Watching the Democrats - it's Fun and Macabre!

[Adak]

Originally Posted by DanaC

If the Democrats bent any further in their negotiations they'd be hairpin shaped.

The tea-party influence in the republican negotiations has meant absolute heel digging and a refusal to consider any compromises.

You must be avoiding even the ObamaNews corps releases.

News flash:
============
Speaker of the House (John Boehner), has put forward compromises to Obama's team (Tim Geitner, etc.), last week.

Still, no response of any kind, from the President's team.

As Speaker of the House (Republican) said, there is no progress in the negotiations yet, because the President has not put forward anything that he will negotiate.

It's obvious that Obama is just letting us sweat to put pressure on the Republicans.

Naturally, the Speaker of the House, will cave in a bit, if he's doing the normal thing. He's not a real fighter, AND he does not want to see us go over the fiscal "cliff". Obama knows this, and is using it to get what he wants with no compromising on his part, if possible.

So hold onto your wallets, folks. More fun taxes (they call them "revenues" instead), will be taken from you, to support our fat piggy gov't.

[Ibby]

[quote=Adak;842744]

Originally Posted by Adak

1) Cut the spending. I don't mean as a percent above the current spending (which they are calling now "the baseline"). I'm talking about cutting ACTUAL current spending.

Your definition of "actual current spending" makes no broader political sense (as has already been pointed out to you IN THIS THREAD) and so i shall ignore it.

Originally Posted by Adak

2) Obama care

The left wanted single payer. Then they wanted exchanges. Then they got a plan that the Heritage Foundation invented. Oops. They ended up where the right was ten years ago, and the right moved right! yum yum, taste that compromise.
(you can't say that because one side wanted "something" and the other wanted "nothing", and "something" happened, that side one didn't compromise at all!)

Originally Posted by Adak

3) military strength (we now have less than half the number of ships we had in the peak 1980's), for one example.

Remind me who we're at war with? Russia? no, wait, China? No, uh, NK? well, yes, technically, but not a shooting war anymore, and its not like we need a Cold War fleet to deal with them. The left would cut things further, and ends up compromising with republican hawks to keep it inflated.

Originally Posted by Adak

4) Gun ownership and/or right to carry.

Obama has done absolutely nothing to change the guns laws from when he was elected into office, except to allow concealed carry in federally-maintained parks. OH GOSH LOOK AT THAT GUNHATER!

Originally Posted by Adak

5) Federal tax code littered with exclusions, exemptions, and both intentional and unintentional loopholes.

The left would be happy to close all the loopholes, if it meant we could lower taxes on the middle class/poor to make up for taking THEIR deductions away! it's the right's dogmatic insistence that CORPORATE and WEALTHY loopholes and deductions stay, or that the WEALTHY deserve to pay less, that is stopping comprehensive reform. The left has been compromising for years! (see, continuing the bush cuts for the wealthy, even though they didn't want to and bernie sanders filibustered it, to save the tax cuts for the poor and the middle-class)

Originally Posted by Adak

6) Trade treaties that force our businesses to go overseas to use cheap, almost slave labor, in order to stay competitive.

You and I are at a fundamental disagreement about what level of corporate regulation is GOOD for business. I would slam any company who wanted to sell goods or services in the US with HUGE fines if they use exploitative labor tactics, which would then encourage economic growth here at home, as companies who kept jobs here would be no more profitable than ones who use cheap labor. That's a fairly common left-wing idea. It's the right who isn't letting regulatory tightening, and is in fact still asking for less regulation. The right is generally further from the status quo than the left when it comes to how much regulation is necessary.

Originally Posted by Adak

7) Paying Egypt 400 Million dollars per year in "Foreign Aid", for bribe money. Lots of other countries get this kind of aid, as well.

What should replace money in our diplomacy? That 1980s Cold-War navy you want? no thanks.

Originally Posted by Adak

8) Bring our sons and daughters home from most (not all), of these overseas military bases.

and, you know, uh, the WARS. that the right generally still doesn't want to give up on.

Wait, so, we should put more money into our military, strengthen it, but bring back most of the people out there being our military? That seems like a total contradiction to me. I want to see our military MORE active around the world, liaising with local militaries and having staging areas spread out across our allied nations, while spending less on a standing army at home. That, to me, seems to be the value of our military, in this day and age - diplomacy and cooperation with our friends, both close ones and more tenuous ones.


That was kinda fun. NEXT! bring 'em on.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Ibby

Your definition of "actual current spending" makes no broader political sense (as has already been pointed out to you IN THIS THREAD) and so i shall ignore it.

