Politics through the mind of a liberal.

[ProfJohn]

Was the insurance mandate not a Republican proposal to begin with?

They keep saying that and yet nearly every Republican and right wing organization is against them.

Claiming it is a 'Republican proposal' would be like quoting JFK from the 1960s and claim that tax cuts are Democrat ideas.

It is obvious that all George Bush did was listen to Kennedy...

"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."
– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference

"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government."
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964

"In today's economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit – why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues."
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: "The Economic Report Of The President"

"It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today's economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates."
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: "The Economic Report Of The President"

"Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate."
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, message to Congress on tax reduction and reform, House Doc. 43, 88th Congress, 1st Session.

 

[ProfJohn]

http://politics.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979894146

They also said that we needed $4 trillion in cuts, but you dismiss that statement while latching on to this one...

 

[ProfJohn]

Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.), a chief deputy whip
“It’s looking like default or a clean extension,”

 

[MomentsofSanity]

They also said that we needed $4 trillion in cuts, but you dismiss that statement while latching on to this one...

Most of the left openly acknowledge that the overall debt and lack of substantive reductions/ revenue increases, not just cuts, played a role. You have yet to acknowledge that the game played by the right had an adverse effect as well.


Come on. Say it. The tea party and GOP also deserve direct blame for the downgrade, not due to past fiscal matters alone but the method they employed this year as it related to the debt ceiling issue entirely. Can you do that? Even S&P has singled out the GOP congress and the default chanters.

 

[Perknose]

Saw this on another site and found it so fitting for this forum that I had to share.

I think we see many of these every day around here.

Closed until you provide a link.

Perknose
Forum Director

 

[ProfJohn]

Most of the left openly acknowledge that the overall debt and lack of substantive reductions/ revenue increases, not just cuts, played a role. You have yet to acknowledge that the fame played by the right had an adverse effect as well.


Come on. Say it. The tea part and GOP also deserve direct blame for the downgrade, not due to past fiscal matters alone but the method they employed this year as it related to the debt ceiling issue entirely. Can you do that? Even S&P has singled out the GOP congress and the default chanters.

Read the quote in the post right above you and get back to me...


Both sides played the 'default or else' game.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Read the quote in the post right above you and get back to me...


Both sides played the 'default or else' game.

So are you saying it's not just a democrat downgrade and the GOP/Tea Party deserve a good chunk of blame too?

Jesus it's like Grover had you sign some kind of anti-GOP responsible for anything pledge.

 

[ProfJohn]

We got a downgrade because we have TOO much debt.

Very simple. All the rest is part of the side show.

LONG before the fight and the threat of default they S&P made it very clear that they wanted a $4 trillion cut and AFTER they made it clear the Democrats still asked for a clean bill.

The S&P statements from back in April are in that thread go read them for yourself.
And then read statements like the one I just quoted from July.
&#8220;It&#8217;s looking like default or a clean extension,&#8221; <- from a member of the Democrat leadership team.

We can blame the Democrats AND the tea party of acting like kids, but the fact remains that the problem is the debt. Without the debt there is NO downgrade.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

We got a downgrade because we have TOO much debt.

Very simple. All the rest is part of the side show.

LONG before the fight and the threat of default they S&P made it very clear that they wanted a $4 trillion cut and AFTER they made it clear the Democrats still asked for a clean bill.

The S&P statements from back in April are in that thread go read them for yourself.
And then read statements like the one I just quoted from July.
“It’s looking like default or a clean extension,” <- from a member of the Democrat leadership team.

We can blame the Democrats AND the tea party of acting like kids, but the fact remains that the problem is the debt. Without the debt there is NO downgrade.

I'll take that as a no, you'll still just blame the democrats.

 

[nobodyknows]

They keep saying that and yet nearly every Republican and right wing organization is against them.

Claiming it is a 'Republican proposal' would be like quoting JFK from the 1960s and claim that tax cuts are Democrat ideas.

It is obvious that all George Bush did was listen to Kennedy...

"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."
&#8211; John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference

"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased &#8211; not a reduced &#8211; flow of revenues to the federal government."
&#8211; John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964

"In today's economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit &#8211; why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues."
&#8211; John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: "The Economic Report Of The President"

"It is no contradiction &#8211; the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today's economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates."
&#8211; John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: "The Economic Report Of The President"

"Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort &#8211; thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate."
&#8211; John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, message to Congress on tax reduction and reform, House Doc. 43, 88th Congress, 1st Session.

