NPR: Reporters Jump Senators For Perceived Earmark Hypocrisy

[PeshakJang]

Look at what Republicans did:
- 2001 Bush tax cuts for millionaires -- $1.35T - unpaid for
- 2003 more Bush tax cuts for millionaires -- ?? unpaid for
- Medicare Part D Drug Program -- $500B unpaid for
- Iraq and Afghanistan War -- $1T and counting -- unpaid for

whose side are you from to lecture anyone else about fiscal responsibility?

And the democrats have done all that combined in just about 2 years. Goddamn.

 

[dca221]

And the democrats have done all that combined in just about 2 years. Goddamn.

facts please? please show what additional spending the democrats pushed in the last two years that total anywhere near $3T. Do not include any spending due to continued policies of the Bush administration (e.g., TARP, which by the way is down to only $25B cost to the government after repaid loans), short-term recession finding remedies that are going away in a year (e.g., $250B of stimulus that was not tax cuts or state aid), and any increase in entitlement spend that would increase under any administration. Please provide sources to the spending numbers, ideally from the CBO or independent government sources, not Fox News or the Heritage Foundation

Please let us know if you have one iota of evidence besides blindly repeating baseless teabagger talking points

 

[Jhhnn]

My point... AGAIN... is about the mentality of the Democrats, as exemplified by Jhhnn's statement. 1% doesn't matter when we are talking about pork/earmarks, but it is incredibly important when we talk about money from rich people. Money is money. If you give a shit about the budget and deficit, it doesn't matter how big or small the amounts you are talking about is, everything is important. Don't tell me that worrying about earmark spending is insignificant but that if we don't raise taxes on the rich the world will end, because that's exactly what is going on.

So-called "pork" isn't just some random idea that a congress critter came up with. It's money spent specifically on projects that their constituents have asked for. It's a way for them to show thier constituencies that they listen and respond to their needs and desires.

Obviously there have been abuses and attempted abuses, like the $250M bridge to nowhere in Alaska. Overall, the funds are used for roads, bridges, schools, libraries and other civic projects.

The sad truth is that the federal budget simply can't be balanced in any reasonable sort of way with cuts alone. Everybody wants to decrease spending, but nobody agrees on where to cut. When and if the day comes that we clear out of Iraq and Afghanistan, we'll have a lot more leeway to choose.

The Afghan and Iraqi adventures mark the first time in our history that we've gone to war and cut taxes at the same time.

Federal revenues need to increase in any sort of honest appraisal, which means raising taxes. And that has to begin at the top in order to be politically palatable. When America's wealthiest are demonstrably paying higher taxes, the upper middle class and middle class people will accept the need for them to do the same, but not until.

Much of what Righties believe about wealth and taxes is based on the demonstrably failed ideology of Reaganomics- that lower taxes at the top creates jobs. We currently tax our wealthiest citizens at the lowest rates of the modern era, the lowest rates in the first world, and have an unemployment rate of nearly 10%. We also have a balance of payments deficit of nearly $500B/yr, created almost entirely by the offshoring of capital and jobs by the financial elite. The greater their after tax incomes, the faster they'll do more of the same.

It really doesn't matter how cheap foreign goods are if you don't have a job, an income, a means to participate in the economy.

Currently, Republicans, the avowed servants of great wealth, are holding the economy hostage to their desires, dangling extended UI benefits and low taxes for the middle class as reward for giving them what they want, which is the ability to destroy the middle class with low wages and debt at every level, other than at the tippy-top.

Under GWB and a Republican congress, they grew federal employment at the greatest rate since the Great Society, and grew total debt at an incredible rate with federal borrowing and the housing bubble. It definitely had a purpose- to disguise the greatest looting spree in the history of finance, the looting of America, carried out by the world's wealthiest. At the height of the looting spree, 2006 & 2007, the taxable income of America's top 0.1% was basically the same as that of the bottom 50% combined, an outrageous reversal of fortunes from that of 1980, before America bought into the lie of Reaganomics.

Project the income shift of the last 30 years for another 30 years into the future to arrive at a third world distribution curve. That's what Republicans want, and what they'll get if we keep giving them the means to achieve it.

