No more government - boo hoo!
Amid the threat of a looming government shutdown, House Speaker John Boehner is getting emotional again.
Per ABC News's Jon Karl, the Republican leader, who is known for his tears, was updating the House GOP caucus this morning on the ongoing budget stand-off when his emotions got the best of him. As he was thanking fellow Republicans for sticking with him amid the tense negotiations, the GOP lawmakers rose to give him a standing ovation, prompting Boehner to weep.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110406/pl_yblog_theticket/boehner-gets-teary-amid-threat-of-a-government-shutdown;_ylt=AgggHjGO_Knr8jLlkOBYRqCwhrZ_;_ylu=X3oDMTRtcG1rNWw1BGFzc2V0A3libG9nX3RoZXRpY2tldC8yMDExMDQwNi9ib2VobmVyLWdldHMtdGVhcnktYW1pZC10aHJlYXQtb2YtYS1nb3Zlcm5tZW50LXNodXRkb3duBGNjb2RlA2dtcHJkbmJlBGNwb3MDNQRwb3MDNQRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA2JvZWhuZXJnZXRzdA--
I think I'm going to barf.
The only reason Boehner is crying is because he's thinking of all the special interest contributions he might miss if the government was shut down.
Get rid of Congress. That would balance the budget and give the nation a chance to become a democracy again. :eyebrow:
No it wouldn't balance the budget - not even close.
The R's proposed another week stopgap - Obama and the D's declined.
From your link...
At an afternoon news conference today, Boehner announced the
House GOP will press forward with a short-term government funding bill
in hopes of averting a shutdown this Friday. [COLOR="Red"]
But President Obama said Tuesday he wouldn't support a measure.[/COLOR]
Hah! Sure it would. Who does all the spending? Congress. Eliminate Congress and you eliminate all the spending. In case you haven't noticed, our system of government has actually become detrimental to the nation. It's time for "we, the people" to cut our losses and start over. :cool:
Oh gotcha - so that's the latest tea party plan?
To hell with the Tea Party. It's Sam's Plan. Damn the torpedo's and full speed ahead. What? Are you going to wimp out on me now after we've been disagreeing all these years? :p:
CNN just reported that the first furlough notices have gone out to Congressional staffers - a journey of a 1,000 miles begins with a single step. Let's get some momentum going here, folks.
If you give a damn, join Sam!
Two, four, six, eight! Organize and smash the state!
Congress is to democracy what cats are to mice - predators!
Congress is the problem NOT the solution!
Support our troops! Send Congress to Afganistan!
:f207::f207::f207::f207::f207::f207:
You're sounding a little Reagan-esque there Sam.
Srew Reagan. I'm fed up. One party is as bad as the other. Everyone who thinks their vote means anything is in denial. We sit around and squabble with each other on the Internet while both political parties feast on the spoils of the Republic.
With an agreement elusive, Republicans passed legislation through the House to fund the Pentagon for six months, cut $12 billion in domestic spending and keep the federal bureaucracy humming for an additional week.
Obama threatened to veto the bill even before it passed on a 247-181, mostly party-line vote. The administration issued a statement calling it "a distraction from the real work" of agreeing on legislation to cover the six months left in the current fiscal year.
Each side insisted the other would be to blame for the pain of a partial shutdown.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110407/ap_on_bi_ge/us_spending_showdown
Well, they got that much right. Both sides are to blame. Your government inaction.
I am cool with it all, shut the shit down for a few months. Dems had 4 years to make it right. They failed. Let's see what the Republickins can do. If they fail they are out as well. Where the hell is that all allusive third party we all wish for?
The Democrats in the senate AGREED to the amount of spending cuts the Republicans demanded. The disagreement now is that the Republicans want to cut, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to, uh, protect the environment, and to introduce controversial cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and other wildly popular programs that consistently poll extremely well even among self-described conservatives. The Tea Party has flat-out demanded that the Republicans shut down the government - and the Democrats have agreed to every single budgetary concession the Republican leadership demanded. There IS going to be a shutdown - and it's NOT about the budget.
Oh look everybody, a progressive think-tank says it's all W's fault.
I wonder how many of those pushing for a government shutdown are actually going to lose their paycheck when/if it happens? Asswipes.
And yes, I think every damn one of those politicians who are fucking around with the working class should lose their paychecks just like the other government employees. After all, my tax dollars are paying them too. Seriously, they have zero incentive to reach an agreement and all the time in the world to play headgames and have power struggles with each other, at the expense of people who live paycheck to paycheck.
Oh look everybody, a progressive think-tank says it's all W's fault.
It's so nice of you to deride a messenger. Would you care to dispute the facts? Even address them?
Hey, if the government shuts down will our borders be guarded? I mean, it's a perfect time for those damn Mexicans to come streaming across the border, whoopin' and hollerin' and drinkin' tequila. Next thing you know you won't be able to find a job cleaning hotel rooms anywhere. :lol:
Would you care to dispute the facts? Even address them?
