Liberal free for all coming to an end

[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.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by smc

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.

David Brooks is a conservative writer and commentator.

David Brooks's column on the Op-Ed page of The New York Times started in September 2003. He has been a senior editor at The Weekly Standard, a contributing editor at Newsweek and the Atlantic Monthly, and he is currently a commentator on "The Newshour with Jim Lehrer." He is the author of "Bobos In Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There" and ?On Paradise Drive : How We Live Now (And Always Have) in the Future Tense,? both published by Simon & Schuster.

[GRH]

http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...0000001&lidx=1

Yet another article pointing out that the deficit we imagine isn't the deficit that we actually have. We can't cut our way out of the deficit by reducing "waste, fraud, and abuse." Even if all discretionary spending were cut, we'd still have to make cuts to defense and entitlements.

[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.

[smc]

Here's are three questions for you, Tracy Coxx. Are you for a budget agreement that includes revenue increases, or only budget cuts? If revenue increases, by what means (please be specific)? If only budget cuts, what specifically would you cut, and by how much?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

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.

Originally Posted by smc

Here's are three questions for you, Tracy Coxx. Are you for a budget agreement that includes revenue increases, or only budget cuts? If revenue increases, by what means (please be specific)? If only budget cuts, what specifically would you cut, and by how much?

LOL
smc: oh well uh, I already answered that in previous posts. Yeah, it's there somewhere, but jolly good one there Tracy. So uh let's move on now. Here's some questions for you...


And I see you're taking the democrats strategy of not proposing any real cuts of your own and letting someone else be the bad guy. No, I am not for a budget agreement that includes revenue increases. I do like Paul Ryan's plan to reduce the deficit by $4.4 trillion over the next 10 years. Repeal Obamacare, even if it takes money to do it, it would be nothing compared to the drain it will have on our economy in the future. I would also support Trump's plan of putting a tax on Chinese imports in order to pay back the debt and also encourage domestic production. Social Security also needs to be reformed. For people 45 and up there would be no change; for the rest, the younger you are, the more you would pay into your own retirement plans instead of Social Security. That would be a good start...

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

LOL
smc: oh well uh, I already answered that in previous posts. Yeah, it's there somewhere, but jolly good one there Tracy. So uh let's move on now. Here's some questions for you...


And I see you're taking the democrats strategy of not proposing any real cuts of your own and letting someone else be the bad guy. No, I am not for a budget agreement that includes revenue increases. I do like Paul Ryan's plan to reduce the deficit by $4.4 trillion over the next 10 years. Repeal Obamacare, even if it takes money to do it, it would be nothing compared to the drain it will have on our economy in the future. I would also support Trump's plan of putting a tax on Chinese imports in order to pay back the debt and also encourage domestic production. Social Security also needs to be reformed. For people 45 and up there would be no change; for the rest, the younger you are, the more you would pay into your own retirement plans instead of Social Security. That would be a good start...

Any reasonable person, regardless of political positions, who reads the full record of our back-and-forth posts can easily see that I long ago proposed cuts. Your positions on these questions, Tracy Coxx, are worthy of honest, respectful discussion. Your method, though, is -- as always -- bankrupt, lying, and reprehensible.

My starting point for budget cuts would be to remember that it is not working people who caused the deficit, and therefore it is not working people who should be punished. This country can afford every single "entitlement" that is the norm in most of the industrialized world. The reason we don't have them is that we subsidize the wealthiest Americans and their corporations, whether directly or indirectly.

I would cut the so-called "defense budget" by nearly everything, until someone can prove that it is defense and not offense. I would cut every subsidy to the oil companies and other mega-corporations. I would eliminate the tax loopholes that make the United States have the most regressive taxation in the industrialized world and that make the United States have the largest income disparity in the developed or developing world, including China.

Here are some specifics:

- eliminate at least $10 billion in "non-defense discretionary" spending by cutting programs that benefit large corporations that are making record profits and need no "assistance"

- nearly $110 billion could be cut from the 2015 defense budget without taking as radical a step as I propose above; this would include savings through efficiency measures, reducing troop levels, eliminating unneeded weapons systems, and scaling back the wartime increases in the size of the military. To this I would add an immediate, 100% withdrawal from Afghanistan. (Did you know that, all told, the United States spends in excess of $20 billion each year to provide air-conditioning to soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan? That includes all the ancillary costs.)

- leave Medicare benefits alone, but implement all the well-known cost-savings measures (e.g., allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices)

- cut agriculture subsidies by at least half, saving nearly $8 billion; most of this goes to mega-agribusiness concerns.

- eliminate 100% of tax subsidies for companies that ship American jobs overseas, which would increase revenue by more than $132 billion.

Anyone who thinks cuts without revenue increases will solve the budget problem is either a deliberate liar or delusional. So, let's:

- treat capital gains and dividends as regular income in the tax code; reform the estate tax; and enact cap-and-trade with protections against price increases for low-income people. These measures will raise close to $150 billion in revenue.

- eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the top two tax brackets and return to 2009 estate tax levels

- address every loophole that allows for underpayment of taxes by the private sector, estimated to account for $7 billion.

This is a start. The United States is the wealthiest country in the world, but its wealth is concentrated in an unsustainable way that will provoke social unrest and class warfare as time goes on. History is clear. We can either have an equitable nation, or we can have a nation that kowtows to the interests of a wealthy few. That is the nation Tracy Coxx wants, assumedly because Tracy Coxx buys into the uniquely American social lie that this is a land of opportunity in which everyone has an equal chance to rise to the top.

Is rising to the top at the expense of humanity worth it, even if it were possible?