Liberal free for all coming to an end

[parr]

So last friday, Boner announced that he's done dealing with Obama because Obama 'moved the goal posts'. i.e. he previously agreed to something and then reneged. So he decided he'll just deal with the Senate.

And Harry Reid is actually negotiating with him. So the pres is cut out. Proposals from both the house and senate will not raise taxes. Interesting...

It would interesting to see what deal transpires between O'Bama, House
and Senate.

[randolph]

The whole damn bunch needs to be locked up in the Whitehouse with no food or water until they agree on a solution that gets the Federal governments house in order.
We have elected a bunch of F--king assholes! :censored:

[TracyCoxx]

It would interesting to see what deal transpires between O'Bama, House
and Senate.

I wonder if that's even possible. Anything Boner proposes gets a warning of a veto before bipartisan votes in the House. Obama shows no inclination to work with the House and compromise.

Obama even promises to veto what Harry Reid proposes. Despite the strong differences in opinions and the unlikelyhood that a real solution is going to be found one way or another anytime soon, Obama doesn't even want a small debt ceiling increase that will get us pass the debt payment. Why? Because then we will be right back here with the effects of his over spending plain for all to see in the middle of his campaign. It seems to me that both the House and Senate are honestly wanting to do what's right for the country, while Obama is worried about how he's going to get re-elected.

The only way we're going to get past this is for the House & Senate to pass something with a 2/3 vote to override BO.

And did you see his speech last night? Even Chris Matthews who said he felt a chill up his leg when BO got elected and admitted he felt it was his responsibility to make Obama look good said "The President should not have gone on national television to give a political address".

After raising our debt by trillions which predictably did nothing for the economy, he had the nerve to lay the blame on others. BO ignored the efforts between the house and his only ally - the Senate to come up with a compromise to tout his own agenda. But the thing is is that Obama still has not offered his own plan! He has no specifics, just speeches. That's because he doesn't want the blame for cutting entitlements, raising taxes or defaulting on the debt. He wants others to do the hard work and make the difficult decisions so that he can point at them and say "See what they did?!" when he's campaigning for round two of his assault on America.

[TracyCoxx]

A poll conducted for CNN by ORC International showed support for a Balanced Budget Amendment at 74% among U.S. adults. Support for a proposal like the Republican “Cut, Cap, and Balance” plan was 66%.

Gallup Poll: Obama's Weekly Job Approval Ties Term Low of 43%

43% happens to also be the percentage of people who strongly disapprove of BO's performance according to Rasmussen.

And you know the expression: It's the Economy stupid!
Gallup says 73% of Americans say the economy is getting worse.

[GRH]

Are you smoking crack Tracy? Obama has shown a HIGH propensity for compromise which included $3 trillion in spending cuts-- including cuts to Social Security and Medicare (sacred cows for Democrats). It's the damn Republicans that refuse to budge on revenues, or as I like to call it, tax spending.

And part of the reason that the Boehner proposal for a temporary extension (that would last six months) is completely unacceptable is because it creates economic uncertainty for the entire economy. Further, this kick the can approach is almost certain to cause the US having their credit rating lowered. Ratings agencies have said there is a 50% chance of a credit downgrade in the next few months unless a credible plan to address the deficit is forwarded. A six month debt ceiling extension is HARDLY credible and would lead to a lower credit rating. This in turn would lead to a higher cost to service the debt as well as increased borrowing costs for Americans.

[GRH]

And regarding polls, I've seen earlier polls that indicated that a majority of Americans did not want the debt ceiling raised. In the same polls, a majority of Americans admitted to not having a basic understanding of interest rates too, or even what the debt ceiling was. Moral of the story...The voting public is stupid. You won't find many credible economists who would suggest that the most powerful nation on earth shouldn't be able to issue debt. Corporations issue debt to leverage their earnings potential. Families take on debt to invest in their future (mortgages, cars, etc.) Debt is not an evil thing. And the absurdity of "capping" spending at a percentage of GDP completely ignores demographic trends. We have a boom of retirees flooding the system; this marks a major demographic shift from our past history and in the coming decades will necessitate a higher amount of spending as a percentage of GDP to pay the benefits to these retirees. This demographic shift has spending implications. Those that support capping spending ignore the demographics-- what they are essentially saying is that we are going to renege on the promises we've made to seniors.

[parr]

I wonder if that's even possible. Anything Boner proposes gets a warning of a veto before bipartisan votes in the House. Obama shows no inclination to work with the House and compromise.

Obama even promises to veto what Harry Reid proposes. Despite the strong differences in opinions and the unlikelyhood that a real solution is going to be found one way or another anytime soon, Obama doesn't even want a small debt ceiling increase that will get us pass the debt payment. Why? Because then we will be right back here with the effects of his over spending plain for all to see in the middle of his campaign. It seems to me that both the House and Senate are honestly wanting to do what's right for the country, while Obama is worried about how he's going to get re-elected.

The only way we're going to get past this is for the House & Senate to pass something with a 2/3 vote to override BO.

And did you see his speech last night? Even Chris Matthews who said he felt a chill up his leg when BO got elected and admitted he felt it was his responsibility to make Obama look good said "The President should not have gone on national television to give a political address".

After raising our debt by trillions which predictably did nothing for the economy, he had the nerve to lay the blame on others. BO ignored the efforts between the house and his only ally - the Senate to come up with a compromise to tout his own agenda. But the thing is is that Obama still has not offered his own plan! He has no specifics, just speeches. That's because he doesn't want the blame for cutting entitlements, raising taxes or defaulting on the debt. He wants others to do the hard work and make the difficult decisions so that he can point at them and say "See what they did?!" when he's campaigning for round two of his assault on America.

Tracy, all this arrogance he has shown, is going to cost him in 2012 elections.

[TracyCoxx]

Are you smoking crack Tracy?
No, but I did have some blue bell ice cream last night.

Obama has shown a HIGH propensity for compromise which included $3 trillion in spending cuts-- including cuts to Social Security and Medicare (sacred cows for Democrats). It's the damn Republicans that refuse to budge on revenues, or as I like to call it, tax spending.
The entire time BO has been president I have been griping about his overspending and saying that it was going to put us deep in debt, risk our credit rating and that the programs he wanted weren't going to help anything. 3 years later that is exactly where we are. It's time to recognize that the trillions BO added to the debt were for nothing other than to pay off his supporters. The liberal free for all is at an end.

He has added over $4 trillion in debt in his term. His $3 trillion in cuts that he wants is over 10 years. That's $300 billion/year. That's pocket change. So basically he wants us to live with this debt he added, oh and by the way let's get more tax too for his mismanagement of our economy. That's really going to help in a big-ass recession.

And part of the reason that the Boehner proposal for a temporary extension (that would last six months) is completely unacceptable is because it creates economic uncertainty for the entire economy.
The debt situation BO has put us in creates uncertainty for the economy. As far back as 1940 Congress had to pass 37 short-term debt extensions. They have all provided funding for less than six months. He is focused on his campaign, pure and simple. Like what Rahm Emanuel says "You never want a serious crisis go to waste".

Debt is not an evil thing.That's a blanket statement. Certainly you must realize that at some point the interest payments become too big of a burden on our economy.

And the absurdity of "capping" spending at a percentage of GDP completely ignores demographic trends. We have a boom of retirees flooding the system; this marks a major demographic shift from our past history and in the coming decades will necessitate a higher amount of spending as a percentage of GDP to pay the benefits to these retirees. This demographic shift has spending implications. Those that support capping spending ignore the demographics-- what they are essentially saying is that we are going to renege on the promises we've made to seniors.

Wouldn't it be nice if the $157 billion we're paying for interest on our debt could go to the boom of retirees flooding the system instead? We have to live within our means. If there's a boom of retirees flooding the system, then we'll have to cut something else. You want to add more money to the budget? Create more tax payers.

[smc]

I am no supporter of Barack Obama. I am, though, a supporter of truth.

No matter how many times Tracy Coxx writes it, it is clear to everyone who is honest about it that what he calls the "debt situation BO has put us in" is really a debt situation that George W. Bush and his enablers in Congress put us in. Every reputable economist in the world agrees that government spending (i.e., the stimulus) is a key way to get out of a recession. That Obama's didn't go far enough is the main point to make about it. Every reputable economist in the world also agrees that the Bush tax cuts, two unfunded wars fought on credit, and a boondoggle prescription drug benefit for seniors that enriched the pharmaceutical companies is the primary reason the United States went from surplus to deficit.

So, readers, take the continuing drumbeat by Tracy Coxx with a gigantic block of salt.

[GRH]

And notice how the part about the Boehner proposal leading to a credit downgrade-- that didn't warrant a response.

[GRH]

S&P even spelled out what it thought would be necessary to maintain the AAA. ?If Congress and the Administration reach an agreement of about $4 trillion, and if we conclude that such an agreement would be enacted and maintained throughout the decade, we could, other things unchanged, affirm the ?AAA? long-term rating on the U.S.?

One of the major reasons to not kick the can down the road with a 6 month extension.

[randolph]

A poll conducted for CNN by ORC International showed support for a Balanced Budget Amendment at 74% among U.S. adults. Support for a proposal like the Republican ?Cut, Cap, and Balance? plan was 66%.

Gallup Poll: Obama's Weekly Job Approval Ties Term Low of 43%

43% happens to also be the percentage of people who strongly disapprove of BO's performance according to Rasmussen.

And you know the expression: It's the Economy stupid!
Gallup says 73% of Americans say the economy is getting worse.

So they have pulled the "balanced budget amendment" out of the closet. Dear old Ronny yammered about this years ago. When he got elected, he appointed a committee of people OPPOSED to it to "study" it. It died a quiet death.

[smc]

And notice how the part about the Boehner proposal leading to a credit downgrade-- that didn't warrant a response.

As Thomas Gray wrote in Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College:

... where ignorance is bliss,
'Tis folly to be wise.

Of course, deliberately ignoring something of import is downright irresponsible, not to mention dangerous.

[randolph]

Kick the can???

[TracyCoxx]

S&P even spelled out what it thought would be necessary to maintain the AAA. ?If Congress and the Administration reach an agreement of about $4 trillion, and if we conclude that such an agreement would be enacted and maintained throughout the decade, we could, other things unchanged, affirm the ?AAA? long-term rating on the U.S.?
One of the major reasons to not kick the can down the road with a 6 month extension.
Ok, well this isn't what I was talking about before. I was talking about just raising the debt ceiling enough to pay the interest payments for the next 6 months. What S&P is saying here is that they want more than that. They want to see us actually bring down the debt at least $4 trillion in 10 years. I would like to see that as well. I've always been a big proponent of seriously cutting spending and bringing down the debt. Basically they want the debt rolled back to where it was before Obama took office LOL. That's certainly something they can do, I only hope congress and BO are listening.

[randolph]

Tracy Basically they want the debt rolled back to where it was before Obama took office LOL. That's certainly something they can do, I only hope congress and BO are listening.

Do you actually believe the money spent, by Congress, to save the countries financial institutions during the meltdown was unnecessary?

[TracyCoxx]

Tracy

Do you actually believe the money spent, by Congress, to save the countries financial institutions during the meltdown was unnecessary?I think at most it only bought us time, and in the meanwhile, it left us with a larger debt. The ramifications of that are not over. I think as Ron Paul says, we were left worse off in the long run than if we bit the bullet and took the hit.

[TracyCoxx]

Jay Carney (White House press secretary) just said if we don't reach a deal by August 2nd, we will lose our borrowing authority.

Why is that? We do have enough money to pay the interest on the debt. If we don't do it, it's because the president and treasurer chose not to. And because Cut Cap and Balance got shot down in the senate, and congress won't come up with anything else sufficient, we're likely to get our credit rating downgraded.

But we will still be able to borrow, just at a higher rate. So why is the Carny lying?

[franalexes]

He ( Carney) is not lying. It's part of the Obamesiah stratagy. It's to create a hate war between groups.

[smc]

Jay Carney (White House press secretary) just said if we don't reach a deal by August 2nd, we will lose our borrowing authority.

Why is that? We do have enough money to pay the interest on the debt. If we don't do it, it's because the president and treasurer chose not to. And because Cut Cap and Balance got shot down in the senate, and congress won't come up with anything else sufficient, we're likely to get our credit rating downgraded.

But we will still be able to borrow, just at a higher rate. So why is the Carny lying?

More disingenuous text from Tracy Coxx. The legislation that creates each subsequent debt limit gives the Treasury Department "borrowing authority" up to that limit. The issue of having a downgraded credit rating is not as Tracy Coxx would have you believe -- simply a matter of paying more to borrow. Any reading of debt ceiling legislation over history will make this clear.

[randolph]

Moodys gives the GOP junk status. LOL

Exactly what they deserve. :censored:

[tslust]

The voting public is stupid
The 2008 election is proof of that.
Families take on debt to invest in their future (mortgages, cars, etc.) Debt is not an evil thing.http://youtu.be/_mfMG66LtVU

Most of these families try to live within their means. That includes paying their bills, paying off their loans and mortgages, trying to stay within a budget. The problem with our national debt is that our government shows no intention of paying off its loans and they will not live within their means (unless forced to by -ohh IDK, maybee a- Constitutional Ammendment, and maybee not even then).

[TracyCoxx]

You won't find many credible economists who would suggest that the most powerful nation on earth shouldn't be able to issue debt. Corporations issue debt to leverage their earnings potential. Families take on debt to invest in their future (mortgages, cars, etc.) Debt is not an evil thing.

I couldn't respond to you about debt any better than this:
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America?s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can?t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government?s reckless fiscal policies. ? Increasing America?s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ?the buck stops here.? Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better." Barack Obama - 2006

[smc]

July 28, 2011

China Puts US on eBay

"Government Sold Separately," Sales Listing Says

BEIJING (The Borowitz Report) ? Showing its impatience with the debt ceiling stalemate in Washington, China today took the extraordinary step of putting the United States of America on eBay.

Officials at the online auction site said they believed it was the first time a major Western nation had been listed for sale there ?if you don?t count Greece.?

In Beijing, the Chinese Finance Ministry said that it had considered waiting until August 2 to see if the US would ever pay back its multitrillion-dollar obligations, but ultimately decided to cut its losses.

?We think we?ll attract a buyer on eBay,? the Ministry said. ?Say what you will about the US, it?s still one of the top fifty countries in the world.?

The sales listing for the US contains some interesting information, such as China?s description of the former superpower as being in ?fair to average condition.?

The listing also includes the stipulation ?government sold separately,? which the Finance Ministry took great pains to explain.

?We thought that including the government in the sale might turn off potential buyers,? the Ministry said. ?Plus, the US government isn?t ours to sell anyway ? it?s owned by the Koch brothers.?

With no bidders in the first 24 hours on eBay, China admitted that it would be challenging to unload the US, but it still held out hope that a buyer would step forward: ?We?ve got our fingers crossed for Zuckerberg.?

At the White House, press secretary Jay Carney said that he understood China?s decision to sell the US, but warned that a buyer would have to turn up on eBay before August 2: ?After that, the Internet gets shut off.?

[randolph]

I couldn't respond to you about debt any better than this:
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America?s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can?t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government?s reckless fiscal policies. ? Increasing America?s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ?the buck stops here.? Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better." Barack Obama - 2006

Well--- That's was before he inherited the Bush meltdown. I got no answer from you on what would have happened if Obama had not poured cash into the economy as the country melted down, where would we be today?

[ila]

I couldn't respond to you about debt any better than this:
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America?s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can?t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government?s reckless fiscal policies. ? Increasing America?s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ?the buck stops here.? Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better." Barack Obama - 2006

I just read a newspaper article today that says that every US president from Eisenhower on has raised the debt ceiling.

I do agree that the US has a debt problem that no one is willing to fix. I also agree that there is a leadership failure. As I see it, it is due to a weak president. That's not to say that a strong president would come up with better solutions. It just means that there is no leadership and hence no direction. The US ship of state is afloat and rudderless with an impending hurricane.

The US is going to have to get its act together. If it doesn't it will put the whole world economy into chaos and cause problems for generations to come. The reason it will cause problems to the world economy is because most money traders are based in the US and they have no idea that there is any other country beyond its borders. They are blinkered and shortsighted. There only concern is maximum profit for minimum effort regardless of the long term consequences.

[smc]

I just read a newspaper article today that says that every US president from Eisenhower on has raised the debt ceiling.

I do agree that the US has a debt problem that no one is willing to fix. I also agree that there is a leadership failure. As I see it, it is due to a weak president. That's not to say that a strong president would come up with better solutions. It just means that there is no leadership and hence no direction. The US ship of state is afloat and rudderless with an impending hurricane.

The US is going to have to get its act together. If it doesn't it will put the whole world economy into chaos and cause problems for generations to come. The reason it will cause problems to the world economy is because most money traders are based in the US and they have no idea that there is any other country beyond its borders. They are blinkered and shortsighted. There only concern is maximum profit for minimum effort regardless of the long term consequences.

There are some very important elements to this entire debt ceiling "crisis" that are getting buried in the hyperbolic bullshit that substitutes for honest discourse (not what ila wrote above, but generally). I put all of this in the following context: I am not a supporter of Barack Obama, and am not a Democrat.

First, this "crisis" has been completely manufactured for political ends. Every single president since Franklin Roosevelt, including every Republican president, has raised the debt ceiling. The radical reactionaries elected under the Tea Party banner manufactured this crisis in an effort to starve the U.S. government of the money it needs to function, because they do not believe in the system under which the United States operates. They are willing to dismantle the social compact that has served the U.S. people (albeit, poorly) since the Great Depression not because it incurs debt, but because they are against its principles and the social solidarity implied by it. It is NOT ABOUT MONEY.

Second, the debt ceiling is a very simple thing that has typically been addressed in legislation no longer than a single piece of paper. It simply gives the Treasury Department the authority to borrow money Congress has already approved for spending. That authority involves going to the bond market and selling U.S. Treasury Bonds, long the most trusted investment in the entire world.