Let's imagine that you and I are married, and we agree to a budget that you develop.
Then let's imagine that you lose your job; and we stick to our budget, but start putting everything on a credit card. We wouldn't have had to do that, but we bought you a very expensive suit to go on interviews.
8 years later, we are still putting everything on the credit card; because while you got a job, it didn't pay as well as the original job, and we still stuck to the original budget. At that point we decide that since you are more responsible for the condition than me, I will set the budget from now on.
18 years later, we are still putting everything on the card and now interest is killing us.
Where should the blame for the current condition be placed?
A) On you, for losing your job.
B) On you, for not adjusting the budget to meet the new conditions.
C) On me, for agreeing to it.
D) On me, for not adjusting the budget to meet the new conditions.
E) On you, for agreeing to it.
F) On both of us for agreeing to the expensive suit.
G) On both of us for not adjusting the budget to meet the new conditions.
Silly UT, the obvious choice is W.
Lets look at it another way and focus on the federal budget and debt reduction.
A Congressional Research Service report last year put the cost of permanently extending the Bush tax cuts, particularly on the top bracket, at $5+ trillion over the next ten years:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/40488953/Bush-tax-Cuts-crs-10-27
The Democrats have agreed to $30+ billion in savings for the short term budget resolution. The Republicans refuse to consider any tax increases.
In the longer term, the Republican proposal (Ryan's proposal) would lower the tax rate even more, down to 25%
To deal with the debt honestly will require both significant spending cuts and tax increases, with the most effective, and least harmful to most Americans, tax increase being to end the Bush tax cuts on the top bracket.
As Ibram also noted, the issue holding up the current deal is not spending cuts, but policy issues, particularly the attempt by the Republicans to prohibit the EPA from implementing Clean Air Act regulations and in their words, "addressing the issue of government funded abortions" and Planned Parenthood, despite the fact that no federal funds are used for abortion.
Undertoad and Lookout:
I'm curious as to where you stand on the sacrifices that need to be made in order to address the long term debt.
Do you believe we can address the debt issue only with spending cuts?
Does it matter if those cuts disproportionately impact the middle class and working poor with little or impact on the wealthiest Americans?
Does it matter if those cuts disproportionately impact the middle class and working poor with little or impact on the wealthiest Americans?
This form of argument is called
poisoning the well.
This form of argument is called poisoning the well.
Would it help if I list some of the major spending cuts in the current resolution?
Significant cuts to SNAP (food stamps), Head Start, community health centers, HUD low income housing programs, veterans housing assistance, job training for the unemployed...
Where is the shared sacrifice?
It doesn't stop being poisoning the well through clarification.
OK. Lets put that aside, even if I disagree with your characterization.
Do you believe that the debt can be effectively addressed with spending cuts alone? No tax increases?
Here is a list of other debate terms for those of you who are following the letter of the law of respectful and thoughtful debate :lol2:
Because, seriously, that's funny. Ask the whores who whore the whore and a spending whore whore whore debaters. Is that straw dick? Slippery dick? Naw, it's cute, isn't it?
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.htmlOf course it can.
Did you mean to ask if I believe that it should be addressed that way?
Let's imagine that you and I are married, and we agree to a budget that you develop.
Then let's imagine that you lose your job; and we stick to our budget, but start putting everything on a credit card. We wouldn't have had to do that, but we bought you a very expensive suit to go on interviews.
8 years later, we are still putting everything on the credit card; because while you got a job, it didn't pay as well as the original job, and we still stuck to the original budget. At that point we decide that since you are more responsible for the condition than me, I will set the budget from now on.
18 years later, we are still putting everything on the card and now interest is killing us.
Where should the blame for the current condition be placed?
A) On you, for losing your job.
B) On you, for not adjusting the budget to meet the new conditions.
C) On me, for agreeing to it.
D) On me, for not adjusting the budget to meet the new conditions.
E) On you, for agreeing to it.
F) On both of us for agreeing to the expensive suit.
G) On both of us for not adjusting the budget to meet the new conditions.
Much better than:
Oh look everybody, a progressive think-tank says it's all W's fault.
Never mind.
He's a slippery one, that toad.
Here, I'll say it without the setup and thus without the well-poisoning.
The Republican spending plan puts massive emphasis on cuts to government support to the middle- and working-class, and uses the "budget" as a cover for ideological non-budgetary attacks on rights like abortion, as well as to defund separately-passed environmental, consumer, and financial regulation, all while cutting taxes to the wealthiest bracket.
The Democratic plan cuts less from programs that directly benefit the poorer members of our society, cuts slightly more from Pentagon spending, and actually still KEEPS the bush-era tax cuts in effect, and still cuts the same amount of money from the overall budget.
it. is. not. about. costs. and it certainly isn't about jobs, or the economy. it's baldly ideological, almost entirely on social or pro-corporate grounds. You can debate the merits of those ideologies all you want, but to argue that the issue at hand is the size of the deficit is a flat-out lie.
