Board index » Word on the Street... » News & Debate




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 88 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Sequestration
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2012 8:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Red Mosquito, my libido
 Profile

Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:02 am
Posts: 91597
Location: Sector 7-G
Electromatic wrote:
stip wrote:
Electromatic wrote:
stip wrote:
I'm not talking about what may or may not be bad policy, LW. I mean a fundamental refusal to engage in the basic processes that make democratic politics possible.



kind of par for the course in the last 12 years depending on who is the president and who holds congress.



No, it's not, and assuming false equivalency is dangerous (everyone does it). That's not to say that there isn't sniping and disagreement and heated politics, etc. But what we've seen the last 4 years is unprecedented, or at least unprecedented for 100+ years.



Oh really? So the Nancy Pelosi led group wasn't just as obstructionist when Bush was in office as this group? I seem to remember plenty of douchebaggery back between 2004 and 2008.

Yes the Tea Partiers are infuriating, but this is how we have operated for 12 years now. When there is parity there is gridlock. It wasn't always that way but it has been that way for a while now.

The party in power brings bills to the floor, the minority party if strong enough does everything they can to block them.

There are actual numbers to back up who was more obstructionist. Someone should look them up and post them. They're a lot more credible than just "I seem to remember".

_________________
It takes a big man to make a threat on the internet.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Sequestration
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2012 11:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Global Moderator
 Profile

Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:02 am
Posts: 44183
Location: New York
Gender: Male
cutuphalfdead wrote:
Electromatic wrote:
stip wrote:
Electromatic wrote:
stip wrote:
I'm not talking about what may or may not be bad policy, LW. I mean a fundamental refusal to engage in the basic processes that make democratic politics possible.



kind of par for the course in the last 12 years depending on who is the president and who holds congress.



No, it's not, and assuming false equivalency is dangerous (everyone does it). That's not to say that there isn't sniping and disagreement and heated politics, etc. But what we've seen the last 4 years is unprecedented, or at least unprecedented for 100+ years.



Oh really? So the Nancy Pelosi led group wasn't just as obstructionist when Bush was in office as this group? I seem to remember plenty of douchebaggery back between 2004 and 2008.

Yes the Tea Partiers are infuriating, but this is how we have operated for 12 years now. When there is parity there is gridlock. It wasn't always that way but it has been that way for a while now.

The party in power brings bills to the floor, the minority party if strong enough does everything they can to block them.

There are actual numbers to back up who was more obstructionist. Someone should look them up and post them. They're a lot more credible than just "I seem to remember".


There are numbers, but I have them at my office. I'll try to dig them up tomorrow but I am going to be very busy the next few weeks and may just forget if someone beats me to it.

Electro, I am not arguing that one of these groups is on the side of the angels. There has always been douchebaggery. We're well beyond that. And no, the minority party historically does what it can to influence a bill, or block it if it is beyond the pale. We're well past that. Having the opposition party regularly vote on the floor against bills and nominees that they back in committee is new. Getting zero opposition support on major initiatives is new (some democrats, for instance, supported Bush tax cuts, prescription drug reform, the wars, no child left behind, etc.) That has vanished.

_________________
"Better the occasional faults of a Government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a Government frozen in the ice of its own indifference."--FDR

The perfect gift for certain occasions


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Sequestration
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2012 11:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Supersonic
 Profile

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:43 am
Posts: 10694
stip wrote:
cutuphalfdead wrote:
Electromatic wrote:
stip wrote:
Electromatic wrote:
stip wrote:
I'm not talking about what may or may not be bad policy, LW. I mean a fundamental refusal to engage in the basic processes that make democratic politics possible.



kind of par for the course in the last 12 years depending on who is the president and who holds congress.



No, it's not, and assuming false equivalency is dangerous (everyone does it). That's not to say that there isn't sniping and disagreement and heated politics, etc. But what we've seen the last 4 years is unprecedented, or at least unprecedented for 100+ years.



Oh really? So the Nancy Pelosi led group wasn't just as obstructionist when Bush was in office as this group? I seem to remember plenty of douchebaggery back between 2004 and 2008.

