What would happen if we had the power by RionaEire

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"That generally means everyone gives up something to get someting. Saying things should be argued only on their merits ignores the fact that different folks and factions see merits in different things."

Then people can discuss merits. Unless of course you have a problem with discussion and only care about doctrine for its own sake?

Opposite sides can discuss stuff until the cows come home, but until each side is willing to compromise, nothing gets done.

So, I've offered tax increases and reductions in military spending to show I'm willing to compromise. Let's discuss what you're willing to give up.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Saturday, November 5, 2011 5:03 AM

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.

Geezer

I skipped over one of your posts.

So, how do you feel about increasing taxes on the wealthy, (people making over $500,000)? How do you feel about changing the tax code so more than 1/3 of corporations actually pay SOME taxes? How would you feel about reducing the military significantly? After all, what is the benefit of having over 700 military bases around the world? What is the cost? (Different cost figures are out there, but they hover around $700B.) What about allowing Medicare (and while we're at it Medicaid) to bargain for lower cost drugs under Bush's rather spendthrift drug assistance program? ("The estimated federal cost of Part D from 2007 through 2016 is U.S.$768 billion ...")

Here is where the benefit of actuarial analysis would be useful. How much would this help the deficit? I suspect it would be significant. (Not that it will happen of course, but we're talking theoretical events).

EVERY SINGLE YEAR BETWEEN 1996 AND 2005 66% OF ALL FCDS CORPORATIONS PAID NO TAXES.
I think the current tax structure is about right for corporations. - Geezer

Without the benefit of the surrounding society, a corporation dies. If society looks at a corporation and says 'work, or die', what work should be demanded of the corporation for it to earn its survival?

While Wall St. is going through the roof, Main St. is paying all the bills.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

Further information: Government spending

The President's budget request for 2010 totals $3.55 trillion.

Mandatory spending: $2.173 trillion
o $695 billion – Social Security*
o $571 billion – Unemployment/Welfare/

Other mandatory spending
o $453 billion – Medicare*
o $290 billion – Medicaid
o $164 billion – Interest on National Debt

Discretionary spending: $1.378 trillion
o $663.7 billion – Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations)
o $78.7 billion – Department of Health and Human Services
o $72.5 billion – Department of Transportation
o $52.5 billion – Department of Veterans Affairs
o $51.7 billion – Department of State and Other International Programs
o $47.5 billion – Department of Housing and Urban Development
o $46.7 billion – Department of Education
o $42.7 billion – Department of Homeland Security
o $26.3 billion – Department of Energy
o $26.0 billion – Department of Agriculture
o $23.9 billion – Department of Justice
o $18.7 billion – National Aeronautics and Space Administration
o $13.8 billion – Department of Commerce
o $13.3 billion – Department of Labor
o $13.3 billion – Department of the Treasury
o $12.0 billion – Department of the Interior
o $10.5 billion – Environmental Protection Agency
o $9.7 billion – Social Security Administration
o $7.0 billion – National Science Foundation
o $5.1 billion – Corps of Engineers
o $5.0 billion – National Infrastructure Bank
o $1.1 billion – Corporation for National and Community Service
o $0.7 billion – Small Business Administration
o $0.6 billion – General Services Administration
o $0 billion – Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)
o $0 billion – Financial stabilization efforts
o $11 billion – Potential disaster costs
o $19.8 billion – Other Agencies
o $105 billion – Other

*However, we can exempt Social Security spending as it is self-funded. Medicare is about 50% funded through special taxes so general revenue Medicare spending is only about $230B. That gives total general revenue mandatory US spending of $1.5T per year, about the same as discretionary spending.

The federal shortfall is expected to be ca $1.3T annually dropping to under $1T in a few years (1T is estimated to be the actual cost of the Iraq war for comparison).

By reducing costs, but more importantly RAISING REVENUES this shortfall could be whittled down. There are some significant savings to be made by reducing costs, but if one were to cut spending by an average of 10%, it would only shave ca $0.2T from the shortfall. Therefore, revenues need to be raised.

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

Saturday, November 5, 2011 5:11 AM

NIKI2

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

No, Geezer, you said you were open to a moderate tax increase, as long as it was used to pay down the debt. That's different. And that's just you, how many others would agree to ANY tax increase on those at the top?

I think I already mentioned a number of things I'd be willing to see cut and/or modified, didn't I/others? But the one, big, single sticking point on the right is NO TAXES. There is no compromise. There is no talking about it. And pretty much every independent analyst has said we cannot reach the goal by cuts alone. So...stalemate.