Yes, the left ALWAYS has an excuse for not cutting spending - 'tis too hot, 'tis too cold, 'tis the wrong season to cut spending, You can't cut spending now, because we <enter excuse here>.

The left wanted single payer. Then they wanted exchanges. Then they got a plan that the Heritage Foundation invented. Oops. They ended up where the right was ten years ago, and the right moved right! yum yum, taste that compromise.

The conservatives are not against a nationalized health care service, IF they run a pilot in a region, and show it can work as well as they claim it will.

You can't just take over some odd 20% of the nations economy (the health care system), with something as full of nonsense as Obama care.

I loved Nancy Pelosi (former Speaker of the House)'s comments on it: "You don't need to read it - vote on it first, and we'll finish writing it, later".

What kind of horse shit thinking is that?

Remind me who we're at war with? Russia? no, wait, China? No, uh, NK? well, yes, technically, but not a shooting war anymore, ...

Well, let's see:

1) North Korea - has nukes, developing ICBM's, and a crackpot of a dictator. Need I say more?

2) We are providing security for every tanker (almost) that travels through the Straits of Hormuz, because the Iranians have attacked several of them with high speed gunboats.

3) We are still in Afghanistan - another year or two for that.

4) Still guarding Japan, which is in a heated argument with China, over ownership of some islands between the two.

5) Assad in Syria has chemical weapons, and is moving them around. At some point, he's likely to use them, since he is slowly losing the civil war.

Guess who will have to step in, if a slaughter is (hopefully), to be avoided?

6) If Iran goes ahead with developing nuclear weapons, or closes the Straits of Hormuz, we will immediately be at war, since nearly 38% of the world's oil passes through those Straits.

Yes, we need to keep our military strong, clearly. The UK, for instance, doesn't even have a single full size air craft carrier, for 2013.

Obama has done absolutely nothing to change the guns laws from when he was elected into office, except to allow concealed carry in federally-maintained parks. OH GOSH LOOK AT THAT GUNHATER!

He tried - the calls to the Senate and House switchboards were so numerous, he had to stop.

The left would be happy to close all the loopholes, if it meant we could lower taxes on the middle class/poor to make up for taking THEIR deductions away! it's the right's dogmatic insistence that CORPORATE and WEALTHY loopholes and deductions stay, or that the WEALTHY deserve to pay less, that is stopping comprehensive reform. The left has been compromising for years! (see, continuing the bush cuts for the wealthy, even though they didn't want to and bernie sanders filibustered it, to save the tax cuts for the poor and the middle-class)

The Republicans have to plead "guilty" on this one. They want to favor their constituents with tax exemptions, etc., just as much as Democrats want to favor theirs. Conservatives just want low taxes, and a relatively flat tax rate.

You and I are at a fundamental disagreement about what level of corporate regulation is GOOD for business. I would slam any company who wanted to sell goods or services in the US with HUGE fines if they use exploitative labor tactics, which would then encourage economic growth here at home, as companies who kept jobs here would be no more profitable than ones who use cheap labor. That's a fairly common left-wing idea. It's the right who isn't letting regulatory tightening, and is in fact still asking for less regulation. The right is generally further from the status quo than the left when it comes to how much regulation is necessary.

You can't slam a business for responding to a new law or treaty, that demands they act, or risk going bankrupt. It's our politicians we should be furious at, not our businessmen. They didn't WANT to have to move to China, they were forced into it, by economic realities which our signed treaties forced down their throats.

Oh, China doesn't call their workers "virtual slaves", NO, NO! The workers there have been committing suicide at the Foxconn (Intel motherboards) plant, because they really LIKE their jobs.

Nobody likes wars, but what are you going to do when Assad starts using nerve gas on the rebels, from aircraft sprayers (like Chemical Ali did in Iraq)?

What are you going to do when Iran stops all the oil going through the Straits, as they have threatened, and attacks our fleet in the Gulf of Persia? I don't believe running away and hiding is a viable option.

Wait, so, we should put more money into our military, strengthen it, but bring back most of the people out there being our military? That seems like a total contradiction to me. ...

I don't want to increase funds to the military, but I do want to stop any cuts to it, and use our funds better - and we can't do that with our personnel spread out all over the globe, guarding nations that have long ago been able to guard themselves. That's very expensive, year after year. Very hard on the military families, as well. My nephew was an officer in the Army - and was overseas or in the field, nearly all the time. Bosnia, Iraq, year long training in Germany, year long deployment in South Korea, long field training, exercises, etc. After 10 years of that, his marriage was in the toilet. He got out, but it was too late to save his marriage.