Yes the Tea Partiers are infuriating, but this is how we have operated for 12 years now. When there is parity there is gridlock. It wasn't always that way but it has been that way for a while now.

The party in power brings bills to the floor, the minority party if strong enough does everything they can to block them.

There are actual numbers to back up who was more obstructionist. Someone should look them up and post them. They're a lot more credible than just "I seem to remember".


There are numbers, but I have them at my office. I'll try to dig them up tomorrow but I am going to be very busy the next few weeks and may just forget if someone beats me to it.

Electro, I am not arguing that one of these groups is on the side of the angels. There has always been douchebaggery. We're well beyond that. And no, the minority party historically does what it can to influence a bill, or block it if it is beyond the pale. We're well past that. Having the opposition party regularly vote on the floor against bills and nominees that they back in committee is new. Getting zero opposition support on major initiatives is new (some democrats, for instance, supported Bush tax cuts, prescription drug reform, the wars, no child left behind, etc.) That has vanished.


They supported those things because they were popular within their constituencies, and in many cases, supported their own cause. Once the war became unpopular, it became the driving wedge in their campaigns. Once the economy went down hill, they all backed away from tax cuts. Prescription drug reform? NCLB? Those were right out of the Democratic play book. Democrats were more successful getting a lot of what they wanted under Bush than they could have if Al Gore had been elected.

It's all about what gets you elected. And it has been for about ten election cycles now...

_________________
Its a Wonderful Life


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Sequestration
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 4:55 am 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:54 am
Posts: 7189
Location: CA
I'm pretty happy when congress does nothing, because when they do something it tends to look like the NDAA. Habeus corpus? Whats that?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Sequestration
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 1:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:47 pm
Posts: 9282
Location: Atlanta
Gender: Male
stip wrote:
cutuphalfdead wrote:
Electromatic wrote:
stip wrote:
Electromatic wrote:
stip wrote:
I'm not talking about what may or may not be bad policy, LW. I mean a fundamental refusal to engage in the basic processes that make democratic politics possible.



kind of par for the course in the last 12 years depending on who is the president and who holds congress.



No, it's not, and assuming false equivalency is dangerous (everyone does it). That's not to say that there isn't sniping and disagreement and heated politics, etc. But what we've seen the last 4 years is unprecedented, or at least unprecedented for 100+ years.



Oh really? So the Nancy Pelosi led group wasn't just as obstructionist when Bush was in office as this group? I seem to remember plenty of douchebaggery back between 2004 and 2008.

Yes the Tea Partiers are infuriating, but this is how we have operated for 12 years now. When there is parity there is gridlock. It wasn't always that way but it has been that way for a while now.

The party in power brings bills to the floor, the minority party if strong enough does everything they can to block them.

There are actual numbers to back up who was more obstructionist. Someone should look them up and post them. They're a lot more credible than just "I seem to remember".


There are numbers, but I have them at my office. I'll try to dig them up tomorrow but I am going to be very busy the next few weeks and may just forget if someone beats me to it.

Electro, I am not arguing that one of these groups is on the side of the angels. There has always been douchebaggery. We're well beyond that. And no, the minority party historically does what it can to influence a bill, or block it if it is beyond the pale. We're well past that. Having the opposition party regularly vote on the floor against bills and nominees that they back in committee is new. Getting zero opposition support on major initiatives is new (some democrats, for instance, supported Bush tax cuts, prescription drug reform, the wars, no child left behind, etc.) That has vanished.


I agree with you there, I think that may have to do with the party leaders not being able to get their people to vote the way they want them to. It's quite possible that compromises have been reached in committee and then when it comes to voting, no one knows exactly what's going to happen on the record.