The Dems have already agreed to many, many cuts, which a number of those independent analysts have said won't do enough.

How about loopholes?
How about welfare for the wealthy?
How about subsidies? (I wouldn't want those done without careful scrutiny either)
Doing away with the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy?
How about doing away with offshore tax avoidance?
How about a tax on derivatives, and all the other games Wall Street plays?

Personally, I'm willing to look at the Big Three; first I would like to see SERIOUS effort put into making them more efficient and seriously tackling fraud, but I don't see that as being doable, to be honest. As I said, I have NO doubt there are tons and tons of things that could be cut, but where they impact the well-being of the people, I'd have to look long and hard at them and where they could increase efficiency to make them less expensive FIRST. Not that I wouldn't cut them, but HOW I would cut them.

The same with regulations; I would be quite willing to do away with some, but not where they impact the well being of the American people, long and short term.

But the biggie comes down to unemployment; without reducing that, we can't grow the GDP; without growing the GDP, we can't reduce the debt. And again, the right will NOT consider ANYTHING which takes ANYTHING away from the wealthy, corporations, etc. You said a modest tax increase; do you mean across the board? That does nothing but harm the middle and lower classes, it doesn't touch the gigantic gap between rich and poor, it only harms 99% of us--or let's even drop it to 90% of us, 'cuz I wouldn't mind not raising taxes on the top 10% or so.

The ONLY thing the right is willing to do is cut, and the only thing they are flatly NOT willing to do is increase taxes on the ultra-wealthy and ultra-rich corporations. Given that will not bring down the debt sufficiently, it's all a moot point. The ultra-rich, CEOs, Wall Street and giant corporations have been given tons and tons of gimmes over time; to say we shouldn't look seriously at turning that back a few years isn't compromise.

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

Saturday, November 5, 2011 6:06 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
No, Geezer, you said you were open to a moderate tax increase, as long as it was used to pay down the debt. That's different. And that's just you, how many others would agree to ANY tax increase on those at the top?

But this whole exercise is just us here in RWED.

Quote:
I think I already mentioned a number of things I'd be willing to see cut and/or modified, didn't I/others?

With one exception, all I can see is you and others demanding that Republicans give up things they believe in. What are you willing to give up? Where are you willing to compromise? How is your stance any different from the one you say that the Republicans hold (except that you consider yourself right and them wrong)?

Quote:
You said a modest tax increase; do you mean across the board?

Across the board but progressive, with lower brackets going up a percent or two, and upper brackets maybe up to 10% more - maybe bottom going from 10% to 11% and top from 35% to 45%. Say enough to generate an extra $250 billion a year. And I would like to see it all go to pay down the debt.

Or we could ask all the 99% to send in $1000 a year, each, which would pay off a trillion bucks every three years or so.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Saturday, November 5, 2011 6:21 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Y'all can play pretend, I'll stay in the real world.

"Does this mean you'll go away" she asked, hopefully.

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

Saturday, November 5, 2011 6:31 AM

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.

Up above I did some pencil whipping on the budget with actual budget and deficit figures. We simply can't cut our way out of the deficit by cutting spending. It's just not possible. At a 10% average spending reduction, AT MOST we can save $0.2T out of a $1.3T shortfall.

Eisenhower raised tax rates to extraordinary levels (especially on the wealthy - but we've seen those figures before so I won't go quoting and referencing them again) specifically to pay off the war debt. I propose something similar for the wealthy and the corporations.

BTW, I like the idea of a financial transaction tax. A North American estimate would be that the tax would generate ca 2% of the GDP in tax revenues per year or ca $0.3T. It's also argued that it stabilizes markets.

( http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Z-8WQZan8rkJ:www.wifo.ac.at/
wwa/servlet/wwa.upload.DownloadServlet/bdoc/S_2008_FINANCIAL_TRANSACTION_TAX_31819%24.PDF+%22financial+transaction+tax%22+%22estimated+revenues%22+%22united+states%22&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgIW21sZHSMq6qVqJbQvFP4oOP-syEdLOWGnQA6Dfd-1EHfjBvEr_UKBAZDmqTeyIjHjtfoF1vJQWjJX4FecyVaCDMosdStu_Y6aUOFyb7oAViMkeFRwYTaPmbndwpBCkZWkqWU&sig=AHIEtbSLwLxLB194KQeQDCCBGbCLSskqEA )

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

Saturday, November 5, 2011 6:38 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So, speaking of going away...

one of the things "we" have to decide is "What mean this 'we', Kimosabe?"