Third, the U.S. Constitution says not a word about the debt ceiling. There is only one other country in the world that has a provision like our debt ceiling, and that's Denmark. The U.S. debt ceiling was an invention of 1917, when federal budget controls were not nearly as stringent and sophisticated as they are today. The debt ceiling votes in Congress have always been more or less routine: some people (Obama when he was a senator, for instance) will symbolically vote against raising them with the full understanding that it will pass, because it must. It has nothing to do with spending in the future.

Fourth, it is a complete fabrication of the Tea Party (and aped by Tracy Coxx in multiple posts) that Barack Obama is some kind of crazed taxer who overspends and threatens to put the United States into bankruptcy. (Yes, Tracy Coxx will pretend that because Tracy Coxx never used those precise words Tracy Coxx is not responsible for such specific, hyperbolic, idiotic views.) The facts are otherwise, though. U.S. indebtedness runs around $14 trillion. Over the past 10 years, $5.07 trillion was run up during the Bush administration. Obama is responsible for $1.44 trillion. The Tea Partiers are liars (in addition to being ignorant).

Fifth, as the Tea Party seeks to delegitimize Obama, it is clear that should they succeed in obstructing all the way to "default," Obama can then order the secretary of the treasury to issue bonds as needed. There is ample legal opinion, highly respected, that the debt ceiling is an unconstitutional infringement on the executive branch, and opinions by very conservative justices now on the Supreme Court (and appointed by Bush) that provide precedents.

[TracyCoxx]

Well--- That's was before he inherited the Bush meltdown. I got no answer from you on what would have happened if Obama had not poured cash into the economy as the country melted down, where would we be today?

I did answer here:
Tracy

Do you actually believe the money spent, by Congress, to save the countries financial institutions during the meltdown was unnecessary?
I think at most it only bought us time, and in the meanwhile, it left us with a larger debt. The ramifications of that are not over. I think as Ron Paul says, we were left worse off in the long run than if we bit the bullet and took the hit.

And here's what Ron Paul said in September of 2008. I still agree with him...
Monday, September 29, 2008

As a vote nears on the $700 billion dollar plus bailout bill, Congressman Ron Paul took to the House floor this morning to warn that the passage of the legislation will destroy the dollar and the world economy.

Stating that the passage of the bailout bill would only make the problem worse, the Congressman from Texas said, ?This has nothing to do with free market capitalism, this has to do with a managed economy, an inflationary system, corporatism, a special interest system, and this has nothing to do with the failure of our free markets and capitalism.?

Paul blamed the current crisis on a Federal Reserve power monopoly over the money and credit system, the ceaseless borrowing and printing of money, and dismissed the bill as nothing but more of the same.

?Long term this is disastrous,? continued the Congressman, ?we?ve already pumped in $700 billion dollars, here?s another $700 billion dollars ? this is going to destroy the dollar ? that?s what you should be concerned about ? if you destroy the dollar you?re going to destroy a worldwide economy and that?s what we?re on the verge of doing.?

Paul said that the long term implications of the bailout would be a lot more serious than the problems currently being experienced by Wall Street.


The Congressman called for more oversight and warned, ?What we?re doing today is going to make things much worse.?

Paul expressed his frustration that free market economists who predicted the crisis were being ignored while the people who created the problem were being given the responsibility to offer a solution.

[smc]

July 30, 2011

Fox News Reports: Obama Starting to Wonder Why He Moved to U.S.
President Nostalgic for Land of Birth, Fox Says

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) ? According to the Fox News Channel, President Barack Obama is so weary of the debt ceiling stalemate in Congress that he is beginning to wonder why he moved to the United States in the first place.

Fox News anchor Shepard Smith broke the story today, reporting that ?sources close to the President say he?s increasingly nostalgic for the land of his birth.?

?To someone like President Obama, this wrangling in Congress must seem very foreign,? said Mr. Smith. ?In Kenya, debt ceilings are raised automatically by the village elders, who then celebrate with a ceremonial feast of cabbage, mangoes and goat.?

While Mr. Smith stopped short of saying that Mr. Obama planed to leave Washington and return to his native Kenya, ?his birth certificate does allow him to return at any time he sees fit.?

?As he sees Congress push the United States ever closer to default, who can blame Mr. Obama for longing for simpler times, roaming free on the savanna?? Mr. Smith reported.

In other debt ceiling news, by unanimous vote the House of Representatives passed a bill raising Speaker of the House John Boehner?s medication.

As for the debt ceiling negotiations, they are ?right on schedule,? according to the ancient Mayans.

[franalexes]

Is this to imply that Obamesiah is not qualified to be prez by virtue of his birthplace?

[smc]

Is this to imply that Obamesiah is not qualified to be prez by virtue of his birthplace?



... like shooting fish in a barrel ...

[randolph]

From Dean Baker, Business Insider
Corporate profits
While this situation got some attention in the news reports, all the accounts I saw completely missed the upward revision to profits. The revised data showed sharply higher profits for both 2009 and 2010. In fact, in the revised data profits accounted for 23.8 percent of income in the domestic corporate sector in 2010. This is more than a full percentage above the previous peak. Within the corporate sector, the financial industry is the big winner, accounting for 31.7 percent of corporate profits in 2010. This movement in profits is no doubt attributable to all the regulations and taxes imposed by President Obama.
Anyhow, you didn't hear about this from the media because they had to present you with the latest from Tea Party gang, but there are some people who do actually look at economic data (http://www.cepr.net/index.php/data-bytes/gdp-bytes/weak-consumption-and-shrinking-government-slow-gdp-in-second-quarter).

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/while-the-country-slept-financial-industry-profits-go-through-the-roof-2011-7#ixzz1TbfPtlnC

[TracyCoxx]

S&P even spelled out what it thought would be necessary to maintain the AAA. ?If Congress and the Administration reach an agreement of about $4 trillion, and if we conclude that such an agreement would be enacted and maintained throughout the decade, we could, other things unchanged, affirm the ?AAA? long-term rating on the U.S.? One of the major reasons to not kick the can down the road with a 6 month extension.

So back to this GRH... The senate is working on a bill that cuts $2 trillion over 10 years. Why? If S&P says we need to cut $4 trillion over 10 years why is the senate trying to cut $2 trillion over 10 years? And why has the senate tossed the only bill so far that does cut at least $4 trillion over 10 years?

[randolph]

This would solve the debate pronto.

[transjen]

So back to this GRH... The senate is working on a bill that cuts $2 trillion over 10 years. Why? If S&P says we need to cut $4 trillion over 10 years why is the senate trying to cut $2 trillion over 10 years? And why has the senate tossed the only bill so far that does cut at least $4 trillion over 10 years?

BECAUSE CUT CAP BALANCE DOES IT ALL ON THE BACKS OF THE SENIORS POOR AND LOWER MIDDLE CLASS WHILE THE TOP 10 PERCENT INCOME MAKERS GET EVEN MORE TAX CUTS

CAP CUT BALANCE IS A TYPICAL GOP FU TO MOST OF AMERICA WHILE TAKING CAR OF THE RICH
:eek: JG J

[smc]

BECAUSE CUT CAP BALANCE DOES IT ALL ON THE BACKS OF THE SENIORS POOR AND LOWER MIDDLE CLASS WHILE THE TOP 10 PERCENT INCOME MAKERS GET EVEN MORE TAX CUTS

CAP CUT BALANCE IS A TYPICAL GOP FU TO MOST OF AMERICA WHILE TAKING CAR OF THE RICH
:eek: JG J

Of course, "fuck you" to everyone but the rich should come as no surprise.

[ila]

This would solve the debate pronto.

Is the building in the cartoon is the wrong one for what is supposedly going on inside? I'm pretty sure that the House of Representatives and the Senate in the US do not hold legislative sessions in the White House.

[randolph]

Is the building in the cartoon is the wrong one for what is supposedly going on inside? I'm pretty sure that the House of Representatives and the Senate in the US do not hold legislative sessions in the White House.

It looks like the back of the Whitehouse. Anything goes in a cartoon.

[parr]

Jay Carney (White House press secretary) just said if we don't reach a deal by August 2nd, we will lose our borrowing authority.

Why is that? We do have enough money to pay the interest on the debt. If we don't do it, it's because the president and treasurer chose not to. And because Cut Cap and Balance got shot down in the senate, and congress won't come up with anything else sufficient, we're likely to get our credit rating downgraded.

But we will still be able to borrow, just at a higher rate. So why is the Carny lying?

TRACY, I KNOW I AM MISSING SOMETHING HERE BUT ARN'T WE TAKING
IN ENOUGH REVENUES TO COVER ALL THE EXPENSES, IF SO WHY ARE
WE BORROWING MONEY. JUST ASKING.

[TracyCoxx]

BECAUSE CUT CAP BALANCE DOES IT ALL ON THE BACKS OF THE SENIORS POOR AND LOWER MIDDLE CLASS WHILE THE TOP 10 PERCENT INCOME MAKERS GET EVEN MORE TAX CUTS

CAP CUT BALANCE IS A TYPICAL GOP FU TO MOST OF AMERICA WHILE TAKING CAR OF THE RICH
:eek: JG J

I guarantee you that Cut Capt and Balance does nothing like this:

What happens if the US credit rating is officially downgraded from AAA status?

Standard and Poor?s warning, combined with long-term bond holder recent sentiment, clearly indicates the highest level of risk to the Treasury market since the great depression. The world knows that if we lose our AAA credit rating, America?s ability to run its government on borrowed money will be compromised. As the Fed found out, bond yields didn?t behave as expected with the implementation of QE2. Instead of falling because of QE2, bond yields rose. If we lose our AAA credit rating, bond yields will rise dramatically as prices continue to fall. In short, we will have to pay through the nose to keep borrowing money from the Chinese. Consequently, taxes would then have to be dramatically increased and draconian budget cuts would filter down to the municipal level. The Fed would also have to print money like never before, which would further devalue the dollar and probably end its reserve status. If that happens, oil will no longer be priced in dollars and the price of gas would skyrocket to current levels in Europe; around the $8 per gallon. Local governments would also be in serious trouble. For example: Many may consider raising occupational license fees for small businesses from $125.00 to over $500.00. States many have to implement new and higher highway tolls, and increase the price for an automobile tag by several hundred dollars. In short, the burden of the ensuing budget shortfalls will be passed along to the public. Prices for everything would increase dramatically across the board; food energy, you name it. Finally, all of the associated increased austerity will abort the current hyper-anemic economic recovery and usher the United States into a second Great Depression.

Before Obama became president, i.e. $4 trillion ago, the seniors, poor and lower middle class have been doing relatively ok. Certainly better than they will be when the above happens. And we haven't even got to the part where medicare goes bankrupt because fiscal responsibility is not a trait of democrats. It is your party that will break the backs of seniors, the poor and lower middle class as well as at least the upper middle class. Pat yourself on the back libs.

p.s. you know that the necessity to raise the debt ceiling has been known since at least before last November right? And did you know that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi could have easily raised it back then before the newly elected GOP took office? They chose not to because they wanted the GOP to share the blame of raising the debt ceiling. Not that that would have kept us from losing our credit rating, we still need to cut all that debt that the dems added in the last 3 years.

[TracyCoxx]

TRACY, I KNOW I AM MISSING SOMETHING HERE BUT ARN'T WE TAKING IN ENOUGH REVENUES TO COVER ALL THE EXPENSES, IF SO WHY ARE WE BORROWING MONEY. JUST ASKING.

No, there's a shortfall. I'm not sure how short we are but we can pay the interest on the debt and we have to. That will get paid first, despite what BO and the Treasurer say. Then the president has to pick and choose which groups of people (i.e. sr citizens, the military, etc) do not get paid, or who gets paid less. But I think the government gets about $200 billion/month in revenues from taxes and on gas taxes (yes, the government makes quite a bit of money on gas taxes while liberals whine that the government subsidizes oil companies). There may be some creative financing going on so that these groups are simply paid a few days or weeks late as more revenue comes in.

But the government keeps raising the deficit more and more each year. BO is running more than twice the deficit Bush did, and the deficit is projected to keep growing 7% each year.

[randolph]

If the Tea Party wins it's back to Voodoo economics.

[smc]

Before Obama became president, i.e. $4 trillion ago, the seniors, poor and lower middle class have been doing relatively ok.

More lies from Tracy Coxx. The budget for the first year of the Obama administration was Bush's budget. That's how it works. But Tracy Coxx wants to pin those trillions on Obama, so Tracy Coxx tries to make it sound as if it's Obama's fault. Of course, Tracy Coxx will say Tracy Coxx never specifically wrote that. Fortunately, most everyone reading here is brighter than Tracy Coxx wishes you were.

To repeat, as I wrote earlier: Obama is responsible for $1.44 trillion of the deficit, not the amount Tracy Coxx writes. Obama inherited unfunded wars and a budget. No matter how much lying Tracy Coxx does, it doesn't make the facts go away.

As for "doing relatively ok" ... well, that just negates 30 or so years of economic truth in the United States. But when you're trying to paint a picture for ideological reasons, why should facts get in the way?

Certainly better than they will be when the above happens. And we haven't even got to the part where medicare goes bankrupt because fiscal responsibility is not a trait of democrats. It is your party that will break the backs of seniors, the poor and lower middle class as well as at least the upper middle class. Pat yourself on the back libs.

I am no Democrat, but this is another crock of shit from Tracy Coxx. The implication is that "fiscal responsibility is, by contrast, a trait of Republicans. The war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, and the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans -- all of which reversed the U.S. surplus and made it a deficit -- now there are great examples of "fiscal responsibility." Oh, by the way, Bush was a Republican.

Tracy Coxx is an ideologue without conscience, which means that facts are fungible or downright ignorable if they get in the way of making the ridiculous arguments that are the Tracy Coxx hallmark.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Observe this graph:

You will notice that there is a nice downward progression from the war for both republicans and democrats until the mighty moron Reagan arrives and from that day on, Republicans have embraced his broken economic idiocy.

[ila]

Observe this graph:

You will notice that there is a nice downward progression from the war for both republicans and democrats until the mighty moron Reagan arrives and from that day on, Republicans have embraced his broken economic idiocy.

Except that under Clinton it went up before reducing slightly and under Obama it has gone up.

[TracyCoxx]

Observe this graph:

You will notice that there is a nice downward progression from the war for both republicans and democrats until the mighty moron Reagan arrives and from that day on, Republicans have embraced his broken economic idiocy.

Let's add one more year to that and see where Obama is taking us. And I'm not sure where your graph came from, but this one seems a little different. It does not go down during the clinton years, and this graph shows that there's been a rise since at least the 1870s except for the period between the 1930s and 1950s.

[randolph]

Since we are in graphing mode , here is a comparison, if Regan and Bush had kept debt under control..

[KittyKaiti]

Let's add one more year to that and see where Obama is taking us. And I'm not sure where your graph came from, but this one seems a little different. It does not go down during the clinton years, and this graph shows that there's been a rise since at least the 1870s except for the period between the 1930s and 1950s.

Stop blaming Obama. Note the year on the second to last red dot says "2003". Bush's second term hadn't kicked in yet, so keep going higher and that's all Bush and then like a last tiny sliver counts as Obama, as marked "2009".

[TracyCoxx]

Stop blaming Obama. Note the year on the second to last red dot says "2003". Bush's second term hadn't kicked in yet, so keep going higher and that's all Bush and then like a last tiny sliver counts as Obama, as marked "2009".

I blame Obama for the trillions he spent as president, decimating high tech jobs, passing Obamacare, and generally ignoring the wishes of the majority of Americans. There is more of course, but I'm busy with the freebies section.

And btw... THE CAKE IS A LIE!

[KittyKaiti]

I blame Obama for the trillions he spent as president, decimating high tech jobs, passing Obamacare, and generally ignoring the wishes of the majority of Americans. There is more of course, but I'm busy with the freebies section.

And btw... THE CAKE IS A LIE!

The cake is NOW a lie cuz I ated it like two weeks ago. But it wasn't a lie at the time I posted that blog. YUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

As stated before though, many times, Obama has only spent like ~$1.5 trillion and that's from ongoing wars started by Bush, while I agree Afghanistan was necessary but totally failed in planning, Iraq was total horseshit Bush's personal agenda and also then the bailouts, which we shouldn't have bailed out those banks, let them fail and take them over under government authority. Also "Obamacare" actually will save money in the long run, as also pointed out in earlier posts.

Also it is one of the most helpful pieces of legislation passed by him, regardless of cost, to protect people from corporate corruption. If it wasn't for Obama's healthcare bill, I wouldn't have health coverage right now. I will be able to stay on my mom's insurance provider for another two years because of the extension he passed, otherwise I'd be paying for not just my doctor, hospital and dentist visits but my transition too out of pocket. There's a shitload of other things that bill did to secure people's equal right to receive treatment.

[smc]

Stop blaming Obama. Note the year on the second to last red dot says "2003". Bush's second term hadn't kicked in yet, so keep going higher and that's all Bush and then like a last tiny sliver counts as Obama, as marked "2009".

I blame Obama for the trillions he spent as president, decimating high tech jobs, passing Obamacare, and generally ignoring the wishes of the majority of Americans. There is more of course, but I'm busy with the freebies section.

Thank you to Tracy Coxx for providing such a vivid lesson in dissembling the truth. Tracy Coxx has been called out on specific claims regarding how much of the deficit is Obama's "fault." Called on the lie, Tracy Coxx tries to divert your attention away from the actual numbers, because Tracy Coxx cannot justify the hyperbolic bullshit that is the substance of the claim. So, Tracy Coxx tries to shift the goalpost from the dollar figure to something else.

Kudos to Kaiti for joining the chorus calling out the deliberate misrepresentations of Tracy Coxx.

[Enoch Root]

Thank you to Tracy Coxx for providing such a vivid lesson in dissembling the truth. Tracy Coxx has been called out on specific claims regarding how much of the deficit is Obama's "fault." Called on the lie, Tracy Coxx tries to divert your attention away from the actual numbers, because Tracy Coxx cannot justify the hyperbolic bullshit that is the substance of the claim. So, Tracy Coxx tries to shift the goalpost from the dollar figure to something else.

Kudos to Kaiti for joining the chorus calling out the deliberate misrepresentations of Tracy Coxx.

