Liberal free for all coming to an end

[TracyCoxx]

Obama - "Republicans support tax breaks for corporate jets at the expense of children and the elderly."

Who's paying for your jet Mr. President? Last year you flew Air Force One 172 times - almost every other day, at a cost of $181,757 per flight hour. Not to mention your 196 helicopter trips. And this year and next, the tax payers will pay for him to fly even more as he campaigns.

And if corporate jets are such a problem, WHY DID HIS STIMULUS PACKAGE INCLUDE TAX BREAKS FOR BUSINESSES TO BUY THEIR OWN PLANES?

He needs to STFU, and stop trying to spend us into oblivion and work with republicans to cut spending. The House has already voted not to raise the debt ceiling while continuing to do business as usual. So get over it BO. You're not going to raise the debt ceiling without big spending cuts.

[franalexes]

Dear Tracy Coxx
Have you not learned yet that stating facts is so infuriating to those that can't see them?

( I gotta find a jet that will get me to Texas.)

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by franalexes

( I gotta find a jet that will get me to Texas.)

hehe, there's got to be a tax break for that

[franalexes]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

hehe, there's got to be a tax break for that

If I ever meet you; I'm all business. Trust me.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Obama - "Republicans support tax breaks for corporate jets at the expense of children and the elderly."

Who's paying for your jet Mr. President? Last year you flew Air Force One 172 times - almost every other day, at a cost of $181,757 per flight hour. Not to mention your 196 helicopter trips. And this year and next, the tax payers will pay for him to fly even more as he campaigns.

And if corporate jets are such a problem, WHY DID HIS STIMULUS PACKAGE INCLUDE TAX BREAKS FOR BUSINESSES TO BUY THEIR OWN PLANES?

He needs to STFU, and stop trying to spend us into oblivion and work with republicans to cut spending. The House has already voted not to raise the debt ceiling while continuing to do business as usual. So get over it BO. You're not going to raise the debt ceiling without big spending cuts.

Originally Posted by franalexes

Dear Tracy Coxx
Have you not learned yet that stating facts is so infuriating to those that can't see them? ...

There is an assumption in this thread and elsewhere that political positions are somehow binary; in other words, you either support Obama or you support the Republicans. This may be the case for some, but I have made clear time and again that I do not support Obama and I do not support the Republicans.

1. Obama's stimulus plan had some good elements, but it was mostly a sham. Tax breaks were included in it, but there is little to no evidence over the long history of capitalism that they stimulate an economy in crisis -- as every economist without a political agenda knows. The corporate jet bullshit shouldn't have been there, but look back in the history of the debate over the stimulus and see from whence that proposal came.

2. The executive branch wastes huge amounts of taxpayer money on perks for the president. This waste is shameful, and any president -- Democrat or Republican -- who takes advantage of these perks and hides behind the Secret Service insisting it is necessary is stealing from the American people. Why should a president or his family get a taxpayer-funded vacation?

Of course, every president is stealing from the American people. The fact is that there is no Republican that is better than any Democrat on this issue. They are all crooks in this regard.

3. The debt ceiling has nothing to do with any spending that will happen in the minute after it is raised or in the next fifty years after it is raised. Every grownup politician knows this. Like it or not, there has been a bipartisan consensus to keep the United States from defaulting on money it owes. The debt ceiling was raised 17 times during the Reagan presidency, and the amount of the ceiling tripled. In a November 16, 1983 letter to Sen. Howard Baker, the Republican leader, Reagan wrote to ask for his help in getting the debt ceiling raised:

"The full consequences of a default?or even the serious prospect of default?by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and the value of the dollar in exchange markets. The Nation can ill afford to allow such a result. The risks, the costs, the disruptions, and the incalculable damage lead me to but one conclusion: the Senate must pass this legislation before the Congress adjourns."

The debt ceiling was raised 4 times during Clinton's presidency, mostly because the United States enjoyed a surplus during much of his two terms. Under George W. Bush, the debt ceiling was raised at least 7 times.

All these increases happened with bipartisan support. The standard practice is to posture and then make sure it is raised when the vote comes.