It's an interesting idea for a post, but there are several things that maybe should be done first, and several problems with the feedback loops.

The first thing, I suppose, is that there would be some kind of roll call... it's hard to have a discussion when people wander in and out of the room, so to speak... things get hammered out, and then someone (or several someones, or several sock puppets) pop in and throw the vote out of whack.

So- who's in and who's out, who gets to vote and who doesn't? ROLL CALL?

The other problems are that there is no way to judge success. If you apply a policy IRL and it doesn't work, you might get voted out of office. The only way to be successful in this scenario, is if "we" (however that "we" is constituted) decide "our" goals by majority and reach them by compromise. I noticed, for example, that the first point of negotiation was "balancing the budget". Is that something we agree (by majority or consensus) the most important thing to do? Or are there other, overriding goals such as energy independence or job creation?

There are procedural issues to work out.

I guess the first one is: What mean this "we"? Since we are self-nominated, who is willing to join and go the distance, for the purposes of this thread? And since I'm pretty busy, I suppose we should have an ultimate time limit (two months only takes us thru the holidays... bad time, even Congress gets time off) and also specific times limits on votes.

Hate to be such a stickler, but I've been in way too many working groups and committees and if they make any progress at all, it's because they follow procedural guidelines. The floor is yours.

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

Saturday, November 5, 2011 7:41 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!

The first think would be a roll call to see who wants to participate.

I'm in!

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

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

Saturday, November 5, 2011 8:39 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I'm thinking about it. Crushingly busy at work, will be traveling for Thanksgiving and offline. This part of the year sucks for doing anything else

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

Saturday, November 5, 2011 9:44 AM

You know, I think I'd actually be very much interested in plugging any laws or outcomes you all come up with into some kind of predictive model.

Something where we take the existing state of things both industry and government economics, and continue to progress it forwards unless we specifically amend it.

I wonder if there's anything like that out there.

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

Saturday, November 5, 2011 11:37 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

There is but we don't have access to it.

And part of the problem is that peeps disagree on the fundamental basis of the model. In order create prosperity, do you feed the rich? Or circulate money back to the 99%? If peeps could actually agree on the model to use, there wouldn't be any disagreement at all as to what to do next!

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

Saturday, November 5, 2011 12:11 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!

I don't think we have to measure our success on how our policies work. The point of the exercise would be to see how difficult it can be to compromise and perhaps understand the problems a little bit better. I think we would be successful if we could draft bills that got a wide range of support.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

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

Sunday, November 6, 2011 5:53 AM

NIKI2

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

Quote:
With one exception, all I can see is you and others demanding that Republicans give up things they believe in. What are you willing to give up? Where are you willing to compromise?

Amazing that you can write that directly below my saying any number of things on which I'd be willing to compromise. I'm not going to repeat myself yet again, because some of it I also wrote in a previous thread; just reread the post your quote was in response to and, if you're serious, answer my questions to YOU, since I answered your question to ME, albeit generally.

By the way, how do you and yours suggest we cut the budget, given it's been shown over and over that it can't be done by cuts alone? I've not heard anyone address that, and I very much would like to.

I like your tax plan, but I doubt it would pass, here.

Sig, there won't be procedural guidelines or anything ELSE here...that's asking people to play by rules, and as we've all learned so many times over, they don't here. Nor is there any way anyone will promise to be here for discussions, I don't think ANY of us have lives (barring maybe Raptor, for whom this apparently IS a life) where we'd be willing to do so. JMHO

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

Sunday, November 6, 2011 6:28 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Amazing that you can write that directly below my saying any number of things on which I'd be willing to compromise.

The only concrete liberal proposal for compromise I can find in this thread is M52Nickerson's proposal to reduce Medicare and Medicaid. Everything else is sort of an amorphous "Maybe I'll look at it if it hurts no one."

Quote:
By the way, how do you and yours suggest we cut the budget, given it's been shown over and over that it can't be done by cuts alone? I've not heard anyone address that, and I very much would like to.

It's not "you and yours", it's just me. I proposed cutting the military budget by $150 billion, for a start. If we're just playing in RWED, that, plus Nickerson's $75 billion off Medicare/Medicaid is a pretty good start. Per 1Kiki's info above, Welfare/unemployment is the third highest spending chunk after SSA and the military at $571 billion. Should be somewhere to cut a few billion there.