I for one would like to hear from Tracy how Obama has decimated high tech jobs. Also, I wonder now as I have often wondered in the past, is the idea of universal healthcare (which I'm pretty sure is not what the Democrats passed) really so anathema to the American population.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Except that under Clinton it went up before reducing slightly and under Obama it has gone up.

Debt was rising when Clinton comes into power, Clinton slows the rise then reverses it, you can't expect an upward trend to be reversed instantly, as rapid spending cuts lead economic contraction, ditto rapid tax increases. With Obama, well, his dick and ball fell off so he's just letting his economic policies be written by republicans, he already let them make the decision on tax cuts for the rich, and continue fighting the wars they started, and he just let them write the next move in his economic policies, so if it continues we'll just put Obama down as the latest (secret) republican to follow Regan.


Let's add one more year to that and see where Obama is taking us. And I'm not sure where your graph came from, but this one seems a little different. It does not go down during the clinton years, and this graph shows that there's been a rise since at least the 1870s except for the period between the 1930s and 1950s.

Difference between your graph and mine is simple. Mine correlates to what we were actually discussing, government debt. Note yours says total debt, mine says federal debt, yours includes private debts. This new graph will explain the difference, note that it is a stacked graph, you want t be looking at the thickness of the bands here..

[ila]

...With Obama, well, his dick and ball fell off so he's just letting his economic policies be written by republicans, he already let them make the decision on tax cuts for the rich, and continue fighting the wars they started, and he just let them write the next move in his economic policies, so if it continues we'll just put Obama down as the latest (secret) republican to follow Regan...

That's quite funny, Anna, and also true. :lol:

[tslust]

CAP CUT BALANCE IS A TYPICAL GOP FU TO MOST OF AMERICA WHILE TAKING CAR OF THE RICH

First of all, what is considered rich? People who earn $125,000 or maybe people who earn $250,000, or how about obama who gets $400,000?

About 43% (that seems to be the average figure, I saw one number that had it as low as 39% and another put it as high as 51%) of Americans pay NO taxes, with at least ONE IN THREE of these nonpayers actually getting money form the government!:eek: Whereas, the top 1% wage earners, "those evil rich" pay 38% taxes. Now that's just on the Federal level. If you add in the local, county, and state it's more like 50% to 60% tax.

My point is: Perhaps instead of focusing on making those "evil rich" pay more taxes, they could simply widen the tax base. Or even better, the democrats are always talking about the rich not paying their "fair share", what could be more fair than a flat tax?

[KittyKaiti]

First of all, what is considered rich? People who earn $125,000 or maybe people who earn $250,000, or how about obama who gets $400,000?

About 43% (that seems to be the average figure, I saw one number that had it as low as 39% and another put it as high as 51%) of Americans pay NO taxes, with at least ONE IN THREE of these nonpayers actually getting money form the government!:eek: Whereas, the top 1% wage earners, "those evil rich" pay 38% taxes. Now that's just on the Federal level. If you add in the local, county, and state it's more like 50% to 60% tax.

My point is: Perhaps instead of focusing on making those "evil rich" pay more taxes, they could simply widen the tax base. Or even better, the democrats are always talking about the rich not paying their "fair share", what could be more fair than a flat tax?

A flat tax that is too high will throw millions into the poverty zone and tax too low will result in a major loss of tax revenue. I dunno where your statistics come from but does that mean "43%" of adult citizens in the workforce "do not pay taxes"? Or just overall population?

[tslust]

A flat tax that is too high will throw millions into the poverty zone and tax too low will result in a major loss of tax revenue. I dunno where your statistics come from but does that mean "43%" of adult citizens in the workforce "do not pay taxes"? Or just overall population?

I do agree that a flat tax would be hard to figure a correct percentage. Perhaps some sort of sliding scale, starting at 5% for the lowest income bracket and increasing by 2-5% from there.

I would assume that the statistics come from the number of people who filed their taxes.

[GRH]

Another common misconception that the right likes to spread...The old "half the population pays no taxes." Due to the myriad of deductions and credits, it's more accurate to say that a certain percentage of the population pays no INCOME TAX. Nobody (except for kids or people that have no income) pays NO taxes. This percentage that pays no income tax still pays payroll taxes on their earnings as well as a myriad of state and local taxes.

Personally, I don't know where they derive this statistic. My family has never made in excess of $50,000 annually and yet we've ALWAYS had income tax liability. It seems like clever accounting to me to arrive at this statistic.

[TracyCoxx]

As stated before though, many times, Obama has only spent like ~$1.5 trillion and that's from ongoing wars started by Bush
Yes, SOME of that was from the Iraq war, but let's not forget that Obama's stimulous package cost more than 8 years of war.

and also then the bailouts, which we shouldn't have bailed out those banks, let them fail and take them over under government authority.
I agree, we should have let them fail.

Also "Obamacare" actually will save money in the long run, as also pointed out in earlier posts.That's nice. The CBO says otherwise. They say by 2019 it will raise deficits $226 billion/year.

Also it is one of the most helpful pieces of legislation passed by him, regardless of cost, to protect people from corporate corruption. If it wasn't for Obama's healthcare bill, I wouldn't have health coverage right now.Yeah, but federal courts have declared it unconstitutional. I won't deny it would be great for everyone to get health coverage. It would also be great if the government would buy us all houses and cars. The problem is we can't afford it and if the rest of the world isn't having 2nd thoughts about whether we can repay our debt, they sure should be having doubts now.

[TracyCoxx]

I for one would like to hear from Tracy how Obama has decimated high tech jobs. Also, I wonder now as I have often wondered in the past, is the idea of universal healthcare (which I'm pretty sure is not what the Democrats passed) really so anathema to the American population.

After letting the shuttle retire without a follow on plan an estimated 30-50,000 high tech jobs will be lost. As for the 2nd part of your post, Obamacare was one of the main reasons the democrats got routed in the 2010 elections.

[Suckslut]

I support the fair tax.

Note: I am not a right wing republican, so you can't attack me for being that.

Here is what the fair tax does.

Eliminate the federal income tax and replaces it with a federal sales tax.

That way, the IRS only has to collect info from all the businesses in America instead of every citizen. (probably 3 million vs. 200 million). This way we can shrink the IRS by about 90%, and eliminate headaches for filling out taxes for most citizens. This replaces the chaotic system we have now with lots of loopholes, deductions, and different tax rates for different kinds of income (work, long and short term capital gains, rent, etc).


The way it is written now is that every purchase would be subject to the federal sales tax, and then the federal government would send a rebate to every family the amount of sales tax that a person subject to the poverty line would pay. So if the poverty line is $12,000 per person per year with the federal sales tax at 25%, the government would send a check to every person for $3,000 a year.

The way I would do it, is that the basic standards such as milk, bread, water, rent will not be subject to the sales tax (so that poor people do not pay a disproportionate share of their income to taxes).

This will encourage people to automatically save. This will help them for retirement and in emergencies such as job loses.

Plus I believe that lots of businesses will start up and come to the US, because we would be one of only a few countries in the world without an income tax.

[TracyCoxx]

First of all, what is considered rich? People who earn $125,000 or maybe people who earn $250,000, or how about obama who gets $400,000?

...

My point is: Perhaps instead of focusing on making those "evil rich" pay more taxes, they could simply widen the tax base. Or even better, the democrats are always talking about the rich not paying their "fair share", what could be more fair than a flat tax?

I don't think the government should be in the business of deciding who's "rich". And I agree about flat tax.

[Suckslut]

I don't think the government should be in the business of deciding who's "rich". And I agree about flat tax.

What do you think about the fair tax?

[TracyCoxx]

What do you think about the fair tax?

I haven't looked at it real close, but it looks like there's many advantages to it, like allowing people to keep all their income, promoting savings, being able to tax even illegal aliens, and the elimination of the IRS. Might be a good idea.

But like flat tax or any other fundamental change in the tax system there's going to be a lot of resistance in changing it.

[smc]

This speaks volumes ...

[TracyCoxx]

... if this home is so bad probably need to stop fixing other people's homes, and the able bodied people in this home need to get a job.

[randolph]

This speaks volumes ...

Yep, this is where we are heading. Unfortunately, its not just the Republicans ruining the country, the Democrats and Obama are complicit. Instead of pouring billions into the fuckedup financial industry, the government could have taken over the banks and invested in infrastructure and energy efficiency creating new industries and thousands of jobs and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Instead we bailed out the rich and preserved their dominance over congress.
Obama didn't betray, us he conned us. He is just another corporate lackey.
The rich have a strangle hold on us and I have no idea how we are going to break their hold. Elections don't work, voting doesn't work, complaining doesn't work. What would work?
Somehow, develop enough support to raise taxes on the rich back where they were before Reagan. The government would then have sufficient funding to sustain the type of society the majority of Americans want.

[TracyCoxx]

So we possibly have some kind of deal where we raise the debt ceiling by up to $2.5 trillion and we cut a matching amount over 10 years.

Whoopty doo.

That won't mean 10 years from now our debt will be back to where it is now at $14.5 trillion. It means we cut up to $2.5 trillion off of the next $8 trillion we're going to add to the debt in 10 years! So this debt cutting deal actually allows $5.5 trillion to be added to the debt in the next 10 years bringing us up to $20 trillion in debt. And they're all patting themselves on their backs for these huge "cuts". We still have a lot of work to do.

And to add $5.5 trillion they're telling us they're going to have to make huge cuts to defense and entitlements.... ???

[TracyCoxx]

...the Democrats and Obama are complicit. Instead of pouring billions into the fuckedup financial industry, the government could have taken over the banks and invested in infrastructure and energy efficiency creating new industries and thousands of jobs and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Instead we bailed out the rich and preserved their dominance over congress.
Obama didn't betray, us he conned us. He is just another corporate lackey. Obama really didn't do anything here other than agree to sign this latest compromise. He didn't promote any plan of his own and just made veto threats in all this. Some leader.

[smc]

... if this home is so bad probably need to stop fixing other people's homes, and the able bodied people in this home need to get a job.

Typical Tracy Coxx bullshit.

Thank goodness that despite the best efforts of political leaders of all stripes, we still live in a country where there is at least a tiny bit of safety net left to forestall the full effects of the dog-eat-dog, survival-of-the-fittest (i.e., rich exploiters) America that Tracy Coxx advocates.

[franalexes]

Thank goodness that despite the best efforts of political leaders of all stripes, we still live in a country where there is at least a tiny bit of safety net left to forestall the full effects of the dog-eat-dog, survival-of-the-fittest (i.e.,wagon riders) America .

[smc]

Thank goodness that despite the best efforts of political leaders of all stripes, we still live in a country where there is at least a tiny bit of safety net left to forestall the full effects of the dog-eat-dog, survival-of-the-fittest (i.e.,wagon riders) America .

Surely, franalexes has carefully calculated her federal and Maine state taxes and does not accept anything from the government that she does not choose to buy and pay for directly.

[randolph]

Here in Californicatus there is increasing discussion of getting political control back to the local level, control of school and property taxes that were lost with Prop. 13. has left local schools and city and County operations depleted. Sacramento is arguably even mode dysfunctional than Washington.
We are now in the process of redistricting by an independent commission. This may bring back some accountability to Sacramento and kick out some of the entrenched corrupt politicians.

[Suckslut]

I hope the California citizens repeal the Amazon Sales Tax.

[randolph]

I hope the California citizens repeal the Amazon Sales Tax.

A sales tax in addition to shipping fees might make Amazon somewhat less competitive. I am already finding it cheaper to order a product from a local supplier rather than ordering it on the internet. Twice now I have checked the price of a repair part on the internet and the shipping fees were almost twice the value of the part. :frown:

[franalexes]

Surely, franalexes has carefully calculated her federal and Maine state taxes and does not accept anything from the government that she does not choose to buy and pay for directly.

As a matter of fact, that is true. The one thing I have got from the government AND did not choose to buy ( not that one could) is the down-turn in the housing market. My net worth is no longer expressed in seven figures.

[smc]

As a matter of fact, that is true. The one thing I have got from the government AND did not choose to buy ( not that one could) is the down-turn in the housing market. My net worth is no longer expressed in seven figures.

So, you partake of no services offered by the federal government or the State of Maine? You plan on collecting no Social Security? Were you to be in an accident on the Maine Turnpike, you would reject ambulance services or the assistance of the State Police? Etc.?

[randolph]

The libertarian icon Ayn Rand in spite of ranting against government and proselytizing the stand alone independent self centered ego dominated pristine individual received social security and medicare.

During the Neut revolution many conservatives pledged to run for only one term Guess what, many of them are still in Congress.

Hypocrisy rules on the far right.

[Suckslut]

Ayn Rand was also in favor of abortion, because she said that an unborn baby was a parasite, because it couldn't live without its host (mother).

But the far right ignores that part of her.

[franalexes]

So, you partake of no services offered by the federal government or the State of Maine? You plan on collecting no Social Security? Were you to be in an accident on the Maine Turnpike, you would reject ambulance services or the assistance of the State Police? Etc.?

YOU do not direct what I plan or do not plan to do.
I wilfully do not partake of services offered by the federal government or the State of Maine. ( if I have a choice)
note: The Maine Turnpike Authority does not provide ambulance services nor does the Maine State Police. ( you should do your research before you embarrass yourself publically)
Furthermore, a "wagon rider" is not someone that uses services, but someone that PLANS on services in eccess of what they pay for or could do for themselves. Or better said," they take more out of services than they put in." ie: Some, not of their doing, are un-employed while others plan on being un-employed.

[smc]

YOU do not direct what I plan or do not plan to do.
I wilfully do not partake of services offered by the federal government or the State of Maine. ( if I have a choice)
note: The Maine Turnpike Authority does not provide ambulance services nor does the Maine State Police. ( you should do your research before you embarrass yourself publically)
Furthermore, a "wagon rider" is not someone that uses services, but someone that PLANS on services in eccess of what they pay for or could do for themselves. Or better said," they take more out of services than they put in." ie: Some, not of their doing, are un-employed while others plan on being un-employed.

I haven't "publically" embarassed myself. If an hypothetical question intended to make a point (i.e., the one about the ambulance services) is the equivalent of public embarrassment, then every person who has ever had a serious discussion is walking around red as a beet.

As for directing what you "plan or do not plan to do," I ended each sentence with a question mark. Thus, they were not directives.

Finally, as for your definition of "wagon-riders," now one wonders what in the world you meant by adding it to my quote in your earlier post. It makes no sense in the context of what I wrote.

[randolph]

This clip from "The Town" was played at the Republican caucus to stoke up opposition to the democrats prior to the debt cap negotiations. :(

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGxYjJ5bcv0

[smc]

This clip from "The Town" was played at the Republican caucus to stoke up opposition to the democrats prior to the debt cap negotiations. :(

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGxYjJ5bcv0

I give them credit for honesty: they do hurt people.

[franalexes]

Wagon Riders take note:
This is a INSULT, a KICK in the butt, a SLAP in the face, a KNIFE in the back to all of us...

Get mad and pass it on - I don't know how, but maybe some good will come of this travesty.

If the immigrant is over 65, they can apply for SSI and Medicaid and get more than a
woman on Social Security, who worked from 1944 until 2004.

She is only getting $791 per month because she was born in 1924.
It is interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.
Each can also obtain an additional $580 in social assistance, for a total of $2,470 a month.

This compares to a single pensioner, who after contributing to the growth and development of America for 40 to 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement..

Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees !

Consider sending this to all your American friends, so we can all be ticked off and maybe get the refugees cut back to $1,012 and the pensioners up to $2,470Then we can enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the Government over the last 40 or 50 or 60 years.

[smc]

Wagon Riders take note:
This is a INSULT, a KICK in the butt, a SLAP in the face, a KNIFE in the back to all of us...

Get mad and pass it on - I don't know how, but maybe some good will come of this travesty.

If the immigrant is over 65, they can apply for SSI and Medicaid and get more than a
woman on Social Security, who worked from 1944 until 2004.

She is only getting $791 per month because she was born in 1924.
It is interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.
Each can also obtain an additional $580 in social assistance, for a total of $2,470 a month.

This compares to a single pensioner, who after contributing to the growth and development of America for 40 to 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement..

Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees !

Consider sending this to all your American friends, so we can all be ticked off and maybe get the refugees cut back to $1,012 and the pensioners up to $2,470Then we can enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the Government over the last 40 or 50 or 60 years.

Of course, it doesn't occur to those who support dog-eat-dog capitalism that the solution might be to reallocate federal monies so the pensioners get enough to have a full, rich retirement. It's simply a matter of priorities: don't take their money and spend it on aircraft carriers, subsidies for corporations that already make billions in profits, etc., etc., etc.

But I understand ... it just feels better to beat up on, say, a refugee.

The truth is that the United States, the richest country in the world, has the resources to make a better life for everyone in our land. But those who would consistently support the policies that go against their economic interests have been taught in our schools to be against social solidarity. It's the greatest shame of America.

[TracyCoxx]

I haven't "publically" embarassed myself.Actually I kinda felt bad for you. It didn't look good.

[smc]

Actually I kinda felt bad for you. It didn't look good.

Do you feel better about yourself for your lame attempt at insulting me, despite the complete lack of content in your post?

[TracyCoxx]

Do you feel better about yourself for your lame attempt at insulting me, despite the complete lack of content in your post?

lol loosen up big guy

[TracyCoxx]

Looks like Putin hit the nail on the head:

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on Monday accused the United States of acting as a "parasite" on the world economy by accumulating massive debts that threaten the global financial system.

"The country is living in debt. It is not living within its means, shifting the weight of responsibility on other countries and in a way acting as a parasite,"

[smc]

lol loosen up big guy

I cannot find anything to laugh about in any of your posts (other than the absurdity of your political positions), since the root of your posts is always your dangerous and harmful ideas, whether you are expressing them directly or using failed or fake attempts at "humor."

[franalexes]

I cannot find anything to laugh about in any of your posts (other than the absurdity of your political positions), since the root of your posts is always your dangerous and harmful ideas, whether you are expressing them directly or using failed or fake attempts at "humor."