I haven't documented all of my assertions in this thread, because I believe the most basic one, is self-evident.

We have sharply increased our spending, and we can't continue to do that, without running the risk of a total fiscal crisis. Which would be much worse than the fiscal "cliff", btw.

We CAN and we SHOULD cut our current spending, back to the levels of the Clinton years, and perhaps, increase our tax revenues, as well - and not just on the rich.

Problem is, the Democrats won't hear of cutting our current spending, and only want to even TALK about cutting our projected spending, by a small percentage.

That won't do the job. It still continues to run up our National Debt, and continually diminish the value of every US dollar, everywhere. This seems like easy to understand, common sense to me.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by Adak

The conservatives are not against a nationalized health care service, IF they run a pilot in a region, and show it can work as well as they claim it will.

You can't just take over some odd 20% of the nations economy (the health care system), with something as full of nonsense as Obama care.

Get back to me when Vermont has its single-payer going and kicking ass. Though I could easily point to all the other countries already doing it and performing minor miracles with it. I lived in Taiwan, dude. I've seen it. I've been an "uninsured" person in a single-payer system, and the reinbursement requests to Tricare were often not even worth sending in because out-of-pocket care was so cheap even off the single-payer system.

Originally Posted by Adak

Well, let's see:

1) North Korea - has nukes, developing ICBM's, and a crackpot of a dictator. Need I say more?

2) We are providing security for every tanker (almost) that travels through the Straits of Hormuz, because the Iranians have attacked several of them with high speed gunboats.

3) We are still in Afghanistan - another year or two for that.

4) Still guarding Japan, which is in a heated argument with China, over ownership of some islands between the two.

5) Assad in Syria has chemical weapons, and is moving them around. At some point, he's likely to use them, since he is slowly losing the civil war.

Guess who will have to step in, if a slaughter is (hopefully), to be avoided?

6) If Iran goes ahead with developing nuclear weapons, or closes the Straits of Hormuz, we will immediately be at war, since nearly 38% of the world's oil passes through those Straits.

Yes, we need to keep our military strong, clearly. The UK, for instance, doesn't even have a single full size air craft carrier, for 2013.

I think we can deal with most of these problems without a ridiculous buildup of troops to a cold-war level. I think American political support has nearly the power of American military support. We would be much better off finding diplomatic solutions to these, and I believe we will, and in fact would EASILY solve the problems if we didnt have such belligerently neocolonial motivations.

Originally Posted by Adak

He tried - the calls to the Senate and House switchboards were so numerous, he had to stop.

I call bullshit. Show me one statement from Obama, or Obama-endorsed bill, that would have limited gun right. Just one.

Originally Posted by Adak

The Republicans have to plead "guilty" on this one. They want to favor their constituents with tax exemptions, etc., just as much as Democrats want to favor theirs. Conservatives just want low taxes, and a relatively flat tax rate.

I guess if I can call "liberal" something near - or slightly-left-of - Bernie Sanders, and democrats mostly centrists/moderates, you're allowed to say the same thing about the mainstream Republican party.

Except that from an international perspective, I'm right, because America sits so far to the authoritarian-right of northern europe and the developed world in general on most issues. right-wing parties in most of europe are economically about where democrats are, and left-wing parties are to the left.

Nowhere is this more pronounced than scandinavia and iceland - and nowhere is more successful at proving liberal political theory.

Originally Posted by Adak

You can't slam a business for responding to a new law or treaty, that demands they act, or risk going bankrupt. It's our politicians we should be furious at, not our businessmen. They didn't WANT to have to move to China, they were forced into it, by economic realities which our signed treaties forced down their throats.

How were businesses "forced" to outsource? Please give specific examples.

Originally Posted by Adak

Oh, China doesn't call their workers "virtual slaves", NO, NO! The workers there have been committing suicide at the Foxconn (Intel motherboards) plant, because they really LIKE their jobs.

The first round of suicides at Foxconn plants in China were right after the Taiwan-based company raised wages minutely. The local Party boss wanted to stick it to Foxconn, get their factory, and stop their own workers for asking for equally improved wages. The bodies were dead before they hit the ground. PM me if you want to know the authority on which I can say that.

Later suicides were, as far as I know, accurately reported.

Originally Posted by Adak

Nobody likes wars, but what are you going to do when Assad starts using nerve gas on the rebels, from aircraft sprayers (like Chemical Ali did in Iraq)?