Quote:
I like your tax plan, but I doubt it would pass, here.

But in RWED we can do anything.

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

Sunday, November 6, 2011 7:04 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I will support the 150 Billion cut to the military concurrent with a 75 Billion cut to medicare/medicaid on the condition that Medicare/Medicaid are added to the list of tax deductable donations people can make. So it would be possible for people to voluntarily donate to the system in lieu of other charitable enterprises.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

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

Sunday, November 6, 2011 10:12 AM

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.

"... peeps disagree on the fundamental basis of the model ..."

That's why I suggest looking for CONCRETE OBSERVABLE benefit.

None of this - well, if we just make the rich rich enough maybe it'll tinkle down on us later ... if we just let the market work its magic even if you starve to death now maybe it'll all work out for others in the future ... if we just sacrifice enough now things will have to be better later, maybe ... if we just win this war we can end all wars ...

I'm looking for concrete, observable benefit, sans long, complicated rationalizations that say 'even though it seems like you're getting screwed you have to trust me' - otherwise known as a model.

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

Sunday, November 6, 2011 11:12 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Spending isn't the biggest problem imho, it's waste and accountability. We can try to reduce spending until 2050 but we won't fix the long term problem until we address the latter 2 issues.
People want to reduce medicare because it's one of the largest spending areas - I think they feel it must be easy to reduce without much effect. But it's inflated for the same reason that each of our insurance policies has been going up by 20% for the last 5 years: waste and greed and complete mismanagement. I know, not unlike most of gov., but with Big Ins Lobbies involved it is even worse. They need to be held more accountable. Medicare/medicaid users don't need less help, and most of them don't need to pay in more for their health care unless they are the very wealthy.
I would therefore start by hiring an independent group (if there is such a thing, but since Geezer said we can do anything, shazam!), an outside agency to study efficiency and make suggestions for cost savings in ALL gov spending over 1 billion, starting with Medicare (we can use some of their findings when we address general HC). I have read about these depts in the corporate world and they have a dramatic effect on cost savings without compromising services. We can and should LEARN from the evil corps.
The military on the other hand... we're not even in a global war, nothing even remotely close to the stakes we faced in WWI or WWII, so how come we are spending 20 times everyone else? It's beyond ludicrous. Unless you are making your paycheck from this spending you should be outraged - minimum $250 Billion reduction - we can start with $150 for 2012 and phase in the $250 over time, let the military get used to not armoring the undersides of their humvees with less money (the fact that they didn't even do that with the glut of money they have shows how poorly managed they are).
Misc:
%5 additional VAT on all non-food, non-essential, and non-health related items.

Or you just say that apart from military and medicare (where there would be much deeper cuts) a 10% across the board "learn to do the same with less" reduction, because it's pretty safe to assume there's waste everywhere.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

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

Sunday, November 6, 2011 11:15 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

The problem with concrete observable benefit is that there isn't any.

What I mean is, for every scenario, there are sufficient variables for someone to say, "Well, if we do X, Y should happen. And even though it didn't happen that way before, that was because of Z which is no longer a part of the scenario."

Because this argument is used by all sides to defend the reasons their economic models may not have worked at one time or another, it's hard to talk about concrete observable facts. Every concrete observable fact is drowning in variables.

You can only talk about what you hope will happen, and why you hope/believe it will happen. And how you hope/believe it will benefit the people.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

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

Sunday, November 6, 2011 11:46 AM

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.

Since we're talking about federal money, we don't need to think about business models.

If the federal government spends money paying for vaccinating children, a concrete benefit has been realized. Generally there are good enough statistics to determine that if children hadn't been vaccinated, so many would have come down with the illness, so much would have been spent on immediate care, so many would have lifelong deficits or health problems costing an estimated amount of money for health care and loss of productivity, so many would have died costing an average amount of productivity.

The same can be said for pollution control and cancer, heart disease, respiratory disease, ER costs, and early death.

If the government spends money fighting a war in ... Afghanistan, for example ... what is the concrete provable benefit realized?

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

Sunday, November 6, 2011 11:55 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

You make it sound nice, but you can't even prove the benefit of vaccinations. Some people think they're detrimental. The problem is that things don't always work the way we intend or hope.

Someone can tell you they HOPE to reduce illness and death with vaccinations, but they can't prove it ahead of time.

Just like someone can tell you they HOPE to reduce terrorist activity in the US by fighting a war in Afghanistan. I think it's bunk, but you can't prove or disprove that sort of thing.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

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

Sunday, November 6, 2011 12:14 PM

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.