 

[manimal]

The reason I think hatred of Pork became a mantra is that at one time or another a politician on the outside looking in at an established senator has felt envy and anger at not being able to compete with a successful establishment incumbent with tangible gains to show their constituency.

the problem starts when they get in power and have to reconcile with themselves that such a big part of their platform is basically a false premise.....


Look at old school guys in the republican party.....they were for it before they were against it....


I actually feel bad for some of them. Its a brave new world on the right and some do not like Jim Demint and what he is bringing them....

 

[PeshakJang]

So-called "pork" isn't just some random idea that a congress critter came up with. It's money spent specifically on projects that their constituents have asked for. It's a way for them to show thier constituencies that they listen and respond to their needs and desires.

Translation: Money buys votes. Blame it on the voters, blame it on the politicians, but those in power are the ones with the power.

Obviously there have been abuses and attempted abuses, like the $250M bridge to nowhere in Alaska. Overall, the funds are used for roads, bridges, schools, libraries and other civic projects.

So go line by line and ask: "Is this earmark so important that we NEED to BORROW the money now, with an already immense debt?" I would bet that in a majority of the cases, the answer is no. The problem is, that those with the power say, "No, but it's a relatively small amount of money, and it's for MY constituents, so we'll leave it alone." Hence, nothing ever gets done.

The sad truth is that the federal budget simply can't be balanced in any reasonable sort of way with cuts alone. Everybody wants to decrease spending, but nobody agrees on where to cut. When and if the day comes that we clear out of Iraq and Afghanistan, we'll have a lot more leeway to choose.

I completely agree. Spending cuts alone won't solver the issue. You need to agree that raising taxes alone won't solve it either. History has shown with 99% certainty, however, that the more money congress gets, the more they spend, in amounts in excess of whatever extra money they think they are getting. Raise taxes by $70 Billion this year, and I guarantee spending next year will increase far in excess of $70 Billion.

I'd be more than willing to entertain a tax increase, even an isolated tax increase on certain incomes, if I thought the money would be well spent. As it is, Democrats have turned it into a class warfare issue and nothing else, and with the string of broken promises from the administration, it's a fact that the money will not be put to good use.

The Afghan and Iraqi adventures mark the first time in our history that we've gone to war and cut taxes at the same time.

The deficit last year alone eclipsed the combined 10-year cost of BOTH Iraq and Afghanistan. And according to the logic of many here, the wars kept many people employed and many industries productive, possibly avoiding an even deeper recession than we faced. Just throwing that out there.

Federal revenues need to increase in any sort of honest appraisal, which means raising taxes.

Or growing the economy... you know... the way it's always worked in the past.

And that has to begin at the top in order to be politically palatable. When America's wealthiest are demonstrably paying higher taxes, the upper middle class and middle class people will accept the need for them to do the same, but not until.

The top already pays demonstrably higher taxes according to reality. The class warfare arguments of the Democrats have tried to make people think that the government is cutting billion-dollar checks to the rich though. What is the upper limit? Ask a Democrat, and the answer is, "I don't know, but we aren't there." That's the problem. There is no upper limit. There is no point where congress will say, "We get enough money, we need to spend it more wisely".

We currently tax our wealthiest citizens at the lowest rates of the modern era, the lowest rates in the first world,

Wrong.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456

Top 1% effective rates have gone down since they shot up in the mid-90's, but they are still above the historical norms going back to 1980. By contrast, every other income quintile has seen their effective rates steadily decrease.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?DocID=212&Topic2id=20&Topic3id=22

The lower/middle class received the majority of benefit from the income tax cuts as well, refuting the oft-repeated lie from the left of the opposite being true.

and have an unemployment rate of nearly 10%. We also have a balance of payments deficit of nearly $500B/yr, created almost entirely by the offshoring of capital and jobs by the financial elite. The greater their after tax incomes, the faster they'll do more of the same.

You say that earmarks and pork are a necessary evil, because that's how the system is set up, yet you blame the "financial elite" when the global economy allows for such disparity in cost of living incomes around the world. Always an excuse, right?

It really doesn't matter how cheap foreign goods are if you don't have a job, an income, a means to participate in the economy.

