On the budget, Obama has Republicans cornered

Page 15 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
Unfortunately it's the Regressives like you and those in the Tea Party that are holding the Republican Party hostage.You're now better than the Progressives. Wingnuts on both sides are fucking us up.
The counter to extremism is unfortunately extremism. If you've got a plan to move everyone towards the center, please share it. I sure don't see anyone in DC calling for a meeting of the minds. They're at each other's throats even more than I ever recall. But, I may not have been paying as much attention in my younger days.

We're borrowing over $0.40 of every dollar we spend. The debt increased in one day, more than the 'savings' incorporated into the recent budget bill. If the Tea Party is what it takes to get the spending under control, so be it. Somebody has to be the grownup.

The picture painted by the left is that the right is out to starve granny. Granny is gonna starve for sure unless we take the steps to resolve these issues on as permanent a basis as is possible. Is it better to die thin and old or fat and young?
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
The counter to extremism is unfortunately extremism. If you've got a plan to move everyone towards the center, please share it. I sure don't see anyone in DC calling for a meeting of the minds. They're at each other's throats even more than I ever recall. But, I may not have been paying as much attention in my younger days.

We're borrowing over $0.40 of every dollar we spend. The debt increased in one day, more than the 'savings' incorporated into the recent budget bill. If the Tea Party is what it takes to get the spending under control, so be it. Somebody has to be the grownup.

The picture painted by the left is that the right is out to starve granny. Granny is gonna starve for sure unless we take the steps to resolve these issues on as permanent a basis as is possible. Is it better to die thin and old or fat and young?

Well then go after Defense spending instead of PP.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
It's like having several kids running amok in the living room. You come out of the kitchen to see what that loud noise was and there's a broken lamp. When questioned, none of the kids did it.

Progressivism is nothing more than a continual stage of arrested development. Kids that never grow into adults. You couple that with a generation raised to feel that 'everyone is a winner' and you've got enormous problems that will continue for decades. That's why reform has got to start in the schools and if that's not possible, it has to start at home.

The progressive vision for school reform is throwing more money at the schools. This of course is no surprise. Plus, reform to them means total indoctrination, loosening or complete elimination of all morals coupled with instruction that grownups and parents are bad. Home schooling and charter schools are of course evil because, as is obvious, they have no control over what is being taught.

We've got a real fighting chance of neutering the progressive movement right now in our lifetimes. Public opinion is against them, growing and getting stronger. They of course, convinced that only they know the correct and just path, continue to shoot themselves in the foot. Still convinced they have the numbers to pull it off again. What will be the modern day versions of the 16th, 17th and 18th amendments they would impose on us? They've laid the hand they wish to deal us out for all to see. It's a return to enslavement to the state.

With the emergence of the Tea Party and the change in control of the House I'm hopeful they're being turned back. But there's no time to rest. There is little room for compromise. Given the chance, they would spend us into insolvency. They'd break a whole lot of lamps and blame it on anyone but themselves. Left to their devices they will bankrupt us, starve us and eventually murder those that won't bend to their will. It's all been done many times before. Progressivism must be turned back.

If you actually believe this, seek professional mental help. You are exhibiting signs of paranoid delusions.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
Well then go after Defense spending instead of PP.
You've never seen me in here screaming not to reduce spending for defense - ever. I'm not a supporter of aggressive actions around the world, in fact I'd like to concentrate on defending our borders. I think our money would be far better spent on that. I'd also like to let the world get a taste of what it's like without our tax dollars "defending" their countries. I think it would lead to them having a greater appreciation of us.

As far as PP, I've not railed in support of decreased funding for that. PP gave approximately $1 million to Democratic causes and candidates in the last election cycle. That is the prime motivator behind the attempts at reducing their funding - no question. However, spending must be reduced. Everyone has their sacred cows. If we want to talk like adults about PP, we must first admit that public money is funding abortions. In spite of all the rhetoric to the contrary, the funds are not being divvied up. Let's be real.