"... but you can't even prove the benefit of vaccinations. Someone can tell you they HOPE to reduce illness and death with vaccinations, but they can't prove it ahead of time."

MOST vaccinations have well-recognized statistical benefit. They also have a well-known statistical rate of complication. SOME vaccinations don't have a track record - yet. But I'm not saying make it mandatory. I'm saying foot the bill. If the benefit is greater than the cost, foot the bill.

Your analogy between vaccinations and Afghanistan is bunk.

First of all, let's dismiss the 'proof' argument at the start. No one can PROVE anything. I can't prove I'm alive. I can't prove the world is real. You can't prove it's not. We can argue about levels of proof till the cows come home and never get anywhere.

However, there ARE many, many studies, many observations, many immunological processes that have been elucidated that show vaccinations do work and how it is they work. There are statistical rates for both success and complications of the vaccines; and for disease rates and complications. The practical, real-world knowledge base is solid for vaccinations. Vaccinations are a well-trod familiar road.

Afghanistan, OTOH doesn't have that. The knowledge vacuum about what might, could or should happen there is near complete. Not only is there no proof, there is not even any evidence. Pardon the pun, but the war in Afghanistan is a complete shot in the dark, with blindfold on, earplugs in, and oven mitts, based on nothing more than someone's assertion.

The two are not comparable.

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

Sunday, November 6, 2011 12:31 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

So you are contemplating the funding of tried and true vaccines with a long track record of use on humans and multiple studies of efficacy?

Yes, that's a good standard of evidence. But you are probably limiting government's ability to fund anything that hasn't been funded before.

R&D programs and grants would probably fail to meet the standard, as would various economic schemes and possibly even many social programs.

We would almost certainly never go to war, since any war would exist in a vacuum of information about possible outcomes. We would probably never build or fund a weapon system until someone else had used it in war. I can see many areas where government would stop spending money.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

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

Sunday, November 6, 2011 1:34 PM

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.

"We would almost certainly never go to war ..."

I think we would go to war with a country if we were directly attacked by that country. Maybe we would go to war if others were attacked. I'm not sure if we could make a case for wars of choice.

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

Sunday, November 6, 2011 2:25 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Rione, I think the questions people should be asking are not about which of us are in power, but how did we get there? Were we elected? Do we intend to get ourselves re-elected? How long is out term of power? Who helped/financed us to get to power? Who do we represent?

All of those will make a big difference to how and what we will do in power.

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

Sunday, November 6, 2011 2:30 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Amazing that you can write that directly below my saying any number of things on which I'd be willing to compromise.

The only concrete liberal proposal for compromise I can find in this thread is M52Nickerson's proposal to reduce Medicare and Medicaid. Everything else is sort of an amorphous "Maybe I'll look at it if it hurts no one."

Who said compromise is the best option? Sometimes compromising is a really terrible thing for a country, if the compromises you make are about making policies watered down, weakened versions of what they really should be. And I think you can see the result of too much political compromise in Obama's administration.

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

Sunday, November 6, 2011 2:39 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

what I would do - raise taxes for the wealthy, limit military spending, look at overall government spending - state and federal and look for ineffeciencies and corruption, make CEO's of banks accountable for the bail out, including looking at payback options, decriminalise all drugs and have high taxes for all reacreation drugs, including alcohol and cigarettes and directly earmark those taxes for rehab services, increase taxes for all weapons and make registration compulsory and incur a yearly cost, fund a public health system that doesn't rely on insurance, introducing an income levy for public health that can be removed by having private health insurance.

So I'd never get elected.

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

Sunday, November 6, 2011 3:06 PM

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.

"The only concrete liberal proposal for compromise I can find in this thread ..."

Yeah well, we know what kind of game that is, don't we Geezer? You find an extreme position then tell a moderate they HAVE to compromise on their position, otherwise THEY'RE being obstructionist.

So, rather than you arguing tactically for 'compromise' for its own sake, how about we discuss the merits of the positions? Hmmmm???

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

Sunday, November 6, 2011 7:43 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)

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Not much would change. There'd be petty squabbles, misunderstandings, childish alliances and pretty much the same sort of mindless power brokering as we see happening everywhere.

I'm with you.

But if we had the power...first thing to do is use that power to quickly take it from most of the liberals and crazy talkers here perhaps.