So we return menial jobs to the US. Companies are forced to spend 10x greater amounts on jobs that require little to no skill or education due to labor laws and union contracts. Prices go up to reflect this. People want to keep their standard of living, so they demand lower-priced, cheaply produced products. The cycle repeats.

The root of this whole problem is that once a population gets used to a certain standard of living, they all but refuse to regress. Same problem with spending as addressed with congress. See how the tapestry comes together?

Currently, Republicans, the avowed servants of great wealth, are holding the economy hostage to their desires, dangling extended UI benefits and low taxes for the middle class as reward for giving them what they want, which is the ability to destroy the middle class with low wages and debt at every level, other than at the tippy-top.

I see logic has failed again, and you fall back on name-calling and dramatization. How many YEARS of free money is enough for you? Unemployment insurance for 3 YEARS is not unemployment, it's welfare. The majority of America agrees. More class-warfare from the Democrats though... money talks. If your son is out of work, how long will you pay his bills? You going to cut him checks for a year? 3 years? 10 years?

more rambling while ignoring the original point of the thread

Still waiting for somebody to answer one simple question:

Why is spending X considered insignificant, but raising taxes on the wealthy to generate X is necessary to save our country?

 

[PeshakJang]

facts please? please show what additional spending the democrats pushed in the last two years that total anywhere near $3T. Do not include any spending due to continued policies of the Bush administration (e.g., TARP, which by the way is down to only $25B cost to the government after repaid loans), short-term recession finding remedies that are going away in a year (e.g., $250B of stimulus that was not tax cuts or state aid), and any increase in entitlement spend that would increase under any administration. Please provide sources to the spending numbers, ideally from the CBO or independent government sources, not Fox News or the Heritage Foundation

Please let us know if you have one iota of evidence besides blindly repeating baseless teabagger talking points

The deficits for the last 2 years have been in excess of $1 trillion each. All unpaid for. The budget, deficit, and debt have skyrocketed under the Democrat congress, which has had power since 2006 by the way.

You can say, "Oh, that's emergency spending that will go away once the economy improves!", if you like lying to yourself that is. The Democrats have done *zero* to attempt to solve any of these budget problems, and have relied on idiotic premises like the "rich tax cuts" and dupes like you to make it seem like they are doing everything possible.

 

[fskimospy]

The deficits for the last 2 years have been in excess of $1 trillion each. All unpaid for. The budget, deficit, and debt have skyrocketed under the Democrat congress, which has had power since 2006 by the way.

You can say, "Oh, that's emergency spending that will go away once the economy improves!", if you like lying to yourself that is. The Democrats have done *zero* to attempt to solve any of these budget problems, and have relied on idiotic premises like the "rich tax cuts" and dupes like you to make it seem like they are doing everything possible.

The 2009 budget was signed by George Bush.

 

[PeshakJang]

The 2009 budget was signed by George Bush.

And written by Democrats since 2006/7.

I'm not blaming Obama for this budget, aside from the fact that he's a spineless, inept leader with no clear principals. I blame congress.

 

[fskimospy]

And written by Democrats since 2006/7.

I'm not blaming Obama for this budget, aside from the fact that he's a spineless, inept leader with no clear principals. I blame congress.

The budget is written and submitted by the White House, it is then modified and approved by Congress.

Regardless, the idea of exploding deficits is still wrong. Budget deficits for 2007 and 2008 in the approved budget were SMALLER than they were under the Republican congress of 2006. These budgets leave some important spending off the books, but most of that spending in those years came from the wars, which are hardly Democratic initiatives, or TARP, which will end up costing the government little.

In 2009 and 2010 we start seeing bigger (and then MUCH bigger) deficits, but what you were trying to say just isn't accurate.

 

[zsdersw]

Deflectors on maximum again, I see.

While it is bad that Democrats want all the government spending in the world, the point of this thread is that it is also bad when Republicans want the same privately, but then publicly decry it.

Instead of criticizing Republican hypocrisy, The Usual Suspects have changed the subject to Democratic spending habits/desires.. with their deflector shields on maximum.

