stop anyone from posting their opinions? it doesn't.
"what steps do citizens take to implement change" - I think the best thing that will have immediate results is if all members of the democrat and republican parties switched their status to independent and stopped sending them money.
how a working person who isn't independently wealthy can send money to either one of these parties is, to me, about as reasonable as drinking a can of drano. it literally blows my mind that it happens so much.
do you find it interesting that despite my pronouncements endorsing very liberal social policies, I still get called a republican here? I still get "bush!!!!!" thrown at me here? I still am told I shouldn't blame obama when I haven't even mentioned his name here? you know what part of the problem is? it's people who are so in the tank with either political party that independent status and independent thought are seen as negatives and reasons to name call and attack. I get the same crap when I post at right-leaning forums. "socialist!!" "obama lover!!" "druggie!!!" and similarly stupid crap.
the partisans are the problem. not partisanship, which can be healthy and necessary, but individuals who have turned off their thinking and handed their identity to a political party. that is what makes me so cynical about solving this. and people who know me think I am sometimes overly optimistic in general. but just look through this blog and see the reactions to my posts. they are nothing at all like yours. because you're a reasonable and independent thinker. most here are not. it's plain to see.
I tend to agree up to a point. I agree that it's a privilege to be elected and serve. I also think it's a right to be able to run for office. The limitation of personal freedom I was thinking of was that such a law could remove my options as a voter to vote for someone I believe should be able to serve.
While I can agree in principle, such limitation would likely be considered an inhibition of free speech. Laws regarding libel and slander, however, should be enforced at every opportunity.
I'm sure there will always be problems. My concern about absolutist laws is they leave no legitimate room for what we can't conceive of in our current situation. This is another case where the checks and balances of government should be enacted to assure just laws and reasonable expenditures. Unfortunately, many of those currently in power don't seem to have the chops to actually enforce the laws they were meant to. No clear answer here for me, unfortunately.
Part of me just sees the drug problems escalating, whether the drugs are legal or not. In my mind's eye, I see bodies piling up because we, as a society, would rather lose ourselves to chemically induced oblivion than strive to become something great.
I think there will always be a measure of illegality concerning some substances - and, there likely should be. Some of these substances are truly dangerous and should be controlled. That being said, where do we draw the line? What makes where we are now any better or worse than some other level of restriction or freedom? You pointed out alcohol, it's legal (for the most part), and the bodies are still piling up.
Actually, I think they could be. We have states that are changing what's taught in areas of science and evolution. A concept I don't agree with. We have local school boards that are just as corrupt - if not more so - than the Fed. We have Unions that were once legitimate, positive organizations that are arguably more responsible for the decimation of education than the Fed. I truly think it could be worse. I think proactive checks and balances between the Federal and State governments are needed for certain programs which have a direct connection to our prosperity as a nation.
I agree, but I also think we need enough money to pay our bills and stabilize our economy. I'm not an economist by any means, but I don't see how that can be done without a more aggressive stance on taxes and program cuts. I also think the real problem is not the taxes, but how they are spent. If that can be controlled, the tax levels should correct themselves over time. But, for that to happen, the people will need to be vigilant and demanding of their representatives at all governmental levels. They HAVE to be involved.
I get that it's frustrating and that the impulse to respond in kind is strong. But, isn't that the type of modus operandi that exacerbates these kinds of problems? Why drop to that level when your clearly capable of so much more? If someone's reverted to name calling, they've already told me everything I need to know. There is seldom a point in continuing the conversation.
A good idea. But, realistically, not likely to happen. I would rather see an environment in which the people are talking about the issues and finding actual solutions that they understand. I would like any member of any party to challenge their representatives and fellow constituents to be better citizens of the Republic. Stand up for their rights, but also respect and stand up for each others rights - whether they agree with your opinion or not.
Granted, but that's also one of those freedoms ...
I think, largely, "we" have forgotten what it means to be citizens of the United States of America. I think we have forgotten why this country was built, what it actually stands for and why men and women are dying to protect it. Part of that seems to stem from our waning educational system. Other parts seem to stem from people being so blindsided by the challenges of modern life that they are willing to follow whoever looks strong and wise, as opposed to those that actually are strong and wise.