_________________
Attention Phenylketonurics: Contains Phenylalanine


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Sequestration
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 1:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Global Moderator
 Profile

Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:02 am
Posts: 44183
Location: New York
Gender: Male
Electromatic wrote:
stip wrote:
cutuphalfdead wrote:
Electromatic wrote:
stip wrote:
Electromatic wrote:
stip wrote:
I'm not talking about what may or may not be bad policy, LW. I mean a fundamental refusal to engage in the basic processes that make democratic politics possible.



kind of par for the course in the last 12 years depending on who is the president and who holds congress.



No, it's not, and assuming false equivalency is dangerous (everyone does it). That's not to say that there isn't sniping and disagreement and heated politics, etc. But what we've seen the last 4 years is unprecedented, or at least unprecedented for 100+ years.



Oh really? So the Nancy Pelosi led group wasn't just as obstructionist when Bush was in office as this group? I seem to remember plenty of douchebaggery back between 2004 and 2008.

Yes the Tea Partiers are infuriating, but this is how we have operated for 12 years now. When there is parity there is gridlock. It wasn't always that way but it has been that way for a while now.

The party in power brings bills to the floor, the minority party if strong enough does everything they can to block them.

There are actual numbers to back up who was more obstructionist. Someone should look them up and post them. They're a lot more credible than just "I seem to remember".


There are numbers, but I have them at my office. I'll try to dig them up tomorrow but I am going to be very busy the next few weeks and may just forget if someone beats me to it.

Electro, I am not arguing that one of these groups is on the side of the angels. There has always been douchebaggery. We're well beyond that. And no, the minority party historically does what it can to influence a bill, or block it if it is beyond the pale. We're well past that. Having the opposition party regularly vote on the floor against bills and nominees that they back in committee is new. Getting zero opposition support on major initiatives is new (some democrats, for instance, supported Bush tax cuts, prescription drug reform, the wars, no child left behind, etc.) That has vanished.


I agree with you there, I think that may have to do with the party leaders not being able to get their people to vote the way they want them to. It's quite possible that compromises have been reached in committee and then when it comes to voting, no one knows exactly what's going to happen on the record.


For sure part of the problem post 2010 was the tea party insurgency, but even prior to that (think health care debates, stimulus debates, etc) there was essentially zero support. It was a self conscious plan to deny democrats any victories whatsoever. It is a political strategy that (at least in 2010--a census/redistricting year) paid big dividends, so insofar as the party is primarily concerned about electoral victories it was worth it.

It also wouldn't be a disaster if we had a parliamentary system of government, but the way the Senate is structured (plus the fact that we have a two house legislature) makes this disastrous in terms of enabling the government to accomplish anything. We're stuck with QE, for instance, because of this.

When Australia calls one of your two governing parties the single biggest threat to international economic recovery you know you are witnessing something unusual.

Agan if you want to know more about this I highly recommend 'It's Even Worse Than It Looks'

_________________
"Better the occasional faults of a Government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a Government frozen in the ice of its own indifference."--FDR

The perfect gift for certain occasions


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Sequestration
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 3:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 4:49 pm
Posts: 9495
Location: Richie-Richville, Maryland
Not exactly sequestration, but here's the tax increases coming in the fiscal cliff:

Quote:
First Wave of Tax Tsunami: Expiration of 2001 and 2003 Tax Relief

In 2001 and 2003, the GOP Congress enacted several tax cuts for small business owners, families, and investors (later re-upped by President Obama and Democrat Congress in 2010). The following tax hikes will occur on January 1, 2013:

Personal income tax rates will rise on January 1, 2013. The top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (this is also the rate at which the majority of small business profits are taxed). The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15 percent. All the rates in between will also rise. Itemized deductions and personal exemptions will again phase out, which has the same mathematical effect as higher marginal tax rates. The full list of marginal rate hikes is below:

-The 10% bracket rises to a new and expanded 15%
-The 25% bracket rises to 28%
-The 28% bracket rises to 31%
-The 33% bracket rises to 36%
-The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%

That is correct. There is a whopping tax increase scheduled for 2013 on the working poor. Those making $36,200 will see their Federal taxes increase from 10 percent to 15. That’s a whooping 50 percent tax increase on the working poor. The Democratic Senate left in place a 2% Social Security tax increase upon them as well.