 

[PeshakJang]

While it is bad that Democrats want all the government spending in the world, the point of this thread is that it is also bad when Republicans want the same privately, but then publicly decry it.

Instead of criticizing Republican hypocrisy, The Usual Suspects have changed the subject to Democratic spending habits/desires.. with their deflector shields on maximum.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/12/17/parties-no-longer-equal-on-pork/

A new analysis by a group of federal-spending watchdogs shows a striking imbalance between the parties when it comes to earmark requests. Democrats remain raging spenders, while Republicans have made enormous strides in cleaning up their act. In the Senate, the GOP made only one-third as many earmark requests as Democrats for 2011, and in the House, Republicans have nearly given up earmarking altogether — while Democrats roll on.

The watchdog groups — Taxpayers for Common Sense, WashingtonWatch.com, and Taxpayers Against Earmarks — counted total earmark requests in the 2011 budget. Those requests were made by lawmakers earlier this year, but Democratic leaders, afraid that their party’s spending priorities might cost them at the polls, decided not to pass a budget before the Nov. 2 elections. This week, they distilled those earmark requests — threw some out, combined others — into the omnibus bill that was under consideration in the Senate until Majority Leader Harry Reid pulled it Thursday night. While that bill was loaded with spending, looking back at the original earmark requests tells us a lot about the spending inclinations of both parties.

In the 2011 House budget, the groups found that House Democrats requested 18,189 earmarks, which would cost the taxpayers a total of $51.7 billion, while House Republicans requested just 241 earmarks, for a total of $1 billion.[b/]

Where did those GOP earmark requests come from? Just four Republican lawmakers: South Carolina Rep. Henry Brown, who did not run for re-election this year; Louisiana Rep. Joseph Cao, who lost his bid for re-election; maverick Texas Rep. Ron Paul; and spending king Rep. Don Young of Alaska. The other Republican members of the House — 174 of them — requested a total of zero earmarks.

So a handful of Republicans, a couple of whom won't be back, submitted earmarks in the House totaling over 50 times less than the Democrats, while the rest submitted ZERO, and we're called hypocrites?

Why don't you tell us why the Democrats waited until the LAST POSSIBLE MINUTE to get this budget through? (Hint, it's in the above story)

Deflectors on full indeed.

 

[zsdersw]

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/12/17/parties-no-longer-equal-on-pork/

​

So a handful of Republicans, a couple of whom won't be back, submitted earmarks in the House totaling over 50 times less than the Democrats, while the rest submitted ZERO, and we're called hypocrites?

Why don't you tell us why the Democrats waited until the LAST POSSIBLE MINUTE to get this budget through? (Hint, it's in the above story)

Deflectors on full indeed.

I bolded the key part of your response. You're a member of the Republican party?

I make no apologies for Democratic spending, but Republican spending habits have a long way to go before they can claim to not be hypocritical on government spending.

 

[Throckmorton]

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/12/17/parties-no-longer-equal-on-pork/So a handful of Republicans, a couple of whom won't be back, submitted earmarks in the House totaling over 50 times less than the Democrats, while the rest submitted ZERO, and we're called hypocrites?

Why don't you tell us why the Democrats waited until the LAST POSSIBLE MINUTE to get this budget through? (Hint, it's in the above story)

Deflectors on full indeed.

Do you not understand the concept of hypocrisy? Democrats aren't running on a platform that earmarks are evil and the government is evil and Obama is going to stuff earmarks down your throat to kill you so you don't use up healthcare meant for black people.

 

[dca221]

The deficits for the last 2 years have been in excess of $1 trillion each. All unpaid for. The budget, deficit, and debt have skyrocketed under the Democrat congress, which has had power since 2006 by the way.

You can say, "Oh, that's emergency spending that will go away once the economy improves!", if you like lying to yourself that is. The Democrats have done *zero* to attempt to solve any of these budget problems, and have relied on idiotic premises like the "rich tax cuts" and dupes like you to make it seem like they are doing everything possible.