Surprising? No. A lot of people tend to have a degree of social tunnel vision and react in specific ways to specific prompts. They assume they know who and what you are based on an amazingly narrow set of data. Part of that is on them, but, part of that is also on you and your presentation. To be honest, you come off as a bit confrontational and it's not a shock that people react in a similar fashion. Even your first post on this thread seemed to be designed to get people riled up. Just an observation.
Thanks for compliment. I get the cynicism. I live with it too. Every day. But, that's something "we" need to get past if we are to have any hope of enacting change. Which I assume your interested in doing, or you wouldn't be posting in the first place.
I think everything would go better if we all thought first, then spoke, and then took the time to teach and learn from each other.
I'd call that one of the unfortunate consequences of an out of control political class. sadly, we must reap what they (and their enablers) have sown.
see above. since they now live under a much different set of rules than we do, rules that favor them, they can deal with living under different rules that favor their bosses. wouldn't that be a refreshing change?
regarding the BBA, if states can do it, so can the feds.
I'll admit legalizing all drugs is somewhat idealistic. even I have a hard time thinking crystal meth should be legal. at the very least, marijuana and cocaine should be legal. far too many people use these regularly and remain net positives to society. Alcohol is, by far, the strongest and most destructive drug (other than exotics that are rarely seen or used like datura seeds) and while problematic, the alternative (prohibition) has already been a proven failure that we still deal with the consequences of 70+ yrs later. I just don't see how it is the state's concern what someone does with their own body. And really, what good does it do to anyone to spend the time, money and effort to bust pot dealers? We spend so much $ on this drug alone, it's pathetic. I am also not convinced that there exists this army of housewives and squares who really want to shoot heroin, and will only when it is legal. Does that make any sense to you?
As an atheist, I detest the idea of teaching superstition in science class. That said, if a local school wants it, it is their choice. Nothing is more local than education, even if I think it is ridiculous. I agree with that last line a lot. I still don't understand who a public employee union protects its members from. FDR was dead right about this topic. If the local educrats are just as corrupt as the federal ones, I think it is much easier for the local population to do something about it. History tells us that dismantling a state bureaucracy is a lot easier than a federal.
Couldn't agree more.
I would, too, but I think this is as, if not more, unlikely as people abandoning the 2 major parties outright. Perhaps the best outcome (and, thus, doubly unlikely) is that people abandon both parties outright and then get involved as you describe. Wouldn't it be nice to have parties that really are liberal, conservative, moderate, green, libertarian, etc., rather than two that have more in common via their actions and lie incessantly with their words?
So true. Well put, too.
I can see how my first post was a bit strong. But it did get the drink stirred, no? What goes on here without someone who differs in thought and can back it up, I wonder? Is it a nonstop agreement-fest? What good does that do anyone? Also, look at what I am responding to so often. I'm not without fault, but I think I am attacked first much more often than not.
Correct. Despite prevalent paranoia, that is what I am here for. I don't know many true believers of either side.
Absolutely.
Perhaps. But, in the long run, I would still like to be able to retain those future politicians that just might be worth keeping around. I don't believe an excess of rules, like term limits or eliminating parties, will actually fix the problems. It may narrow a few options, but politicians will adapt, prep the next guy or gal, and continue. I still think voter intelligence and presence are what needs to be actualized on a societal scale. I think civics, politics and economics (at various levels) should be required throughout primary and secondary education, and I think every high school senior should graduate as a registered voter.
I don't see the viability in trying to use patchwork, reactionary rules to fix our political landscape. Voter awareness and action are, to me at least, the key to changing the nature of the process on a fundamental level.
It might be a refreshing change, but I don't think it would be good law or good for society in the long run. I would prefer to have the broken fixed, not just leave it rotting in the yard while we try something that sates our tempers more than it adds value to who and what we are. Let's make it right, the way it should be. Let's keep the principles and values of the Constitution paramount and let voter involvement keep the politicians who would rather rant than lead from having any measure of success.
If we don't reintroduce the concepts of civility, propriety and professional demeanor - we will lose them. We need to make them, and each other, accountable for those actions that fall across the line. And, we need to do it in a way that involves people in the process, not one that just lets us sketch out more rules and then walk away hoping they'll work this time.
I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm just saying we need to be careful how we do it. I think some of the laws that have gone through in the last decade or so have been so poorly written or hacked up by partisan changes that they became more problematic than the issues they were meant to address. Even our existing Constitution and its Amendments have levels of vagary that the Judiciary still has issues resolving. If we do a BBA, I want it to be solid, strong and written in such a way that it provides the solutions we need both now and in the future.