And yes, while I do acknowledge that my characterizations of the positions are a little biased... the democrats have basically caved and compromised on so much at this point, that going off of the offers on the table, it's really mostly fair to say that the democrats aren't standing up for much more than what I described.
Opposite of slippery, I am the one insisting in this thread that we put the discussion on the firmest ground.
I mostly agree with you Ib. The Republican budget is largely ideological.
The point where we disagree is on the Democratic budget. Your position is that the D plan "cuts less from programs that directly benefit the poorer members of our society, cuts slightly more from Pentagon spending, and actually still KEEPS the bush-era tax cuts in effect, and still cuts the same amount of money from the overall budget".
My position is that there
is no D plan, because they haven't offered one.
They say they will craft a plan "in the coming days" and we shall take a look at it to see what it offers.
Throw the Bums OUT!
There.
Maybe we can all agree on that.
Opposite of slippery, I am the one insisting in this thread that we put the discussion on the firmest ground.
I mostly agree with you Ib. The Republican budget is largely ideological.
The point where we disagree is on the Democratic budget. Your position is that the D plan "cuts less from programs that directly benefit the poorer members of our society, cuts slightly more from Pentagon spending, and actually still KEEPS the bush-era tax cuts in effect, and still cuts the same amount of money from the overall budget".
My position is that there is no D plan, because they haven't offered one.
They say they will craft a plan "in the coming days" and we shall take a look at it to see what it offers.
I think you are confusing the current budget battle which is the subject of the potential govt shutdown, versus an FY 12 and beyond budget proposal.
The Republicans offered their FY 12 plan last week, but it has nothing to do with the current debate. Nor will any Democratic plan offered next week.
The issues is the current budget for the rest of FY 11 and the Senate Democrats offered a counter proposal last month.
But even beyond that, there appears to be agreement on the budget components for the rest of the year. What remains at odds are the political riders, most notably abortion and EPA regulations
Here's the fair plan:
For every dollar that the repubicans cut for a program that conflicts with their philosophy, there must be a dollar cut for something that they endorse. Want to cut planned parenthood and NPR? Ok, then cut the funding for faith-based services and defense. Additionally, taxes on those making over %250k will be increased by the same dollar amount as was cut. These additional tax dollars go directly to pay down the national debt.
For all of you nitwits who will ask for specifics: I'm a vision, big picture guy. I'll leave the implementation to people like you.
We keep getting notices and updates from various Federal courts. In the event of a shutdown, many of them are going to stay open for a week or so. I'm not sure how that works. I guess they still have unspent funds in their bank accounts?
~We interrupt your regularly scheduled programming in order to bring you the following important message~
I'm sure there's some snappy term for giving facts a pejorative label instead of dealing with them. Oh yeah - denial.
Two hot button issues are always headlined in the current legislative debate - Planned Parenthood and the Environment - also known as "abortion" and "global warming". Everybody loves to debate these two subjects. They are the shiny objects that both the legislature and the media use to distract the public from consideration of far more grave issues.
Here are some FACTS in regard to a single funding issue now under debate (or deadlock as the case may be) - HOUSING.
Housing, health care, education, food, community legal services, and programs for low income children, seniors, and people with disabilities are under attack. The Republican side of the Legislature is proposing:
5.5 billion in HUD (Housing and Urban Development) cuts.
43% or $1.072 billion cut to Public Housing Capital Fund.
71% or $551 million cut to Section 202 housing for seniors.
70% or $210 million cut to Section 811 housing for disabled people.
$149 million cut to Public Housing operating Fund.
$104 million cut to Section 8 Voucher Program.
These cuts will put thousands of low income seniors, disabled, and children out on the streets. These are the most vulnerable members of our population and the ones least able to defend themselves.
What do you think is going to happen to a frail elderly gentlemen who suddenly has his housing taken out from under his feet? What is going to happen to the 4-year old child who must live in an overcrowded shelter by night and on the streets by day? What is going to happen to the schizophrenic who has been barely holding on, but compliant with her meds who must suddenly navigate the urban streets alone and loses her meds when someone at the shelter steals her back pack?
I'll give it to you straight - two out of three of these people will die. I am not being overly dramatic here. Even with the current levels of support, and with medical issues factored in, a low income person with disabilities will die 25 YEARS sooner than the average American man or woman. You put the three people above out of their homes and they are going to be exhausted, bewildered, and subject to predators and opportunistic diseases - just to name a few. THEY WILL NOT MAKE IT.
Your very own SamIam will not make it. I will be sixty in September and suffer from a disability. I am spunky and I am a fighter. Despite my age, I am attempting to go through voc-rehab and be eligible to perform more productive work than what I now do as a motel clerk, part time for $5.00/hr. But I cannot overcome the triple whammy of age, disability, and homelessness.
Yes, the well has been poisoned and the legislature would have me and thousands of others of your fellow Americans drink from it.