LMAO:lol: Generaly when someone on a forum openly says they don't see the joke it is a cover for being extreemly pissed off

[randolph]

I hope we don't have to administer banned-aids if this keeps up. :lol:

[smc]

LMAO:lol: Generaly when someone on a forum openly says they don't see the joke it is a cover for being extreemly pissed off

Speak for yourself. I don't see jokes that aren't there, and in any case I always consider the source when responding to anything directed at me personally. Hence, I wouldn't waste any energy being pissed off by an insult from Tracy Coxx.

[GRH]

Fran's distaste for the social safety net finally makes sense. The comment "my net worth is no longer measured in seven figures" makes her Republican ideology make sense. If you have no need of social security or medicare, why not destroy it to save you from having to pay into a program that the less fortunate DO need?

[randolph]

by Sam Pizzigati (http://forum.transladyboy.com/author/sam-pizzigati)

Against a Congress where zealously rich people-friendly conservatives hold the upper hand, how much can a President of the United States committed to greater equality realistically hope to accomplish?

The answer from today?s White House: not much. Advocacy for equality has to take a backseat, Obama administration insiders insist, once fanatical friends of the fortunate in Congress recklessly put at risk our nation?s full faith and credit.
But history offers another alternative. Back in 1943, halfway through World War II, a President of the United States confronted a debt ceiling crisis eerily similar to our own. That President, Franklin Roosevelt, faced a congressional opposition to inconveniencing the rich ? with higher taxes ? every bit as rabid as ours.
FDR?s choice, in the face of this opposition? He doubled down on equality.
Roosevelt?s debt ceiling battle actually began in the months right after Pearl Harbor. The nation needed dollars ? and lots of them ? to wage and win the new war. FDR wanted those dollars raised as equitably as possible.
That would require, FDR and his New Dealers believed, a steeply graduated income tax, with tax rates on income in the top income brackets much higher than rates on income in the bottom brackets.
How high should the top rates go? All the way, FDR proposed, to 100 percent. At a time of ?grave national danger,? the President told Congress in April 1942, ?no American citizen ought to have a net income, after he has paid his taxes, of more than $25,000 a year,? an income just shy of $350,000 in today?s dollars.
The year before, gun executive Carl Swebilius had pulled in $243,204 after taxes, the equivalent of over $3.7 million today. Steel exec Eugene Grace had grabbed $522,537, over $8 million today, in 1941 salary. But conservatives in Congress looked the other way. They never gave FDR?s plan any love.
Four months later, Roosevelt would try again. In his Labor Day message, FDR repeated his $25,000 ?supertax? income cap call. Again Congress ignored him.
FDR would not back down. In early October, the President flexed his authority under the newly enacted Emergency Price Control Act and issued an executive order that limited top corporate salaries to $25,000 after taxes, a move, he pronounced, needed ?to correct gross inequities and to provide for greater equality in contributing to the war effort.?


Obama is no FDR. :(

[TracyCoxx]

Fran's distaste for the social safety net finally makes sense. The comment "my net worth is no longer measured in seven figures" makes her Republican ideology make sense. If you have no need of social security or medicare, why not destroy it to save you from having to pay into a program that the less fortunate DO need?
Kind of like in DO need social security because I can't afford to properly pay into my 401k because I'm required to put money into my social security.

[franalexes]

, I wouldn't waste any energy being pissed off by an insult from Tracy Coxx.

That's probably true, but then I've never seen Tracy post an insult.

[smc]

That's probably true, but then I've never seen Tracy post an insult.

Well, since you want to beg the issue, I will respond without specificity.

Moderators routinely delete posts that insult other members and issue violations. Some members have a history of such violations and have received bans of increasing number of days over time; often, this ends up leading to a permanent ban. We both know that you are well aware of this fact. For instance, one member recently received a 7-day ban for a particularly nasty insult against one of the transwomen very active on this site.

[randolph]

Kind of like in DO need social security because I can't afford to properly pay into my 401k because I'm required to put money into my social security.

Many people lost everything in their 401Ks. That doesn't happen with Social Security. Social Security is basically an insurance policy that is paid into in order to have at least some funds for old age. Privatizing SS would make it vulnerable to stock market fluctuations, an insane idea.

[franalexes]

A lot of people put what they had into a home; above and beyond what they could really afford, thanks to Barney Frank and his Fannie-May and Freddie-Mack. Not only are these people upside down on their mortgage but the housing market for those above water has been adversly affected.

So having housing connected to the government did not create a safety net. As you say," insane idea."
It is more of a black hole.

[tslust]

Wagon Riders take note:
This is a INSULT, a KICK in the butt, a SLAP in the face, a KNIFE in the back to all of us...

Get mad and pass it on - I don't know how, but maybe some good will come of this travesty.

If the immigrant is over 65, they can apply for SSI and Medicaid and get more than a
woman on Social Security, who worked from 1944 until 2004.

She is only getting $791 per month because she was born in 1924.
It is interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.
Each can also obtain an additional $580 in social assistance, for a total of $2,470 a month.

This compares to a single pensioner, who after contributing to the growth and development of America for 40 to 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement..

Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees !

Consider sending this to all your American friends, so we can all be ticked off and maybe get the refugees cut back to $1,012 and the pensioners up to $2,470Then we can enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the Government over the last 40 or 50 or 60 years.:respect:cosign:kiss:

Don't forget the illegal aliens; who use our ERs (that they don't pay for), send their kids to our schools (that they don't pay for), they send their kids to our hospitals (that they still don't pay for), in some states and cities they can apply for special Federal grants to send their kids to college (that, you guessed it, they don't pay for). -umm what else, oh yeah- They don't speak our language, they don't respect our laws or customs, they have no intention of assimilating into our culture.

[smc]

:respect:cosign:kiss:

Don't forget the illegal aliens; who use our ERs (that they don't pay for), send their kids to our schools (that they don't pay for), they send their kids to our hospitals (that they still don't pay for), in some states and cities they can apply for special Federal grants to send their kids to college (that, you guessed it, they don't pay for). -umm what else, oh yeah- They don't speak our language, they don't respect our laws or customs, they have no intention of assimilating into our culture.

Most undocumented workers pay taxes. Facts have a nasty habit of getting in the way of xenophobic vitriol.

[The Conquistador]

Most undocumented workers pay taxes. Facts have a nasty habit of getting in the way of xenophobic vitriol.

Just as protection money to keep the mafia from torching your store or breaking your kneecaps doesn't count as a business expense, taxes don't count as payment.

Just sayin...

[tslust]

Most undocumented workers pay taxes. Facts have a nasty habit of getting in the way of xenophobic vitriol.

Actually, the percentage of undocumented workers (aka, illegal aliens) who pay taxes is fairly low. A majority of them work as day laborers, which is mostly "under the table" jobs, which they pay no taxes on (I used to work those types of jobs, so I know what I'm talking about.). Those who work in jobs that take taxes out of their pay mostly use a false Social Security Number.

[TracyCoxx]

Many people lost everything in their 401Ks. That doesn't happen with Social Security. Social Security is basically an insurance policy that is paid into in order to have at least some funds for old age. Privatizing SS would make it vulnerable to stock market fluctuations, an insane idea.Well with freedom comes responsibility. You're free to choose your retirement plan, and responsible for the results. But this country isn't what it used to be either.

[GRH]

Don't forget the illegal aliens...send their kids to our schools (that they don't pay for...

Schools are paid for with property taxes, so unless these aliens are living under bridges or in hotels, they are either directly paying the property taxes on the home they live in, or indirectly paying the property tax through the rent they pay.

[smc]

Actually, the percentage of undocumented workers (aka, illegal aliens) who pay taxes is fairly low. A majority of them work as day laborers, which is mostly "under the table" jobs, which they pay no taxes on (I used to work those types of jobs, so I know what I'm talking about.). Those who work in jobs that take taxes out of their pay mostly use a false Social Security Number.

Go ahead and mock my use of the accurate term "undocumented workers" in favor of your deliberately fear-mongering term "illegal alien." Go ahead and try to change the discussion by citing the use of false SSNs, which is a separate issue. Meanwhile, again, facts are facts.

The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), a non-profit, non-partisan research and education organization based in Washington, D.C., has been providing tax information to state policy makers and others for years. ITEP maintains a model of state and local tax structures that allows researchers to estimate the state and local tax contributions of families at different income levels.

Here's a recent headline based on an ITEP study, followed by a link to the article. I chose this one because it points to a real fact: undocumented workers pay more in taxes than many U.S. corporations.

"Study estimates that illegal immigrants paid $11.2B in taxes last year, unlike GE, which paid zero"

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/04/20/2011-04-20_undocumented_unlike_rich_pay_plenty_in_taxes.ht ml

Undocumented workers obtain false SSNs precisely to get decent jobs that then require them to pay federal taxes, along with the associated Social Security and Medicare taxes, either via payroll withholding or at tax filing time via self-employment taxes. The Social Security Administration has estimated that about three-quarters of undocumented workers pay these taxes. I don't know in what universe three-quarters is a "fairly low" percentage (to use your words), but perhaps it is the same universe in which a human being is referred to as an "alien."

Oh, and by the way, these same workers who pay into the Social Security and Medicare systems are subsidizing documented workers (that includes me, and assumedly you, tslust), because they don't get to collect the benefits they paid for upon retirement.

[smc]

Just as protection money to keep the mafia from torching your store or breaking your kneecaps doesn't count as a business expense, taxes don't count as payment.

Just sayin...

Whatever the fuck this is supposed to mean, I suggest you need to lay off the crack. :lol:

[The Conquistador]

Whatever the fuck this is supposed to mean, I suggest you need to lay off the crack. :lol:

Crack is whack. What evidence do you have that supports the notion that I am in any way a drug abuser?

[Amy]

smc has totally owned this thread.

[randolph]

Warren Buffett, in a recent interview with CNBC, offers one of the best quotes
I've heard in all this drama about the debt ceiling:
"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC.
"You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit
of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress
are ineligible for re-election."

Three cheers for Buffy old boy! :respect:

[Enoch Root]

The xenophobic quotient of the thread is now rising. I really hoped such hateful and blind garbage would not have taken root.

[smc]

Crack is whack. What evidence do you have that supports the notion that I am in any way a drug abuser?

You know as well as I do that it is meant to suggest that the complete senselessness of what you wrote might (in jest) be explained by the use of mind-altering drugs. Hence the LOL emoticon.

[Suckslut]

If we adopted the fair tax, everyone would pay taxes.

Illegals have to buy stuff, as well as drug dealers and prostitutes.

[transjen]

If we adopted the fair tax, everyone would pay taxes.

Illegals have to buy stuff, as well as drug dealers and prostitutes.

A fair tax sounds good at first but once you really look in to it more it's another GOP FU to the poor and working poor
A fair tax will place a 30% tax on everything your phone bill cable bill rent food you name it there's that 30% or higher tax plus there will be on top of that the state tax
no thanks rule number one only a fool would trust the GOP to fix or make a fair tax system
:eek: JG J

[Suckslut]

A fair tax sounds good at first but once you really look in to it more it's another GOP FU to the poor and working poor
A fair tax will place a 30% tax on everything your phone bill cable bill rent food you name it there's that 30% or higher tax plus there will be on top of that the state tax
no thanks rule number one only a fool would trust the GOP to fix or make a fair tax system
:eek: JG J

But if you read the fair tax proposal, the government will send out rebates each month to poor families.

So if the poverty rate is $12,000 per person per year, and the fair tax is 25%, the government will send the poor people $3,000 a year back.

The way I would do it is to make water, bread, milk, fruits, vegetables, rent, and all the essentials not subject to the tax.

[smc]

But if you read the fair tax proposal, the government will send out rebates each month to poor families.

So if the poverty rate is $12,000 per person per year, and the fair tax is 25%, the government will send the poor people $3,000 a year back.

The way I would do it is to make water, bread, milk, fruits, vegetables, rent, and all the essentials not subject to the tax.

Where I live (Massachusetts, USA), water, bread, milk, fruits, vegetables, rents, and even "non-luxury" clothing are all non-taxable.

A poor person earning $12,000 a year can ill-afford an outlay of 1/4 of effective annual income then wait for it to be rebated, even if it's on a monthly basis.

In addition, such a tax serves to marginalize even further the have-nots. Imagine you are a poor family making perhaps $20,000 annually. Once each year, for one day, your family can afford a "vacation" ... say, an early-morning drive to the beach and nearby amusement park, and back that night because you can't even afford a motel room to crowd the family into. Suddenly, the cost of everything associated with that is 30% greater. The haves suffer not from this imposition; the have-nots no longer can afford this minuscule piece of what might make life living.

You have not thought through your proposal, I imagine, but I guarantee those who came up with the idea and advocate it have. They see it as another smoke-and-mirrors way of protecting the wealth and privilege of the exploiters and taking from the mass of people, who are viewed as less than human and whose existence only has meaning to the wealthy in two regards: as a source of labor (to the degree this is even needed any more, in the age of wealthmaking via electronic financial transactions based on speculation and phony money) and as a constant thorn in their side, always seeking "entitlements" and a "safety net."

If you want to see a "fair tax," let's have a 100% tax on all income over $250,000. That'll sort things out for sure. No one needs more money than that to live a decent life.

[transjen]

So how does this do away with the IRS? some one still needs to collect the tax plus issue refunds checks
Like i said it sounds nice until you sit down and really think it out
And under this system you'll be paying that high tax on every single car payment so a stanard 5 year car loan means you will pay that high tax 60 times on your new car
:no: no thanks

[Suckslut]

First off, I never said this would do away with the IRS. What it would do is cut it by about 90% and do away with filing income taxes for about 90% of people. Plus it would eliminate all the headaches associated with different tax rates for different kinds of income (wages, rent, long term capital gains, social security, deductions, loopholes, etc).

The IRS would only have to look at forms filed by businesses in the US (say 3 million) as opposed to forms filed by almost every single citizen over 18 (say 200 million)

Second of all, you are assuming everything will be 30% more expensive than it is now. That is not true. Income taxes are already figured in to company's margins and expenses. If I'm selling a product and I want to make a $1000 profit and the taxes are 33%, I'm going to sell it for $1500 (assuming other costs are $0, which they aren't, buy I'm trying to keep this simple). Now, with a fair tax at 33% and I want to make a $1000 profit, I could sell it for $1000 (again assuming costs are $0) and the customer pays the 33% tax for a total of $1,333.


I don't trust Republicans either, but I do like this proposal. In fact Mike Gavel, former Democrat Senator for Alaska is for this.

[smc]

First off, I never said this would do away with the IRS. What it would do is cut it by about 90% and do away with filing income taxes for about 90% of people. Plus it would eliminate all the headaches associated with different tax rates for different kinds of income (wages, rent, long term capital gains, social security, deductions, loopholes, etc).

The IRS would only have to look at forms filed by businesses in the US (say 3 million) as opposed to forms filed by almost every single citizen over 18 (say 200 million)

Second of all, you are assuming everything will be 30% more expensive than it is now. That is not true. Income taxes are already figured in to company's margins and expenses. If I'm selling a product and I want to make a $1000 profit and the taxes are 33%, I'm going to sell it for $1500 (assuming other costs are $0, which they aren't, buy I'm trying to keep this simple). Now, with a fair tax at 33% and I want to make a $1000 profit, I could sell it for $1000 (again assuming costs are $0) and the customer pays the 33% tax for a total of $1,333.


I don't trust Republicans either, but I do like this proposal. In fact Mike Gavel, former Democrat Senator for Alaska is for this.

Taking your points in reverse order.

1. The fact that a Democrat is for this doesn't matter one wit to me. I do not support any politicians of the Republocrat Party.

2. I think you are being na?ve about prices to consumers. Businesses exist to maximize profits. Without some "fair tax"-related price controls, there is nothing to stop a business from continuing to charge the same as before. Sure, so-called "market forces" may result in adjustments of the sort you describe, but while you may be willing to rely on the market, I think we've had enough experience to known that there is no guarantee of the market adjusting in favor of consumers. (And I'm being kind to the market by only saying that.)

3. More to the point about prices, your construct seems flawed. Are you saying that the seller (i.e., a corporation) will no longer pay a tax? Seems to be what you wrote.

Most important, your proposal would replace a progressive tax (income) with a regressive tax. The solution is to fix the progressive taxation by making the wealthy pay more, not impose yet another hardship on working people. To be honest, you sound like the very thing you claim not to trust.

[Suckslut]

A corporation would pay the fair tax on the goods and services it buys, but not on the profits. Profits would go to the shareholders, managers, employees, tax free. Just like how an employee's salary and wages will be tax free. Everyone would only pay a tax when they buy things.

Smc, I think that a truly free market would resolve prices, but we haven't had a truly free market for a long time. Big companies get regulation passed so small companies can't compete and even conservative republicans can't vote to eliminate oil subsidies or jets for billionaires.

I wouldn't be opposed to a progressive fair tax. Purchases under $1,000 pay 10% tax, under $10,000 but over $1,000, 20% etc. If need be you could make exceptions for houses and cars, which most people need.

But this could turn into a luxury tax. You want to purchase a $5 million home, go right ahead. You'll pay a 50% tax on it, or whatever.

[smc]

A corporation would pay the fair tax on the goods and services it buys, but not on the profits. Profits would go to the shareholders, managers, employees, tax free. Just like how an employee's salary and wages will be tax free. Everyone would only pay a tax when they buy things.

Smc, I think that a truly free market would resolve prices, but we haven't had a truly free market for a long time. Big companies get regulation passed so small companies can't compete and even conservative republicans can't vote to eliminate oil subsidies or jets for billionaires.

I wouldn't be opposed to a progressive fair tax. Purchases under $1,000 pay 10% tax, under $10,000 but over $1,000, 20% etc. If need be you could make exceptions for houses and cars, which most people need.

But this could turn into a luxury tax. You want to purchase a $5 million home, go right ahead. You'll pay a 50% tax on it, or whatever.

I genuinely admire your commitment to this concept, and I especially value your willingness to have a real discussion about it without any of the hyperbolic bullshit and made-up "facts" that are so often posted here.