I totally agree that there are issues, but I still think we need a measure of control. Drugs, like alcohol, are too dangerous to leave without limits. I worry about kids getting hooked before they have the wisdom to understand those choices - who protects them? I worry about people operating vehicles and other machinery while under the influence - what do we do to maintain safety? I worry about a health care systems that becomes bogged down by drug-related illnesses or illnesses that are exacerbated by drugs - who pays for that? These are questions we can't credibly deal with now, so how do will we deal with them when the game changes?
I agree that our "war on drugs" is not the bust it should be (pun intended). But, I also believe opening the flood gates without careful consideration could be catastrophic. I do think laws and penalties could use some overhauls. I would rather see excessive users and dealers lose money and resources vice spending time in jail on the tax payer's dime. I would rather see countries that traffic in drugs penalized on a national level - no monetary support, no visas, stronger sanctions, etc.
Ultimately, I think we'll have problems either way. But, it bothers me that our society might become something truly horrible if we allow drugs to become a common way of life.
I still have to go with keeping church and state a fair distance apart. Tax money shouldn't be used for faith-based teaching. Public education should be focused on providing what's needed by children to become knowledgeable, proactive citizens. If the states and local people want to teach faith, let them open a Sunday school on their own dime.
Can't really disagree with that. But, I can still hope for a brighter future. I think the key is still involvement, with a healthy dose of true leadership on the side.
Stirring things up isn't always a bad idea. But, it can often be interpreted as a disingenuous effort, designed to cause distraction and discontent rather than honest discourse. It's a fine line.
I could kiss you guys for posting these.
These charts SHOULD BE mandatory viewing for all voters. Pretty easy to see who's lying!
I totally agree! Within the first 2 years of Bush's first term he raised the national debt by 30%. Clinton had at least got us in the black. We were making payments. I'm sick and tired of them going after social programs as well. We are "united" people. I'm disabled due to a car accident that wasn't even my fault. So does that mean I should just die, or that I don't deserve social security disability? I don't deserve medical care? People who talk trash about these programs are morons, and they should just be grateful they don't have to depend on them for survival. You never know what tomorrow will bring. They're arguing over a 2% tax increase for people making over $250K a year. 2%! Come on!
Mr President: Just raise it! Do what Pres. Clinton said! To hell with this fighting. Show you have the guts to do the right thing for the people. You will still win the election. That is the only way to show these crazy people that "we the people" will have a voice and will still elect you and get rid of them.
I agree 100%
Thank you for saying that...I understand he is trying to look like he is in the center, but can he see that these Republicans want him out at all costs, stop trying to work with them.
Say it LOUD!
Everything Bush enacted (Tax cuts, 2 wars, medicare part D) has bankrupted the country, economy, jobs. How can the current crop of Repubs and Tea Partyers be so stinkin' blind. There is no money left to pay the bills. The rich keep sitting on their money, the big companies keep buying off the Congress and getting their tax breaks and the so called "Job Creators" keep sending American Jobs overseas. Come on people open your eyes, THE BUSH TAX CUTS HAVEN'T WORKED AND WILL NEVER WORK. It's time to pay the bills and the Rich and Big Companies have to start paying their fair share or there will not be a USA to do business in.
It is easy to see here that you can't argue with STUPID no matter how many facts and charts you use. There are certain people that will NEVER understand it nor WANT to understand it. You can talk until you're blue in the face over it. If I were a republican, I would be ashamed.
What's predicted to happen in 2016 that would cause a slight increase in the deficit even without all those other factors listed? Odd.
Parts of the recovery dollars that are as yet unspent, being spent in 2016... look at the chart on the top... many of the recovery bills provisions were laid out to take effect over a longer period than somply one year, like loans to SBA, Infrastructure spending on long term projects that will not get past the planning stages for 5 years... hence that bump....
Parable: Your 'adult' children invite their friends over to your houe and they have a big drunken party, breaking furniture, eating all the food and leaving a very big mess. You have to pay for cleaning up the mess and invest in new carpet and chairs, replace the food and repair the house. Who is more responsible for these costs? Will you ask these irresponsible kids to chip in to help pay for them?
It is easy to see here that you can't argue with STUPID no matter how many facts and charts you use. There are certain people that will NEVER understand it nor WANT to understand it. You can talk until you're blue in the face over it. If I were a republican, I would be ashamed.
