Liberal free for all coming to an end

[transjen]

You guys are forgetting a few factors on engines
I do all the proper maintence to my Mustang i keep her tuned up i change filters i keep my tires at the proper inflation and a lot of people don't so there gas friendly cars probalily get less gas mileage then my v8 Mustang
Jerseygirl Jen

[randolph]

Originally Posted by transjen

You guys are forgetting a few factors on engines
I do all the proper maintence to my Mustang i keep her tuned up i change filters i keep my tires at the proper inflation and a lot of people don't so there gas friendly cars probalily get less gas mileage then my v8 Mustang
Jerseygirl Jen

Hey Jen, I love Mustangs and had one years ago.
My first car was a 1935 Dodge coupe. I learned how to do everything from the brakes on up. I even painted and reupholstered it.
Now I have a VW Jetta diesel that requires service every ten thousand miles. I wouldn't touch anything under the hood other than the dipstick. So much for personal car maintenance.
I miss the good old days when a car was almost like a lover, something that needed lots of tinkering.

[parr]

Originally Posted by randolph

Hey Jen, I love Mustangs and had one years ago.
My first car was a 1935 Dodge coupe. I learned how to do everything from the brakes on up. I even painted and reupholstered it.
Now I have a VW Jetta diesel that requires service every ten thousand miles. I wouldn't touch anything under the hood other than the dipstick. So much for personal car maintenance.
I miss the good old days when a car was almost like a lover, something that needed lots of tinkering.

I did my own work years ago, but now you have to be a genius
with a computer plugged into it.

[Chichester]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I'm a mustang driver myself We have plenty of untapped oil here in the US. Let the good times roll

I have a Honda Civic I got with the cash for clunkers program $12,700 out the door. I miss my 383 cu. in. Plymouth, but times change, adjust or rust. These damn gas companies will charge us an arm and a leg for gas no matter where it comes from, they don't care. Way past time to ween ourselves off gas.

[Chichester]

Originally Posted by parr

I did my own work years ago, but now you have to be a genius
with a computer plugged into it.

Most cars now are computers with a car built around it. I remember when fixing a starter motor was 35 bucks and two bolts. Now...800 bucks!
PS '35 coupe-very cool

[TracyCoxx]

Like Pelosi says, We'll find out what is in the Health Care bill after we pass the Health Care bill.

President Barack Obama?s health care law would let several million middle-class people get nearly free insurance meant for the poor, a twist government number crunchers say they discovered only after the complex bill was signed.

That?s because, in a major change from today, most of their Social Security benefits would no longer be counted as income for determining eligibility.

Medicare chief actuary Richard Foster says the situation keeps him up at night.

?I don?t generally comment on the pros or cons of policy, but that just doesn?t make sense,? Foster said during a question-and-answer session at a recent professional society meeting.

It?s almost like allowing middle-class people to qualify for food stamps, he suggested.

?This is a situation that got no attention at all,? added Foster. ?And even now, as I raise the issue with various policymakers, people are not rushing to say ? we need to do something about this.?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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

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?

[GRH]

Originally Posted by smc

This country can afford every single "entitlement" that is the norm in most of the industrialized world.

I like that you put the word "entitlement" in quotation marks. This is such a politically charged word. Funny how things like basic income and health care for senior citizens is considered an "entitlement"-- despite the fact that these citizens have paid into the system for their benefits.

However, things like corporate tax loopholes and tax cuts are not called "entitlements." Funny, anytime there's a mention of taking these things away, there is such moaning and gnashing of teeth that you'd think the recipients of these give-aways feel "entitled" to them.

"Entitlement" is just one more way the right wages class warfare on the middle and lower class. They call these social programs (which smc has correctly identified as being the norm in any developed country) a negatively charged word which evokes emotion. I think it's high time we start calling tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations the "entitlements" that they actually are.

[randolph]

In the above post, SMC says it very well.
We pledge alligence to a country that is supposed to provide liberty and justice for all. Our history tells a different story. Slavery and the struggles of working people to gain justice and a living wage have been with us since the beginning. The rich have always wanted to grasp more power and wealth and the politicians have usually been more than willing to facilitate their desires.
Massive protests like the teamsters strike on the West coast in the 1930s awakened the public and forced the politicians to listen to the working classes, albeit temporarily.
The current BMW case in California where they are firing their long term workers and contracting out their employment hiring is a recent example of disregard for basic justice. The American public loaned BMW billions to keep them going and this is the thanks we get. Where is the justice?
Take away healthcare insurance - where is the justice?
Take away the safety net of social security - where is the justice?
Take away a living wage - where is the justice?
Saddle the public with massive debt for the benefit of the rich - where is the justice?
What will it take to gain some justice in this country, the land of the free and home of the brave???

