Moderate Republican slams own party on the debt ceiling by kpo

America loves a winner!

Then the perception of the middle of the road voters will be false, and this country is doomed.

The 'far' Right, which is nothing less than common sense and sound economic thinking, may lose this popularity contest, but what we lose as a country will be much, much more.

Obama and the Dem's spending is what is causing this crisis. That's as plain as day. But because so many want to cling to their PC reality, instead of facing the truth, we're basically signing our own death warrant.

If we lack the political will to do what is right now, then we'll never have it, and pretty much all is lost.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 10, 2011 5:33 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

oh, gawd (wipes tear), you're hysterical!

Obama caused the crisis

oh, my, what a joke you are!

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 10, 2011 5:48 AM

America loves a winner!

You're not too bright, are you ?

I said he caused this CRISIS, not that he was responsible for the sum total of all the debt.

Wow.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 10, 2011 12:19 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Shouldn't HW be along to chide Rappy for his we're-all-going-to-die attitude?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2011 2:56 AM

Perhaps the GOP should have taken the compromise, but I agree it was not enough. It didn't look to me like "trillions in cuts"

Here's the way I see it:

Imagine you came home from you $20,000 after tax income job, with $30,000 in the bank and a $140,000 mortgage. Then, you turn to your spouse and hand them your plan to spend $37,000 a year, and then, when they looked at your plan and said "We can't afford that," your reaction was "I guess you'll have to go get another job then."

That's an absurd position, especially when you look at the items of the household budget and they including things like "$20,000 for a new car" where a used one would do, or "$10,000 to hire a contractor to fix the roof" when you could do it for $2000 yourself. I have to wonder how these people in govt. make it from day to day thinking like this.

I think that there are a number of things right off the top that could be negotiated:

1) Soc Sec could cap payments at $1,000, and make a means limitation so that we don't fund the wealthy.

2) Medicare could negotiate for drug prices as is done by the VA. Drug companies sell drugs to the VA system at a profit, so there's no reason they shouldn't sell to Medicare at the same price, which would save us at least 400-600 billion a year.

3) Military spending could be radically reduced. The president has pledged to withdraw major combat forces from Iraq and Afghanistan by the end of 2011, and yet they are *already* funded through 2014 with $2 trillion surplus sitting in the "war chest" for this specific purpose. Why the hell is he allocating funding to fight wars he has pledged not to fight?

I don't think a tax-hike is really called for here. The govt. currently has $2 trillion in revenue and over $3 trillion in cash. There's no "crisis" of federal finances. It's completely bogus. Here's the crisis: The president and congress want to spend $3.7 trillion. They've been spending 3 and a half trillion a year since Obama was elected. That's 14 trillion per term. That's absurd.

Here's the one tax change I'd be open to at the moment: I'd like to see the ceiling on FICA raised, but not to increase revenue, simply redistribute it. Last time I figured this out, I figured we could cut entitlement tax from 15.3% to a nationwide flat 1% if we simply redistributed it.

I don't care if your retired, have a million dollars or none, if your household budget cannot sustain itself without a monthly govt. subsidy of $2000, then something is seriously f-ed up with your finances. That level of entitlement is ridiculous. Also, if you have a million dollars, you should not be on welfare. With international bond rates around 7%, that's $70,000 for each million. No reason any of these guys need any welfare.

And no excuse for paying $700 per pill at medicare for something that the VA is paying $7/bottle for.

And absolutely no excuse for more war funding. If Obama winds down the wars like he said, they're not even going to touch the $2 trillion in excess cash the war fund already has.

So, if you want to redistribute the tax burden away from the wage earners, I agree, but you don't need to hike taxes, you have plenty of money. If you can't run a country on $2 trillion a year, then give us someone who can.

ETA: Admittedly, your spouse had a $90,000 mortgage when you married them, but you added a $50,000 home improvement loan and spent it all building a new garage (and knocking down the old one) and yet you can't seem to come up with a better solution than "get a second job and also, we're going to take out another home improvement loan." When asked how this ($30,000 for this year and next) loan will be spent, you just say "It'll fix everything, this won't come up again."

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2011 3:07 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Evidence of how far right the GOP has drifted, when its moderate members fear it is "not fit to govern"?

He said he was afraid that independents would conclude that the Republicans are not fit to govern.

That means his argument is that we need to make a deal because its in our political interests.