So your saying Bush was 40 years behind the times??

Or perhaps that he and JFK were both born with silver spoons in their mouths?..

Or that we should go bavk to the taX rates in effect When kennedy was president?

Please clarify.

 

[ProfJohn]

I'll take that as a no, you'll still just blame the democrats.

Which party wants to keep spending and which party wants to cut the size of government?

Which party asked for a clean debt bill that would have resulted in an automatic downgrade?

Which party wants a balanced budget amendment and which one opposes it?

The simple fact is that if the GOP had not taken over congress in 2012 they Democrats would have passed a clean debt bill and we would have been downgraded. The Democrats have shown no desire to cut spending until the GOP dragged them kicking and screaming to the table.

And I mean TODAY not what happened when Bush was in office or Clinton was in office, but the politics of TODAY!

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Which party wants to keep spending and which party wants to cut the size of government?

Which party asked for a clean debt bill that would have resulted in an automatic downgrade?

Which party wants a balanced budget amendment and which one opposes it?

The simple fact is that if the GOP had not taken over congress in 2012 they Democrats would have passed a clean debt bill and we would have been downgraded. The Democrats have shown no desire to cut spending until the GOP dragged them kicking and screaming to the table.

And I mean TODAY not what happened when Bush was in office or Clinton was in office, but the politics of TODAY!

Pssssst. As I posted in another of these hack threads the BBA would have got you downgraded as well, as per S&P.

Maybe, just maybe, the GOP wasn't hell bent to have everything have to be their way and they actually compromised a debt deal could have been done after a clean increase to the ceiling. They could have had all year. And there's no relationship between the debt ceiling increase and the cuts/revenue increases needed to avoid downgrade. IT'S MONEY CONGRESS ALREADY SPENT. They already appropriated the money. Why don't you get that?

Here's another... Why was Boehner so damn happy with himself for the deal that was passed? His words not mine. Why wasn't he out decrying it for causing inevitable downgrade. He got 98&#37; of what he wanted. Wasn't even halfway to the 4T but he got just shy of every last thing he wanted.

 

[ProfJohn]

I am pretty sure that the cap, etc etc thing would have resulted in no downgrade.

As would that one other $4 trillion cut.


But even those are guesses. The S&P wanted proof of a long term commitment to our debt and we failed to provide anything worthwhile.

We really need structural changes to SS, Medicare and the other programs that are the real problem with long term debt.

Only with those types of changes will we get real results. As someone showed in that thread Canada fixes their problems by major cuts, a little bit of taxes, and over hauls to make long term programs.

We need to do the same.

 

[Jhhnn]

I am pretty sure that the cap, etc etc thing would have resulted in no downgrade.

As would that one other $4 trillion cut.


But even those are guesses. The S&P wanted proof of a long term commitment to our debt and we failed to provide anything worthwhile.

We really need structural changes to SS, Medicare and the other programs that are the real problem with long term debt.

Only with those types of changes will we get real results. As someone showed in that thread Canada fixes their problems by major cuts, a little bit of taxes, and over hauls to make long term programs.

We need to do the same.

You have no idea about Canadian tax rates, do you?

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html

That includes universal soshulist healthcare, too, of course...

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I am pretty sure that the cap, etc etc thing would have resulted in no downgrade.

As would that one other $4 trillion cut.


But even those are guesses. The S&P wanted proof of a long term commitment to our debt and we failed to provide anything worthwhile.

We really need structural changes to SS, Medicare and the other programs that are the real problem with long term debt.

Only with those types of changes will we get real results. As someone showed in that thread Canada fixes their problems by major cuts, a little bit of taxes, and over hauls to make long term programs.

We need to do the same.

In your current political climate you can't possibly do what we did in Canada. Our ratio of cuts to revenue increases through both taxes and tax reform was 7:1. Every GOP candidate last night in the debate said they wouldn't consider increase at a 10:1 ratio and you guys are in a lot worse shape and the world economy is in a lot worse shape than it was in 1995.

You need flexibility and compromise and that won't happen any time soon.

 

[ProfJohn]

In your current political climate you can't possibly do what we did in Canada. Our ratio of cuts to revenue increases through both taxes and tax reform was 7:1. Every GOP candidate last night in the debate said they wouldn't consider increase at a 10:1 ratio and you guys are in a lot worse shape and the world economy is in a lot worse shape than it was in 1995.

You need flexibility and compromise and that won't happen any time soon.