I feel it is a woman's right to do what she wishes with her body. What I don't agree with is my tax dollars being used as a means of birth control by way of abortions. It comes down to a woman having some skin in the game. If abortions are freely available to her at little to no cost, it can become the easiest form of birth control for her. Let her assume a greater portion of the cost of a surgical procedure and she'll more likely be having her partners wrap it up. I also see the benefit to society of not having to deal with still more unwanted children. It's a touchy subject and one I have generalized here. Anyone that wants to pick apart the semantics of this last paragraph will be ignored as is my norm.

So, I'll tell you something that I've wanted to for a long time. I don't expect a response of any kind. You and I Red are more alike than you think. I read all your posts and I often find myself in agreement. We have similar views on many issues. Not identical, but similar. I think we could find a lot of common ground should the need arise.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
The counter to extremism is unfortunately extremism. If you've got a plan to move everyone towards the center, please share it. I sure don't see anyone in DC calling for a meeting of the minds. They're at each other's throats even more than I ever recall. But, I may not have been paying as much attention in my younger days.

We're borrowing over $0.40 of every dollar we spend. The debt increased in one day, more than the 'savings' incorporated into the recent budget bill. If the Tea Party is what it takes to get the spending under control, so be it. Somebody has to be the grownup.

The picture painted by the left is that the right is out to starve granny. Granny is gonna starve for sure unless we take the steps to resolve these issues on as permanent a basis as is possible. Is it better to die thin and old or fat and young?

It isn't "grownup" to insist that tax increases are forbidden from even being considered.

THAT is the fundamental problem with the deficit. Instead of looking at what spending we really need and makes sense, and figuring out how to pay for it, about half(Republicans) instead want to first slash tax rates, because it's politically popular, then reshape, not cut, spending to meet their social agenda.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
It isn't "grownup" to insist that tax increases are forbidden from even being considered.

THAT is the fundamental problem with the deficit. Instead of looking at what spending we really need and makes sense, and figuring out how to pay for it, about half(Republicans) instead want to first slash tax rates, because it's politically popular, then reshape, not cut, spending to meet their social agenda.

They problem with taxes is, we have reached a point where we have more govt than we wish to pay for. It really is that simple.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
PP gave approximately $1 million to Democratic causes and candidates in the last election cycle. That is the prime motivator behind the attempts at reducing their funding - no question.
I don't agree, the prime motive is that Regressives want to do away with women to have a say in the reproductive rights.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
It isn't "grownup" to insist that tax increases are forbidden from even being considered.

THAT is the fundamental problem with the deficit. Instead of looking at what spending we really need and makes sense, and figuring out how to pay for it, about half(Republicans) instead want to first slash tax rates, because it's politically popular, then reshape, not cut, spending to meet their social agenda.
Barring some unfathomable event that unites us as one, what you're asking for just ain't gonna happen. Cats are cats and dogs are dogs and you aren't going to make one into the other.

I have to side with the Republicans on this and only because they're the only game in town right now. Both major political parties are worthless IMO, but because they're all we have for now, I must pick the one that allies most closely with my leanings.

I can foresee tax increases - for sure. Our Governor here in Michigan wants to tax pensions. Pensions have been untaxed for decades here. It's going to effect me. I'm not complaining in the slightest because along with tax increases, he's making cuts. I also feel that it's important that I be an active contributor to the financial health of our state. Yes, I'm paying property taxes, sales taxes, fees and the like, but I don't think it's too much to ask to have me paying income tax along with many others. If he gets his way, I'll accept it, if not, I can roll with that too.

Back to the matter at hand, on a national level, I see tax increases as feeding the beast. A beast so out of control that the Cherry Blossom parade and cowboy poetry are items that cannot be eliminated. So I say not just no, but a hearty fuck no. Just as I have to live within my budget, so does DC. They have proven over and over and through the course of decades that they can't manage their money. Time to go see the credit counselor and that's me, Joe taxpayer.