I disagree. Obama will back down, so there is no need for a deal. Instead we should get as much of our austerity program through as we can.

Obama is not a leader, ultimately he will surrender. The Democrats could have passed a budget, they did not. They could have enacted the tax increases they want now, they did not. They could have raised the debt ceiling, they did not.

To borrow a little election 2000 rhetoric, they did not lead, we will.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2011 3:27 AM

DMAANLILEILTT

So you would rather they don't compromise and gamble with America's economic security to show they are the best alternative government? Interesting tactic.

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2011 7:48 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
He said he was afraid that independents would conclude that the Republicans are not fit to govern.

From the article:

Quote:
They will conclude that Republicans are not fit to govern.

And they will be right.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2011 8:04 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Fixed that. It's no less hysterical

And thank you, KPO; I was going to quote that, but you did it for me.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2011 8:04 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Meet my demands or the economy gets it! Yep, that's the 'principled' republican position.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2011 8:36 AM

When it comes to economics, I despair. Does anyone here get paid in dollars? Jusr curious. Okay, and a little snarky, but also serious.

How much is a dollar worth? About a franc, right? Okay. So long as we're clear on that. Remember when a dollar was worth two francs? That wasn't that long ago, it was about ten trillion in debt ago. There's a direct connection there.

Whose fault is it? bush? obama? Congress? Who cares? The govt. Collectively spent more money than it had. By so doing, they devalued the dollar.

My income is not tied to the dollar, I'm lucky. For the rest of you, it's going to suck. Just soes you know, this is not self interest. But I know lots of folks who get income that is measured in dollars which will not change.

When the dollar was devalued last year, did you get a raise? Did you get a cost of living increase on your soc sec? (no one did, iirc)

Why'd the dollar get devalued? Oh, right, they raised the debt ceiling.

What are we spending all this money on? Soc sec. Medicare and War.

What can we cut? Soc sec (to the rich) medicare (drug prices) and the war (enough already)

If you leave it up to the republicans, what gets cut? Social programs. Republicans don't like them.

If you leave it up to the democrats, what gets cut? Nothing. Democrats don't like spending cuts.

Added together, govts state local and federal, spend $6.8 trillion.

Americans make $4 trillion.

How can you fix that with taxes? You can't. So what do we do to keep spending? We borrow. What happens to the dollar when we do? It gets devalued. What happens then? Everyone with an income measured in dollars gets poorer. The rich don't get poorer, as their wealth isn't measured in dollars.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2011 9:41 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Kiki: I agree. And it's pissing me off.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2011 9:50 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Meet my demands or the economy gets it! Yep, that's the 'principled' republican position.

Without spending cuts the economy will fail.

There can be no compromise on this issue.

We need to balance the budget. The Democrats want to raise revenue, the Republicans want to cut spending. In the past we have tried raising taxes, but if revenue increased, that new revenue was always trumped by new spending. In the past (Reagan and Bush41) we've had deals for tax increases combined with spending cuts and in both cases we got screwed by the Democrats.

Republicans argue, correctly, that the only way to be sure to meet our needs is to cut spending. Taxes are speculative and projected revenue often does not match what is actually taken in. Republicans ran on the issue of cutting spending and were elected in overwhelming numbers. They did not run on the 'lets compromise' platform, they ran on the 'cut spending' platform (and to some extent they also had a 'no compromise on this issue' platform as well). Now you want a deal. Obama wants a deal. Democrats want a deal. I say no thanks, take it or leave it but its massive spending cuts, entitlement reform, and NO NEW TAXES.

We got the Democratic wish list in 2009 and its done nothing for us. Obama knows the Republicans are right. His stimulas got us nothing but a deeper hole. He also has no ideas of his own, no political capital, and little or no real leadership ability. Likely he will hold out as long as possible, sign exactly what the Republicans give him, then hold a press conference claiming he got everything he wanted and this was all his idea.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2011 10:07 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Meet my demands or the economy gets it! Yep, that's the 'principled' Obama position.

Funny, you Lefties over look the obvious.

With control of the Congress, Senate AND the White House, the Dems got every thing they wanted.

Recovery and Reinvestment ? Got it

Cash for Clunkers ? Got it.

ObamaCare? Got it.

Expanding the size of govt by 25% ? Got it.

TARP II ? Got it.

Give us what we want, or the unemployment will reach 8.0 % !!

Well, the Dems got what they wanted, and unemployment kept going up, up and up.