What are you going to do when Iran stops all the oil going through the Straits, as they have threatened, and attacks our fleet in the Gulf of Persia? I don't believe running away and hiding is a viable option.

I'm not sure what point you're making here - could you elaborate further? Do you think our existing military is incapable of handing these threats, as unlikely as most analysts believe the odds to be?

Originally Posted by Adak

I don't want to increase funds to the military, but I do want to stop any cuts to it, and use our funds better - and we can't do that with our personnel spread out all over the globe, guarding nations that have long ago been able to guard themselves. That's very expensive, year after year. Very hard on the military families, as well. My nephew was an officer in the Army - and was overseas or in the field, nearly all the time. Bosnia, Iraq, year long training in Germany, year long deployment in South Korea, long field training, exercises, etc. After 10 years of that, his marriage was in the toilet. He got out, but it was too late to save his marriage.

and yet my family is a wonderful success story of an Air Force officer and his wife and two kids moving around America and the Far East, learning about the world, gaining an international perspective, and in my case, becoming a potential new diplomat. Find me one policy without stories of failure. I believe strongly in an international US military liaison/humanitarian capacity, and I'm sorry to those with personal stories of hardship associated with this pro-american, pro-peace policy.

Originally Posted by Adak

I haven't documented all of my assertions in this thread, because I believe the most basic one, is self-evident.

We have sharply increased our spending, and we can't continue to do that, without running the risk of a total fiscal crisis. Which would be much worse than the fiscal "cliff", btw.

We CAN and we SHOULD cut our current spending, back to the levels of the Clinton years, and perhaps, increase our tax revenues, as well - and not just on the rich.

Problem is, the Democrats won't hear of cutting our current spending, and only want to even TALK about cutting our projected spending, by a small percentage.

That won't do the job. It still continues to run up our National Debt, and continually diminish the value of every US dollar, everywhere. This seems like easy to understand, common sense to me.

And this is where we disagree. I believe in Keynesian economics - that spending money, in a down economy, is ultimately stimulative, and that aggressive social safety nets and anti-poverty spending is the easiest way to improve the economy for all Americans. I also understand that as the economic stratification of our society becomes more and more top-heavy, that leaves the economy as a whole sicker and sicker. I think progressive taxes, taking more money from the wealthiest, is the best way to make more wealthy people, and more middle-class people, and fewer poor people.

This is a fundamental theoretical disagreement between us. I'd rather argue specific policies than universal theories - policies illustrate the importance and truth of the theory, but if it's just you saying "CONSERVATISM!" and me saying "KEYNESIANISM AND SOCIALISM!" we'll get nowhere.

[Adak]

Busy programming right now, but there's a young man named Zach, who's dying of cancer, who has recorded a nice song with a bit of help, and a bunch of us are trying to give his YouTube song, a BOATLOAD of hits:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDC97j6lfyc

Ian on Coast to Coast radio mentioned this Sunday late night, and said Zach has about 8 more weeks to live.

Hope you'll consider clicking over to it.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by thinkprogress

Corporate profits are currently at an all-time high (while worker wages as a percentage of the economy have plummeted to record lows). But despite those sky-high profits, corporate income tax revenue is projected to be just 1.5 percent of GDP this year, below the recent average and far below the amount raised by the tax just a few decades ago.
As the Century Foundation noted in this chart, the corporate income tax, as a share of total government revenue, used to track reasonably well with corporate profits. But in the last decade, the two have become decoupled:


As the Century Foundation’s Benjamin Landy explained, “In 1952, the corporate income tax accounted for about one third of of all federal tax revenue. But, over the years, U.S. multinationals have devised increasingly complex tax avoidance schemes, far beyond the ability of the IRS to credibly monitor or enforce. Although the corporate tax rate was also lowered significantly in 1986, tax avoidance is one of primary reasons why corporate taxes supply less than 9 percent of federal revenues today.”
Between 2008 and 2011, dozens of multinational corporations paid no corporate income tax at all, despite making billions in profits. In 2011, the effective tax rate paid by American corporations fell to 12.1 percent, a forty-year low.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...taxes-plummet/

This sure looks like a broken economy/taxation system to me.

[Adak]

@Ibby: There's no doubt the tax system is broken. Small businesses are paying way too much in taxes, while the big corporations have tax attorneys and C.P.A's to advise them of every latest tax avoiding statute, and how to maximize their deductions in every way.

So a company like G.E. for instance, pays nothing, despite millions in what would be taxable income, for less astute tax advisers and planners.