Whether you look at the House as the cats or the dogs, right now the name of the game is to cut spending, so cut it now and cut deep. When the other critters get in power they can raise taxes. Someday, maybe the interests of the cats and the dogs will be in alignment and some form of national interest will take over instead of screwing the other guy over in a misguided quest for long lasting supreme power. Our system of checks and balances is way out of wack. But everyone can not always win.

Now I'll get political. If the left wants tax hikes, they've had ample opportunity to do so. They chicken out nearly every time. Why do you expect the party known for tax decreases to take on the burden history shows us belongs to the Dem's? If the left can't get it done, why expect the right to? It's totally unrealistic. You hold one party to a standard that you give the other a pass on. Really?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Anyone that wants to pick apart the semantics of this last paragraph will be ignored as is my norm.

It's what you have to do to maintain your world view- ignore honest evidence and opinion, right? Pretend it's not there, and it'll go away, at least in your own mind...
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
It isn't "grownup" to insist that tax increases are forbidden from even being considered.

THAT is the fundamental problem with the deficit. Instead of looking at what spending we really need and makes sense, and figuring out how to pay for it, about half(Republicans) instead want to first slash tax rates, because it's politically popular, then reshape, not cut, spending to meet their social agenda.

Well said. Republicans are whining about self-inflicted wounds, for the most part, wounds created by their own tax cutting fever over the last 30 years. If effective tax rates in the top 2 quintiles were the same today as they were pre-Reagan, there wouldn't be any fiscal crisis.

I was a working adult when Ronnie Rayguns ascended to the throne, and I didn't notice the well-off having trouble making ends meet, at all...
 
Last edited:

manimal

Lifer
Mar 30, 2007
13,559
8
0
I was a working adult when Ronnie Rayguns ascended to the throne, and I didn't notice the well-off having trouble making ends meet, at all...



it still cracks me up that all the kids think taxes are SOOO bad now....


I too have been around a long time. I and many like me did just fine with the tax rates under Reagen and Clinton. I have also been around long enough to know how much bullshit we are hearing about trickle down economics and how we need to get back to that to prosper...


I cannot fathom how an adult can like Paul Ryan with a straight face base his plan on crap numbers and the rank and file stand behind it when its clearly just a charade.....


I used to be a republican and fund raised for many who shared my values and did much good for their constituents..


Take a guy like Dick Lugar...hes all but kicked out of whats left of the conservative party..
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,750
2,525
126
You've never seen me in here screaming not to reduce spending for defense - ever. I'm not a supporter of aggressive actions around the world, in fact I'd like to concentrate on defending our borders. I think our money would be far better spent on that. I'd also like to let the world get a taste of what it's like without our tax dollars "defending" their countries. I think it would lead to them having a greater appreciation of us.

As far as PP, I've not railed in support of decreased funding for that. PP gave approximately $1 million to Democratic causes and candidates in the last election cycle. That is the prime motivator behind the attempts at reducing their funding - no question. However, spending must be reduced. Everyone has their sacred cows. If we want to talk like adults about PP, we must first admit that public money is funding abortions. In spite of all the rhetoric to the contrary, the funds are not being divvied up. Let's be real.

I feel it is a woman's right to do what she wishes with her body. What I don't agree with is my tax dollars being used as a means of birth control by way of abortions. It comes down to a woman having some skin in the game. If abortions are freely available to her at little to no cost, it can become the easiest form of birth control for her. Let her assume a greater portion of the cost of a surgical procedure and she'll more likely be having her partners wrap it up. I also see the benefit to society of not having to deal with still more unwanted children. It's a touchy subject and one I have generalized here. Anyone that wants to pick apart the semantics of this last paragraph will be ignored as is my norm.