Fuck Congress. I won't support any legislative body that wants to kill me.
~You are now returned to your standard name-calling and abortion debate.~
PS Here's some more FACTS: The total US budget is about $3.4 trillion (2010 est). HUD's share of that is a mere 48.5 billion. Most of HUD spending goes toward big ticket programs like the FHA and Ginnie Mae. Within the sub-category of HUD spending, $865 million (proposed cuts to senior housing + disabled housing + section 8 housing vouchers) is a minor expenditure at best. Within the over-all budget, $865 million vs $3.4 trillion is a trivial drop in the bucket. I would give you percentages, but my mind baulks at dealing with all those zero's.
The proposed funding cuts will do almost nothing toward balancing the budget. However, the cost in human suffering will be vast. Don't tell me that this is about anything other than idealogy.
[YOUTUBE]qfHL3mxnWBk[/YOUTUBE]
My senator speaks for me.
Does your senator speak for you, or for your bosses, for those with millions, for the lobbyists who pad their pockets?
We keep getting notices and updates from various Federal courts. In the event of a shutdown, many of them are going to stay open for a week or so. I'm not sure how that works. I guess they still have unspent funds in their bank accounts?
Don't they run partially on filing fees?
Opposite of slippery, I am the one insisting in this thread that we put the discussion on the firmest ground.
I mostly agree with you Ib. The Republican budget is largely ideological.
The point where we disagree is on the Democratic budget. Your position is that the D plan "cuts less from programs that directly benefit the poorer members of our society, cuts slightly more from Pentagon spending, and actually still KEEPS the bush-era tax cuts in effect, and still cuts the same amount of money from the overall budget".
My position is that there is no D plan, because they haven't offered one.
They say they will craft a plan "in the coming days" and we shall take a look at it to see what it offers.
They haven't passed one since 2009, suddenly they acted like the one Obama put forward had substance. It did not.
The Demoncrats have conveniently ignored the responsibility this party’s deficit-spending binge has had in bringing this great country to the verge of insolvency. Nice try at Kabuki Theater.
or all this heady talk, however, the deal-making has been far from edifying. The Democrats brought events to this pass by neglecting to pass a budget last year, when they had control of both the House and the Senate. The Republicans, for their part, refused to accept a Democratic offer to cut the very amount their own leaders had originally proposed back in February, $75 billion, and instead held out for $100 billion. Moreover, in a naked display of opportunism, they seemed willing to bring the government to a standstill over riders that had nothing to do with the budget.
And the worst is almost certainly yet to come. Within the next five weeks, Congress will have to raise the ceiling it imposes on the federal government’s debt. Many Republicans have indicated that they will not do so unless the Democrats agree to much more sweeping spending cuts than the ones that have proved so difficult to square away this week. As one senator put it while waiting to vote on the budget deal, “The debt ceiling is going to be Armageddon.” One hopes she did not mean it literally.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/04/budgetThey haven't passed one since 2009, suddenly they acted like the one Obama put forward had substance. It did not.
The Demoncrats have conveniently ignored the responsibility this party’s deficit-spending binge has had in bringing this great country to the verge of insolvency. Nice try at Kabuki Theater.
Lets not rewrite history here.
Both parties have been deficit spenders. In the last 50 years, the worst were (in order) Reagan, GW Bush and GHW Bush. Obama will be right up there will these guys.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms#Gross_federal_debt
What both Reagan and GHW Bush recognized was that tax increases were necessary to offset the impact of their deficit spending, at least to some degree.
IMO, its unfortunate that the current Republican majority in the House is so unwilling to recognize that and spread the sacrifice.
Personally, I think they are misreading the mandate they got last year, primarily as a result of Independent voters swinging their way.
But those same Independents want compromise and shared sacrifice, not purely ideological cuts like many in the current budget resolution and their proposal for the future, including gutting Medicare completely.
I guess we'll see as the battle heats up over the FY 12 budget and beyond.
But those same Independents want compromise and shared sacrifice, not purely ideological cuts like many in the current budget resolution and their proposal for the future, including gutting Medicare completely.
Word. If you are putting the ax to Head Start, you'd better make it sting in bankerland as well.
Word. If you are putting the ax to Head Start, you'd better make it sting in bankerland as well.
This! This is what is also wrong with the British coalition Government cuts agenda. It's totally ideologuically driven. Right down to a disparity in the real scale of cuts being expected of council budgets in deprived areas and the significantly less painful cuts applied to councils in affluent, conservative areas.
Ideologues, at either extreme, are very good at misrepresenting the facts and pointing fingers in order to rationalize policy positions that they cant rationalize or justify based on the merits of those positions alone.
What they are not very good at is compromise for the greater good.
I found these while doing my taxes. Pretty dramatic changes in only two years.
ETA - I forgot to add the totals ...
In fiscal year 2007 federal income was $2.568 trillion and outlays were $2.730 trillion, leaving a deficit of $.162 trillion.