Why screw around? Just get it done up front, be harsh, be brutal, then we can spend the rest of our time getting things done that benefit everyone (everyone else that is). We get rid of most everyone which both eliminates the worst troublemakers and gets of the loyalty of those we spare.

Some might call it wrong, but I've been looking at what the other side does to get their message out and their big plans which mainly comes down to bitching and complaining and then rioting when they don't get their way.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I agree with Hero." Niki2, 2011.

There it is, folks, in plain black and white. This is how "Hero" here actually views things. This is his ideal world.

Now show me how he's really any different from someone like Stalin or Pol Pot.

"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

Sunday, November 6, 2011 7:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Up above I did some pencil whipping on the budget with actual budget and deficit figures. We simply can't cut our way out of the deficit by cutting spending. It's just not possible. At a 10% average spending reduction, AT MOST we can save $0.2T out of a $1.3T shortfall.

Eisenhower raised tax rates to extraordinary levels (especially on the wealthy - but we've seen those figures before so I won't go quoting and referencing them again) specifically to pay off the war debt. I propose something similar for the wealthy and the corporations.

BTW, I like the idea of a financial transaction tax. A North American estimate would be that the tax would generate ca 2% of the GDP in tax revenues per year or ca $0.3T. It's also argued that it stabilizes markets.

( http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Z-8WQZan8rkJ:www.wifo.ac.at/
wwa/servlet/wwa.upload.DownloadServlet/bdoc/S_2008_FINANCIAL_TRANSACTION_TAX_31819%24.PDF+%22financial+transaction+tax%22+%22estimated+revenues%22+%22united+states%22&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgIW21sZHSMq6qVqJbQvFP4oOP-syEdLOWGnQA6Dfd-1EHfjBvEr_UKBAZDmqTeyIjHjtfoF1vJQWjJX4FecyVaCDMosdStu_Y6aUOFyb7oAViMkeFRwYTaPmbndwpBCkZWkqWU&sig=AHIEtbSLwLxLB194KQeQDCCBGbCLSskqEA )

Is there any way you can shorten that link? It's making the thread about three miles wide on my screen! ;)

"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

Sunday, November 6, 2011 7:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Geezer, I'd be quite happy to look at everything and anything, as I'm well aware there are useless and/or badly-managed programs supported by the government which we SHOULD do away with. As for
Quote:
stuff that you really thing is a good idea, and is good for your concept of what government should be doing
why would I be willing to cut something which I FIRMLY believe is good for the country and its people? That doesn't make sense.

You do realize that this is pretty much exactly what the Republicans are saying?

They're willing to do away with what they consider wasteful useless programs, but stuff that they FIRMLY believe in, like not increasing taxes or spending, they aren't likely to compromise on.

When is it that they came up with these "FIRMLY" held beliefs? They weren't FIRMLY against tax increases when Reagan raised taxes, or Bush I, or Clinton. And they've really never been against increased spending, just so long as it's on THEIR pet projects.

So stop already with this idiotic ruse of your "FIRMLY" held beliefs, because they are neither firm nor beliefs if you violate them at the fist opportunity.

"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

Sunday, November 6, 2011 8:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Umm.... ok. What are you wanting to change ?

Nothing right now. I was mearly responding to your statment regarding the constitution as our nations frame work.

My point on the constitution was to show that we're a nation of laws, not men. Do you understand what that even means ? If you want to have a separate conversation on constitutional amendments, fine, but this talk of compromise is futile with out a basis on which to work. Which is why I was including the comments I did, where Niki says she'll compromise, but not on the crucial points SHE thinks are important.

HUH??

The points SHE thinks are vital are often the very ones I think should be abolished entirely, or greatly reduced. Healthcare isn't a 'right'. You have no 'right' to another person's time or life, and yet Niki here seems to think she does. On this, there IS no compromise.

Can you show me in the Constitution where it says that veterans have a "right" to GI Bill benefits, veterans' benefits, etc.? You've claimed before that we do this because it's the government's responsibility to do it, but you've never been able to cite a constitutional argument that veterans have any particular "right" to any portion of my time, life, or money.

So it's quite obvious to me that you don't really mind taking from others to "spread the wealth" - you just mind who's being taken from and who it's being given to.

"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, November 7, 2011 3:15 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I will support the 150 Billion cut to the military concurrent with a 75 Billion cut to medicare/medicaid on the condition that Medicare/Medicaid are added to the list of tax deductable donations people can make. So it would be possible for people to voluntarily donate to the system in lieu of other charitable enterprises.