Dude, are you opposed to facts? Can you please back something up with facts? Here is a helpful site for you, that's not Fox News:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

So, first you were talking about the spending Democrats were driving, now you are switching to deficits. Fine, I get it... you don't want to talk about what you can't prove

On deficits, here are some facts for you (Year, Revenue, Spending, Deficit):
2007 2,568,001 2,728,702 -160,701
2008 2,523,999 2,982,554 -458,555
2009 2,104,995 3,517,681 -1,412,686
2010 estimate 2,165,119 3,720,701 -1,555,582


first see that much of it is caused by the dip in the tax revenue -- about $400B! Then, note that 2008 to 2009 spending increase is $600B. Then please look it up and post what the deficit was month by month in Oct, Nov, Dec of 2008 and in Jan 2009. You will see when you do look it up, the monthly deficit was gigantic BEFORE Obama set foot in the White House. He caused almost none of the $1.4T deficit in 2009. It is a result of the disasterous policies of the Bush and the Republicans 2000-2008, to eat away the trillions of Clinton surplus they found in 2000. They squandered it away to tax cuts that did not create jobs, spent in on war started on false premises to satisfy Cheney's empire ambitions and Bush's daddy syndrome, and the inexplicable entitlement give away on Medicare PartD

By the way, I am unhappy that the tax rates are staying as they are. I wish the Congress had the balls to raise them, at least some, to start reducing the deficit. And that they would really do something about the escalating Health Care costs in Medicare and Medicaid. Leave SS alone, it's got its own funding, and raise the tax rate by 1% if you have to to keep it solvent

I am not a blind partisan, I don't rely on Fox News to spoon feed me slanted news, I can google a few things and see facts on my own and see who has done what to cause the effing disaster we are in and who has the best ideas to get us out. How about you?

 

[ProfJohn]

You will see when you do look it up, the monthly deficit was gigantic BEFORE Obama set foot in the White House. He caused almost none of the $1.4T deficit in 2009.

Wrong!!!

You are right about how a large part of the deficit was the result of reduced revenue. After that though you went off the tracks.

What really happened was this:
At the end of FY 2008 Bush and the Democrats pass TARP. Billions of dollars is loaned out by the government. However government accounting rules don't allow for those dollars to be record as loans and instead are recorded as spending.

This causes spending in 2008/09 to spike dramatically.

Soon the money starts to get paid back, but again government accounting rules make it impossible for the money to be paid back and the deficit reduced. Instead the money goes into the general funds where it sits.

Next Obama and the Democrats take office and dramatically increase spending. They take the money returned via TARP and re-spend it.

Remember the TARP program pushed by Bush cost almost nothing long term. Nearly all the money spent on the program was returned back.

So the real reason for the deficit spike in FY 2009 was in fact Obama and the Democrats.

Dick Morris laid this all out in an article a couple of years ago, I shall find it and post a link

 

[ProfJohn]

Some of the left question Morris' numbers, but here they are for you.

http://thehill.com/opinion/columnis...ese-are-the-true-deficits-bush-800b-obama-14t

n 2008, George W. Bush ran a deficit of $485 billion. By the time the fiscal year started, on Oct. 1, 2008, it had gone up by another $100 billion due to increased recession-related spending and depressed revenues. So it was about $600 billion at the start of the fiscal crisis. That was the real Bush deficit.

But when the fiscal crisis hit, Bush had to pass the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in the final months of his presidency, which cost $700 billion. Under the federal budget rules, a loan and a grant are treated the same. So the $700 billion pushed the deficit — officially — up to $1.3 trillion. But not really. The $700 billion was a short-term loan. $500 billion of it has already been repaid.

So what was the real deficit Obama inherited? The $600 billion deficit Bush was running plus the $200 billion of TARP money that probably won’t be repaid (mainly AIG and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). That totals $800 billion. That was the real deficit Obama inherited.

Then … he added $300 billion in his stimulus package, bringing the deficit to $1.1 trillion. This $300 billion was, of course, totally qualitatively different from the TARP money in that it was spending, not lending. It would never be paid back. Once it was out the door, it was gone. Other spending and falling revenues due to the recession pushed the final numbers for Obama’s 2009 deficit up to $1.4 trillion.

 

[dca221]

Wrong!!!

You are right about how a large part of the deficit was the result of reduced revenue. After that though you went off the tracks.