You got all you wanted, Obama, and now you're asking for compromise ?

Horseshit. You had your turn, you failed. If anyone is going to compromise here, it's going to be you, and your failed, extremist, Socialist , big govt policies.

The economy was too sluggish for you to pass tax increases back in December, why do you think it's any different now ? JUST CUT SPENDING !

Don't you remember ? It wasn't that long ago, when you said that raising taxes in a recession was "the last thing you want to do. "

Well, you've done exactly nothing on helping the economy, so it's far too early for you to claim that now's the time for us to try the LAST thing.

That being, raising TAXES, or what you cleverly like to call 'revenue'.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2011 11:35 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Rappy, will you please for the love of god read some economic theory?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2011 11:46 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Rappy, will you please for the love of god read some economic theory?

Sorry, but your snide remarks can't change the facts.

Obama's policies have failed. They're always destined to fail, and anyone w/ a lick of sense about economics KNEW such policies were going to fail.

We continue to follow Obama's path, we'll end up like Greece, but only 100x's worse.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2011 12:41 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Obama wants a deal. Democrats want a deal. I say no thanks, take it or leave it but its massive spending cuts, entitlement reform, and NO NEW TAXES.

Okey so you admit yourself that Obama and the Dems are ready to cut spending and make a deal. You haven't said WHY tax rises on the wealthy is such a Caps Lock-worthy abomination, if it pays the debt down faster? Presumably your answer is the line that: 'the economy is too weak at the moment to take money out of it'. And you don't think that the spending cuts will take money out of the economy as well?

To quote the article again, because it seems appropriate:

Quote:
The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities...

Quote:
The members of this movement have no economic theory worthy of the name. Economists have identified many factors that contribute to economic growth, ranging from the productivity of the work force to the share of private savings that is available for private investment. Tax levels matter, but they are far from the only or even the most important factor.

But to members of this movement, tax levels are everything. Members of this tendency have taken a small piece of economic policy and turned it into a sacred fixation. They are willing to cut education and research to preserve tax expenditures. Manufacturing employment is cratering even as output rises, but members of this movement somehow believe such problems can be addressed so long as they continue to worship their idol.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2011 12:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Rappy, will you please for the love of god read some economic theory?

Sorry, but your snide remarks can't change the facts.

Obama's policies have failed. They're always destined to fail, and anyone w/ a lick of sense about economics KNEW such policies were going to fail.

We continue to follow Obama's path, we'll end up like Greece, but only 100x's worse.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

We're already worse off than Greece. We have been for quite some time.

They have less debt per person, yet they actually GET something for their debt - paid vacation (6 weeks per year), and 80% pension at age 53. Oh, and healthcare. 'Course, they don't spend as much as the rest of the world combined on their military, and they haven't really invaded and occupied any other nations in quite some time, so there's always that...

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2011 1:30 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

From the other thread...

Just raise the goddamn thing.

The expenditures? They were approved by Congress. Not just THIS Congress, but all Congresses going back to the days when we last had a surplus... whenever THAT was.

So Congress, after having directed Presidents to spend the money, is NOW refusing to take out a loan for the money it has already authorized to be spent? Childish and stupid.

And their so-called balanced budget plan is the worst of all possible worlds: It requires a balanced budget each and every year, allows spending cuts to be passed by a simple majority but tax increases (including closing loopholes) must be passed by a supermajority.

OUR state has had a balanced budget requirement as well as a supermajority on tax increases for over 20 years, and we are more in the hole than ever before! In fat years, we're not allowed to build up a reserve to tide us over through the lean years, we have to rebate the taxes. What kind of idiot system doesn't allow an entity to save for the future? And when the economy goes into the tank... and revenues go with it... that's when services are needed most. There is no stabilizing force in the economy.

The teabaggers, they're just dancing to the Koch Bros tune, and they've not got even a baby toe in the real world anymore.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2011 1:44 PM

>_>

Sig: None of that sounds bad to me. Maybe I don't understand very well.

Maybe it's shortsighted, or overly-simplistic, but when I look at government services, I see taxes as something that people have paid for. If the services (including employee wages) don't cost as much as the public paid... Doesn't that money belong to the public that paid it?

And if you create a stable economy that lives in its means, thus little to no inflation, no rackets, no insurance/loan/mortgage schemes... Does it need to save for the future?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2011 1:44 PM

Quote:
Corrected for AURaptor:

Funny, you Righties overlook the obvious.