Unfortunately, where we differ goes far beyond the merits of the "fair tax" idea. The notion that one can create a "fair" version of a system that is fundamentally based on exploitation is, frankly, ridiculous.

[randolph]

Hey, why don't we tax sex!
A buck a fuck could bring in tons of cash.
Collecting it could be a problem, however. ;)

[Suckslut]

I genuinely admire your commitment to this concept, and I especially value your willingness to have a real discussion about it without any of the hyperbolic bullshit and made-up "facts" that are so often posted here.

Unfortunately, where we differ goes far beyond the merits of the "fair tax" idea. The notion that one can create a "fair" version of a system that is fundamentally based on exploitation is, frankly, ridiculous.

Think of the fair tax, or the progressive fair tax, as a consumption tax. The more you consume, the more in taxes you pay.

From a business point of view, the more you consume (products you make), the more in taxes your customers pay.

[Suckslut]

Hey, why don't we tax sex!
A buck a fuck could bring in tons of cash.
Collecting it could be a problem, however. ;)

Prostitution should be legal.

[smc]

Think of the fair tax, or the progressive fair tax, as a consumption tax. The more you consume, the more in taxes you pay.

From a business point of view, the more you consume (products you make), the more in taxes your customers pay.

Your response ignores the primary point I made: the system of exploitation is the problem, and all solutions that do not fundamentally eliminate the system that is based on exploitation are pipe dreams. Nevertheless, I will address the points you do make.

All consumption taxes shift the burden of taxation to the poor. Even with the rebate of which you wrote earlier accounted for, thus making it hypothetically a "progressive" tax on consumption, you fail to see how it would be regressive. It is simple arithmetic that consumption falls as a percentage of income as the income level increases. Thus, high-income people would have a lower tax burden under the consumption tax.

Further, consider how the system of exploitation figures into this in one straightforward example. In the Boston suburb where I live, good-quality produce -- healthy, clean, etc. -- is readily available at any number of grocery stores near my home. In the poor neighborhoods of the city, crappy produce is sometimes available at convenience stores; there are very few actual grocery stores. The good produce at my area stores is less expensive than the crap that poor folks can buy near their homes. I have a car; many of them rely on inadequate public transportation.

So, I can buy a clean, organically grown head of lettuce for $2.99 at Whole Foods. They can buy a plastic-wrapped, shitty looking head of iceberg lettuce for $3.50 at the corner "market," or travel on the bus for a half hour to a grocery store that has a slightly better head of lettuce for $2.99 (not as good as the one near me). Add the $1.25 bus fare each way, and that lettuce cost $5.49. On top of this, you would have that person pay a 30% tax.

Progressive? Give me a break.

[randolph]

Prostitution should be legal.

Yes and so should pot. The drug trade is terrible.

[smc]

Hey, why don't we tax sex!
A buck a fuck could bring in tons of cash.
Collecting it could be a problem, however. ;)

Well, I guess this kind of post in the middle of a serious discussion is better than hyperbolic xenophobia. :lol:

[franalexes]

Which is more likely, people come here because it's a porn site; or is this the home of political enlightenment?

Really people!:rolleyes: A post about having a sex tax. Somebody had to say it.:respect: and somebody did.:turnon:

[Suckslut]

Your response ignores the primary point I made: the system of exploitation is the problem, and all solutions that do not fundamentally eliminate the system that is based on exploitation are pipe dreams. Nevertheless, I will address the points you do make.

All consumption taxes shift the burden of taxation to the poor. Even with the rebate of which you wrote earlier accounted for, thus making it hypothetically a "progressive" tax on consumption, you fail to see how it would be regressive. It is simple arithmetic that consumption falls as a percentage of income as the income level increases. Thus, high-income people would have a lower tax burden under the consumption tax.

Further, consider how the system of exploitation figures into this in one straightforward example. In the Boston suburb where I live, good-quality produce -- healthy, clean, etc. -- is readily available at any number of grocery stores near my home. In the poor neighborhoods of the city, crappy produce is sometimes available at convenience stores; there are very few actual grocery stores. The good produce at my area stores is less expensive than the crap that poor folks can buy near their homes. I have a car; many of them rely on inadequate public transportation.

So, I can buy a clean, organically grown head of lettuce for $2.99 at Whole Foods. They can buy a plastic-wrapped, shitty looking head of iceberg lettuce for $3.50 at the corner "market," or travel on the bus for a half hour to a grocery store that has a slightly better head of lettuce for $2.99 (not as good as the one near me). Add the $1.25 bus fare each way, and that lettuce cost $5.49. On top of this, you would have that person pay a 30% tax.

Progressive? Give me a break.

I'm not necessary disagreeing with you, but what is your solution? I'm guessing your solution is to have the rich pay more income tax and to close tax loopholes and end corporate subsidies right?

I just don't think that is going to happen. Companies lobby congress to get special deductions and loopholes, and then those companies hire the people from the IRS who know the tax code inside and out so those companies don't end up paying tax anyways.

If they can't figure out how to lower their taxes more, they'll just funnel their money to the Caymen Islands and hide it there.

You talk about the fair tax hurting the poor, because they pay a higher % of their money to taxes, well that is the way it is now. Warren Buffet's tax % is less than his secretary's due to capital gains. Then add on gas taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, social security (which is a regressive tax), and the poor pay a way more disproportionate % of their wages to taxes.

[smc]

Which is more likely, people come here because it's a porn site; or is this the home of political enlightenment?

Really people!:rolleyes: A post about having a sex tax. Somebody had to say it.:respect: and somebody did.:turnon:

The primary reason people come here is obvious, but keep in mind who it is that has started all these threads (Liberal free for all coming to an end; GOP'ish candidates; Immigration law; If police question/detain a black person is it racism?). The answer is not me. :no:

[smc]

I'm not necessary disagreeing with you, but what is your solution? I'm guessing your solution is to have the rich pay more income tax and to close tax loopholes and end corporate subsidies right?

I just don't think that is going to happen. Companies lobby congress to get special deductions and loopholes, and then those companies hire the people from the IRS who know the tax code inside and out so those companies don't end up paying tax anyways.

If they can't figure out how to lower their taxes more, they'll just funnel their money to the Caymen Islands and hide it there.

You talk about the fair tax hurting the poor, because they pay a higher % of their money to taxes, well that is the way it is now. Warren Buffet's tax % is less than his secretary's due to capital gains. Then add on gas taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, social security (which is a regressive tax), and the poor pay a way more disproportionate % of their wages to taxes.

I gave my solution earlier. The problem in the United States is that everyone ends us saying what you wrote: "I just don't think that is going to happen." How about we make something happen?

[franalexes]

From Emerson?s quarterly earnings conference call August 2, 2011:

Emerson (NYSE: EMR) is a diversified global manufacturing and technology company. Emerson is widely recognized for its engineering capabilities and management excellence. Emerson has approximately 135,000 employees (over 34,000 in the United States) and 240 manufacturing locations worldwide. Sales are estimated to exceed $7.5 billion in 2011. Capital expenditures are estimated to be around $740 million in 2012, (about 2.7% of revenues) as announced by the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer in Emerson?s quarterly conference call today. He inferred that none of that will be invested in the United States In answering a question from and analyst he went on to passionately criticize the Obama Administration and the ?flood of regulations and taxes?.

Cap-ex plans for 2012

??in the US, they are not really addressing the ?gut? issues. There is a flood of regulations coming at us from the US. The incentive to invest in the US is negative. And from my perspective I have all the clarity I need. They?re spending. They?re taxing. Our tax rate in the US will be over 36% in the US this year. We pay actually pay the US government over $500 million in this year, and they say they want to raise it even more. I run a company. I have a lot of money to invest, but I?m not going to invest it here. And then when you have a company like Boeing, an iconic American company, gets sued by the Federal Government, if that doesn?t get your attention, nothing will. They get sued for investing $2 billion in South Carolina. Last time I saw South Carolina was part of the United States of America, and you get sued for that? I tell you what, as a CEO of a company, you got my attention. And so, from my perspective, people are very nervous about regulation. They have no idea how much healthcare cost is going to get thrown at us. And all I see is things coming at me. The new whistleblower rule, or the new commodity rule, or take a look at everything that is coming at us. You sit there and say how much can you burden companies that want to invest and create jobs? And the answer is, ?I guess it?s never ending,? because they think that we?re going to sit around and take it all. The environment [in the United States] is not very good and I think Washington does not understand how to create jobs. You know they are talking about raising taxes, getting rid of corporate planes, I mean it?s amazing, or doubling the CAF? standards, that?s going to create a lot of jobs. That?s my opinion. And we happen to control a lot of money to invest. We have over 135,000 employees and over 35,000 in the United States.?

[franalexes]

The primary reason people come here is obvious, but keep in mind who it is that has started all these threads . The answer is not me. :no:

:respect:I'll give you that. He struck a raw nerve in a lot of people.:eek:

[Enoch Root]

If police question/detain a black person is it racism?). The answer is not me. :no:

You're kidding. I have to look that up now.

[smc]

From Emerson?s quarterly earnings conference call August 2, 2011:

Emerson (NYSE: EMR) is a diversified global manufacturing and technology company. Emerson is widely recognized for its engineering capabilities and management excellence. Emerson has approximately 135,000 employees (over 34,000 in the United States) and 240 manufacturing locations worldwide. Sales are estimated to exceed $7.5 billion in 2011. Capital expenditures are estimated to be around $740 million in 2012, (about 2.7% of revenues) as announced by the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer in Emerson?s quarterly conference call today. He inferred that none of that will be invested in the United States In answering a question from and analyst he went on to passionately criticize the Obama Administration and the ?flood of regulations and taxes?.

Cap-ex plans for 2012

??in the US, they are not really addressing the ?gut? issues. There is a flood of regulations coming at us from the US. The incentive to invest in the US is negative. And from my perspective I have all the clarity I need. They?re spending. They?re taxing. Our tax rate in the US will be over 36% in the US this year. We pay actually pay the US government over $500 million in this year, and they say they want to raise it even more. I run a company. I have a lot of money to invest, but I?m not going to invest it here. And then when you have a company like Boeing, an iconic American company, gets sued by the Federal Government, if that doesn?t get your attention, nothing will. They get sued for investing $2 billion in South Carolina. Last time I saw South Carolina was part of the United States of America, and you get sued for that? I tell you what, as a CEO of a company, you got my attention. And so, from my perspective, people are very nervous about regulation. They have no idea how much healthcare cost is going to get thrown at us. And all I see is things coming at me. The new whistleblower rule, or the new commodity rule, or take a look at everything that is coming at us. You sit there and say how much can you burden companies that want to invest and create jobs? And the answer is, ?I guess it?s never ending,? because they think that we?re going to sit around and take it all. The environment [in the United States] is not very good and I think Washington does not understand how to create jobs. You know they are talking about raising taxes, getting rid of corporate planes, I mean it?s amazing, or doubling the CAF? standards, that?s going to create a lot of jobs. That?s my opinion. And we happen to control a lot of money to invest. We have over 135,000 employees and over 35,000 in the United States.?

Corporations exist to maximize profits to SHAREHOLDERS. If they could do that without making a single thing, or employing anybody who does anything that has any social value whatsoever, they would do so (look at Wall Street).

When the corporate bosses cry that they are overtaxed and overregulated, and then they get special breaks and subsidies from U.S. taxpayers, they're quick to up and leave and take jobs with them the minute they find a place where they can maximize profits for their shareholders.

Maybe we should get rid of all the regulation that hurts the poor corporations. Let's not have any standards to prevent toxic foodstuffs from being sold to retail supermarkets by agribusiness conglomerates. Let's not have a minimum wage. Let's not have requirements for safe manufacturing facilities. Let's not have any limits on what corporations can spew into the air or dump into lakes and rivers. After all, the corporations are people, too -- so says the ridiculous Citizens United ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court -- and since they have much more money than other people, why shouldn't they get all the breaks.

And if regular working people don't like it, they can move overseas just like the big corporations, right?

[Suckslut]

Corporations exist to maximize profits to SHAREHOLDERS. If they could do that without making a single thing, or employing anybody who does anything that has any social value whatsoever, they would do so (look at Wall Street).

When the corporate bosses cry that they are overtaxed and overregulated, and then they get special breaks and subsidies from U.S. taxpayers, they're quick to up and leave and take jobs with them the minute they find a place where they can maximize profits for their shareholders.

Maybe we should get rid of all the regulation that hurts the poor corporations. Let's not have any standards to prevent toxic foodstuffs from being sold to retail supermarkets by agribusiness conglomerates. Let's not have a minimum wage. Let's not have requirements for safe manufacturing facilities. Let's not have any limits on what corporations can spew into the air or dump into lakes and rivers. After all, the corporations are people, too -- so says the ridiculous Citizens United ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court -- and since they have much more money than other people, why shouldn't they get all the breaks.

And if regular working people don't like it, they can move overseas just like the big corporations, right?

We'll never have a free market, or eliminate tax subsidies and loopholes until we overturn Citizen's United.

[randolph]

We'll never have a free market, or eliminate tax subsidies and loopholes until we overturn Citizen's United.

You got that right, Citizen's United is a terrible ruling.

In other countries especially in Europe, corporate tax rates are very high compared to the US. They are also subject to substantial regulation, yet they are thriving. Whining by wealthy corporate executives is like a spoiled child having a tantrum when it's parent won't give it more candy.
Also, one of our graduate students father worked for Emerson. He said the exec's take huge bribes to set up a plant in a foreign company.

[franalexes]

Maybe we should get rid of all the regulation that hurts the poor corporations. Let's not have any standards ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

(Do you have a serious response?)
You're talking to the wrong person.
Your arguement is with the CEO of Emerson.

How many of those 35,000 U.S. jobs will still be here in another year?

[Enoch Root]

Whining by wealthy corporate executives is like a spoiled child having a tantrum when it's parent won't give it more candy.

That is the very analogy I use myself often. It always amazes me how greed, selfishness, and control are not encouraged and in fact punished by parents when they encounter it in their children yet in the economic sphere they are some kind of twisted, debased high virtues.

[GRH]

In other countries especially in Europe, corporate tax rates are very high compared to the US.

Technically, only Japan has a higher corporate tax rate than the US. However, we all know that many companies don't pay the statutory 35% rate thanks to the myrian number of deductions and loopholes.

[randolph]

(Do you have a serious response?)
You're talking to the wrong person.
Your arguement is with the CEO of Emerson.

How many of those 35,000 U.S. jobs will still be here in another year?

Actually, quite a few companies are moving production back here because of low taxes, cheap labor and lower shipping costs. Japanese and European car makers for example. Even China is in Central America and Mexico.

[smc]

(Do you have a serious response?)
You're talking to the wrong person.
Your arguement is with the CEO of Emerson.

How many of those 35,000 U.S. jobs will still be here in another year?

You posted something that allowed me to make a point. My argument is with the substance of your post, and my response could not be more serious ... your mocking aside. The point is that the corporate bosses really want to eliminate everything that gets in the way of their profit-maximization. Regulations, standards, and so on are only tolerated by the corporations to the degree they are the will of the vast majority of people, either directly or by inference. Opportunities to circumvent them, including by moving elsewhere, are always entertained.

[Amy]

Yes and so should pot. The drug trade is terrible.

Yep. All across the world, big drug lords LOVE their billions of dollars annually of completely untaxable income.

[The Conquistador]

Actually, quite a few companies are moving production back here because of low taxes, cheap labor and lower shipping costs. Japanese and European car makers for example. Even China is in Central America and Mexico.

And don't forget, China is establishing a foothold in Africa as well.

[The Conquistador]

You know as well as I do that it is meant to suggest that the complete senselessness of what you wrote might (in jest) be explained by the use of mind-altering drugs. Hence the LOL emoticon.

So, being forced by an organization to pony up money under the threat of violence and then calling the the money that has been extorted as part of "paying your dues" or "taxes" or whatever you want to call it counts as a legitimate payment for goods and services? It is extortion money, plain and simple and no matter what it is used for, be it good or bad, it is still extortion money. I do not see the "senselessness" of calling a spade a spade.

[randolph]

And don't forget, China is establishing a foothold in Africa as well.

Yeah, China is buying land in Africa for food production to export to China. What are the poor souls living in Africa going to do for food?
This is the kind of thing England did in Ireland, India and Africa years ago.

[The Conquistador]

Yeah, China is buying land in Africa for food production to export to China. What are the poor souls living in Africa going to do for food?
This is the kind of thing England did in Ireland, India and Africa years ago.

Not just food production but resources in general. They are buying farmland, mines, oil wells and numerous other parts of the country. I wouldn't doubt that they are colonizing parts of the African continent and will become a major influence in the region.

[transjen]

Useless yes useless all this post is nothing but talking points of both parties and has changed no ones minds
So this is all useless
In the end the unsupreme court on 12/21/12 will rule 5 to 4 that Bachman is the next president sealing our fate to this
http://youtu.be/8fxFkue8gZ8

:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

[randolph]

The big ouch! :eek:

[smc]

So, being forced by an organization to pony up money under the threat of violence and then calling the the money that has been extorted as part of "paying your dues" or "taxes" or whatever you want to call it counts as a legitimate payment for goods and services? It is extortion money, plain and simple and no matter what it is used for, be it good or bad, it is still extortion money. I do not see the "senselessness" of calling a spade a spade.

This all started with your post that read "taxes don't count as payment" in reference to my post about undocumented workers paying taxes. "Goods and services" had nothing to do with it. Go back and read the initial post I responded to of yours, and the subsequent posts, and perhaps take a stab at telling me what the fuck you're talking about.

[smc]

Useless yes useless all this post is nothing but talking points of both parties and has changed no ones minds
So this is all useless
In the end the unsupreme court on 12/21/12 will rule 5 to 4 that Bachman is the next president sealing our fate to this
http://youtu.be/8fxFkue8gZ8

:eek: Jerseygirl Jen


I know of at least two people who have changed their minds about several things as a result of the discussion in this thread. I am not at liberty to say who they are, but perhaps they will see this and post.