Might do some good. However, I note that there is also a program for voluntary contributions (not tax-deductable) to pay down the national debt. The most it's ever gotten in a year is around $3 million.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Monday, November 7, 2011 3:17 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Who said compromise is the best option?

No one. But several folks here have been complaining that Republicans won't compromise, and I wanted to see if ther Liberals here would do any better at it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Monday, November 7, 2011 3:38 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"The only concrete liberal proposal for compromise I can find in this thread ..."

Yeah well, we know what kind of game that is, don't we Geezer? You find an extreme position then tell a moderate they HAVE to compromise on their position, otherwise THEY'RE being obstructionist.

So, rather than you arguing tactically for 'compromise' for its own sake, how about we discuss the merits of the positions? Hmmmm???

Extreme position? I'm willing to increase taxes by $250 billion a year and cut military spending by $150 billion.

As for discussing the "merits" of positions...mostly you can't. Each side has their own perception of what has merit, and has their own experts who will "prove" that their point of view is the correct one. If the Republicans brought in 100 economists who said that the way out of the recession and high unemployment was to reduce taxes on the rich to up the level of capital investment, would you believe it? There are folks out there with those economists on speed dial. You(or Liberals in general) probably have 100 on speed dial who can 'prove' that higher taxes and more government spending are the way out. Dueling economists...da da da dah da.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Monday, November 7, 2011 4:46 AM

TWO

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Each side has their own experts who will "prove" that their point of view is the correct one. . . .Dueling economists...da da da dah da.

Every Paul Krugman economic prediction contradicts every Republican economist, the Whitehouse, and Euro leaders, too. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/
To pick a cure for an economic ill, whose cure do you choose? The economist that has been right or the economists that are making wrong predictions? Apparently, giving wrong predictions qualifies you for having your bad advice taken seriously. See for example The Denials That Trapped Greece www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/business/global/europes-two-years-of-denial
s-trapped-greece.html

The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity," where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two

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

Monday, November 7, 2011 5:02 AM

I think I may like this Krugman. Things he's writing are making a lot of sense to me, and usually economic theory sounds like a lot of nonsense.

The only thing I question is whether his New Trade Theory (itself potentially a scary name) supports Free Trade deals, which I think we've all just seen Do Not Work.

(After reading wikipedia) Ah. Looks like he does. Pity. I still believe his analysis might be smart, but I now know that he has some agendas and to take them with a grain of salt.

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

Monday, November 7, 2011 5:21 AM

NIKI2

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

I can already see the "circularness" of this discussion, and think it's gonna end up a long, LOOOOONG thread, so I'm bowing out. Responding would take ages, there are so many points. I'll let Pizmo speak for me (if he comes back); aside from me, he was the onlky other person (until he mentioned it) to note dealing with inefficiency and waste FIRST before just killing stuff off. So I wish you well, and I'll leave you to it.

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

Monday, November 7, 2011 5:57 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Just let me throw out a few specifics, but I prolly won't be around much to talk about them:

Cut military spending. We can start by eliminating all of our bases from allied and friendly nations (are we occupying Germany and Japan?) w/drawing from Afghanistan, and Iraq, ending military support towards Israel, eliminate all "supplemental" funds. If other nations want or need our "help", let them ask.

Revamp Medicare entirely. Raise Medicare tax rates, raise the maximum on which people are taxed, open up coverage to anyone below the age of 65 who is willing to pay the premium, and change the reimbursement system from paying for single diagnostic codes to paying for healthier outcomes overall.

Tweak Social Security slightly by raising the maximum wage on which people pay Social Security tax.

Change the corporate tax code. Eliminate all deductions (interest payments, ordinary expenses, depreciations etc) except payroll and payroll taxes, and charge a lower rate which is no lower than the lowest personal income tax rate.

Create a transaction tax, which will slow down speculative trading.

Create a national bank; get rid of The Fed as a quasi-government bank.

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

Monday, November 7, 2011 5:59 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Meh, I will simply repeat my former assertion.

Heads.
On Spikes.
Out in front of the fortress of doom.

And once my legions of terror have dealt with the unreasonable, I'll slam the doors and let the survivors work it out their damn selves like they're supposed to - but anyone willing to destroy all rather than let others have any say, anyone willing to burn the world unless they own it...

I got plenty more spikes, yanno.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

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

Monday, November 7, 2011 6:04 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Didja ever notice how most RWA's choose names like "hero", "wolf", and "raptor"? Says something about them being legends in their own minds, huh?