With control of the Congress, Senate AND the White House, the Rethuglican party got every thing they wanted.

War in Afghanistan and Iraq? Got it

Cash for CEOs? Got it.

MediCare Part D? Got it.

Overseeing the largest expansion of government since Reagan? Got it.

TARP? Got it.

Auto bailouts? Got it.

Give us what we want, or the terrorists win!!

Well, the Rethugs got what they wanted, and unemployment kept going up, up and up.

You got all you wanted, Rappy, and now you're asking for compromise ?

Horseshit. You had you[r] turn, you failed. If anyone is going to compromise here, it's going to be you, and your failed, extremist, fascist , big govt policies.

Fixed that for you, dear.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2011 1:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
>_>

Sig: None of that sounds bad to me. Maybe I don't understand very well.

Maybe it's shortsighted, or overly-simplistic, but when I look at government services, I see taxes as something that people have paid for. If the services (including employee wages) don't cost as much as the public paid... Doesn't that money belong to the public that paid it?

And if you create a stable economy that lives in its means, thus little to no inflation, no rackets, no insurance/loan/mortgage schemes... Does it need to save for the future?

Byte, the problem with that idea - the idea that you have a "balanced" budget every year, to the penny - is that it never pays a single cent to the outstanding debt you're already carrying.

Just cutting spending will NEVER pay down our debt. The last time we had even a PROPOSED surplus, some idiot (I think he was called "Bush" or some such) said that the government took too much in taxes, and he was giving us a rebate. It never occurred to him to use any of it to pay down our debt, as it was intended to do. The "fiscally responsible" GOP has no intention of ever paying our debts, as they've so clearly said.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2011 2:53 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
And if you create a stable economy that lives in its means, thus little to no inflation, no rackets, no insurance/loan/mortgage schemes... Does it need to save for the future?

Byte, there are three legs to our economy- the government, the people, and the corporations. Since the corporations take a bite out of the money supply each and every time it passes through their hands and keep it in their own relatively small group, the money supply "for everyone else" inevitably shrinks. That's when people stop buying (no money), therefore factories lay off workers, and people reduce their purchases even more... and hence a depression is born.

An economy will never be stable as long as there are large profits which concentrate into a small group, even WITHOUT government spending. In fact, until "trickle down" it was government spending which stabilized the economy.

In some future economy, when there is no concentration of wealth and theft from the people by corporations, you're right... we wouldn't need government spending. But we're not there yet, are we? And cutting government spending is not going to solve the essential problem, in fact, it's going to make it worse.

As far as "saving for the future"... Byte, we ALL need to save for the future. Nature can throw some wicked curves at us... drought, fire, flood, disease... and climate change is coming, ready or not. We need to be saving seed, and food, and water, and the environment. Because even if we get past the point of being our own worst enemy, nature still throws knuckleballs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2011 3:06 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

OH YES, BE VERY AFRAID... WE'RE GOING TO BE LIKE GREECE!!!!

Hmmm... debt as a percent of GDP... where is Greece? Where is Germany? Where are we...?

Japan takes first prize, at 225.8%.

Greece is 5th, at 142.8%
Iceland 6th at 115.6%

Singapore, obviously in tottering shape, is 9th, at 102.4%

Curiously, Ireland is only at 96.2%, in 11th place.

Germany, 15th, at 83.2%
Israel, 21st, at 77.3%

Blowing by Austria, the Netherlands, France, the UK, Bahrain and a host of other nations...

The USA is 36th at 58.9%, according to the CIA and Eurostat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_public_debt

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2011 7:06 PM

Boehner and McConnell insist that there can be NO tax increases on "the job creators". Except, according to them, there ARE no jobs being created. So we can raise taxes all we want on the rich, since they aren't being "job creators" anyway!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 2:20 AM

Curiously, however, if you look up each country, Japan and Ireland both have 2.25 trillion in debt, but Japan has a GDP of 4.3 trilion and Ireland has a GDP of 0.2 trillion.

This makes more sense as Ireland is on the brink of financial collapse and Japan is nowhere near it.