These are indisputable facts. The current debate is more political posturing by people who are simply making stuff up. The debt ceiling has NOTHING to do with future spending levels. NOT A SINGLE THING. That is why the talking heads on all sides refer to those who behind the scenes are expected not to let the debt ceiling increase fail are spoken of as "the adults in the room." They may even posture, but with the door closed and out of the light of day they don't make up their own facts.

[GRH]

Exactly smc. The notion that they want to raise the debt ceiling so they can increase the pace of spending is completely bogus. We do not make enough in tax receipts to cover our EXISTING obligations. These obligations were made by past Congresses-- Republican and Democrat.

As I mentioned in the other thread, there is a notion that we can simply use tax receipts to pay the interest on the debt. While this may not lead to a default to creditors...It most certainly leads us to default on some other obligation. I pointed out that if we follow this strategy we'll be canceling payment to some of our Social Security and Medicare recipients. Tracy said nobody was proposing this...But in fact, anyone who is arguing against raising the debt ceiling-- this is exactly what they are proposing. Because we don't make enough in tax receipts to pay obligations that were accrued in the past (and not by this administration). If you only spend the existing tax receipts-- you've got to pick what obligation you're not going to honor (interest on the debt, federal and veteran pensions, Medicare benefits, Social Security benefits, etc.).

Interestingly, there has been talk recently that the debt ceiling isn't even Constitutional. There is a clause in 14th Amendment which essentially says that the obligations of the government shall not be questioned-- and an arbitrary mechanism which prevents the honoring of the obligations would likely not be Constitutional.

[transjen]

OK here we go the tea party and most of the reg GOP are screaming goverment is to big and we need to end the evil goverment emplyees
Now while some may agree i say lets call there bluff and start cutting from the top on down
Smaller goverment my way
1] cut the sen down to 50, 1 sen per state
2] cut the house down to 100 reps 2 per state
3] since the GOP love says everyone sould buy there own health ins and goverment ran ins is commieism the the sen ands house must give up the free goverment ins and buy and pay for there own ins
4]Tea party budgets cuts should start at the top by cutting the sen and house members over inflated paychecks
so how many yes votes will be coming from the GOP and tea partyers?
i bet there won't be any
Jerseygirl Jen

[smc]

Originally Posted by transjen

OK here we go the tea party and most of the reg GOP are screaming goverment is to big and we need to end the evil goverment emplyees
Now while some may agree i say lets call there bluff and start cutting from the top on down
Smaller goverment my way
1] cut the sen down to 50, 1 sen per state
2] cut the house down to 100 reps 2 per state
3] since the GOP love says everyone sould buy there own health ins and goverment ran ins is commieism the the sen ands house must give up the free goverment ins and buy and pay for there own ins
4]Tea party budgets cuts should start at the top by cutting the sen and house members over inflated paychecks
so how many yes votes will be coming from the GOP and tea partyers?
i bet there won't be any
Jerseygirl Jen

Unfortunately, we are "governed" primarily by wealthy people, especially in the Senate, so cutting the paychecks of these useless sycophants (Republicans and Democrats alike) and forcing them to buy their own healthcare will not make an ideological dent in their thinking.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

3. The debt ceiling has nothing to do with any spending that will happen in the minute after it is raised or in the next fifty years after it is raised. Every grownup politician knows this.

Obviously. But the DECISION to raise the debt ceiling should have something to do with how we manage the budget afterwards. If you're having to continuously raise the debt ceiling something is wrong, and the country (well at least the grownups) is finally waking up to this.

Originally Posted by smc

Like it or not, there has been a bipartisan consensus to keep the United States from defaulting on money it owes. The debt ceiling was raised 17 times during the Reagan presidency, and the amount of the ceiling tripled.

...

The debt ceiling was raised 4 times during Clinton's presidency, mostly because the United States enjoyed a surplus during much of his two terms. Under George W. Bush, the debt ceiling was raised at least 7 times.

All these increases happened with bipartisan support. The standard practice is to posture and then make sure it is raised when the vote comes.

And how has it been working out so far to just keep raising the debt limit? We've got a debt of over $14 trillion. So we've got the standard posturing this time. But I think it's a bit more than that. The House just had a vote to raise the debt ceiling. No strings attached - yes or no. It failed 318 to 97 with 82 of the democrats voting against it. Do 318 republicans and democrats really want the country to default on their debt? Of course not. But what they're saying is that they aren't going to raise the debt ceiling without at least a balanced budget amendment.