I'm 56 years old. Voting between the lesser of two evils is the only choice I have ever known. Right now, both sides suck. We need to reform campaign laws, and the most popular idea is to get big money out of elections. This isn't going to happen anytime soon, and as I get older, I don't think it will ever happen. The current election system is too entrenched and too powerful.
Thank you for these charts! I just used them to smack down an argument on Facebook that Obama had "raised spending and unemployment as soon as the Democrats controlled the White House and Congress". Not that I expect anything to come out of it other than being called a "stupid lib", which, coming from the source, I will take as a compliment.
the concept of why higher tax rates actually promote job growth is easy if you follow the logic.
In its simplest form:
Every year, business has a balance sheet money coming in versus money going out.
The difference between what comes in and what goes out is profit.
Profit is what is taxed.
The current ideology says that the more "profit" that business gets to keep, they more they can potentially reinvest (creating jobs, creating orders, spurring economic activity). In theory this makes a lot of sense.
So we lower the tax burden on business to create a capital fertile environment where its easier for them to take risk.
The problem is that they are not taking that risk citing "low demand" for product. But the reason there is low demand is that businesses have cut pay rolls drastically to contain cost.
By closing loop holes, deduction and moving to higher tax rates, you force business owners to make a choice. As money comes in during the tax year, the business owner can have the utility of that capital by using it themselves and reinvesting in their business (as described above) or they can hold it as profit, and loose the utility of that capital to taxation. Whereby the government will use that capital. Which will also drive growth, albeit more slower and with less efficiency than the market.
In other words, faced with the logical choice of "use it or lose it" businesses will likely choose "use it" and run the expense side of their balance sheet up which is the very definition of economic activity, rather than have the profit taxed.
So tax rates aren't evil, just a tool to present those who are aggregate capital a different set of choices.
In the engine that is economics, lower tax rates and loop holes are "carrots" , closing loop holes and higher rates are "sticks."
It may be time to use some "sticks" to get capital moving thru the domestic system as opposed to either aggregating at the top or moving off shore to other global labor markets.
It's just that "sticks" aren't politically popular and since politics here is tied to campaign donations, both parties are stuck in a "carrots only" mentality.
The charts are great! The charts represent facts and therefore, the charts don't matter. I feel powerless and hopeless.
Can anyone tell me where that house is that was saved in the mortgage bailout?
Mine was. 10 reams of paper later, but the HAMP plan worked for me and my partner.
They say the HAMP program is easy and free. BS...so many are denied due to reasons totally unfair to the borrower...People are not getting the modifications because it's NOT EASY to qualify for it even though one may be qualified for it.
I refinanced through the HAMP program and was not late on any payments at all. I was only underwater on how much I owed on the home (like a lot of Americans), have great credit scores, and have never missed a mortgage payment. The problem with the HAMP program is it was all voluntary, thus you as a homeowner had to pursue the refinance with your bank.
Taxes need to be raised for the top 5%!
I am a lifelong Democrat, but while I believe that President Obama has been the most reasonable of the three parties in these negotiations (House Republicans, Senate Democrats and the President), the partisan and so far unproductive debate shows the need for a centrist player in the Congress. I am looking at Americans Elect (http://www.americanselect.org/) as a different paradigm. Check them out
I agree with a lot of what is on here. I'm one of those people getting those tax cuts $250+ and I haven't created one single job haven't even attempted to create a job. I believe we should be paying our fair share.....
no one is stopping you from sending extra money to the IRS.
if you are taking the "data" on this chart from 2013-2019 seriously, I have a totally awesome bridge to sell you. it's close to the Nebraska beachfront lots I can throw in for free.
Given the flooding that's happening there at the moment, you can go to hell for that comment.
justanoutherbear, i'm sure joe is completely unaware of any crisis in nebraska...
Then perhaps he should stay silent on topics, or turns of phrase, about which he is completely uniformed...
awww....
yeah, not thinking about the flooding clearly makes comments on anything else just so gauche!
sorry about the faux pas, but grow up.
Back-handed, equivocal, apology accepted :) . Perhaps you need to grow up and stop picking fights through combative rhetoric. You may wish to brush up on the concept of topic threading while you're at it.
*wishes joe would take a breath... whew...