What really happened was this:
At the end of FY 2008 Bush and the Democrats pass TARP. Billions of dollars is loaned out by the government. However government accounting rules don't allow for those dollars to be record as loans and instead are recorded as spending.

This causes spending in 2008/09 to spike dramatically.

Soon the money starts to get paid back, but again government accounting rules make it impossible for the money to be paid back and the deficit reduced. Instead the money goes into the general funds where it sits.

Next Obama and the Democrats take office and dramatically increase spending. They take the money returned via TARP and re-spend it.
Remember the TARP program pushed by Bush cost almost nothing long term. Nearly all the money spent on the program was returned back.

So the real reason for the deficit spike in FY 2009 was in fact Obama and the Democrats.

Dick Morris laid this all out in an article a couple of years ago, I shall find it and post a link

Anything Dick Morris says, I ignore until I see someone credible agree or I see facts. Please show CBO numbers that back up any of Dick Morris' claims

Remember that Obama took office in January 2009 and the TARP money was not paid back until late 2010 -- the banks in better shape started paying back in June/July 2009. IIRC, the Treasury did not accept payments from some banks which wanted to make payments in summer / fall 2009 b/c their capital structure was not strong enough

So, Obama did not have the funds to conveniently spend the TARP money on something else

Look back up to post #23,this is what I posted. Show me where this mysterious swap of spending is happening:
***********************
On the "Obama's spending increase" ... I checked out the federal spend details:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

The total increase is $850B (from 2008 to Estimated 2011)

- $133B is in National "Defense" -- continuing to fight Bush's wars
- $119B is in Social Security -- which is not Obama's
- $106B is in Medicare -- which is not Obama's
- $164B is in Income Security, which includes about $125B in Unemployment Insurance and Food Assistance (which is due to the deep Recession Obama inherited), and others in Federal Employee retirement costs (which Obama cannot do anything about)
- $120B is in Health -- I don't know what this is, chalk it up to Obama
- and then there is a bunch of cats and dogs, too long a list to figure out what they are and what they are due to
*******************

Dick Morris is another Dick

 

[manimal]

Anything Dick Morris says, I ignore

Dick Morris is another Dick

this

 

[PeshakJang]

I bolded the key part of your response. You're a member of the Republican party?

No, but in this argument, I am taking the side of the Republican party. If you want to focus on semantics instead of any of the facts I posted, feel free.

I make no apologies for Democratic spending, but Republican spending habits have a long way to go before they can claim to not be hypocritical on government spending.

They do have a long way to go to prove that they will walk the walk of their campaign promises, but if you want to ignore the fact that they have submitted almost ZERO earmarks compared to the Democrats, when BOTH parties are screaming about the budget and how important money is, one party looks a lot more hypocritical than the other.

I'll ask my questions again, since nobody has tried to offer any real answers to either of them:

1) If we raise an additional ~$70 Bn /year in tax revenue, what will be the overall effect on a budget that is running a deficit of ~$1.5 Tr/year? Is it significant, or insignificant?

2) If we cut ~$70 Bn /year in government spending, what will be the overall effect on a budget that is running a deficit of ~$1.5 Tr/year? Is it significant, or insignificant?

So far, the majority of Democrats answer 'significant' to 1, and 'insignificant' to 2, which has been my point this whole thread. A blatant lack of logical thinking, leading to claims of denial that this is anything but class warfare.

And I will say again... I might not be opposed to a tax increase on the wealthy, IF I thought that the money would be spent wisely, and that the motives behind raising the taxes were anything other than thoughts of redistribution of wealth, and anger at "the rich", but so far, every statement made by Democrats shows that the opposite is true. They literally come straight out and say that 'the rich' don't need that money, they don't deserve it, they have too much... but some people still pretend like they have the best interests of the nation at heart. There's a word for these people.... dupes.

 

[fskimospy]

No, but in this argument, I am taking the side of the Republican party. If you want to focus on semantics instead of any of the facts I posted, feel free.



They do have a long way to go to prove that they will walk the walk of their campaign promises, but if you want to ignore the fact that they have submitted almost ZERO earmarks compared to the Democrats, when BOTH parties are screaming about the budget and how important money is, one party looks a lot more hypocritical than the other.