But this is merely a speed bump for a president who has a history of telling the other branches of government to fuck off. A proposal has been presented to Obama by Geithner and other democrats to have Obama raise the debt limit all by his dictator self. It sounds pretty stunning to me, but then I remember who Obama is.

[randolph]

A few years ago, Argentina finally decided to hell with it and defaulted on its international debts. Guess what! It has been prospering ever since.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Obviously. But the DECISION to raise the debt ceiling should have something to do with how we manage the budget afterwards. If you're having to continuously raise the debt ceiling something is wrong, and the country (well at least the grownups) is finally waking up to this.

And how has it been working out so far to just keep raising the debt limit? We've got a debt of over $14 trillion. So we've got the standard posturing this time. But I think it's a bit more than that. The House just had a vote to raise the debt ceiling. No strings attached - yes or no. It failed 318 to 97 with 82 of the democrats voting against it. Do 318 republicans and democrats really want the country to default on their debt? Of course not. But what they're saying is that they aren't going to raise the debt ceiling without at least a balanced budget amendment.

But this is merely a speed bump for a president who has a history of telling the other branches of government to fuck off. A proposal has been presented to Obama by Geithner and other democrats to have Obama raise the debt limit all by his dictator self. It sounds pretty stunning to me, but then I remember who Obama is.

A Tracy Coxx specialty: call Obama names without making any substantive contribution to real discourse. George W. Bush added more "signing statements" to legislation than nearly all presidents before him combined, indicating that the executive branch did not have to do what the legislative branch established in laws. When did you refer to him as "his dictator self"?

Hyperbole of this sort is the way around real discussion.

Be prepared, all Forum members, for the next post where Tracy either a) tries to change the subject, or b) claims I have put words in Tracy's mouth, or c) both. Or perhaps the other approach Tracy takes comes next: just pretend no answer was given, or say "I wasn't talking to you, smc" -- as if Tracy has personal threads in the discussion section of this forum.

[randolph]

David Brooks

If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century: trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred million dollars of revenue increases.A normal Republican Party would seize the opportunity to put a long-term limit on the growth of government. It would seize the opportunity to put the country on a sound fiscal footing. It would seize the opportunity to do these things without putting any real crimp in economic growth.
The party is not being asked to raise marginal tax rates in a way that might pervert incentives. On the contrary, Republicans are merely being asked to close loopholes and eliminate tax expenditures that are themselves distortionary.
This, as I say, is the mother of all no-brainers.
But we can have no confidence that the Republicans will seize this opportunity. That?s because the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

David Brooks

Randolph, it seems to me it would be worthwhile to explain who David Brooks is, lest he be mischaracterized by others in this thread. I will leave that to you, assuming you agree.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Or perhaps the other approach Tracy takes comes next: just pretend no answer was given.

Sorry. Surely it's completely obvious and I'm missing it, but could you please highlight or just post the part where you answered my question to you about raising the debt ceiling?

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Sorry. Surely it's completely obvious and I'm missing it, but could you please highlight or just post the part where you answered my question to you about raising the debt ceiling?

I already answered in earlier posts. I stated that default is not an option, and I expressed my opposition to the kind of government spending that gets us into this situation. But nice dodge, Tracy ... a little more artful than usual.

[parr]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Obama - "Republicans support tax breaks for corporate jets at the expense of children and the elderly."

Who's paying for your jet Mr. President? Last year you flew Air Force One 172 times - almost every other day, at a cost of $181,757 per flight hour. Not to mention your 196 helicopter trips. And this year and next, the tax payers will pay for him to fly even more as he campaigns.

And if corporate jets are such a problem, WHY DID HIS STIMULUS PACKAGE INCLUDE TAX BREAKS FOR BUSINESSES TO BUY THEIR OWN PLANES?

He needs to STFU, and stop trying to spend us into oblivion and work with republicans to cut spending. The House has already voted not to raise the debt ceiling while continuing to do business as usual. So get over it BO. You're not going to raise the debt ceiling without big spending cuts.