The problem is, the politicians need $$$ for their campaigns, so they pay close attention to pander to those lobbyists that are well funded - and then consistently promote and vote for, tax bills that favor those lobbyists - and those bills don't usually "sunset" - they go on and on, year after year.

[Adak]

Obama Finds Legal Way Around The 2nd. Amendment and Uses It. The Full Article Here http://www.reuters.com/article/polit...59E0Q920091015

Subject: Obama Takes First Step in Banning All Firearms On Wednesday Obama Took the First Major Step in a Plan to Ban All Firearms in the United States.

This was reported in Reuters, and immediately caused all kinds of rumors to circulate like wildfire. In retrospect, it was apparently a bit of an overstatement by Reuters, and the comment by ex-UN Ambassador Bolton, was also too strong.
, but it roused the 2nd amendment defenders, all across the country. Rumors ran on fleet feet, with just enough truth behind them to give them credence.

1) Obama was going to increase the existing 11% excise tax on all ammunition. Ammo would still be legal, but you'd pay dearly to own it. Caused a HUGE run on ammo, and prices soared.

2) Since the WSJ (Wall St. Journal) broke the story in 2009 about the majority of weapons in Mexico, believed to have come from the Southwest States, this rumor stated that Obama was looking to use that as an excuse to restrict right to carry laws, on the Federal level.

This was hugely blunted when then news broke that it was Obama's guy Eric Holder over in the Justice Dept., who had initiated all these guns going into Mexico, in a fiasco called "Gun Runner" and also "Fast and Furious". Since it was a line item in the expense report, Obama had to know about it - it was believed.

Everything most damning has been stonewalled by Holder, and when demanded by a court to turn them over, Obama stepped in and claimed Executive Privilege, to stop it. It's been on-going for 2 and 1/2 years or so, with Darryl Issa's committee. It seems likely the full truth will never be known.

[piercehawkeye45]

Obama is not going to ban all guns in the US...

[infinite monkey]

Originally Posted by Adak

Busy programming right now, but there's a young man named Zach, who's dying of cancer, who has recorded a nice song with a bit of help, and a bunch of us are trying to give his YouTube song, a BOATLOAD of hits:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDC97j6lfyc

Ian on Coast to Coast radio mentioned this Sunday late night, and said Zach has about 8 more weeks to live.

Hope you'll consider clicking over to it.

Adak, you should have put this in another thread. I just now saw it and clicked on it. There are other threads, and I think that people would appreciate a chance to see this and 'like' it.

I'm going to go put it in a video clip thread. Thanks for sharing it.

[Big Sarge]

I enjoyed the video too

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Adak

Obama Finds Legal Way Around The 2nd. Amendment and Uses It. The Full Article Here http://www.reuters.com/article/polit...59E0Q920091015

Subject: Obama Takes First Step in Banning All Firearms On Wednesday Obama Took the First Major Step in a Plan to Ban All Firearms in the United States.

<snip>

Adek, if you are going to present a link, don't you think it would be proper to avoid your own inflammatory editing.

Compare your post with the actual link... published back on October 14, 2009

U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade
(Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday
and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales
as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.
<snip>

The word "amendment" does not even appear in the article.
It is reporting on a treaty dealing with illicit international arms trade.

... just one more adekian post.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Obama is not going to ban all guns in the US...

No, he's not.

That has already been decided by the Supreme Court. He can't.

What the FEAR was, that he would work with the Senate and approve a treaty that would make it much more difficult (not impossible), to own a gun

OR

increase the federal excise tax now on ammo, until it just became too expensive for most of us to use our guns.

These were two FEARS, that had everyone upset when Obama was first elected. <Thus the 2009 date to the article>. Again, one more time for those burdened by a ho-hum public school education - this was the FEAR, not the fact, that had thousands of NRA members and gun owners, calling the switchboard for their federal politicians.

This was in response to Ibby calling "Bullshit".

@Lamplighter: The inflammatory editing "Subject: ..."etc., you're referring to was from the article that I was reading - I didn't write it.

Yes, it is VERY inflammatory, and that's why it was so alarming, and got such a strong response.

I know Ibby, you never noticed it before! Liberals!

[Happy Monkey]

The "bullshit" was to "he tried". Nobody is denying that lots of stupid people had the FEAR. It's just that the FEAR was in response to right-wing media promoting bullshit.

[glatt]

Not to mention the NRA itself. If the NRA can get everyone afraid, then it can convince them to send money to the NRA to fight the good fight. Gee, I wonder why the NRA would promote those fears?