Higher taxes on marriage and family coming on January 1, 2013. The “marriage penalty” (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of taxable income. The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child. The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level.

Middle Class Death Tax returns on January 1, 2013. The death tax is currently 35% with an exemption of $5 million ($10 million for married couples). For those dying on or after January 1 2013, there is a 55 percent top death tax rate on estates over $1 million. A person leaving behind two homes and a retirement account could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones.

Higher tax rates on savers and investors on January 1, 2013. The capital gains tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 23.8 percent in 2013. The top dividends tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 43.4 percent in 2013. This is because of scheduled rate hikes plus Obamacare’s investment surtax.

Second Wave of Tax Tsunami: Obamacare Tax Hikes


There are twenty new or higher taxes in Obamacare. Some have already gone into effect (the tanning tax, the medicine cabinet tax, the HSA withdrawal tax, W-2 health insurance reporting, and the “economic substance doctrine”). Several more will go into effect on January 1, 2013. They include:

The Obamacare Medical Device Tax begins to be assessed on January 1, 2013. Medical device manufacturers employ 409,000 people in 12,000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax on gross sales – even if the company does not earn a profit in a given year. Exempts items retailing for <$100.

The Obamacare Medicare Payroll Tax Hike takes effect on January 1, 2013. The Medicare payroll tax is currently 2.9 percent on all wages and self-employment profits. Starting in 2013, wages and profits exceeding $200,000 ($250,000 in the case of married couples) will face a 3.8 percent rate.

The Obamacare “Special Needs Kids Tax” comes online on January 1, 2013. Imposes a cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited). Indexed to inflation after 2013. There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. This Obamacare cap harms these families.

The Obamacare “Haircut” for Medical Itemized Deductions goes into force on January 1, 2013. Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only.

Third Wave of Tax Tsunami: The Alternative Minimum Tax and Employer Tax Hikes

When Americans prepare to file their tax returns in January of 2013, they’ll be in for a nasty surprise—the AMT won’t be held harmless, and many tax relief provisions will have expired. These tax increases will be in force for BOTH 2012 and 2013. The major items include:

The AMT will ensnare over 31 million families, up from 4 million last year. According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, Congress’ failure to index the AMT will lead to an explosion of AMT taxpaying families—rising from 4 million last year to 31 million. These families will have to calculate their tax burdens twice, and pay taxes at the higher level. The AMT was created in 1969 to ensnare a handful of taxpayers.

Full business expensing will disappear. In 2011, businesses can expense half of their purchases of equipment. Starting on 2013 tax returns, all of it will have to be “depreciated” (slowly deducted over many years).

Taxes will be raised on all types of businesses. There are literally scores of tax hikes on business that will take place. The biggest is the loss of the “research and experimentation tax credit,” but there are many, many others. Combining high marginal tax rates with the loss of this tax relief will cost jobs.

Tax Benefits for Education and Teaching Reduced. The deduction for tuition and fees will not be available. Tax credits for education will be limited. Teachers will no longer be able to deduct classroom expenses. Coverdell Education Savings Accounts will be cut. Employer-provided educational assistance is curtailed. The student loan interest deduction will be disallowed for hundreds of thousands of families.

Charitable Contributions from IRAs no longer allowed. Under current law, a retired person with an IRA can contribute up to $100,000 per year directly to a charity from their IRA. This contribution also counts toward an annual “required minimum distribution.” This ability will no longer be there.



:shake:

_________________
you get a lifetime, that's it.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Sequestration
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 12:16 am 
Offline
User avatar
Supersonic
 Profile

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:43 am
Posts: 10694
stip wrote:
Electromatic wrote:
stip wrote:
cutuphalfdead wrote:
Electromatic wrote:
stip wrote:
Electromatic wrote:
stip wrote:
I'm not talking about what may or may not be bad policy, LW. I mean a fundamental refusal to engage in the basic processes that make democratic politics possible.



kind of par for the course in the last 12 years depending on who is the president and who holds congress.