Uh, let me quess,"we are".

[randolph]

The Sunday LA Times has an article about the BMW parts supply warehouse in Ontario California. Management announced that most of their employees would be laid off and a management company would take over hiring employees. Most of the workers have spent many years working there at reasonable middle class wages. They are buying houses, cars and trying to send their kids to college. They will be replaced with minimum wage unskilled workers!
The US taxpayers loaned BMW over three billion dollars during the crash to keep them afloat. BMW could never get away with this in Germany. This is Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman at their best. Teapartiers wake up, your corporate buddies (Kock brothers, ect) are systematically destroying what the founding fathers created, a revolution to escape tyranny. We now have the tyranny of the corporation, far more egregious than the King of England. Happy Fourth of July.

[GRH]

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/06/...spend-and-how/

I heard Rush Limbaugh babbling about how there's no debt crisis because we have enough money to pay the interest on the debt. But he was not disputing (he even quoted) the fact that Timothy Geithner has said that not raising the debt ceiling will result in a 44% reduction in spending.

The link above details how the federal budget is allocated. If you were to entirely cut every dollar that goes to Discretionary/Other, Education, and Social Safety Net programs...You'd have only cut spending by 26%. So if we're going to bear a 44% reduction in spending...Where are you going to cut the other 18%? Well, the pie chart doesn't leave a lot of other attractive options. You'd have to cut benefits to today's Social Security or Medicare recipients...Or the hallowed department of defense. This is why it's disingenious for people to act like we have enough tax receipts to cover our obligations.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by GRH

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/06/...spend-and-how/

I heard Rush Limbaugh babbling about how there's no debt crisis because we have enough money to pay the interest on the debt. But he was not disputing (he even quoted) the fact that Timothy Geithner has said that not raising the debt ceiling will result in a 44% reduction in spending.

The link above details how the federal budget is allocated. If you were to entirely cut every dollar that goes to Discretionary/Other, Education, and Social Safety Net programs...You'd have only cut spending by 26%. So if we're going to bear a 44% reduction in spending...Where are you going to cut the other 18%? Well, the pie chart doesn't leave a lot of other attractive options. You'd have to cut benefits to today's Social Security or Medicare recipients...Or the hallowed department of defense. This is why it's disingenious for people to act like we have enough tax receipts to cover our obligations.

I suspect he meant 44% cut in discretionary spending, which includes lots of military spending (over half of discretionary spending is military). The party is over and the hangover is not going away.

[GRH]

http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts.pdf

I'm not sure where the 44% was originally quoted from. It could be that Geithner was using annualized data. But I just tallied up tax receipts versus outlays for the period between January 2011 to May 2011. Based on the data for these months, if we were living SOLELY on tax receipts, spending would have to be reduced by 36%. An no, that is NOT limited just to discretionary spending...That's total federal expenditures.

So my point stands, albeit perhaps not so pessimistically as the original 44% assumption that Rush was quoting (and it is entirely possible that this number could be arrived at depending on how you treat the data). If we axe EVERY dollar of discretionary, education, and social safety net programs...How are we going to make up the difference without defaulting on our pension/Social Security/Medicare/defense obligations?

I'd like to see one of these "we can pay the interest on the debt with tax receipts" advocates address this issue.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by GRH

http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts.pdf

I'm not sure where the 44% was originally quoted from. It could be that Geithner was using annualized data. But I just tallied up tax receipts versus outlays for the period between January 2011 to May 2011. Based on the data for these months, if we were living SOLELY on tax receipts, spending would have to be reduced by 36%. An no, that is NOT limited just to discretionary spending...That's total federal expenditures.

So my point stands, albeit perhaps not so pessimistically as the original 44% assumption that Rush was quoting (and it is entirely possible that this number could be arrived at depending on how you treat the data). If we axe EVERY dollar of discretionary, education, and social safety net programs...How are we going to make up the difference without defaulting on our pension/Social Security/Medicare/defense obligations?

I'd like to see one of these "we can pay the interest on the debt with tax receipts" advocates address this issue.

The Teanderthals don't care to seriously look at actual data, Flush Limbob provides all the information they want to continue their delusions.