In fiscal year 2009 federal income was $2.105 trillion and outlays were $3.518 trillion, leaving a deficit of $1.413 trillion.
Interesting in your graph, National defense spending went down.
Only as a percentage. In other words, the pie got bigger, but the chart doesn't show that.
Only as a percentage. In other words, the pie got bigger, but the chart doesn't show that.
Yes, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi did that for us. Made it grow exponentially....
Yes, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi did that for us. Made it grow exponentially....
As to the charts above, the FY 2009 budget was the last Bush budget, one that he submitted to Congress in Feb 08 and which the bottom line of about $3 trillion was retained by the Democratic Congress, with only line item changes, including reducing defense spending and raising spending on some safety net programs in light of onset of the worst recession in our lifetime.
Only as a percentage. In other words, the pie got bigger, but the chart doesn't show that.
But I did offer that information as well.
In fiscal year 2007 federal income was $2.568 trillion and outlays were $2.730 trillion, leaving a deficit of $.162 trillion.
In fiscal year 2009 federal income was $2.105 trillion and outlays were $3.518 trillion, leaving a deficit of $1.413 trillion.
The amount of borrowing on the income side was the largest change.
@ F&B - I thought congress was in charge of spending? When did this become a presidential issue?
Reminder: TARP was authorized under Bush II.
2007 also included a lot of budget trickery centered around war spending.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/161/end-the-abuse-of-supplemental-budgets-for-war/What does that have to do with the point made?
Tarp was
2008 and has been almost, if not entirely paid back.
“The TARP is probably the most effective large-scale government program that the public has vehemently decided was a bad idea, and, therefore, has only the most tepid political defenders,” said the Brookings Institution’s Douglas Elliott.”
But I did offer that information as well.
Yeah, you did. I was just trying to clarify. It looked like Merc was reading the chart wrong and taking the wrong message from it. It's not that defense went down, it's that other spending went up.
But I did offer that information as well.
The amount of borrowing on the income side was the largest change.
@ F&B - I thought congress was in charge of spending? When did this become a presidential issue?
Congress appropriates the money.
The Executive Branch spends the money and the outlays in the chart represent the amount of money spent.
Do you have a cite for the chart? I dont think it presents a complete picture, unless it was detailed in a narrative that was not included.
What does that have to do with the point made?
Tarp was 2008 and has been almost, if not entirely paid back.
TARP was signed into law by Bush in Oct 08 and the funds were almost entirely spent in FY 09 and not recovered until FY 10 and 11. So the outlay was part of the 09 increase in outlay and the income (funds repaid) didnt show up until the next year.
I'm pretty sure it was TARP, along with higher social spending as a result of the first surge of newly unemployed (increased UI, increased SNAP claims, etc) that account for the increased outlays.
The decrease in income is most likely a result of the fact that the Bush 03 tax cut was phased in over five years, with the highest income bracket lowered as the last phase in 2008. So I suspect the 2009 revenue was much lower, because the 2008 returns were the first year that the top bracket paid a 3% lower marginal rate.
But more information is needed.
Do you have a cite for the chart?
Look at your 1040 booklet - that's where I got it. I found the images using the online versions. They were on page 97 for '09.
'07 -
http://web.bus.ucf.edu/faculty/ckelliher/file.axd?file=2011%2F1%2Ffederal_budget.pdfThanks.
But it still does not provide enough detailed information to make any useful comparisons between FY 07 and FY 09 w/o more specific budget information.
I would still maintain that most of the the increase in FY outlays between the two years is due to TARP and other outlays related to the the onset of the recession and the decrease in income was due to the full implementation of the 03 tax cuts and other decreases related to the onset of the recession (lots more unemployed among the middle class = less revenue from income taxes).
Thanks.
It wasn't meant as a detailed analysis of anything. It does show how
40% of our income is borrowed for nothing other than to cover the deficit. THAT cannot continue.
I was also surprised to see that we are paying so much less on the debt. I surmise that is because of a combination of we have less to put towards it & it has grown so much larger.
It wasn't meant as a detailed analysis of anything. It does show how 40% of our income is borrowed for nothing other than to cover the deficit. THAT cannot continue.
I agree.
The issue is how we address it.
Either through spending cuts only or a combination of spending cuts and revenue (tax) increases.
IMO, the spending cuts only approach proposed by the Republicans disproportionately impact the middle class and working poor. A fairer approach would be a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases that spread the impact across every income bracket.
And the argument that tax increases on the top 1% and/or corporations will kill jobs and hurt the recovery cannot be supported by facts. There is no evidence that trickle down economics works.
The flaw in your argument is that the r's aren't proposing a spending cuts only plan. They honestly believe that spending cuts combined with lower tax rates will lead to increased revenues. You may argue whether lower rates really increase revenue or not and there is support for both side of the argument, but you do at least have to disagreement in accurate terms.