No, it's not, and assuming false equivalency is dangerous (everyone does it). That's not to say that there isn't sniping and disagreement and heated politics, etc. But what we've seen the last 4 years is unprecedented, or at least unprecedented for 100+ years.



Oh really? So the Nancy Pelosi led group wasn't just as obstructionist when Bush was in office as this group? I seem to remember plenty of douchebaggery back between 2004 and 2008.

Yes the Tea Partiers are infuriating, but this is how we have operated for 12 years now. When there is parity there is gridlock. It wasn't always that way but it has been that way for a while now.

The party in power brings bills to the floor, the minority party if strong enough does everything they can to block them.

There are actual numbers to back up who was more obstructionist. Someone should look them up and post them. They're a lot more credible than just "I seem to remember".


There are numbers, but I have them at my office. I'll try to dig them up tomorrow but I am going to be very busy the next few weeks and may just forget if someone beats me to it.

Electro, I am not arguing that one of these groups is on the side of the angels. There has always been douchebaggery. We're well beyond that. And no, the minority party historically does what it can to influence a bill, or block it if it is beyond the pale. We're well past that. Having the opposition party regularly vote on the floor against bills and nominees that they back in committee is new. Getting zero opposition support on major initiatives is new (some democrats, for instance, supported Bush tax cuts, prescription drug reform, the wars, no child left behind, etc.) That has vanished.


I agree with you there, I think that may have to do with the party leaders not being able to get their people to vote the way they want them to. It's quite possible that compromises have been reached in committee and then when it comes to voting, no one knows exactly what's going to happen on the record.


For sure part of the problem post 2010 was the tea party insurgency, but even prior to that (think health care debates, stimulus debates, etc) there was essentially zero support. It was a self conscious plan to deny democrats any victories whatsoever. It is a political strategy that (at least in 2010--a census/redistricting year) paid big dividends, so insofar as the party is primarily concerned about electoral victories it was worth it.

It also wouldn't be a disaster if we had a parliamentary system of government, but the way the Senate is structured (plus the fact that we have a two house legislature) makes this disastrous in terms of enabling the government to accomplish anything. We're stuck with QE, for instance, because of this.

When Australia calls one of your two governing parties the single biggest threat to international economic recovery you know you are witnessing something unusual.

Agan if you want to know more about this I highly recommend 'It's Even Worse Than It Looks'


Is this supposed to be a serious post? First, who cares about what Australian politicians think? It's was European social democracy that brought down the international economy in the first place. Why no finger pointing at them, and why is it our responsibility to float their economy? The idea that it's something new that international politicians criticize us is nothing new at all.

It astounds me how, on one hand, you tout voting as a means of counteracting politics that you don't like influencing your life, but then decry the Tea Party out of hand simply because you disagree with their politics. Zero support? THEY WERE ELECTED TO PROVIDE ZERO SUPPORT! They were elected through the democratic process to act as a counterweight to prevent those things from happening at the behest of their constituents! Accept it.

It's amazing how you can be so flippant about the protestations of Obama's agenda. Obama sold healthcare by telling us all that it would reduce our costs by $2500, now reports show our premiums are going to increase by $3000. The costs have tripled. The people to be fined has ballooned. The taxes are egregious, and we had an unconstitutional mandate come out of it violating 1st amendment rights of religious institutions. It was shoved through with the Slaughter Solution, bought and paid for by bribing Ben Nelson, the Louisiana Purchase, and WASN'T EVEN READ WHEN IT WAS VOTED ON! As a rider, the student loan industry was summarily monopolized by the federal government as well. It has swallowed up veterans and military personnel into the same bucket of money as people on medicaid. It's put billions of resources from medicare into the medicaid pot. AND YOU'RE GOING TO COMPLAIN BECAUSE REPUBLICANS STOOD AGAINST THIS TRAVESTY? FFS.