"stop picking fights through combative rhetoric"
you mean when I put forth an opinion that isn't in lockstep with lefty dogma and I am attacked for it, often with make-believe things I never said?
is that what you consider picking a fight?
my "topic threading" isn't up to snuff? oh, the humanity!
joe-2582197 There are a few points I would like to agree with you on however, I can't help feeling like I've been hit by a Mac truck by your posts. Can you "put forth an opinion" without kicking the @!$%# out of folks while your at it? I'm not going to post examples or call you Sonny, Champ, Sport or whatever, I know you know exactly what I mean.
"I can't help feeling like I've been hit by a Mac truck by your posts."
what a mean and hurtful thing to say to me. Gaia! save me!!
"Can you "put forth an opinion" without kicking the @!$%# out of folks while your at it?"
wow, that's really harshing my mellow. they way you took my humanity away like that leaves me empty and filled with a nameless dread.
I keed, I keed. there must be a sense of humor out there somewhere.
anyway, was this one too mack trucklike?
"thinking one of the 2 parties is slightly less evil than the other isn't unreasonable. it's the idea seen regularly here that dems are almost always right and the gop is always wrong. THAT is completely ridiculous. glad to see there are some reasonable people here."
how about this? (in response to being told there is something wrong with me for not being a major party supporter)
"there is no side for free thinkers, lem.
I prefer a lean, smaller fed govt close to (with provisions for modernism) what the constitution calls for. I'm also an atheist and believe in equal rights for minorities and gays. I think the drug war is a failure of epic proportions, I'm so pro-choice I'm all for coin-op abortions, and I think a flat tax with no income under $25K taxed."
will those do?
Never mind joe...just carry on....I don't need to read any more of your posts...thanks...
Someone once said, "Some crazy is just too deep to wade into."
so there isn't a sense of humor out there.
drat.
Through an obvious use of tone, you're either attempting to generate or maintain confrontation. So yes, you're being combative. Is that clear enough?
so you didn't recognize the humor either, huh?
unbelievable.
ya'll do know that this is the unaffiliated joe that was banned cause of constantly violating the CoH?
I was never banned. If I was banned, how is it I am posting? I never changed my ID.
btw, does the CoH include slavishly towing the DNC line?
but who knows? maybe the echo chamber will be restored tomorrow AM.
aaahhh...censorship!
Joe,
Let me help you with reading Juli's post...
"GWB was president, he lamented that the top 1% of US earners paid 35% of the taxes - but failed to mention that the top 1% earn 70% of the money!!"
So in your mind if the top 1% make 70% of the money, they should only pay 1% of the taxes? How is that fair? Please enlighten me on your voodoo math that proves that this makes any sense?
If 1% or 5% or 25%, doesn't really matter how much, of our country makes 70% of the income, then those people should pay 70% of the taxes. 1+1=2 or at least the last time I checked it did.
"if the top 1% make 70% of the money, they should only pay 1% of the taxes?"
no. how in the world did you come up with that?
oh, right. I said something that doesn't fit in the lefty echo chamber and, therefore, you lost the ability to reason and/or comprehend.
don't sweat it. I see this all the time from both sides of the make-believe partisan divide. you do realize reactionary leftists like you are 99.9% the same as reactionary right wingers, don't you?
but by your, ahem, "logic," you'd like to see the working people who really are struggling (making, say, $30K or less) and not paying taxes have theirs raised.
nice. so progresssssssssssssssssssssssssive!
Joe -
Frank "came up with that" from one of your previous posts. You said that 10% of people paying 70% of taxes is "too much." However, in reality, it isn't enough when the top 10% make up (way) more than 70% of the nation's income. That isn't paying their "fair share." He didn't say anything about raising taxes on low wage earners. He was just saying that people should be taxed based on how much they make (e.g. if 10% make up 70% of the income, they should pay 70% of the taxes) and by your logic, you would rather see everyone pay an equal percentage of taxes, regardless of their income (e.g. top 10% paying only 10% in taxes). Not saying that I agree with him, just reiterating it to you in a different way so you might understand this time around.
As far as calling people out for being reactionary, you might wanna look in a mirror first, bud. Stop trying to sound smart. You are coming off as an arrogant asshat. You have "reacted" to just about every comment on this page. "..reactionary leftists like you..." Are you serious? Some stand-up citizen you are. And you expect people to listen to you? Grow up.