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

Monday, November 7, 2011 6:07 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I will support the 150 Billion cut to the military concurrent with a 75 Billion cut to medicare/medicaid on the condition that Medicare/Medicaid are added to the list of tax deductable donations people can make. So it would be possible for people to voluntarily donate to the system in lieu of other charitable enterprises.

Might do some good. However, I note that there is also a program for voluntary contributions (not tax-deductable) to pay down the national debt. The most it's ever gotten in a year is around $3 million.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Hello,

I think this is because it is not tax deductible. It should be. Obviously giving money to government programs should be tax deductible.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

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

Monday, November 7, 2011 6:09 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Hey, spikes are tax deductible, if you file under home improvements!

-F

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

Monday, November 7, 2011 6:18 AM

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.

"As for discussing the "merits" of positions...mostly you can't."

Which is why I proposed the criteria I did, of CONCRETE OBSERVABLE benefit. If we are spending more than we are taking in, and we are, I propose we don't have the luxury of speculative spending. Having a marker to gauge 'merits' gives us something to discuss.

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

Monday, November 7, 2011 7:03 AM

TWO

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I think I may like this Krugman. Things he's writing are making a lot of sense to me, and usually economic theory sounds like a lot of nonsense.

The only thing I question is whether his New Trade Theory (itself potentially a scary name) supports Free Trade deals, which I think we've all just seen Do Not Work.

(After reading wikipedia) Ah. Looks like he does. Pity. I still believe his analysis might be smart, but I now know that he has some agendas and to take them with a grain of salt.

Bytemite, I traced your Krugman wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#New_trade_theory to this article by Krugman defending trade www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1997/03/in_praise_o
f_cheap_labor.html

Quote:
I found myself thinking about Smokey Mountain recently, after reading my latest batch of hate mail.

The occasion was an op-ed piece I had written for the New York Times, in which I had pointed out that while wages and working conditions in the new export industries of the Third World are appalling, they are a big improvement over the "previous, less visible rural poverty." I guess I should have expected that this comment would generate letters along the lines of, "Well, if you lose your comfortable position as an American professor you can always find another job--as long as you are 12 years old and willing to work for 40 cents an hour."

Such moral outrage is common among the opponents of globalization--of the transfer of technology and capital from high-wage to low-wage countries and the resulting growth of labor-intensive Third World exports. These critics take it as a given that anyone with a good word for this process is naive or corrupt and, in either case, a de facto agent of global capital in its oppression of workers here and abroad.

But matters are not that simple, and the moral lines are not that clear. In fact, let me make a counter-accusation: The lofty moral tone of the opponents of globalization is possible only because they have chosen not to think their position through. . . . [Krugman then thinks it through for you]
In short, my correspondents are not entitled to their self-righteousness. They have not thought the matter through. And when the hopes of hundreds of millions are at stake, thinking things through is not just good intellectual practice. It is a moral duty.

Krugman definitely has a moral agenda.

The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity," where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two

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

Monday, November 7, 2011 7:05 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"As for discussing the "merits" of positions...mostly you can't."

Which is why I proposed the criteria I did, of CONCRETE OBSERVABLE benefit. If we are spending more than we are taking in, and we are, I propose we don't have the luxury of speculative spending. Having a marker to gauge 'merits' gives us something to discuss.

Well, many observable benefits take years, if not decades, to become apparent. Also, folks will disagree about what constitutes a 'benefit'. For example, the irrigation, hydro-power, and flood control benefits from the TVA and Corps of Engineers work in the 1930's probably seemed pretty worthwhile (unless the land your family owned for decades ended up at the bottom of a lake), but now folks are finding negative environmental impacts that result in stuff like the New Orleans flooding during Katrina.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Monday, November 7, 2011 7:12 AM

Sig, I agree with those, though I'm not sure a tax would necessarily be the right way to stop high frequency trading. However, I'm not sure what another option would be. Since I am therefore not restricted to realistic solutions, right now, I'm leaning towards "kicking machine with boot on a stick."

Also, you didn't mention opening up medicare to importation of medicine or negotiation, and without that I'm not sure that just increasing the pool of money for medicare will necessarily work. However I can see the logic behind it - with medicare servicing mostly older folk, you're necessarily paying out more than people can possibly put in. Bringing younger people in who hopefully won't draw down the claim pool until later will balance that somewhat.

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

Monday, November 7, 2011 7:18 AM