I'll ask my questions again, since nobody has tried to offer any real answers to either of them:

1) If we raise an additional ~$70 Bn /year in tax revenue, what will be the overall effect on a budget that is running a deficit of ~$1.5 Tr/year? Is it significant, or insignificant?

2) If we cut ~$70 Bn /year in government spending, what will be the overall effect on a budget that is running a deficit of ~$1.5 Tr/year? Is it significant, or insignificant?

So far, the majority of Democrats answer 'significant' to 1, and 'insignificant' to 2, which has been my point this whole thread. A blatant lack of logical thinking, leading to claims of denial that this is anything but class warfare.

And I will say again... I might not be opposed to a tax increase on the wealthy, IF I thought that the money would be spent wisely, and that the motives behind raising the taxes were anything other than thoughts of redistribution of wealth, and anger at "the rich", but so far, every statement made by Democrats shows that the opposite is true. They literally come straight out and say that 'the rich' don't need that money, they don't deserve it, they have too much... but some people still pretend like they have the best interests of the nation at heart. There's a word for these people.... dupes.

The reason the Republicans haven't submitted earmarks is because they don't control the committees or the legislation. The last time the Republicans controlled Congress they spent almost double what the Democrats currently spend on pork projects.
http://www.cagw.org/reports/pig-book/2006/

It all boils down to people thinking that tax cuts for the rich are bad public policy. Spending on other things of the same cost can be considered good public policy. Therefore, $70 billion seems like an awful lot of deficit to waste on a program that doesn't do much for America, while spending $70 billion on something else that's good IS a good use of that deficit space.

Considering the percentage of wealth that the richest Americans have as compared to 40 years ago, if the Democrats are waging class warfare they're doing a terrible job of it. If the rich happened to be the ones waging class warfare however, they've been remarkably successful.

 

[Jhhnn]

The reason the Republicans haven't submitted earmarks is because they don't control the committees or the legislation. The last time the Republicans controlled Congress they spent almost double what the Democrats currently spend on pork projects.
http://www.cagw.org/reports/pig-book/2006/

It all boils down to people thinking that tax cuts for the rich are bad public policy. Spending on other things of the same cost can be considered good public policy. Therefore, $70 billion seems like an awful lot of deficit to waste on a program that doesn't do much for America, while spending $70 billion on something else that's good IS a good use of that deficit space.

Considering the percentage of wealth that the richest Americans have as compared to 40 years ago, if the Democrats are waging class warfare they're doing a terrible job of it. If the rich happened to be the ones waging class warfare however, they've been remarkably successful.

You can't confuse 'em with facts or reasoned argument- their leadership has declared that earmarks are "bad", mmkay, and that tax cuts for people who don't need them are "good", because of that good ol' trickledown effect that hasn't shown itself, ever.

When the Republican leadership turns on a dime, they forget the past, stay right behind in formation. Reminds me of raising the chocolate ration...

 

[PeshakJang]

The reason the Republicans haven't submitted earmarks is because they don't control the committees or the legislation. The last time the Republicans controlled Congress they spent almost double what the Democrats currently spend on pork projects.
http://www.cagw.org/reports/pig-book/2006/

So you are saying the Democrats won't let the Republicans submit any earmarks, and then criticize them for opposing earmarks because they didn't submit any?

Also, you can't really use historical numbers to compare party/party earmark totals, since we didn't know who submitted what until recently (One good thing I will give the Democrats)... so making the party in power responsible for all earmarks of that congress isn't really accurate.

It all boils down to people thinking that tax cuts for the rich are bad public policy. Spending on other things of the same cost can be considered good public policy. Therefore, $70 billion seems like an awful lot of deficit to waste on a program that doesn't do much for America, while spending $70 billion on something else that's good IS a good use of that deficit space.

No, what it boils down to is that more and more people are realizing that no additional amount of money taken from the public is going to net any measurable benefit until congress puts a limit on their spending. It worked for a while... "We don't want your money, we want 'The Rich Peoples'' money". But more and more people have begun to realize that when there is no limit on spending, there can be no limit on what they will take. Until Congress says, "We have enough money, we need to spend it more wisely.", it's equivalent to us throwing money at a brother with a gambling problem... always needs just a little bit more.