ETA: while I'm at it, Sig has a point on the corporate drain on the economy, but it is equally important to point out *where* that drain occurs: At the govt. budgetary level. The interest on the dubious* debt, the subsidies (energy, ag et al,) the military, the non-negotiable Rx drug benefits (Don't worry, it was Bush,) and the pending insurance mandate part of Obamacare are all corporate welfare. This is where the money is leaking to multinational corporations. It's also important to remember that maybe 300 of america's 300,000 corporations are the problem, and the nature of that problem is their ties to govt. That's how I always say "the alliance" because of blue sun. It's corporate-govt. union that's our major problem at the moment.

* dubious in that when the govt. prints new money, it has to allocate that power to a corporation, that then loans it to the govt., which is a totally corrupt way to do it, since it still results in a currency devaluation, only with bonus left over debt.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 2:28 AM

America loves a winner!

kwickie ,

I'm not your dear, and you didn't fix anything for me.

All you did was childishly replace valid points with nonsensical, irrelevant ones, and then pretend you were being clever. You weren't.

As for Bush, at least he got us out of a mess that he didn't cause. He acknowledged the problem, but didn't make excuses , like Obama is doing.

Obama won't be able to fix this.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 4:40 AM

DMAANLILEILTT

Yes, Byte, it would.

If you have a household that can pay all its bills and has money left over, you would keep said cash in an easily accessable location for a "rainy day", eg. an injury or loss of income. You would not return the aforementioned money to your employer stating: "I don't need it. I am living within my means."

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 4:54 AM

That's a false analogy, as a family is dissimilar to a government provided service. For one, the Central Intelligence Agency can't reproduce with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and baby Homeland Security is not hungry for mashed pea num-nums. For two, the health and livelyhood of the individual is distinct from the interests of the corporation or government entity they work for, and for good reason.

However, I am considering the arguments Kwicko and Sig made.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 8:40 AM

Byte is correct.

This is more analogous to being overcharged by a corporation for services provided, and not expecting a refund, but just accepting that they would keep your money.

The govt. Does not need to keep your money because it has the power to print new money, albeit a flawed one.

I think Sig and Rap also have a pretty decent bead on the situation, even if I nitpick.

As for raising taxes, yes you could raise taxes to more than 100% of income, but what you're doing is pushing up the price of everything. Around 3/4 of the price of everything you buy is now tax in some way. Picture if Herman Cain is elected and passes the fair tax. Someone will strip the income tax reductions from the bill, and the price of everything will go up another 27%. the value of the dollar last year sent orices up 30%, if we increase the taxes, it will have a similar effect, almost regardless of how we do it, as most corporations do not operate at 95% profit, more like 20%, and however they have to pay, through workers, stock, directly, if they can dodge the tax, they'll dodge it, if they can't, they'll raise prices.

Raising taxes on the elite is a pipe dream since the elite are the ones funding the candidates for all branches of govt. And fiduciary and as a result they effectively write policy and will never elect to tax themselves. Transactional money, if overtaxed, will flee.

If you borrow money, you devalue the currency. Also, it's more like a payday loan situation, where you're asking for your paycheck in advance to pay back at interest.

Basic core: you cannot spend more money than you have. You can not raise money from nowhere. Now, sure, there are things that could be taxed. We could charge people for the oil they take out of the ground, we could charge import tariffs, there are a lot of external sources of revenue, but it doesn't look like any govt over the last century has really any interest in doing that, so it's probably not going to happen.

Reality is that most of the money spent by govt. Is a total waste. It's either welfare to corporations, welfare to the rich, funding the military industrial complex or paying to maintain an overseas empire and domestic police state. If you actually killed those policies alone, you'd be down well under a trillion dollars.

The only way I see that happening is if this govt, collapses. On that front, maybe spending ourselves into self destruction is a good idea

but I don't like what the international community might do to the landscape and population.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 9:17 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Hero, the Dems have ALREADY agreed to spending cuts, and Obama is proposing MORE, including possibly changes to Medicare and Social Security. The Repubs are holding fast, NO COMPROMISE, no raising of taxes, not even eliminating the Bush tax cuts which were SUPPOSED to expire (tho' in putting them through, he knew damned well they wouldn't be allowed to expire). So you've got one side willing to make compromises, the other side flatly saying "my way or the highway". How does that work?

Of COURSE the Dems didn't get "everything they wanted", that's absurd. They had to compromise everything to get anything, which is how it works--except to the neophite Tea Partiers, who don't grasp the meaning of compromise.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 9:18 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

KPO, you nailed it. Those quotes were right on, and show exactly that the Dems HAVE compromised, again and again.