So, I'll tell you something that I've wanted to for a long time. I don't expect a response of any kind. You and I Red are more alike than you think. I read all your posts and I often find myself in agreement. We have similar views on many issues. Not identical, but similar. I think we could find a lot of common ground should the need arise.

What was glossed over in the latest dustup is that the Hyde Amendment has, for decades now, barred use of federal funds for abortion.

Let me repeat that-existing law ALREADY PROHIBITED Planned Parenthood from using federal funds for abortion.

Unfortunately a bunch of fundamentalist radicals have decided Planned Parenthood must go and the media did an absolutely horrible job of unveiling the big lie behind their effort.

Never once did I hear it discussed in the media-on any network-that cutting government spending during a recession has the same effect as raising taxes-it hurts the recovery effort at just the wrong time.

This entire budget fiasco is a blot and a shame upon the USA and what we are becoming-a bunch of superficial sloganeers.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
-snip-
Never once did I hear it discussed in the media-on any network-that cutting government spending during a recession has the same effect as raising taxes-it hurts the recovery effort at just the wrong time.

Uhhh well, you weren't listening.

Anyway, and NO, it's not the same effect.

Government spending = great money for asphalt vendors and repaving companies. Maybe some more money for their cronies too.

Not raising taxes = our money spent by us = everybody getting paid even those of us who aren't in the asphalt and repaving business.

And to your direct point, increased gov spending can't stimulate if it's done through increased taxes, because we would spend it ourself and after tax increases can't. It's a net zero, just changes WHO spends it. Now, gov BORROWING might be stimulative. Problem is, they spend it unwisely and we're running out of borrowing room. Just as bad, if not worse, we may be looking at degrading of our Tres bonds. Higher interest rates (paid to Chinese etc) is a lose/lose for us, no matter your party affiliation/leaning.

Fern
 
Last edited:

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
Unfortunately a bunch of fundamentalist radicals have decided Planned Parenthood must go and the media did an absolutely horrible job of unveiling the big lie behind their effort.

Last time I checked, Planned Parenthood accepted donations.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
And to your direct point, increased gov spending can't stimulate if it's done through increased taxes, because we would spend it ourself and after tax increases can't. It's a net zero, just changes WHO spends it.

That's simply not true. Increasing taxes mostly pulls from investment capital, which in a recession is largely sitting stagnant because there is little demand to drive investment. The government can take from this money, spend it in ways other that profit-seeking (infrastructure for example), which will increase consumption, which drives demand, which sparks investment, resulting in economic growth. Yes, you're trading potential future growth for tangible immediate growth, and there might be some dead weight loss in doing so, but you are stimulating economic growth.
 

manimal

Lifer
Mar 30, 2007
13,559
8
0
Uhhh well, you weren't listening.

Anyway, and NO, it's not the same effect.

Government spending = great money for asphalt vendors and repaving companies. Maybe some more money for their cronies too.

Not raising taxes = our money spent by us = everybody getting paid even those of us who aren't in the asphalt and repaving business.

And to your direct point, increased gov spending can't stimulate if it's done through increased taxes, because we would spend it ourself and after tax increases can't. It's a net zero, just changes WHO spends it. Now, gov BORROWING might be stimulative. Problem is, they spend it unwisely and we're running out of borrowing room. Just as bad, if not worse, we may be looking at degrading of our Tres bonds. Higher interest rates (paid to Chinese etc) is a lose/lose for us, no matter your party affiliation/leaning.

Fern

shens-

the people like myself that should be taxed a little more are investing and saving.

We have a consumption problem right now. The people that can afford to consume cant do enough of it a meaningful way. The middle and lower classes are being squeezed from all sides and the rich get richer.

Cutting social programs in a recession seems like a good idea right?

Going back to Reagan's tax rates or even Clinton's tax rates will only help the middle class. You may have been a kid at the time but some of us did just fine....
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Uhhh well, you weren't listening.

Anyway, and NO, it's not the same effect.

Government spending = great money for asphalt vendors and repaving companies. Maybe some more money for their cronies too.