And Jen, your posts have me seriously rethinking which NHL team to root for. ;)

[GRH]

While we're talking about "fair taxes" and giving grief to the poor who don't have an income tax liability...It looks like some millionaires don't pay any income tax either.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/04/irs-incomes_n_918458.html?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl7|sec1_lnk2|83802

[TracyCoxx]

7/30/11
So back to this GRH... The senate is working on a bill that cuts $2 trillion over 10 years. Why? If S&P says we need to cut $4 trillion over 10 years why is the senate trying to cut $2 trillion over 10 years? And why has the senate tossed the only bill so far that does cut at least $4 trillion over 10 years?

8/6/11
Credit rating agency Standard & Poor's on Friday lowered the nation's AAA rating for the first time since granting it in 1917. The move came less than a week after a gridlocked Congress finally agreed to spending cuts that would reduce the debt by more than $2 trillion -- a tumultuous process that contributed to convulsions in financial markets. The promised cuts were not enough to satisfy S&P.

And Washington is now acting surprised. Idiots.

[smc]

And Washington is now acting surprised. Idiots.


The U.S. Department of the Treasury and many in Congress are disputing S&P's math, a fact that should be included with any statement about what S&P has done. Further, S&P -- in taking this decision -- calls attention as much to the political process as to anything specifically financial. In other words, it is a reasonable assumption that had the Tea Partiers not manufactured a debt ceiling "crisis" for political purposes, out of thin air, there would have been no such action.

Notably, neither Fitch nor Moody's, the other two main credit ratings agencies (Moody's being generally regarded as the most important), have downgraded their ratings. Both continue to maintain the AAA rating for the United States after this week's debt deal, although Moody's lowered its outlook on U.S. debt to "negative."

The $1 billion extra in interest it may now cost the United States to borrow money that it MUST borrow to pay for spending already approved by Congress -- including by Republicans -- is $1 billion that could have been spent on making life better for Americans. Instead, it will go to banks and other lending institutions. So, the Tea Partiers get the best of both worlds, from their perspective: they held the government hostage to a phony debt ceiling crisis that resulted in some cuts they wanted, and they get more money to their real, significant backers. In other words, more money for the wealthiest bankers and others who control the flow of capital.

[randolph]

7/30/11


8/6/11


And Washington is now acting surprised. Idiots.

Why should we listen to S&P, when they along with Moodys completely fucked up the analysis of the derivitives market, leading to the financial meltdown?

[ila]

Why should we listen to S&P, when they along with Moodys completely fucked up the analysis of the derivitives market, leading to the financial meltdown?

There are a great many more reasons for the financial mess that your country has caused to the rest of world than what S&P or Moody's had done or not done. One can start with social engineering and end with financial greed as the complete range of reasons.

[randolph]

The U.S. Department of the Treasury and many in Congress are disputing S&P's math, a fact that should be included with any statement about what S&P has done. Further, S&P -- in taking this decision -- calls attention as much to the political process as to anything specifically financial. In other words, it is a reasonable assumption that had the Tea Partiers not manufactured a debt ceiling "crisis" for political purposes, out of thin air, there would have been no such action.

Notably, neither Fitch nor Moody's, the other two main credit ratings agencies (Moody's being generally regarded as the most important), have downgraded their ratings. Both continue to maintain the AAA rating for the United States after this week's debt deal, although Moody's lowered its outlook on U.S. debt to "negative."

The $1 billion extra in interest it may now cost the United States to borrow money that it MUST borrow to pay for spending already approved by Congress -- including by Republicans -- is $1 billion that could have been spent on making life better for Americans. Instead, it will go to banks and other lending institutions. So, the Tea Partiers get the best of both worlds, from their perspective: they held the government hostage to a phony debt ceiling crisis that resulted in some cuts they wanted, and they get more money to their real, significant backers. In other words, more money for the wealthiest bankers and others who control the flow of capital.

S&P is being completely irresponsible with this rating. It will just make the financial situation worse.
Like it or not, the economy is a "faith based system". If the public feel confident the economy is doing OK, they are willing to invest in it and companies are willing to expand, creating jobs. Endless "bad" news creats a poisoness atmosphere that pervades the entire economy.
It makes one wonder who runs S&P, are they part of the group determined to make the economy look terrible before the next election in order to get Obama out of office?

[ila]

...Like it or not, the economy is a "faith based system". If the public feel confident the economy is doing OK, they are willing to invest in it and companies are willing to expand, creating jobs. Endless "bad" news creats a poisoness atmosphere that pervades the entire economy...

The situation would probably be better if you had a president with some backbone and principles. You don't need a leader who sways in the wind like a reed in a hurricane and who doesn't really have a vision of what your country should be and do.

[TracyCoxx]

The $2 trillion error not withstanding, S&P noted that we did not make the $4 trillion in cuts that they were looking for, and that much of the cuts we did plan on making were to come years from now under different presidents and different congresses. They have understandably lost faith that our idiots in washington can get things done and carry it out. When the president & congress promises cuts over 6 years from now, does anyone seriously thing they will happen?

Error or not, after August 2nd the dow dropped like 700 pts. People knew this was coming.

[randolph]

The situation would probably be better if you had a president with some backbone and principles. You don't need a leader who sways in the wind like a reed in a hurricane and who doesn't really have a vision of what your country should be and do.

It's becoming increasingly apparent that Obama is primarily interested in getting reelected rather than facing up to the right and their financial supporters. The devastation started by Ronald Reagan continues. Reagan seduced the nation with his friendly smooth talking style. Even now he is still considered a hero. Thirty years ago a man could support his family with a single job, buy a house and a car to get to work. His kids could get a college education for little cost. Public education was the best in the world.
When Reagan fired the airline controllers and nobody came to their support including other unions, the right wing was amazed and knew then that they could continue to screw the middle class by systematically transferring wealth to the wealthy.

[smc]

The $2 trillion error not withstanding, S&P noted that we did not make the $4 trillion in cuts that they were looking for, and that much of the cuts we did plan on making were to come years from now under different presidents and different congresses. They have understandably lost faith that our idiots in washington can get things done and carry it out. When the president & congress promises cuts over 6 years from now, does anyone seriously thing they will happen?

Error or not, after August 2nd the dow dropped like 700 pts. People knew this was coming.

I guess S&P should be calling the shots for the U.S. economy, rather than the real working people who pay real taxes. Of course, the chance that Republocrats actually represent real taxpayers as opposed to the financial barons of whom the S&P leadership is part is, of course, a fiction.

Tracy Coxx, why don't we just let S&P run the country directly? Wouldn't it cut out all the political shenanigans in Washington and make people who think like you happy?

[smc]

It's becoming increasingly apparent that Obama is primarily interested in getting reelected rather than facing up to the right and their financial supporters. The devastation started by Ronald Reagan continues. Reagan seduced the nation with his friendly smooth talking style. Even now he is still considered a hero. Thirty years ago a man could support his family with a single job, buy a house and a car to get to work. His kids could get a college education for little cost. Public education was the best in the world.
When Reagan fired the airline controllers and nobody came to their support including other unions, the right wing was amazed and knew then that they could continue to screw the middle class by systematically transferring wealth to the wealthy.

Randolph, you are getting close to the truth. If you can just realize that this is not about Obama, per se, but about the two parties that are controlled by big business and the wealthy. They disagree only in how to screw us. The Democrats want to do it on behalf of their benefactors somewhat benignly, recognizing that pushing too hard causes social turmoil. The Republicans are more honest in coming right out and telling people whose interests they represent. The fact that anyone, anyone, who works for a living (as opposed to those who live off the exploitation in our system) supports the latter is beyond me, when it is so obvious that they represent those who would exploit them even more. The fact that anyone who works for a living supports the former is a reflection of how well the Democrats have convinced people, falsely, that they are the party of the working class.

[guy4u300]

Gee wasn't TARP a Bush plan ? didn't Reagan spend shitloads of money while being in a peacetime economy ? just before 911 Ronald Dumbsfeld I mean Donald Rumsfeld annomced the two that right two TRILLION was missing from the PENTAGON BUDGET ???? Believe me the Republicans are the biggest spenders an could give a shit about you or I we could have had a NADER but we got a SELECTION INSTEAD OF A ELECTION IN 2000 . CASE CLOSED.


Thank you to Tracy Coxx for providing such a vivid lesson in dissembling the truth. Tracy Coxx has been called out on specific claims regarding how much of the deficit is Obama's "fault." Called on the lie, Tracy Coxx tries to divert your attention away from the actual numbers, because Tracy Coxx cannot justify the hyperbolic bullshit that is the substance of the claim. So, Tracy Coxx tries to shift the goalpost from the dollar figure to something else.

Kudos to Kaiti for joining the chorus calling out the deliberate misrepresentations of Tracy Coxx.

[ila]

It's becoming increasingly apparent that Obama is primarily interested in getting reelected rather than facing up to the right and their financial supporters. The devastation started by Ronald Reagan continues. Reagan seduced the nation with his friendly smooth talking style. Even now he is still considered a hero. Thirty years ago a man could support his family with a single job, buy a house and a car to get to work. His kids could get a college education for little cost. Public education was the best in the world.
When Reagan fired the airline controllers and nobody came to their support including other unions, the right wing was amazed and knew then that they could continue to screw the middle class by systematically transferring wealth to the wealthy.

Randolph, you are getting close to the truth. If you can just realize that this is not about Obama, per se, but about the two parties that are controlled by big business and the wealthy. They disagree only in how to screw us. The Democrats want to do it on behalf of their benefactors somewhat benignly, recognizing that pushing too hard causes social turmoil. The Republicans are more honest in coming right out and telling people whose interests they represent. The fact that anyone, anyone, who works for a living (as opposed to those who live off the exploitation in our system) supports the latter is beyond me, when it is so obvious that they represent those who would exploit them even more. The fact that anyone who works for a living supports the former is a reflection of how well the Democrats have convinced people, falsely, that they are the party of the working class.

It's not just in your country. It seems that politicians everywhere are more interested in ganining and retaining power rather than looking after their respective countries.

[randolph]

We have to give the politicians and their corporate masters credit for being masters of deception. The Tea Party people have legitimate grassroots concerns about the massive debt and the direction of the country. This honest patriotic concern is being manipulated and distorted to create a poisoness paranoid atmosphere. Obama is being characterized as an evil power mad socialist bent on destroying the country. Social programs are evil, energy saving light bulbs are evil, family planning is evil. The Kock Bros, the Heritage Foundation and the other conservative "think" tanks that are supported by wealthy corporate interests feed the Tea Party with this irrational crap. The shocking thing is that a lot of people buy it and as demonstrated in Washington last week, it is working. Obama and Congress caved big time.
Certainly the debt is of concern but of greater concern is the economy. The stimulus saved the banks and big business but it is the thousands of small businesses in this country that provide the jobs that are so desperately needed yet they are getting little help from Washingtom.

[randolph]

The face of the Tea Party?
The queen of hate!

[Enoch Root]

The face of the Tea Party?
The queen of hate!


She looks like she wants to suck my soul through her eyes. Whilst she cuts funding for education. Those wily teachers and their gold plated pensions...

[franalexes]

When does this become Obama's economic record?
You can keep the Change and Hope went south today.

[randolph]

When does this become Obama's economic record?
You can keep the Change and Hope went south today.

The Repubs. and their basement buddies are doing everything possible to get Ayn Rand to be the next president. If the American public doesn't wake up, we can look forward to increased racism, persecution of homosexuals and transsexuals, the destruction of Social Security and Medicare and the establishment of a national religion.
Taliban sharia here we come.

[randolph]

Looks like a lot of Republicans are becoming independent. I suspect moderate Republicans are being put of by all the radical super conservatives yapping away on the media.

[transjen]

looks like everyone must still be hung over from Rick Perry throwing his ten gallon hat of GOP BS in to the ring
I can see why a lot of the GOP love this guy for one he makes W look like a five beta cappa
oh and this champion of the common man after leaving the air force he returned to his daddy's cotton farm then entered poltics a man who never worked a day in his life says he can create jobs
Most of the jobs he created were thanks to the stim package which he is bitching about and the rest are min wage jobs with no bennies
WHOOO-HOOO another champion of the working man from Texas
I believe we already seen this picture before
And this one is worse then the first
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

[randolph]

looks like everyone must still be hung over from Rick Perry throwing his ten gallon hat of GOP BS in to the ring
I can see why a lot of the GOP love this guy for one he makes W look like a five beta cappa
oh and this champion of the common man after leaving the air force he returned to his daddy's cotton farm then entered poltics a man who never worked a day in his life says he can create jobs
Most of the jobs he created were thanks to the stim package which he is bitching about and the rest are min wage jobs with no bennies
WHOOO-HOOO another champion of the working man from Texas
I believe we already seen this picture before
And this one is worse then the first
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

For sure, in college he was a "C" student specializing in "Fs" and "Ds". His claim to fame in college? He was a yell leader!
He doesn't believe in evolution or global warming. The debates between Bachmen and Perry should be quite entertaining.

[franalexes]

Been reading other forums of R's that have an unfavorable take on Perry.
He is everything that those supporting conservative traits would oppose.

With close to a dozen in the pack, I don't see a leader yet.
Of all , I see Gingritch as capable but still very un-electable.

[randolph]

Been reading other forums of R's that have an unfavorable take on Perry.
He is everything that those supporting conservative traits would oppose.

With close to a dozen in the pack, I don't see a leader yet.
Of all , I see Gingritch as capable but still very un-electable.

Oh no, please not Newt! He can't even hold together his campaign team! :rolleyes:

Rumor has it the Obama is not going to run and Hillary if going to take over.
That should get the Repubs. stirred up. :yes:

[smc]

A Rick Perry quote that requires no comment:

"I think in America from time to time we have to go through some difficult times ? and I think we?re going through those difficult economic times for a purpose, to bring us back to those Biblical principles of you know, you don?t spend all the money. You work hard for those six years and you put up that seventh year in the warehouse to take you through the hard times. And not spending all of our money. Not asking for Pharaoh to give everything to everybody and to take care of folks because at the end of the day, it?s slavery." (May 5, 2011, on the James Robison TV show "Life Today")

[randolph]

A Rick Perry quote that requires no comment:
"I think in America from time to time we have to go through some difficult times ? and I think we?re going through those difficult economic times for a purpose, to bring us back to those Biblical principles of you know, you don?t spend all the money. You work hard for those six years and you put up that seventh year in the warehouse to take you through the hard times. And not spending all of our money. Not asking for Pharaoh to give everything to everybody and to take care of folks because at the end of the day, it?s slavery." (May 5, 2011, on the James Robison TV show "Life Today")

The governor of Texas! It's Howdy Dudy time. :blush:

[ila]

...Rumor has it the Obama is not going to run and Hillary if going to take over.
That should get the Repubs. stirred up. :yes:

I stated a few years ago that Hillary should have been the Democratic candidate in the last US presidential election. She's got skill, knowledge, and backbone.

[KittyKaiti]

A Rick Perry quote that requires no comment:

"I think in America from time to time we have to go through some difficult times ? and I think we?re going through those difficult economic times for a purpose, to bring us back to those Biblical principles of you know, you don?t spend all the money. You work hard for those six years and you put up that seventh year in the warehouse to take you through the hard times. And not spending all of our money. Not asking for Pharaoh to give everything to everybody and to take care of folks because at the end of the day, it?s slavery." (May 5, 2011, on the James Robison TV show "Life Today")

He is a slightly less nerve racking Republican candidate for President as compared to the few others. But any President that uses religion to interfere with his duties as a leader in a secular nation is a scary person when in power.

[randolph]

What about Jon Huntsman? He seem reasonably sane compared to the rest of them.

[franalexes]

Rumor has it the Obama is not going to run and Hillary if going to take over.
That should get the Repubs. stirred up. :yes:

I also heard that rumor on a political forum. :rolleyes:

(not typed in Magenta at the request of dauls )

[transjen]

What about Jon Huntsman? He seem reasonably sane compared to the rest of them.


And that is why he doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of making it out of the primaries, the hardcore GOP voters want a hardcore nut job like Perry or Bachman
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

[transjen]

Oh no, please not Newt! He can't even hold together his campaign team! :rolleyes:

Rumor has it the Obama is not going to run and Hillary if going to take over.
That should get the Repubs. stirred up. :yes:

Not going to happen, if this was true i'd be working inher campaign HQ here in Jersey like i did in 08 :yes:

The Dems and indies will bitch about Obama caving in and always letting the GOP get there way but in the end they'll revote him back in office
why you ask, you look at who his replacement will be Perry or Bachman or Rom not much of a choice is it?
of course i do hear that some hardliners want to dig up the corspe of Ronald and run him for a third term
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

And that is why he doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of making it out of the primaries, the hardcore GOP voters want a hardcore nut job like Perry or Bachman
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

A leftist version of this could probably be said about Hillary for prez in '08.

[ila]

...of course i do hear that some hardliners want to dig up the corspe of Ronald and run him for a third term
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

At least the corpse of Ron would have more backbone than your current president.

[smc]

... of course i do hear that some hardliners want to dig up the corspe of Ronald and run him for a third term
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

"Hardliners"? I believe there are those in the Republican Party who would like to do as you say, but what are today "hardliners" in that party would be confronted with a choice they don't want to make: keep using Reagan as the touchstone of conservatism (in the way Sarah Palin does, nearly drooling at the mention of his name), or acknowledge that Reagan -- who, for instance, appealed quite eloquently for an increase in the debt ceiling (you can find the quote in an earlier post of mine) -- would not pass muster in the Tea Party world.

[aw9725]

At least the corpse of Ron would have more backbone than your current president.

This is true... :lol: :respect:

[randolph]

This is a quote from Tickerspy regarding Warren Buffets investment in Bank of America.

I will bet against the common wisdom. Buffett unloaded his entire shareholdings in BofA last year. These were common shares. He now gets a six percent dividend which is seventy percent tax free under tax law as to dividends paid from one corporation (BofA) to another Berkshire and he is preferred over the payment of dividends to other common shareholders. He also has ten years to but the shares at around $7/share which is very generous. This is not a show of confidence in BofA who did not need the capital last week but confidence in the shrewdness of Warren Buffett who did the same with GE and Goldman Sachs just before the commons shares in Goldman tanked last week.