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by randolph

In the above post, SMC says it very well.
We pledge alligence to a country that is supposed to provide liberty and justice for all. Our history tells a different story. Slavery and the struggles of working people to gain justice and a living wage have been with us since the beginning. The rich have always wanted to grasp more power and wealth and the politicians have usually been more than willing to facilitate their desires.
Massive protests like the teamsters strike on the West coast in the 1930s awakened the public and forced the politicians to listen to the working classes, albeit temporarily.
The current BMW case in California where they are firing their long term workers and contracting out their employment hiring is a recent example of disregard for basic justice. The American public loaned BMW billions to keep them going and this is the thanks we get. Where is the justice?
Take away healthcare insurance - where is the justice?
Take away the safety net of social security - where is the justice?
Take away a living wage - where is the justice?
Saddle the public with massive debt for the benefit of the rich - where is the justice?
What will it take to gain some justice in this country, the land of the free and home of the brave???

I didn't know there was a demonstration from BMW workers, randolph. Was this on the news?

[smc]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I didn't know there was a demonstration from BMW workers, randolph. Was this on the news?

From The Los Angeles Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/columnis...1881029.column

The last paragraph of the column is worth including here:

"On Monday, the Fourth of July, Americans will gather to celebrate the overthrow of tyranny. But the ease with which we allow corporate employers to impoverish their loyal workers should make us pause under the fireworks and think about how over the ensuing 235 years we've simply substituted one set of tyrants for another, the new ones immeasurably more heartless and bloodthirsty than the ones we shed."

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by smc

From The Los Angeles Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/columnis...1881029.column

The last paragraph of the column is worth including here:

"On Monday, the Fourth of July, Americans will gather to celebrate the overthrow of tyranny. But the ease with which we allow corporate employers to impoverish their loyal workers should make us pause under the fireworks and think about how over the ensuing 235 years we've simply substituted one set of tyrants for another, the new ones immeasurably more heartless and bloodthirsty than the ones we shed."

That quote is morbidly heartening. I never thought such a thing would be written in an American newspaper.

[Enoch Root]

I just finished reading the article smc. The comments at the bottom are golden. BMW lays off thousands of workers and the posters at the bottom of the page blame the union! It always amazes me. I wonder how they would feel if they had been the ones laid off, with a family to feed and health conditions to manage on top. It's absurd and disgusting.

I have never understood people's desire to harm others economically, to bring people down and then revel in it. Perhaps it is an American phenomenon to desire the destitution of your fellow man.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I don't suppose you've heard of the Tea Party movement?

You mean that movement that didn't exist when Bush was rump riding the US taxpayers and piling up the debts?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna

You mean that movement that didn't exist when Bush was rump riding the US taxpayers and piling up the debts?

Oh but Anna don't you see that my dear sweet Tracy does not believe the economic troubles were caused by Bush's tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? What else could have caused it I cannot say. Perhaps liberal poltergeists setting screwing with computers. Or liberal shadowbinders taking control of the mighty Invisible Hand of the Free Market.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by randolph

In the above post, SMC says it very well.
We pledge alligence to a country that is supposed to provide liberty and justice for all. Our history tells a different story. Slavery and the struggles of working people to gain justice and a living wage have been with us since the beginning. The rich have always wanted to grasp more power and wealth and the politicians have usually been more than willing to facilitate their desires.
Massive protests like the teamsters strike on the West coast in the 1930s awakened the public and forced the politicians to listen to the working classes, albeit temporarily.
The current BMW case in California where they are firing their long term workers and contracting out their employment hiring is a recent example of disregard for basic justice. The American public loaned BMW billions to keep them going and this is the thanks we get. Where is the justice?
Take away healthcare insurance - where is the justice?
Take away the safety net of social security - where is the justice?
Take away a living wage - where is the justice?
Saddle the public with massive debt for the benefit of the rich - where is the justice?
What will it take to gain some justice in this country, the land of the free and home of the brave???

I used the term teamsters in this post, I should have used the term ILWU, the International longshoreman workers union. They are related but the teamsters are mainly truck drivers. Sorry

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by randolph

In the above post, SMC says it very well.
We pledge alligence to a country that is supposed to provide liberty and justice for all. Our history tells a different story. Slavery and the struggles of working people to gain justice and a living wage have been with us since the beginning. The rich have always wanted to grasp more power and wealth and the politicians have usually been more than willing to facilitate their desires.
Massive protests like the teamsters strike on the West coast in the 1930s awakened the public and forced the politicians to listen to the working classes, albeit temporarily.
The current BMW case in California where they are firing their long term workers and contracting out their employment hiring is a recent example of disregard for basic justice. The American public loaned BMW billions to keep them going and this is the thanks we get. Where is the justice?
Take away healthcare insurance - where is the justice?
Take away the safety net of social security - where is the justice?
Take away a living wage - where is the justice?
Saddle the public with massive debt for the benefit of the rich - where is the justice?
What will it take to gain some justice in this country, the land of the free and home of the brave???