The R's want drastic spending cuts and increased revenue through lower taxes.
The D's want some spending cuts and increased revenue through higher taxes on select groups.
The flaw in your argument is that the r's aren't proposing a spending cuts only plan. They honestly believe that spending cuts combined with lower tax rates will lead to increased revenues. You may argue whether lower rates really increase revenue or not and there is support for both side of the argument, but you do at least have to disagreement in accurate terms.
The R's want drastic spending cuts and increased revenue through lower taxes.
The D's want some spending cuts and increased revenue through higher taxes on select groups.
If you can cite any objective analysis that revenue increases through lower taxes, I would be happy to look at it.
The Republican plan will cost more than $3 trillion in lost revenue from the tax cuts to a top rate of 25%, according to a CBO analysis and the revenue from these tax cuts is based on an annual economic growth rate of over 6%, not realistic by any objective measure.
And, I am not suggesting that the Democratic plan is the answer. More spending cuts, particularly in defense, are needed, as is real entitlement reform w/o gutting Medicare completely and putting the burden on the back of seniors (or soon to be seniors).
added:
IMO, David Stockman, Reagan's former Budget Director and architect of the supply side trickle down policy that he later admitted was a failure, has it right with his RED:
Also on Tuesday,House Budget chief Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin released a proposal to cut $6.2 trillion in government spending during the next ten years. The plan balances the budget by the late 2030s. The government would run deficits until then. Surpluses are forecast to start 2040, and the plan calls for cutting the debt in half, relative to where it is now, by 2050. Does any of that strike you as realistic and possible to achieve?
Congressman Ryan is an earnest young man, but he has delivered up a Lincoln Day Dinner speech, not a serious deficit reduction blueprint.
The litmus test is RED--revenue, entitlements and defense. His plan takes a powder on all three, and falls back on the usual gimmickry of caps, targets, trends and pie-in-the-the sky reforms that are supposed to happen somewhere in the by-and-by.
There is currently $650 billion per year of temporary tax cuts which will expire before 2014 and if allowed to expire would contribute immensely to closing the budget gap. But in the GOP’s budgetary Alice-In-Wonderland, the Ryan plan extends nearly all of these unaffordable tax cuts--even for the billionaire bracket. Likewise, Social Security costs $700 billion per year and needs to be means tested now-so that upper income retirees don’t continue to drain the budget. But the Ryan plan calls for study group.
And the Ryan plan’s defense savings of about $15 billion per year amount to an embarrassing pinprick. We need a huge reduction from the current $800 billion per year defense and security assistance budget, and in a world in which we have no serious industrial enemies, the only reason it doesn’t happen is that neither party is willing to take on the military-industrial complex.
The Ryan-Republican plan also cuts the top individual tax rate from 35% to 25% and cuts the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%. Do you believe those moves, if enacted, will create more spending and more jobs?
The last thing this nation needs is a massive food fight over about $1 trillion in tax loopholes and deductions in order to give it all back in rate reductions.
http://inthearena.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/06/david-stockman-republicans-need-to-man-up-and-shut-the-government-down/
Compromise is what is needed, which means taking the extremists from both ends out of the discussion.
1) I didn't say I wanted to have that argument, I was simply saying you were sending any possible discussion down the wrong path by incorrectly framing the issue.
2)
The Republican plan will cost more than $3 trillion in lost revenue from the tax cuts
This. Cost who? The government? It isn't their money until they take it from us. The taxpayers. So you can flip that statement on its head and say the "Democrat plan will cost taxpayers more than $3 trillion in confiscated wages". Again a ridiculous way to cast the issue in a partisan light, but it's all in how you frame the issue, right?
I could say your number 2 is incorrectly framing the issue as well.
I think Stockman has it right -- RED -- revenue, entitlements, and defense are critical components, along with other discretionary spending cuts that are fiscally based and not ideologically based, to realistically begin the pay down the debt.
The best hope may be with the "Gang of Six" in the Senate, three Ds and three Rs, who are looking at all of the above.
"Neither side's got all the answers in this debate," Warner said, according to CNN. "The idea that we can do this on simply one side of the balance sheet – well, it's just a spending problem… no, it's just a taxing problem – isn't the case. If we're not looking at both sides of the balance sheet we should not even start this discussion."
...If the Gang of Six does manage to reach an agreement on a plan, it is likely to address hotly-contested issues like reforming entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security and revamping the country's tax code. It is also expected to propose further reductions in domestic discretionary spending.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/budget-deal-2011-gang-senators-working-deficit-reduction/story?id=13359603
They recognize that neither extreme position is the answer.
You can't run up the credit cards and then cry that you don't have enough income. Anyone who claims that the Dems have not exponentially increased spending since 2006 when they took control of the Congress is a tool of the current Obamanation.
The flaw in your argument is that the r's aren't proposing a spending cuts only plan. They honestly believe that spending cuts combined with lower tax rates will lead to increased revenues. You may argue whether lower rates really increase revenue or not and there is support for both side of the argument, but you do at least have to disagreement in accurate terms.