Stimulus - We've lost 40 billion on the GM bailouts. We've lost billions more on the green loan programs. With the stimulus we were supposed to only .3 trillion dollar deficits at this point - we're STILL well over a trillion. We were supposed to have below 6% unemployment. We weren't supposed to be bleeding hundreds of thousands of people out of the job force. And just the last couple weeks we've learned that we've added far more debt than we have gotten economic benefit from this stimulus.

The idea that standing up to these things and not supporting them is without purpose is blithe pablum. I don't support the Tea Party, but they were right on both of these policies, and they are hardly the source of the scourge on international economics.

_________________
Its a Wonderful Life


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Sequestration
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 12:52 am 
Offline
User avatar
Global Moderator
 Profile

Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:02 am
Posts: 44183
Location: New York
Gender: Male
LittleWing wrote:
stip wrote:
Electromatic wrote:
stip wrote:
cutuphalfdead wrote:
Electromatic wrote:
stip wrote:
Electromatic wrote:
stip wrote:
I'm not talking about what may or may not be bad policy, LW. I mean a fundamental refusal to engage in the basic processes that make democratic politics possible.



kind of par for the course in the last 12 years depending on who is the president and who holds congress.



No, it's not, and assuming false equivalency is dangerous (everyone does it). That's not to say that there isn't sniping and disagreement and heated politics, etc. But what we've seen the last 4 years is unprecedented, or at least unprecedented for 100+ years.



Oh really? So the Nancy Pelosi led group wasn't just as obstructionist when Bush was in office as this group? I seem to remember plenty of douchebaggery back between 2004 and 2008.

Yes the Tea Partiers are infuriating, but this is how we have operated for 12 years now. When there is parity there is gridlock. It wasn't always that way but it has been that way for a while now.

The party in power brings bills to the floor, the minority party if strong enough does everything they can to block them.

There are actual numbers to back up who was more obstructionist. Someone should look them up and post them. They're a lot more credible than just "I seem to remember".


There are numbers, but I have them at my office. I'll try to dig them up tomorrow but I am going to be very busy the next few weeks and may just forget if someone beats me to it.

Electro, I am not arguing that one of these groups is on the side of the angels. There has always been douchebaggery. We're well beyond that. And no, the minority party historically does what it can to influence a bill, or block it if it is beyond the pale. We're well past that. Having the opposition party regularly vote on the floor against bills and nominees that they back in committee is new. Getting zero opposition support on major initiatives is new (some democrats, for instance, supported Bush tax cuts, prescription drug reform, the wars, no child left behind, etc.) That has vanished.


I agree with you there, I think that may have to do with the party leaders not being able to get their people to vote the way they want them to. It's quite possible that compromises have been reached in committee and then when it comes to voting, no one knows exactly what's going to happen on the record.


For sure part of the problem post 2010 was the tea party insurgency, but even prior to that (think health care debates, stimulus debates, etc) there was essentially zero support. It was a self conscious plan to deny democrats any victories whatsoever. It is a political strategy that (at least in 2010--a census/redistricting year) paid big dividends, so insofar as the party is primarily concerned about electoral victories it was worth it.

It also wouldn't be a disaster if we had a parliamentary system of government, but the way the Senate is structured (plus the fact that we have a two house legislature) makes this disastrous in terms of enabling the government to accomplish anything. We're stuck with QE, for instance, because of this.

When Australia calls one of your two governing parties the single biggest threat to international economic recovery you know you are witnessing something unusual.

Agan if you want to know more about this I highly recommend 'It's Even Worse Than It Looks'


Is this supposed to be a serious post? First, who cares about what Australian politicians think? It's was European social democracy that brought down the international economy in the first place. Why no finger pointing at them, and why is it our responsibility to float their economy? The idea that it's something new that international politicians criticize us is nothing new at all.

It astounds me how, on one hand, you tout voting as a means of counteracting politics that you don't like influencing your life, but then decry the Tea Party out of hand simply because you disagree with their politics. Zero support? THEY WERE ELECTED TO PROVIDE ZERO SUPPORT! They were elected through the democratic process to act as a counterweight to prevent those things from happening at the behest of their constituents! Accept it.