Not raising taxes = our money spent by us = everybody getting paid even those of us who aren't in the asphalt and repaving business.

And to your direct point, increased gov spending can't stimulate if it's done through increased taxes, because we would spend it ourself and after tax increases can't. It's a net zero, just changes WHO spends it. Now, gov BORROWING might be stimulative. Problem is, they spend it unwisely and we're running out of borrowing room. Just as bad, if not worse, we may be looking at degrading of our Tres bonds. Higher interest rates (paid to Chinese etc) is a lose/lose for us, no matter your party affiliation/leaning.

Fern

I expect better from you, Fern. Stimulus money gets spent on all kinds of projects, not just paving, and provides jobs in the process.

You also attempt to apply micro economics to macro economics in a self delusional way. Top incomes aren't spending or investing, they're hoarding, putting money and capital on the sidelines. They're neither investing it in anything other that treasuries or spending it.

How would you propose to end this hoarding, other than taxes? It's not like they need to do anything with that money, unlike working people. Even lavish lifestyles are satisfied with a very small part of enormous incomes.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
In other words, the so-called "cuts" are utterly insignificant. In fact, U.S. government debt went UP by $54 billion in just the 8 days preceding the Obama-Boehner deal (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/debt-jumped-54-billion-8-days-preceding), meaning that the $38.5 billion in federal spending cuts only delayed the total debt blowout of the U.S. government by less than a week!

Well, yeh, of course. Repubs luvs their deficits, and cut taxes at the top every chance they get so as to achieve them. GWB couldn't wait, and launched into tax cut fever to eliminate the budget surpluses that Clinton era tax policy threatened to generate. Then went to war, cut taxes again, spent untold billions on security, pandered to his senior base with the senior drug benefit, and borrowed more money.

OH, yeh, then set the ball rolling to bail out his Wall St co-conspirators in the "Ownership Society" looting spree.

He made a lot of promises, raved about big govt almost as much as saint Ronnie ( who engaged in the same sort of flimflams) and did exactly the opposite of what he promised at a fiscal level.

Can't figure it out? Here's a hint- Deeds, not words are the true measure of reality. The only budget cuts Repubs will support are ideologically targeted to pander to their birther/ fundie/ tea party base, and more importantly to their contributor base, America's wealthiest. Why else would they target the EPA, IRS and SEC?

Hey- how about that Ryan Tax plan fairy tale, anyway? No taxes on capital gains or dividends! Such a deal he has for You!
 
Last edited:

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Well, yeh, of course. Repubs luvs their deficits, and cut taxes at the top every chance they get so as to achieve them. GWB couldn't wait, and launched into tax cut fever to eliminate the budget surpluses that Clinton era tax policy threatened to generate. Then went to war, cut taxes again, spent untold billions on security, pandered to his senior base with the senior drug benefit, and borrowed more money.

OH, yeh, then set the ball rolling to bail out his Wall St co-conspirators in the "Ownership Society" looting spree.

He made a lot of promises, raved about big govt almost as much as saint Ronnie ( who engaged in the same sort of flimflams) and did exactly the opposite of what he promised at a fiscal level.

Can't figure it out? Here's a hint- Deeds, not words are the true measure of reality. The only budget cuts Repubs will support are ideologically targeted to pander to their birther/ fundie/ tea party base, and more importantly to their contributor base, America's wealthiest. Why else would they target the EPA, IRS and SEC?

Hey- how about that Ryan Tax plan fairy tale, anyway? No taxes on capital gains or dividends! Such a deal he has for You!

Wrong. The buble burst and revenue fell below spending before Bush's first budget even went into effect.
 

manimal

Lifer
Mar 30, 2007
13,559
8
0
Wrong. The buble burst and revenue fell below spending before Bush's first budget even went into effect.

So the tax cuts were even more unwarranted.



Do you think supply side worked?



Do you think they didn't go far enough?