The R's want drastic spending cuts and increased revenue through lower taxes.
The D's want some spending cuts and increased revenue through higher taxes on select groups.
The R's drastic spending cuts will negatively effect select groups as well.
That is absolutely true. The framing of the issue/question sets the direction for the discussion.
Regarding the thread title - would anyone really like to live in a country without a government?
Nope. A government is necessary to keep us from anarchy. Even 25 people on a secluded island would form some type of government to make the rules so that all might live in peace. Unfortunately, somewhere along the way we have forgotten that government is best which governs least and moved toward a model where the government is involved in every aspect of our lives and continues to intrude more daily.
[COLOR="White"]imo.[/COLOR]
we have forgotten that government is best which governs least and moved toward a model where the government is involved in every aspect of our lives and continues to intrude more daily.
[COLOR="White"]imo.[/COLOR]
I wouldn't say "forgotten", because some people never believed that government is best which governs least. Therecertainly is a disagreement on the level that government effects our lives. But let's face it, nobody wants government telling us what to do, but we all want government to stop our neighbors from dumping raw sewage on our lawn.
In my humble opinion, of course.
How about dumping raw sewage on their own lawn?
If they're neighbors, it's the same thing.
I think laws preventing my neighbor from dumping sewage on my lawn are reasonable. I don't really think the government needs to get involved in telling him what he is allowed to eat before he introduces his waste into the sewer, provide medical care when he isn't feeling well, or take my money to pay for it.
Of course, you may have a different opinion on how involved the government should be involved in your day to day life.
You would allow emergency rooms to turn away the dying poor?
They can't do that now. Where did Lookout say anything to stimulate such a response?
You would allow emergency rooms to turn away the dying poor?
.
I get the sense that some here are not really interested in even considering compromise. Its their way or the highway.
So, I suggest the highway.
Here's the plan. There was a bill introduced in the Texas legislature recently (by the same guy who introduced a birther bill and a bill to ban sharia law) to hold a non-binding resolution to secede from the union.
I say lets Texas secede and those in other states who want to free themselves from the over-bearing federal government can swap places with moderates and liberals in Texas.
You can have your free-market economy with no government interference, you can pollute the environment to your heart's content with no EPA regs, you can force the women to give up their reproductive rights, put kids to works....
On the plus side for us:
* two fewer Republicans in the Senate and a bunch fewer in the House
* a buffer zone against those pesky Mexicans trying to take our jobs
* the Dallas Cowboys could no longer claim to be America's team.
On the down side for us:
* hmmmm. I need some help here.
*
You would allow emergency rooms to turn away the dying poor?
If we keep giving them medical treatment we can't grind them up into fertilizer.
I get the sense that some here are not really interested in even considering compromise. Its their way or the highway.
So, I suggest the highway.
Here's the plan. There was a bill introduced in the Texas legislature recently (by the same guy who introduced a birther bill and a bill to ban sharia law) to hold a non-binding resolution to secede from the union.
I say lets Texas secede and those in other states who want to free themselves from the over-bearing federal government can swap places with moderates and liberals in Texas.
You can have your free-market economy with no government interference, you can pollute the environment to your heart's content with no EPA regs, you can force the women to give up their reproductive rights, put kids to works....
On the plus side for us:
* two fewer Republicans in the Senate and a bunch fewer in the House
* a buffer zone against those pesky Mexicans trying to take our jobs
* the Dallas Cowboys could no longer claim to be America's team.
On the down side for us:
* hmmmm. I need some help here.
*
Here is a better plan. Liberals can move to New England, New York and all states north of that, although Vermont may have a problem with that, and you can have California, or give it to Mexico if you wish, we will take the rest.
Here's another idea. Everyone shut off their TV until the election, don't read any of the mainstream partisan news sources, and ignore anyone who tells you what a politician or a policy "really means".
Most importantly quit being suckered into "liberal" and "conservative" labels. Actually listen to candidates' explanations for the policies they support and ask yourself 1) is that consistant with the constitution and the current amendments? 2) is that something that is consistant with my personal values?
The government wins by suckering us into fighting with eachother over what the meaning of is is so they can rob us blind while we aren't watching.
To late. All of that happened already. I blame Al "I invented the internet" Gore... Damm you Al Gore!!!! :lol:
I don't really think the government needs to ... provide medical care when he isn't feeling well, or take my money to pay for it.
You would allow emergency rooms to turn away the dying poor?
They can't do that now. Where did Lookout say anything to stimulate such a response?
Emergency rooms take other people's money (in taxes and/or higher prices for richer people) to provide medical care to poor people, which is what lookout123 said the government doesn't need to do.
Providing non-emergency care as well wouldn't be some novel giveaway, it would be a more efficient and effective way to do what we're already doing.