It's amazing how you can be so flippant about the protestations of Obama's agenda. Obama sold healthcare by telling us all that it would reduce our costs by $2500, now reports show our premiums are going to increase by $3000. The costs have tripled. The people to be fined has ballooned. The taxes are egregious, and we had an unconstitutional mandate come out of it violating 1st amendment rights of religious institutions. It was shoved through with the Slaughter Solution, bought and paid for by bribing Ben Nelson, the Louisiana Purchase, and WASN'T EVEN READ WHEN IT WAS VOTED ON! As a rider, the student loan industry was summarily monopolized by the federal government as well. It has swallowed up veterans and military personnel into the same bucket of money as people on medicaid. It's put billions of resources from medicare into the medicaid pot. AND YOU'RE GOING TO COMPLAIN BECAUSE REPUBLICANS STOOD AGAINST THIS TRAVESTY? FFS.

Stimulus - We've lost 40 billion on the GM bailouts. We've lost billions more on the green loan programs. With the stimulus we were supposed to only .3 trillion dollar deficits at this point - we're STILL well over a trillion. We were supposed to have below 6% unemployment. We weren't supposed to be bleeding hundreds of thousands of people out of the job force. And just the last couple weeks we've learned that we've added far more debt than we have gotten economic benefit from this stimulus.

The idea that standing up to these things and not supporting them is without purpose is blithe pablum. I don't support the Tea Party, but they were right on both of these policies, and they are hardly the source of the scourge on international economics.


Real quick, since this was directed at me, and I'm not going to get into the policy debates and I'll ignore most of the littlewingisms in here (I'm also not likely to be on much to get into this over the next few weeks since if I'm home and have time I'm probably playing the World of Warcraft expansion).

I think the tea party faction of the republican party is incredibly dangerous, in the same way that the nazis and communists were dangerous in weimer. They undermine the political process itself, which is not the same thing as aggressively opposing legislation you don't like. That goes far beyond a desire to oppose legislation you don't like and drifts into a tendency to destroy the system itself. That's dangerous and destructive.

And the Tea Party gets elected in 2010. Most of what you're bitching about happened before people were elected to do nothing. Instead what happened was an act of democratic sabotage, where republicans assumed (correctly) that they could wreck the place and that voters would just blame the party in power for it, and they could reap the benefits. That increasingly the more intelligent and thoughtful elements of the conservative intellectual establishment are having second thoughts about their ability to control the beast they awoke should tell you something.

Having said that, I never called the election of the tea party illegitimate (controlling for all the problems with our democracy, which I tend to gloss over in these posts arguing with you since I am reduced to the absurd position of having to legitimate the idea of democracy itself)--just fucking stupid. But there's no reason that we can legitimately do really fucking stupid things. A friend of mine who protested the iraq war with me believed that because he was against it, against bush, etc. that it wasn't his war. My position was that even though I was against it, my country ratified it, and until I hit that wall where I think the only thing left is revolution, I own the terrible decisions my fellow citizens make because they made it through our democratic process.

_________________
"Better the occasional faults of a Government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a Government frozen in the ice of its own indifference."--FDR

The perfect gift for certain occasions


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Sequestration
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 1:10 am 
Offline
User avatar
Supersonic
 Profile

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:43 am
Posts: 10694
You know, one of the biggest flaws in your entire pablum is the idea that "doing something" is better than doing nothing prima facie.

The conservative intellectual establishment? You mean, the same group that has become more and more progressive through the decades that no longer has any interest in what Tea Party members want? There is a limited amount of divergence between the Barack Obama's of the world and the George Will's of the world. Whether it's the conservative intellectual establishment, or the Robert Reich's of the world, they ALL seek to manage and operate this nation as they see fit. The 8 years of Bush saw no reductions in government. 8 years of Bush was the result of the conservative intellectual establishment, and those against more intrusive government stood up to it.

It's convenient that when you have two groups of people - one that wants smaller federal government, and one that wants a behemoth federal government - that when you compromise that the people who want more government get it, and that the only reasonable compromise results in a situation where there is more government.