I guess that's why he is so rich. He is very smart!

[transjen]

While the GOP wannabe Presidents are doing a Mexican hat dance about zero job for Aug and after they finished high fiven each other they started running there mouth and if you listen you will find one pattron to there load of crap
They all claim they will create jobs
How will they do this feet you ask?
For the most part they are not telling but what they do tell is the same old GOP BS about cutting taxes :lol:
this BS has been in affect since 2001 and is still going
So if cutting taxes creates jobs where the :censored: are the jobs
in fact in 2010 the GOP ran for the house claiming they will make jobs there number one duty so to the GOP controled house i ask where are the jobs?
The GOP BS about cutting taxes has never worked and never will
And before Tracy chimes in here's a fact for her to chew on when there belove W was in the white house we were in a neg 2000 jobs a month in the hole
The GOP answer is keep the Bush failed policies active and trople down on a loosing hand of failed policies which got us in to this mess to start with
and remember they cry :coupling: the poor
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

[GRH]

Since Republicans are so for low taxes, why are they not in favor of extending the 2% payroll tax cut that expires at the end of the year? Is it because they don't care if middle class tax rates increase so long as the wealthy don't have to pay more? Could it have anything to do with not wanting to help the economy so as to decrease Obama's chance of reelection?

[TracyCoxx]

In February 2009, after signing the stimulus bill, Obama pledged to cut the deficit to half by the end of his first term in office. I'd like to see it gone of course, but it's still going to be impressive to see him get the deficit down to $530 billion next fiscal year. Go for it Obama... only $770 billion left to go!

[smc]

In February 2009, after signing the stimulus bill, Obama pledged to cut the deficit to half by the end of his first term in office. I'd like to see it gone of course, but it's still going to be impressive to see him get the deficit down to $530 billion next fiscal year. Go for it Obama... only $770 billion left to go!

A stupid pledge to have made, since it would require the assent of the very people you support ... and they won't do it, either. But (broken record time) you already know that, Tracy Coxx.

[randolph]

I find the thing most disturbing about the GOP debate last night was that no one challenged Perry on his outrageous statements about social security. He is flat out wrong about social security. It is fully funded well into the future. Working young people today who are contributing to social security will get a retirement of about $35,000 per year at time of retirement.
Perry's comments are just another example of the rhetorical bullshit emanating from the far right.

[TracyCoxx]

I find the thing most disturbing about the GOP debate last night was that no one challenged Perry on his outrageous statements about social security. He is flat out wrong about social security. It is fully funded well into the future. Working young people today who are contributing to social security will get a retirement of about $35,000 per year at time of retirement.
Perry's comments are just another example of the rhetorical bullshit emanating from the far right.

I think that's more debatable than the science that Perry completely blasts. If you add in comments he's made elsewhere it's pretty clear he has no respect for any field of science and I find that rather disturbing.

[randolph]

I think that's more debatable than the science that Perry completely blasts. If you add in comments he's made elsewhere it's pretty clear he has no respect for any field of science and I find that rather disturbing.

It's amazing that he brags about getting high tech companies to come to Texas while he dismisses all the scientific evidence for evolution and climate change.

[TracyCoxx]

It's amazing that he brags about getting high tech companies to come to Texas while he dismisses all the scientific evidence for evolution and climate change.

Yeah, he's also a big supporter of manned space exploration, which I was just as surprised about as I was with Bush, the other anti-science guy.

[randolph]

Yeah, he's also a big supporter of manned space exploration, which I was just as surprised about as I was with Bush, the other anti-science guy.

I find it mystifying that these bible thumping "religious" types can deny and reject some science and embrace other aspects of scientific endeavor. I suspect a lot of it is cynical pandering to a religious base in order to gain political power. That certainly appeared to be the case with Bush.
With Bachman and Palin and some of the others they seem to really believe in the literal bible. How they reconcile that with reality is a mystery.
Jimmy Carter is a Baptist, a moderate one however and he did not try to impose his religious beliefs onto the American public as President. Some of the current candidates want to impose their conservative beliefs on the American public. This is a very bad trend. The founding fathers were well aware of the deleterious effects of blending religion into government. They carefully crafted the Constitution to keep religion out of the government.

[TracyCoxx]

I find it mystifying that these bible thumping "religious" types can deny and reject some science and embrace other aspects of scientific endeavor. I suspect a lot of it is cynical pandering to a religious base in order to gain political power. That certainly appeared to be the case with Bush.
Oh I believe Bush (and Perry) are more religious than they even allow people to see. I think Bush's support of manned space exploration was for other than scientific reasons. Like the spanish - for god, gold and glory.

With Bachman and Palin and some of the others they seem to really believe in the literal bible. How they reconcile that with reality is a mystery.After talking with people like them, they seem to think reality is a deception and that you must remain steadfast and keep your eye on what the bible tells you :innocent: I tell them nature is the literal word of god, not the bible.

Jimmy Carter is a Baptist, a moderate one however and he did not try to impose his religious beliefs onto the American public as President. Some of the current candidates want to impose their conservative beliefs on the American public. This is a very bad trend. The founding fathers were well aware of the deleterious effects of blending religion into government. They carefully crafted the Constitution to keep religion out of the government.

I agree.

[randolph]

I think God may be getting fed up with all this "support" business.
I think Bush also claimed God was on his side.

"Texas governor Rick Perry said God is calling on him to run for President. But Michele Bachmann said that god is calling on her to run for President. You know, if God is that indecisive, he's probably for Mitt Romney." ?Jay Leno :lol:

[TracyCoxx]

These are not good times for Obama. His approval ratings are low, unemployment rates continue to rise, his administration is in the hot seat for pushing to loan stimulus money to Solyndra which apparently was known at the time to be a very risky loan. How many more times has this happened? Even some senate democrats are not supporting Obama's jobs bill. Now Obama tells (pleads to?) a crowd

If you love me, help me pass this bill! Sounds pretty desperate.

[randolph]

These are not good times for Obama. His approval ratings are low, unemployment rates continue to rise, his administration is in the hot seat for pushing to loan stimulus money to Solyndra which apparently was known at the time to be a very risky loan. How many more times has this happened? Even some senate democrats are not supporting Obama's jobs bill. Now Obama tells (pleads to?) a crowd

Sounds pretty desperate.

Oh My! Now Obama is resorting to this God nonsense. Perry just gave a speech to Liberty University (Fallwell's) bragging about his lousy grades and how he flunked out of vet school. Also got loud cheers when the host said Perry got an A+ from the arms lobby.
"Onward Christian soldiers marching as to war"
I guess if Jesus finally returns, he can run for president.:rolleyes:

[smc]

These are not good times for Obama. His approval ratings are low, unemployment rates continue to rise, his administration is in the hot seat for pushing to loan stimulus money to Solyndra which apparently was known at the time to be a very risky loan. How many more times has this happened? Even some senate democrats are not supporting Obama's jobs bill. Now Obama tells (pleads to?) a crowd

OBAMA: "If you love me, help me pass this bill!"

Sounds pretty desperate.

C'mon, this isn't serious discussion. Every politician has uttered this kind of nonsense in the past. I think Obama's jobs plan sucks, and despise what his administration has done, but I think we can talk about the merits (or lack thereof) of what he's doing and proposing rather than focus on ridiculous statements such as this.

Just sayin' ...

[randolph]

C'mon, this isn't serious discussion. Every politician has uttered this kind of nonsense in the past. I think Obama's jobs plan sucks, and despise what his administration has done, but I think we can talk about the merits (or lack thereof) of what he's doing and proposing rather than focus on ridiculous statements such as this.

Just sayin' ...

Tracy is simply commenting on current news, I don't see what is so ridiculous about that. Obama is desperate, his potential to get reelected is declining daily, even in California. The prospect of getting another Republican yahoo as President is looming on the horizon.
The question is whether the United States has become ungovernable. :eek:

[smc]

Tracy is simply commenting on current news, I don't see what is so ridiculous about that. Obama is desperate, his potential to get reelected is declining daily, even in California. The prospect of getting another Republican yahoo as President is looming on the horizon.
The question is whether the United States has become ungovernable. :eek:

I used "ridiculous" to characterize Obama's statement, NOT Tracy's post. My point is that if we focused discussion on the ridiculous things such as this that politicians say in campaign mode, rather than the SUBSTANCE of their actions and proposals, we deserve whatever crap we get.

[randolph]

I used "ridiculous" to characterize Obama's statement, NOT Tracy's post. My point is that if we focused discussion on the ridiculous things such as this that politicians say in campaign mode, rather than the SUBSTANCE of their actions and proposals, we deserve whatever crap we get.

Whether it is "ridiculous" or not, what politicians say is supposed to mean what they mean. What they are saying at any given moment to be lies or bullshit is usually determined in the future. Obama promised a new era of government and it was welcomed by the populace after the malfeasance of the Bush administration. Is he failing because of BS or lying or the inability to control Congress, probably all of the above. As bystanders on the political process we are limited as to understanding the driving forces in Washington. Conservatives believe their analysis is sound, liberals believe their analysis is sound. Is my analysis sound? Damned if I know. I know Paul Krugman is a very smart guy, mush smarter than me, but is he always right, damned if I know.

[smc]

Whether it is "ridiculous" or not, what politicians say is supposed to mean what they mean. What they are saying at any given moment to be lies or bullshit is usually determined in the future. Obama promised a new era of government and it was welcomed by the populace after the malfeasance of the Bush administration. Is he failing because of BS or lying or the inability to control Congress, probably all of the above. As bystanders on the political process we are limited as to understanding the driving forces in Washington. Conservatives believe their analysis is sound, liberals believe their analysis is sound. Is my analysis sound? Damned if I know. I know Paul Krugman is a very smart guy, mush smarter than me, but is he always right, damned if I know.

With all due respect, Randolph, it does no good to conflate Obama's throwaway comment in Tracy's post with "what politicians say" about policy or issues. What he said is no different than what politicians of all stripes, in campaign mode, say as they jump on stage and asking for "love" or any other similar statement.

[randolph]

With all due respect, Randolph, it does no good to conflate Obama's throwaway comment in Tracy's post with "what politicians say" about policy or issues. What he said is no different than what politicians of all stripes, in campaign mode, say as they jump on stage and asking for "love" or any other similar statement.

Keep in mind that Obama's very animated speech to an audience of young students drew wild cheering and applause. I suspect the whole performance was aimed at a wider audiences, however. When he started going on about "love", that was it, way over the top.
How do we develop a perception of a candidates character and their potential ability to govern. Obama had excellent credentials, Harvard, professor, congressman. Yet, he seems to lack the essential ability to stand up and exert political power. Perhaps in this day and age we need a President who can kick ass.

[ila]

These are not good times for Obama. His approval ratings are low, unemployment rates continue to rise, his administration is in the hot seat for pushing to loan stimulus money to Solyndra which apparently was known at the time to be a very risky loan. How many more times has this happened? Even some senate democrats are not supporting Obama's jobs bill. Now Obama tells (pleads to?) a crowd

Sounds pretty desperate.

For the second time since he has taken office Obama has broken an international trade treaty. Again it is the NAFTA agreement with his 'buy American" provision. It's typical that the US feels free to break every agreement that they ever sign and in between breaking agreements the US government and businesses sue other countries and businesses for unfair trade practices. The hypocrisy of it is overwhelming.

[TracyCoxx]

C'mon, this isn't serious discussion. Every politician has uttered this kind of nonsense in the past. I think Obama's jobs plan sucks, and despise what his administration has done, but I think we can talk about the merits (or lack thereof) of what he's doing and proposing rather than focus on ridiculous statements such as this.

Just sayin' ...

I thought it sounded pretty funny when he said it, and sometimes you just gotta laugh at him and NOT take him seriously.

Obama is desperate, his potential to get reelected is declining daily, even in California. The prospect of getting another Republican yahoo as President is looming on the horizon.
The question is whether the United States has become ungovernable. :eek:
I fear that you're right. The two parties are getting so far apart. But they are also based on a weird pair of mutually exclusive ideologies:

government is the solution/secular
vs
government is the problem/religious

Why are these two pairs of mutually exclusive ideologies paired this way? I don't know. This is guaranteeing that neither party will satisfy a large portion of the population.

My point is that if we focused discussion on the ridiculous things such as this that politicians say in campaign mode, rather than the SUBSTANCE of their actions and proposals, we deserve whatever crap we get.The substance of their actions and proposals have certainly been missing in campaigns. There was zero substance of Obama's message last campaign season. But I also think when Obama says "If you love me, help me pass this bill", that's an interesting view into his persona.

[GRH]

For the second time since he has taken office Obama has broken an international trade treaty. Again it is the NAFTA agreement with his 'buy American" provision. It's typical that the US feels free to break every agreement that they ever sign and in between breaking agreements the US government and businesses sue other countries and businesses for unfair trade practices. The hypocrisy of it is overwhelming.

Quite frankly, America would be a LOT better off if we'd start breaking all of these bullshit "free trade" agreements/treaties.

[Enoch Root]

Quite frankly, America would be a LOT better off if we'd start breaking all of these bullshit "free trade" agreements/treaties.

Why is that, GRH?

[randolph]

Why is that, GRH?

The answer is easy. These so called "free trade" agreements are designed to take advantage of other countries. I suspect we get other countries to agree to them with bribes (military hardware). These agreements are disastrous for the small farmers and business in these countries. Mexico is a good example, NAFTA destroyed corn farming in Mexico, consequently desperate farmers are migrating here. :censored:

[Enoch Root]

The answer is easy. These so called "free trade" agreements are designed to take advantage of other countries. I suspect we get other countries to agree to them with bribes (military hardware). These agreements are disastrous for the small farmers and business in these countries. Mexico is a good example, NAFTA destroyed corn farming in Mexico, consequently desperate farmers are migrating here. :censored:

Anything else randolph?

[smc]

The answer is easy. These so called "free trade" agreements are designed to take advantage of other countries. I suspect we get other countries to agree to them with bribes (military hardware). These agreements are disastrous for the small farmers and business in these countries. Mexico is a good example, NAFTA destroyed corn farming in Mexico, consequently desperate farmers are migrating here. :censored:

This is only half the answer. The agreements are also designed to introduce "tripartism" into labor relations in the United States, a concept based on the false notion that government, employers, and workers share the same interests. The real effect is to use the agreements as another means of tearing down the protections that working people have fought for and won over decades as what the European Union calls "harmonization" is established among the countries involved in the agreement. These agreements seek to abrogate existing labor contracts and even the Conventions of the International Labor Organization.

[Enoch Root]

Conventions of the International Labor Organization.

Which is what?

[randolph]

This is only half the answer. The agreements are also designed to introduce "tripartism" into labor relations in the United States, a concept based on the false notion that government, employers, and workers share the same interests. The real effect is to use the agreements as another means of tearing down the protections that working people have fought for and won over decades as what the European Union calls "harmonization" is established among the countries involved in the agreement. These agreements seek to abrogate existing labor contracts and even the Conventions of the International Labor Organization.

Yes, along with the WTO, we are determined to impose our will on the rest of the world and destroy independent self sufficiency in other countries. Its not all that different from slavery. Make everyone subject to the whim of corporate enterprises that can move their factories to the source of the cheapest labor. :censored:

[ila]

Quite frankly, America would be a LOT better off if we'd start breaking all of these bullshit "free trade" agreements/treaties.

I agree that these agreements are bullshit. The bullshit is on the part of the US which negotiated them thinking that they could take advantage of other countries. That is why the US keeps taking other countries to court, but when times get tough the whining starts and never stops.

The answer is easy. These so called "free trade" agreements are designed to take advantage of other countries. I suspect we get other countries to agree to them with bribes (military hardware). These agreements are disastrous for the small farmers and business in these countries. Mexico is a good example, NAFTA destroyed corn farming in Mexico, consequently desperate farmers are migrating here. :censored:

You are right, randolph. These agreements were designed to take advantage of other countries, but it didn't work out that way in the long run.

Do you really think that in the case of the FTA and NAFTA that Canada was bribed with military hardware? Canada, the country where the standard of living is higher and the purchasing power of our currency is greater than the US had to be bribed. Get serious.

This is only half the answer. The agreements are also designed to introduce "tripartism" into labor relations in the United States, a concept based on the false notion that government, employers, and workers share the same interests. The real effect is to use the agreements as another means of tearing down the protections that working people have fought for and won over decades as what the European Union calls "harmonization" is established among the countries involved in the agreement. These agreements seek to abrogate existing labor contracts and even the Conventions of the International Labor Organization.

The US tried to take advantage of other countries thinking that the rest of the world is such a bunch of dumb rubes. The US sought to abrogate labour contracts and not any other country in NAFTA or the FTA.

Yes, along with the WTO, we are determined to impose our will on the rest of the world and destroy independent self sufficiency in other countries. Its not all that different from slavery. Make everyone subject to the whim of corporate enterprises that can move their factories to the source of the cheapest labor. :censored:

The US keeps running off to WTO, crying its eyes out, whenever another country wins a frivolous lawsuit brought by the US. It's time to grow up and actually play like adults.

[transjen]

The only thing the US exports from these free trade agreements is US jobs
Notice how all our jobs are going to India and China and the US middle class will soon be an endangered species while China's and India's middle class is growing
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

[smc]

Which is what?

Enoch Root, there's this thing called the "Google machine" that I think has recently made its way even to a remote outpost of the world called Puerto Rico. I hear that you can type in words and it directs you to information about what you typed in. Wow, like you don't have to go to the library or anything.

These kids with their newfangled technologies. :lol:

[smc]

Yes, along with the WTO, we are determined to impose our will on the rest of the world and destroy independent self sufficiency in other countries. Its not all that different from slavery. Make everyone subject to the whim of corporate enterprises that can move their factories to the source of the cheapest labor. :censored:

Wow, did I really miss making my point that badly?! :blush:

I was talking about U.S. workers.

[smc]

The US tried to take advantage of other countries thinking that the rest of the world is such a bunch of dumb rubes. The US sought to abrogate labour contracts and not any other country in NAFTA or the FTA.