Providing non-emergency care as well wouldn't be some novel giveaway, it would be a more [COLOR="Red"]efficient[/COLOR] and [COLOR="Red"]effective[/COLOR] way to do what we're already doing.
Which organization will be running this program again?
Emergency rooms take other people's money (in taxes and/or higher prices for richer people) to provide medical care to poor people, which is what lookout123 said the government doesn't need to do.
Providing non-emergency care as well wouldn't be some novel giveaway, it would be a more efficient and effective way to do what we're already doing.
Emergency rooms don't take money in taxes from richer people, governments do that. Wealth redistribution is a failed plan. You must also be a Zero Liability Voter. Until everyone pays in, there will be no investment mentality to make it work.
Which organization will be running this program again?
It doesn't matter; it's cheaper and more efficient to catch diseases earlier, and do preventative care to head them off altogether.
Emergency rooms don't take money in taxes from richer people, governments do that.
Where do they get the money to pay for the care of people who can't pay? Government funding and/or overcharging the people who can pay.
Where do they get the money to pay for the care of people who can't pay? Government funding and/or overcharging the people who can pay.
Government funding is
ONLY available to the few hospitals that are designated to do that, and I want to be sure that you understand that those are few. The rest suck it up, and charge the rest of us the balance. You really need to get out and read more....
Where do they get the money to pay for the care of people who can't pay? Government funding and/or overcharging the people who can pay.
You need to get out and read the post you are responding to.
You need to get out and read the post you are responding to.
Oh, hey, well at least you acknowledge that it does NOT fucking come from taxes.... You are making progress!
It comes from
government regulation on any hospital that receives Federal money. It is written off as a tax deduction by the hospitals, and the remaining cost is transferred to the richer patients. So, as I said to start with,
Emergency rooms take other people's money (in taxes and/or higher prices for richer people) to provide medical care to poor people,
It comes from government regulation on any hospital that receives Federal money. It is written off as a tax deduction by the hospitals, and the remaining cost is transferred to the richer patients. So, as I said to start with,
How many hospitals get that money? So they actually don't receive Tax Payer dollars, as I stated earlier. Right. Thanks for agreeing with my point.
Almost all hospitals get Federal money, and are thus subject to the requirement (see the link). Under the requirement, all of those hospitals can write off nonpaying ER patients on their taxes, which makes up some of the cost at taxpayer expense. The rest of the cost is transferred, by government mandate though not through the tax system, to the paying patients.
They do not however receive Taxpayer dollars, as you stated.
Emergency rooms take other people's money (in taxes and/or higher prices for richer people) to provide medical care to poor people..
I get write offs as well. I do not however receive taxpayer dollars. See how that works.
Dude you are a fool if you think that the cost is transferred, by government mandate to paying patients. Please cite... thanks.
They do not however receive Taxpayer dollars, as you stated.
Federal money is taxpayer dollars. If they don't receive taxpayer dollars, they don't have to follow the mandate. Most hospitals feel that the benefits of the taxpayer dollars they receive outweigh the burden of the mandate, so they do it.
What they don't get is direct funding for poor ER patients, for that they get the tax writeoff.
I get write offs as well. I do not however receive taxpayer dollars. See how that works.
It works rhetorically, but effectively the only difference between a tax writeoff and a check for the equivalent amount from the government is bookkeeping. I would have thought that a flat tax proponent would be especially likely to understand that.
Dude you are a fool if you think that the cost is transferred, by government mandate to paying patients. Please cite... thanks.
I'll cite you:
The rest suck it up, and charge the rest of us the balance.
They are mandated to pay these costs, and they charge the rest of us the balance.
Federal money is taxpayer dollars. If they don't receive taxpayer dollars, they don't have to follow the mandate. Most hospitals feel that the benefits of the taxpayer dollars they receive outweigh the burden of the mandate, so they do it.
Yea, very few hospitals do not accept medicare, unfortunately.
What they don't get is direct funding for poor ER patients, for that they get the tax writeoff.It works rhetorically, but effectively the only difference between a tax writeoff and a check for the equivalent amount from the government is bookkeeping.
Well I will try to think about it like that when I write off my business expenses. I still do not receive taxpayer dollars because I write off my expense.
I'll cite you:They are mandated to pay these costs, and they charge the rest of us the balance.
But they are not mandated to charge us, as you stated....
Well one thing is for sure! We will never have rationing!
The case for rationing healthcare
Americans will have to decide what we can and cannot afford.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-bloche-rationing-20110418,0,6247911.storyBut they are not mandated to charge us, as you stated....
A distinction without a difference.
A distinction without a difference.
Bullshit. Taxpayers don't give me a break on my ability to deduct.
Bullshit. Taxpayers don't give me a break on my ability to deduct.
Once again, your response has no relation to the quoted text.
Once again, your response has no relation to the quoted text.
Analogy to your failed assumption that hospitals get paid in tax dollars vs deductions.
But completely irrelevant to the text you quoted.
Not how I understood it. So be it. Not really important.