Keep the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy: Republicans got what they wanted.

Cut spending: Republicans got it

If I wanted to take the time, I could go back to the Bush era and list everything the Republicans wanted that they got, but it's not worth the time because it would be responding to Raptor and he'd (he'll) only use it as an excuse to say something inane and call me names. But it's there, for anyone who cares to look.

The fact is, Dems DIDN'T get what they wanted, like a public option; what they DID get is whatever the Repubs ALLOWED; everything, EVERYTHING else they filibustered, something which has never happened to the extent it did in the history of this country.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 9:20 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Ahhh, thank you again Mike! I almost wrote "I'm sure Mike can look some of this up and refute Raptor; where are you Mike?"--should have known you'd show up and do it; thanx!

Unfortunately, Obama's policies were and ARE destined to fail. We were put in too deep a hole by Bush & Co. to dig out of in four years, maybe even eight. And I've finally become convinced that the Republicans DON'T want to do what's good for the country; they actually believe that by making things worse, they'll win the next election and get the power to further increase the wealth of their cronies, 'cuz there's still SOME to take from the poor and middle class, and they want it ALL.

By the way, the version of "compromise" the Republicans are willing to accept is laughable. They say they're willing to close some loopholes, but ONLY if the tax code is re-written so that those who lose because of closing loopholes still get the same level of taxes. How that makes sense to ANYONE is beyond me!

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 9:22 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Oh, Sig, SO right on:

Quote:
The teabaggers, they're just dancing to the Koch Bros tune, and they've not got even a baby toe in the real world anymore.

That's so true; the rich/Wall Street/CEOs have NO concept of what the real world is like, and the Tea Party followers THINK they can fix things, but don't understand how things work.

And you're so right about "saving for the future". If it was only a stable economy and nothing else, what about all the people who suffered from Katrina, the Gulf Spill, the various floods we've had? That's the crux of the "safety net" the government is supposed to provide, but even there, the right agreed to providing a safety net for some, but only if they got TAX CUTS in return. How logical is that?

Wow, thanx for the "debt as a percent of GDP". That's an eye-opener! I hear so much about how awful our percentage of GDP is that I just assumed it was so; how amazingly far off I was!

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 9:23 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Byte, I disagree that

Quote:
the health and livelyhood of the individual is distinct from the interests of the corporation or government entity they work for, and for good reason.

The health and livelihood of the individual is DEPENDENT upon whoever they work for...yes, it's quite distinct from the interests of the corporation if the corporation's interest is money, and different from the government if the government's interest is power, but they are nonetheless tied together. If the government is persuaded to put the interests of the corporation (as in tax breaks, lessened restrictions) above those of it's workers (as in now), the health and livelihood of the individual suffers.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 10:53 AM

Tying individual health and livelyhood to corporate or government interests is an extremely dangerous proposition. It suggests that the individual is expendable TO those interests. See also: corporate pollution, the military.

You may want to rethink that, or at least rethink the broad scale application of the concept.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 11:03 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"It suggests that the individual is expendable TO those interests (corporate or government interests)."

They already are.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 11:04 AM

No kidding. You act as though I said that because I approve.

I really don't.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 1:01 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

No, I didn't think you approve. I was just pointing out that people are already expendable as far as business and government are concerned. Government has to try and jolly people along with the agenda - after all, they need the votes - but business pursues its agenda without kickback by being secretive.

Just think of Fukushima. How would it have been different if profit and power didn't come first in consideration - from the design (the cheapest!) to the response (save the site! hide the news!).

That's all I was saying.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 1:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

And I've finally become convinced that the Republicans DON'T want to do what's good for the country; they actually believe that by making things worse, they'll win the next election and get the power to further increase the wealth of their cronies, 'cuz there's still SOME to take from the poor and middle class, and they want it ALL.

Niki, I'm afraid it's both worse and more simple than that.

Look up Eric Cantor's investments in shorting the dollar. Seriously. He actually makes MORE money if the economy of the U.S. tanks, because he's invested in the dollar's collapse. No wonder he keeps walking out of budget talks!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 1:06 PM

Okay. Then I suppose I don't understand what your argument is against what I said.

In my view, the Japanese government and the industry (TEPCO) is treating people as though they were expendable. Individuals who never made the bad decisions that left the powerplant under-maintained and vulnerable to flooding, are being sacrificed for the company and the government, as though their fates were one and the same.