And then the failures of that amount of government are used as justification to the next compromise for more or less government, that gets us more government.

Yeah, the Tea Party is the problem.

Nothing is keeping your left wing states from stimulating their economies.

Image

_________________
Its a Wonderful Life


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Sequestration
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 2:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:47 pm
Posts: 9282
Location: Atlanta
Gender: Male
It's even worse than it looks, is Mann and Ornstein right?

_________________
Attention Phenylketonurics: Contains Phenylalanine


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Sequestration
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 11:06 am 
Offline
User avatar
Global Moderator
 Profile

Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:02 am
Posts: 44183
Location: New York
Gender: Male
it is.

_________________
"Better the occasional faults of a Government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a Government frozen in the ice of its own indifference."--FDR

The perfect gift for certain occasions


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Sequestration
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 8:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 4:49 pm
Posts: 9495
Location: Richie-Richville, Maryland
So apparently the Obama admin was able to pressure the death merchants into not send out the legally required WARN notices related to sequestration by offering to pay all their legal bills that will result from the lawsuits. That's a win for democracy.

_________________
you get a lifetime, that's it.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Sequestration
PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 4:49 pm
Posts: 9495
Location: Richie-Richville, Maryland
President Obama during last night's debate wrote:
"First of all, the sequester is not something I proposed, it's something that Congress proposed. It will not happen."


Blatant lie designed to keep northern Virginia in his camp or just normal untruth?

_________________
you get a lifetime, that's it.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Sequestration
PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 9:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:54 am
Posts: 7189
Location: CA
I asked a Marine recruiter that came through work if he had heard of sequestration and if that would affect re-enlistment and the like. He had no idea. Apparently servicemen aren't appraised of the situation either. Or does it somehow not effect them?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Sequestration
PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 10:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:47 pm
Posts: 9282
Location: Atlanta
Gender: Male
soldiers still get paid, i think officers still get paid, contractors are who really gets effected.

_________________
Attention Phenylketonurics: Contains Phenylalanine


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Sequestration
PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 10:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:54 am
Posts: 7189
Location: CA
Electromatic wrote:
soldiers still get paid, i think officers still get paid, contractors are who really gets effected.


I assume that, I just wonder if they are going to push for a big manpower decrease through rejecting re-enlistment.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Sequestration
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:24 am 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 4:49 pm
Posts: 9495
Location: Richie-Richville, Maryland
Electromatic wrote:
soldiers still get paid, i think officers still get paid, contractors are who really gets effected.


For the DoD side, it's mostly the death merchants and the tens of thousands of jobs that support them (all of the businesses in Crystal City and Tyson's Corner in northern Virginia), but it's also the repairs and replacements for all the equipment we wasted... err... consumed... in our two wars.


But, that's only 45% of the sequestration cuts. Here's some details on the effects on HHS from page 1:

• Cutting 100,000 children from its Head Start early education program.
• Cutting 12,150 patients from its AIDS Drug Assistance Program.
• Cutting 169,000 people from substance abuse treatment programs.
• Eliminate 2,300 new and competing research grants.

_________________
you get a lifetime, that's it.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Sequestration
PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 5:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:47 pm
Posts: 9282
Location: Atlanta
Gender: Male
They pretty much just have to suck it up and get a deal done by the end of this month period. The angry backlash no matter how this election goes multiplied the effects of sequestration would be very bad.

Some of the smartest people in America live in the DC area, I've often wondered how they feel about the disingenous hogwash that is American politics. It's one thing to kick a can down the road, it's another thing to do this. I do sort of wonder if Congress has a grasp over the gravity of this situation. It doesn't matter who is to blame here if Sequistration happens, they are all toast.

_________________
Attention Phenylketonurics: Contains Phenylalanine


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Sequestration
PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 9:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Supersonic
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:07 pm
Posts: 12393
Asked about it recently, Congress had this to say:

Image


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 88 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Board index » Word on the Street... » News & Debate


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
It is currently Sat Aug 19, 2017 5:34 am