Yup, the land of the free and home of the brave and it began with the murder and displacement of Indians and the enslavement of Africans. An august beginning if ever I heard one for a free country. How people reconcile the idea of the founding of America as a watershed in freedom with the slave economy--even though the textbooks do not lie about the chattel slavery; mine didn't anyway--is beyond me. I don't think justice had anything to do with it. And the people in power and those who support them care not a whit for justice either. George Carlin has a routine about that but I've no idea what the rules are for posting links. Neither can I find them.

To paraphrase him: the US was founded by a bunch of slave owners who wanted to be free!

[ila]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Yup, the land of the free and home of the brave and it began with the murder and displacement of Indians and the enslavement of Africans. An august beginning if ever I heard one for a free country. How people reconcile the idea of the founding of America as a watershed in freedom with the slave economy--even though the textbooks do not lie about the chattel slavery; mine didn't anyway--is beyond me. George Carlin has a routine about that but I've no idea what the rules are for posting links. Neither can I find them.

Actually it didn't begin with the enslavement of Africans. It started with people leaving England due to religious reasons. Also don't forget about the complicity of the Africans themselves in the slave trade. If it wasn't for Africans capturing and selling other Africans then there would not have been the slave trade to the Americas.

The slave trade also did not start with Europeans buying slaves from Africans. The slave trade dates back thousands of years.

As for the murder part of your statement, do not forget that for millenia humans have been on the move throughout the world taking over lands which others were already occupying with the inevitable battles and killing that followed.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by ila

Actually it didn't begin with the enslavement of Africans. It started with people leaving England due to religious reasons. Also don't forget about the complicity of the Africans themselves in the slave trade. If it wasn't for Africans capturing and selling other Africans then there would not have been the slave trade to the Americas.

The slave trade also did not start with Europeans buying slaves from Africans. The slave trade dates back thousands of years.

As for the murder part of your statement, do not forget that for millenia humans have been on the move throughout the world taking over lands which others were already occupying with the inevitable battles and killing that followed.

Oh I'm not. History is written in blood. This I sadly know.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Let me see if I can. I was speaking about the colonies themselves, not the Pilgrims, and the hypocrisy inherent in the founding of a free nation...with the institution of slavery. I did know that Africans would enslave one another frequently and they provided quite a few (most?) of the slaves for the colonies. As for the last paragraph: yep, can't and won't deny it. People have funny horrifying tribal inclinations.

[ila]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Oh I'm not. History is written in blood. This I sadly know.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Let me see if I can. I was speaking about the colonies themselves, not the Pilgrims, and the hypocrisy inherent in the founding of a free nation...with the institution of slavery. I did know that Africans would enslave one another frequently and they provided quite a few (most?) of the slaves for the colonies.

I understand now what you were saying.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

As for the last paragraph: yep, can't and won't deny it. People have funny horrifying tribal inclinations.

This is all so very true.

[Enoch Root]

I could have sworn I've seen a longer version with better audiovisual quality, sadly I can't find such a thing and my patience does not seem to hold out for such things.

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

He used to be so alive back then.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by ila

I understand now what you were saying.



This is all so very true.

I should have written: I was not clear.

[transjen]

I fail to see what the GOP is bitching about
Every time they have made deals with this president they gave up nothing and walked away with just about everything they wanted
Like the extension of the Bush taxcuts
And yet agian today he is putting everything on the table and the GOP are taking and not giving
Cuts to medicare social security making the poor and elderly suffer and pay all the defecit while tax breaks for the top two percent and corpate welfare conitues untouched and may be increased
I wish i saved my nuts so i could give em to the president as he really needs a set
Jerseygirl Jen

[smc]

Originally Posted by transjen

I fail to see what the GOP is bitching about
Every time they have made deals with this president they gave up nothing and walked away with just about everything they wanted
Like the extension of the Bush taxcuts
And yet agian today he is putting everything on the table and the GOP are taking and not giving
Cuts to medicare social security making the poor and elderly suffer and pay all the defecit while tax breaks for the top two percent and corpate welfare conitues untouched and may be increased
I wish i saved my nuts so i could give em to the president as he really needs a set
Jerseygirl Jen

It should be noted that with respect to social security, it has absolutely no connection whatsoever to the U.S. federal deficit. Social Security is paid for by payroll taxes and employer contributions. There is sufficient money in the Social Security Trust Fund to pay benefits for the next 25 years. There are changes that could be made (most specifically, means testing so that the wealthy pay into it differently or take nothing out) that would make the Trust Fund secure for twice or three times as long. But making ANY change to Social Security right now will have absolutely NO IMPACT on the federal deficit. NONE WHATSOEVER.

[smc]

^ Just to clarify, Social Security IS part of the federal deficit in the following way. Part of the federal debt is actually owed to Social Security, because Congress has borrowed from the Trust Fund over the past 20 years whenever it has been in surplus ... and has done so rather prodigiously.