I get this is cultural, but it is also fallacious reasoning, and dangerous precedence. I see sometimes corporations and the US government act this way as well. Individuality, health, and livelyhood SHOULD be separate from the place of employment. They aren't, because the place of employment would like to see us dependent, which enables exploitation.

If individual health and livelyhood were higher considerations for decision makers, then perhaps messes like this would not happen so often. Similarly, if individuals could act on their individuality, and choose to leave, cash out, not support the people making the problems. You believe that we can, but I don't believe so myself.

Even in America, you can buy green energy from an energy company, but there is no guarantee that your money actually goes to green energy, because you probably don't really choose your local energy company, who is invested in a lot of different technology. You pay taxes, but there is no guarantee that your taxes go to programs you support. These are serious problems of overriding the individual will with the collective. They are demonstrably dangerous, too.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 1:14 PM

America loves a winner!

Sen. Rubio: "We Don't Need New Taxes, We Need New Taxpayers"

At least SOMEONE In D.C. has a good idea.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 1:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Sen. Rubio: "We Don't Need New Taxes, We Need New Taxpayers"

At least SOMEONE In D.C. has a good idea.

So get rid of the Bush tax cuts. Get those rich folks paying their taxes.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 2:01 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Byte, that's why I always, always try to MAKE it personal, about anything and everything worth putting the effort into.

Case in point, I hate banks, and deal exclusively with a credit union sixty some miles away, both as part of the smoke and mirrors amd cause they're the only financial institution which has never outright tried to shaft me - their balance matches the one in my books with a 96% concurrence, and so far all the mismatches have been under a dollar and either bad math on my part, or failing to account for divident payouts, since they actually pay me to use my money instead of charging me, and I forget this...

But if they ever DO try any funny biz, the manager of one specific branch knows full and well that it's not gonna be the bank in general I come after, it's gonna be her, personally, first and foremost - and it's the same with many local orgs or companies I deal with, corporate will do as they will, but screw me, and I will come for YOU.

This seems to be an extremely effective incentive to not doing so, when they cannot distance themselves from the consequences and must be prepared to face them directly - even when a corporate policy changes and gives them no choice, they have at least the decency to call me and tell me about it BEFORE the company tries to hand it off as a fait accompli....
And in one case by personal appeal managed to convince me to not cease doing biz with that company... for the moment. (1)

Anyhows, makin it PERSONAL is always a good idea, it's one thing to screw over a nameless number, far and away another someone who might come make an *issue* of it with you, personally.

-Frem
(1) When you hit 40yrs, your insurance premiums are supposed to go DOWN, not UP by 26%, but the decision to allow vehicle insurance companies even more rapacious latitude was made by the state, and thus ALL of em pulled that shit...
But my patience is limited, oh yes, cause they didn't HAVE to do it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 3:08 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Sen. Rubio: "We Don't Need New Taxes, We Need New Taxpayers"

At least SOMEONE In D.C. has a good idea.

So get rid of the Bush tax cuts. Get those rich folks paying their taxes.

The achievers already pay for more than their fair share.

Kwickie FAIL.

And Bush's taxes aren't NEW, genius. They're from his 1st term in office.

You're dumb.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 3:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Tying individual health and livelyhood to corporate or government interests is an extremely dangerous proposition. It suggests that the individual is expendable TO those interests. See also: corporate pollution, the military.

You may want to rethink that, or at least rethink the broad scale application of the concept.

This underscores the problem: If one *thinks* that it *should* be tied, the overall future is painted is headed nowhere good. This is one reason I dislike employee health insurance as a concept, it helps create this tie.

I actually think John Kerry had one of the better ideas on this: Create a catastrophic care fund, that covers serious cases, and make everything else more or less free market, at prices the rest of the world pays, and then if states want to create an assistance program they can.

I'm reading about the bureaucracy within cancer research at the moment. There's so much funding that everyone has factionalized into my cure idea vs. your cure idea, and they're writing a ten year plan for stuff they should be running with tomorrow morning.

Our health is in our own hands, and it's generally a mistake to even hand the decision making to the hands of medical professionals. Some things you can't do yourself, like scratch your back ;) but really the mentality of dependence is a major part of the problem.

I see this society as digging itself further on down that road.

I have my hands full at the moment so it's back to endothelial growth factors in malignant gliomas.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 5:31 PM

Hang in there, DT. :(

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 13, 2011 3:25 AM