Secondly, that ~$70 Bn/year will quickly be eclipsed by subsequent increases in spending, and will have almost zero measurable impact on spending/deficits going forward... whereas spending cuts and the subsequent savings they produce year-over-year will compound savings far more quickly. Remember, once you allocate spending to a program, any failure to raise spending the next year is considered a cut, and is unacceptable.

Considering the percentage of wealth that the richest Americans have as compared to 40 years ago, if the Democrats are waging class warfare they're doing a terrible job of it. If the rich happened to be the ones waging class warfare however, they've been remarkably successful.

The Democrats aren't as interested in the actual warfare part as they are using the rich as scapegoats for their own failures, and as justification for their social welfare policies. Whenever something is wrong with America, it's the fault of 'the rich', so we should take money from them, blame them, instead of trying to find the real source of the problem.

 

[PeshakJang]

You can't confuse 'em with facts or reasoned argument- their leadership has declared that earmarks are "bad", mmkay, and that tax cuts for people who don't need them are "good", because of that good ol' trickledown effect that hasn't shown itself, ever.

When the Republican leadership turns on a dime, they forget the past, stay right behind in formation. Reminds me of raising the chocolate ration...

You ever going to get around to answering my questions? It's been like 3 pages now of facts and reasoned arguments... you confused?

Taking from the rich is "Good", and cutting spending is "Bad"... mmkay amirite? Is that your argument?

 

[sMiLeYz]

You ever going to get around to answering my questions? It's been like 3 pages now of facts and reasoned arguments... you confused?

Taking from the rich is "Good", and cutting spending is "Bad"... mmkay amirite? Is that your argument?

Nice doublespeak, I call paying taxes: An American Duty. Why shouldn't the rich pay their fairshare? Why do you hate America PeshakJang?

 

[fskimospy]

So you are saying the Democrats won't let the Republicans submit any earmarks, and then criticize them for opposing earmarks because they didn't submit any?

Also, you can't really use historical numbers to compare party/party earmark totals, since we didn't know who submitted what until recently (One good thing I will give the Democrats)... so making the party in power responsible for all earmarks of that congress isn't really accurate.



No, what it boils down to is that more and more people are realizing that no additional amount of money taken from the public is going to net any measurable benefit until congress puts a limit on their spending. It worked for a while... "We don't want your money, we want 'The Rich Peoples'' money". But more and more people have begun to realize that when there is no limit on spending, there can be no limit on what they will take. Until Congress says, "We have enough money, we need to spend it more wisely.", it's equivalent to us throwing money at a brother with a gambling problem... always needs just a little bit more.

Secondly, that ~$70 Bn/year will quickly be eclipsed by subsequent increases in spending, and will have almost zero measurable impact on spending/deficits going forward... whereas spending cuts and the subsequent savings they produce year-over-year will compound savings far more quickly. Remember, once you allocate spending to a program, any failure to raise spending the next year is considered a cut, and is unacceptable.



The Democrats aren't as interested in the actual warfare part as they are using the rich as scapegoats for their own failures, and as justification for their social welfare policies. Whenever something is wrong with America, it's the fault of 'the rich', so we should take money from them, blame them, instead of trying to find the real source of the problem.

No, what I'm saying is that the party in power is generally the one that gets to submit earmarks (with very few exceptions). If the R's control the Congress, it's very safe to assume that the vast majority of earmarks are coming from their members. The Republicans frequently get religion on pork when not in power, but when they actually do control the ability to add them in, they are the worst offenders of all. Strangely enough, people get fooled by them over and over again.

As for your ideas that government spending will increase if taxation increases, that's actually not supported by the evidence at all. Interestingly enough, government spending and taxation levels appear unrelated, and there may actually be an INVERSE effect. It's pretty interesting stuff, so what you are positing is at best unsupported and at worst actually the inverse of reality. You should read up on it.

I'm sure you certainly think you know what it boils down to. Everyone always uses 'more and more people' as a proxy for imprinting whatever convenient ideology they have on America at large. Not impressed.