Make no mistake: these agreements are designed as much to harm U.S. workers as much as anyone else.

Kudos for the correct use of the word "abrogate" -- something I don't see every day, or month, or year for that matter. :respect:

[Enoch Root]

Enoch Root, there's this thing called the "Google machine" that I think has recently made its way even to a remote outpost of the world called Puerto Rico. I hear that you can type in words and it directs you to information about what you typed in. Wow, like you don't have to go to the library or anything.

These kids with their newfangled technologies. :lol:

It's a part of my personality. I prefer to learn through discussion with people rather than googling everything. Yes, I am stubborn that way. And maybe just a tad of a luddite.

[smc]

The only thing the US exports from these free trade agreements is US jobs
Notice how all our jobs are going to India and China and the US middle class will soon be an endangered species while China's and India's middle class is growing
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

You are correct, Jen, but it would be wrong to blame Indian and Chinese workers (mostly peasants who are finally ascending out of abject poverty) for unemployment in the United States. It is U.S. capital that is responsible.

For instance, it's fine that China is the main manufacturer of solar panels. The problem in the United States is that absent a national policy and the will to convert to this renewable energy source, the United States doesn't create the tens of thousands of jobs INSTALLING those panels. Our unemployment is a demand issue, not a supply issue.

[smc]

It's a part of my personality. I prefer to learn through discussion with people rather than googling everything. Yes, I am stubborn that way. And maybe just a tad of a luddite.

Telling you what the ILO Conventions are isn't a "discussion." Looking them up yourself and then asking questions about them, or positing an opinion about what you read, could become a discussion.

(Sorry, I just got home from school and I haven't shifted gears yet. ;) )

[Enoch Root]

Telling you what the ILO Conventions are isn't a "discussion." Looking them up yourself and then asking questions about them, or positing an opinion about what you read, could become a discussion.

(Sorry, I just got home from school and I haven't shifted gears yet. ;) )

Sorry doc. Discussion is indeed not the word. Perhaps conversation is the word that will appease you?

[randolph]

Ila Do you really think that in the case of the FTA and NAFTA that Canada was bribed with military hardware? Canada, the country where the standard of living is higher and the purchasing power of our currency is greater than the US had to be bribed. Get serious.

I wasn't referring to Canada or other "wealthy" countries. I meant Mexico and central American countries where poor farmers lost their livelihood.

[ila]

Ila

I wasn't referring to Canada or other "wealthy" countries. I meant Mexico and central American countries where poor farmers lost their livelihood.

The FTA was an agreement between Canada and the US. NAFTA was an agreement among Canada, the US, and Mexico. Therefore the only possible countries that could be referred to as being bribed by the US are Canada and Mexico. Canada wasn't bribed and neither was Mexico.

[randolph]

Wow, did I really miss making my point that badly?! :blush:

I was talking about U.S. workers.

Yes I agreed with your point regarding American labor, I just took off on another aspect of the issue.
After WWII the unions were strong and the working class was able to join the middle class, buy a house, a car and have a family. Big business resented the power of unions and the Taft Hartley bill was passed and then came more "right to work" bills further weakening the unions. Since the 1970s the working class part of the middle class has just been treading water and going deeper into debt. The unions strongly supported the Democratic party and congressmen thereby providing a counter balance to the Repubs. This is gone now and both parties are beholden to corporate America.
I find it mystifying that corporate America is determined to destroy the middle class. These are the people that buy there stuff. A viable middle class is the heart of America. I don't understand it. :frown:

[TracyCoxx]

ying that corporate America is determined to destroy the middle class. These are the people that buy there stuff. A viable middle class is the heart of America. I don't understand it. :frown:

Why would corporate America (your evil empire) be determined to destroy the middle class? That's the vast majority of their customers.

[smc]

Why would corporate America (your evil empire) be determined to destroy the middle class? That's the vast majority of their customers.

Corporate America makes its money primarily in the capital markets (paper/fictitious money, but it works for them at least for now), not by selling goods to consumers.

[randolph]

Why would corporate America (your evil empire) be determined to destroy the middle class? That's the vast majority of their customers.

I don't think there is a conspiracy to destroy the middle class, it's that we don't have the protection in Congress that we used to have. Consequently, the upper classes have the power to bleed us of wealth we used to have.
Also, the middle class was sold on the idea that buying a house was an excellent way to invest for the future. Extremely easy credit was used to lure people into buying overpriced properties with the assurance that prices would continue to go up. What a con job! Most homeowners with these big mortgages are now underwater and will stay that way for years to come. What a horrible feelling that you paid $500,000 for a house that is now worth $250,000 and you owe $400,000. Are people in that situation going out and spending lots of money? Without consumer demand, the companies are not going to hire more workers.
The greedy banks and financial houses in cahoots with the federal government (Greenspan) have thoroughly fucked up our middle class economy, while the rich are sitting pretty. :censored:

[TracyCoxx]

Obama's plan to reduce the deficit includes $1.5 trillion in new taxes. He had his chance to lead before. The democrats and republicans left deficit reduction strategies up to the deficit super committee, which from what I've heard were not going to depend on new taxes. Did he forget about that?

[randolph]

Obama's plan to reduce the deficit includes $1.5 trillion in new taxes. He had his chance to lead before. The democrats and republicans left deficit reduction strategies up to the deficit super committee, which from what I've heard were not going to depend on new taxes. Did he forget about that?

There is no way on earth this massive deficit is going to get paid off without severe cuts to government spending and a reestablishment of an equable tax system that treats everybody fairly. We can start with the capital gains tax, make it progressive based on income. Yes, that would mean I would have to pay more taxes.

[smc]

There is no way on earth this massive deficit is going to get paid off without severe cuts to government spending and a reestablishment of an equable tax system that treats everybody fairly. We can start with the capital gains tax, make it progressive based on income.

I would be interested to know why everyone seems to buy the line that the "massive deficit" is somehow a problem of earth-shattering importance. I do not deny that the United States carries a massive deficit; governments are expected to do so. But making it an issue with catastrophic overtones is, I believe, a red herring, used as an excuse by those whose true agenda is to slash social spending.

[randolph]

I would be interested to know why everyone seems to buy the line that the "massive deficit" is somehow a problem of earth-shattering importance. I do not deny that the United States carries a massive deficit; governments are expected to do so. But making it an issue with catastrophic overtones is, I believe, a red herring, used as an excuse by those whose true agenda is to slash social spending.

Personally, I am very adverse to debt, I have seen how destructive it can be. I see no justification for social spending based on debt. Social spending should be based on productivity of the economy.
As governor of California, Earl Warren used to say, we pay as we go. that's the only way an economy can be sustainable. California was thriving in those days.

[smc]

Personally, I am very adverse to debt, I have seen how destructive it can be. I see no justification for social spending based on debt. Social spending should be based on productivity of the economy.
As governor of California, Earl Warren used to say, we pay as we go. that's the only way an economy can be sustainable. California was thriving in those days.

I don't have time at this moment to respond fully, but I will make a couple of quick points.

1. It is a fallacy to analogize personal/consumer debt to government deficit spending. I am not saying you have done this, Randolph, but rather am making a general point.

2. If you truly believe that "social spending should be based on productivity of the economy" and you truly see "no justification for social spending based on debt," than you must be completely opposed to any type of government stimulus of the economy whatsoever. That would include the WPA and CCC during the Great Depression. Is that the case?

Off to hang out with Kaiti and Tiffany ... "skipping" classes, and back on line sporadically over the next couple of days.

[randolph]

I don't have time at this moment to respond fully, but I will make a couple of quick points.

1. It is a fallacy to analogize personal/consumer debt to government deficit spending. I am not saying you have done this, Randolph, but rather am making a general point.

2. If you truly believe that "social spending should be based on productivity of the economy" and you truly see "no justification for social spending based on debt," than you must be completely opposed to any type of government stimulus of the economy whatsoever. That would include the WPA and CCC during the Great Depression. Is that the case?

Off to hang out with Kaiti and Tiffany ... "skipping" classes, and back on line sporadically over the next couple of days.

Hey you lucky SOB why are you concerned about my comments when you are off with a couple of hotties. Damn!!! ;)

[TracyCoxx]

I would be interested to know why everyone seems to buy the line that the "massive deficit" is somehow a problem of earth-shattering importance. I do not deny that the United States carries a massive deficit; governments are expected to do so. But making it an issue with catastrophic overtones is, I believe, a red herring, used as an excuse by those whose true agenda is to slash social spending.

well our credit rating was downgraded, so there is that.

[randolph]

I don't have time at this moment to respond fully, but I will make a couple of quick points.

1. It is a fallacy to analogize personal/consumer debt to government deficit spending. I am not saying you have done this, Randolph, but rather am making a general point.

2. If you truly believe that "social spending should be based on productivity of the economy" and you truly see "no justification for social spending based on debt," than you must be completely opposed to any type of government stimulus of the economy whatsoever. That would include the WPA and CCC during the Great Depression. Is that the case?

Off to hang out with Kaiti and Tiffany ... "skipping" classes, and back on line sporadically over the next couple of days.

1- Debt is debt, regardless of who owns it. Government is different in being able to print money and inflate it's way out of debt, which is devastating to people on fixed incomes.
2- Social spending, ie. social security, medicare, etc, must be based on long term sustainable government income(taxes). Otherwise it contributes to inflation.
WPA and CCC were temporary measures to relieve human suffering during a severe depression. They did little to get us out of the depression, however.
The massive Keynesian spending during WWII (for manufacturing war materials) got us out of the depression. That created a huge amount of debt but it was resolved by economic expansion after the war.

I may sound Teapartyish here, but I am not. I am a progressive in that government must play a role in human services. That role must be based on sound economic policy, however.

[TracyCoxx]

Buffett Says He Stands By 'Buffett Rule'
"Warren Buffett says he's absolutely "fine" with President Obama calling the new plan to establish a minimum tax rate for individuals making more than $1 million a year the "Buffett Rule."

Buffett has long argued that the wealthiest Americans tend to pay a smaller portion of their income in federal taxes than middle-income earners because some millionaires and billionaires often get much of their income from capital gains, which are taxed at a lower rate than basic wages.

Buffett has argued that the "billionaire-friendly Congress" has coddled the wealthy and that that practice should end."

In other news:
Warren Buffett Arrested For Tax Evasion
"In a surprising development, Warren Buffett was reportedly arrested this morning at his Berkshire Hathaway offices in Omaha. Allegedly, he has not only paid less than his secretary in taxes, he hasn?t paid ANY taxes in last ten years. Or maybe it was just an IRS error. It?s not clear.

The IRS has supposedly been going over Bufftett?s tax returns with extra care because President Obama is about to present the the nation with ?the Buffett tax?, which raises taxes on millionaires and billionaires.

What they reportedly found was that Buffett?s company has been paying taxes but it?s Chariman, Warren B., has not filed taxes in ten years and before that he was only paying taxes on a rate of 7%, thanks to some very creative accounting and some help from the IRS."

:lol: At least these democrats are entertaining :lol:

[randolph]

Some fun with Warren

The Oracle of Omaha told WWN that he must have ?forgot? to pay his taxes over the last ten years and blamed the lack of tax payments on his new accountant ? Scott Dude. When Buffett was told that ?Scott Dude? sounds like a fictitious name, Buffett said, ?do you have any oatmeal??
Buffett was reportedly playing Angry Birds at the time of his arrest. The IRS agents sat down and played for an hour themselves. They all had a grand time.
Buffett can only be blamed for bringing this on himself. Over the last few months he has been publicly making the case for the government to raise taxes on billionaires like himself. Unfortunately, he didn?t think that the IRS would actually audit him ? ?audit, me?!? But, the Obama Administration wanted to tell the public exactly what Buffett paid over the last few years and had him audited and? they discovered he has not filed taxes. But, again, it could have been an IRS error because as the IRS said, ?we?re buried in paperwork over here!?
Sources say Buffett was held in a Federal jail in Washington DC for seventeen minutes. President Obama pardoned Buffett so he could hold a press conference about The Buffett Tax.
?President Obama can now make the case that billionaires are dodging their taxes and that the government should confiscate most of their earnings. After all, most fortunes are made because of a crime,? said Jay Carney, The White House Press Secretary.
Warren Buffet sure was happy to be free:
:lol:

[TracyCoxx]

This is insane and the administration is an embarrassment to this country. Buffett and Obama are pushing for higher taxes for the rich while Buffet pays little, if any tax. Not because of the tax rate for his tax bracket, but because he chooses to take advantage of loopholes at best, and at worst, perhaps just doesn't even pay the taxes (while saying the government should raise taxes). When Buffett is arrested for tax evasion Obama, who complains that the rich pay too little in taxes - PARDONS HIM?

What kind of example does this set? How are we to view Obama's proposal as anything other than politics and pandering to his base. His proposal is deal on arrival.

And about the evil rich, barring people like Warren Buffet who simply don't pay their taxes...
From the AP: (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TAXES_FACT_CHECK?SITE=FLPEJ&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)
On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.

The 10 percent of households with the highest incomes pay more than half of all federal taxes. They pay more than 70 percent of federal income taxes, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

...

This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes and other taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay an average of 15 percent of their income in federal taxes.

Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7 percent.So let's cut the crap. To tell the segment of the population that not only drives the country's economy, but funds 70% of the government's income that they need to pay more is an insult. If Obama had any interest in really attacking the problem, he'd have the IRS go after tax dodgers like Warren Buffett and collect.

Then there's the Solyndra thing. BO props up this train-wreck of a company with a half billion $, everyone who knew the company knew it wasn't viable. Naturally it goes bankrupt and the half billion $ is gone. The company will be investigated... by Obama's goon Eric Holder. Solyndra has been advised to plead the 5th. The injustice department will ensure that congress never sees that data. I think Solyndra is just the tip of the iceberg. How many other non-viable companies have been propped up by Obama's stimulus packages?

This coming presidential race is the republican's to loose. Not that that's encouraging to me...

[smc]

well our credit rating was downgraded, so there is that.

The United States carried the top credit rating throughout the entire period of running deficits, regardless of whether it was under a Republican or Democratic administration. The rating was downgraded because, as Standard & Poor's made clear, there is no ability in Washington to get anything done.

The statement read that the downgrade was based on the "current level of debt, the trajectory of debt as a share of the economy, and the lack of apparent willingness of elected officials as a group to deal with the U.S. medium term fiscal outlook."

Had the shenanigans been otherwise, the rating would have stayed the same. S&P expected adult behavior, not necessarily a total solution.

[TracyCoxx]

I would be interested to know why everyone seems to buy the line that the "massive deficit" is somehow a problem of earth-shattering importance.well our credit rating was downgraded, so there is that.The United States carried the top credit rating throughout the entire period of running deficits, regardless of whether it was under a Republican or Democratic administration.My statement was in response to you wondering why a "massive deficit" is an earth-shattering problem. It was not in response to you merely stating that we have just any deficit or that a certain party is in power.

The rating was downgraded because, as Standard & Poor's made clear, there is no ability in Washington to get anything done.

The statement read that the downgrade was based on the "current level of debt, the trajectory of debt as a share of the economy, and the lack of apparent willingness of elected officials as a group to deal with the U.S. medium term fiscal outlook."Agreed

[smc]

My statement was in response to you wondering why a "massive deficit" is an earth-shattering problem. It was not in response to you merely stating that we have just any deficit or that a certain party is in power.

Yes, I realize that. But the original context of my statement about the massive deficit, which was a bit longer, still holds.

And I'm glad we can agree on something. ;)

[GRH]

http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm

Tracy, given the data at this link is a little bit dated, but more contemporary studies suggest that in recent decades, wealth has become even more concentrated in the hands of the elite few. The "poor" rich folks in the top ten percent of earners pay 70% of income taxes in the US. Well guess what, that same top ten percent owns over 70% of the income and wealth in America. So from where I stand, it seems perfectly reasonable to expect the people who own most of America to in turn pay the bulk of the taxes. To suggest the rich are "overtaxed" is to ignore just how much of America the top few percent of earners actually own.

[randolph]

http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm

Tracy, given the data at this link is a little bit dated, but more contemporary studies suggest that in recent decades, wealth has become even more concentrated in the hands of the elite few. The "poor" rich folks in the top ten percent of earners pay 70% of income taxes in the US. Well guess what, that same top ten percent owns over 70% of the income and wealth in America. So from where I stand, it seems perfectly reasonable to expect the people who own most of America to in turn pay the bulk of the taxes. To suggest the rich are "overtaxed" is to ignore just how much of America the top few percent of earners actually own.

During the 1950s and 1960s taxes on the wealthy were up around 70%. The economy was thriving and so was the middle class. In the early days, Henry Ford understood economics, he paid his workers well so they could afford to buy his cars. Corporation business men now days don't seem to understand that principle. Turn the workers into slaves and they aren't going to buy anything.

[randolph]

Bush vs Obama on new spending.

[TracyCoxx]

Bush vs Obama on new spending.

I think your chart is missing a few items for Obama. Here's a bailout tracker with a total of $11 trillion in bailouts. $700 billion is Bush's. Wouldn't the rest be Obama's?
http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/bailouttracker/

[randolph]

I think your chart is missing a few items for Obama. Here's a bailout tracker with a total of $11 trillion in bailouts. $700 billion is Bush's. Wouldn't the rest be Obama's?
http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/bailouttracker/

Yes that chart does look suspicious. Here is some explanation.

From NY Times
A few lessons can be drawn from the numbers. First, the Bush tax cuts have had a huge damaging effect. If all of them expired as scheduled at the end of 2012, future deficits would be cut by about half, to sustainable levels. Second, a healthy budget requires a healthy economy; recessions wreak havoc by reducing tax revenue. Government has to spur demand and create jobs in a deep downturn, even though doing so worsens the deficit in the short run. Third, spending cuts alone will not close the gap. The chronic revenue shortfalls from serial tax cuts are simply too deep to fill with spending cuts alone. Taxes have to go up.
In future decades, when rising health costs with an aging population hit the budget in full force, deficits are projected to be far deeper than they are now. Effective health care reform, and a willingness to pay more taxes, will be the biggest factors in controlling those deficits.

Gulp!