And everyone of them is full of shit too. (most of them at least)

As even someone on the National Review said 'if offered a deal to cut $1 trillion and add $100 billion in taxes and balance the budget next year' everyone would take it.


The main reason they are against tax increases is because the spending cuts NEVER happen.
Didn't happen under Reagan, didn't happen under Bush, didn't happen under Clinton. Every time we have been offered a spending cut + tax increase deal we got the taxes but not the spending cuts.

BTW 7 to 1 in cuts that really happen sounds like a great idea. $100 billion in taxes per year isn't that hard too do and if we got $700 billion in cuts in return we would be 80% of the way to a balanced budget. $8 trillion in saving over 10 years might actually result in a balanced budget...

 

[zanejohnson]

i would say, the biggest difference between liberals and conservatives is...

the liberals, care about the whole planet, everyone on the planet, regardless of country..

the conservatives, care about themselves, and think the governments should be focused on letting them succeed, at all cost.. if they are capabable.. but because not everyone is mentally/physically capable.. this hurts the vast majority.. sad that some people just do not care about the rest of the people on this planet.. we should BE ABLE TO SUSTAIN ALL LIFE ON THIS PLANET... not have peasants, and elite.. i would gladly give up my socioeconomic staus (middle upper class) if everyone else in the world, could just have food, and shelter....and mental well-being.

 

[trenchfoot]

i would say, the biggest difference between liberals and conservatives is...

the liberals, care about the whole planet, everyone on the planet, regardless of country..

the conservatives, care about themselves, and think the governments should be focused on letting them succeed, at all cost.. if they are capabable.. but because not everyone is mentally/physically capable.. this hurts the vast majority.. sad that some people just do not care about the rest of the people on this planet.. we should BE ABLE TO SUSTAIN ALL LIFE ON THIS PLANET... not have peasants, and elite.. i would gladly give up my socioeconomic staus (middle upper class) if everyone else in the world, could just have food, and shelter....and mental well-being.

Well said.:thumbsup:

 

[Jhhnn]

And everyone of them is full of shit too. (most of them at least)

As even someone on the National Review said 'if offered a deal to cut $1 trillion and add $100 billion in taxes and balance the budget next year' everyone would take it.


The main reason they are against tax increases is because the spending cuts NEVER happen.
Didn't happen under Reagan, didn't happen under Bush, didn't happen under Clinton. Every time we have been offered a spending cut + tax increase deal we got the taxes but not the spending cuts.

BTW 7 to 1 in cuts that really happen sounds like a great idea. $100 billion in taxes per year isn't that hard too do and if we got $700 billion in cuts in return we would be 80% of the way to a balanced budget. $8 trillion in saving over 10 years might actually result in a balanced budget...

Heh. The whole notion of a balanced budget is an absurdity. In a fiat money system, which we have, all money is created by govt spending and by deficits. It can be no other way. Every dollar in circulation is the sum total of all deficits minus money removed by taxes. Debits on the govt side of the ledger are credits on the private side. A balanced budget fails to provide more money for a growing population, and fails to account for money leaving the country as the world's reserve currency, as well. The amount of money per person participating in the economy decreases. It creates hoarding & deflation, as well- money gains in value sitting idle, so even less money is actually circulating. Which is what America's wealthiest want at this point- they have plenty, & seek to avoid the risks of investment. They don't want growth, they want power, and nothing delivers like deflation.

 

[Thump553]

So your saying Bush was 40 years behind the times??

Or perhaps that he and JFK were both born with silver spoons in their mouths?..

Or that we should go bavk to the taX rates in effect When kennedy was president?

Please clarify.

JFK took over when the economy was slowing down, no inflation, little debt. The remedies he proposed pushed the economy into high gear.

GWB took over immediately following a period of rapid growth that was tapering off. Inflation was a factor then, but even more important was the bipartisan successful efforts to balance the budget and work on reducing the deficit. GWB threw it all away for a sugar rush to the economy, ballooning deficits, etc.


I return you to the circle jerk of righties patting themselves on the back.
To claim that the same actions towards the economy are always justified in every situation is simplistic, misguided and stupid.

I lived under both JFK's & GWB's Presidencys. GWB was 1/100 the president Kennedy was.

 

[MovingTarget]

Which party wants to keep spending and which party wants to cut the size of government?
Lets be honest here:
a) Both
b) Neither

Which party asked for a clean debt bill that would have resulted in an automatic downgrade?
Irrellevant. The Democrats didn't start this game of chicken over the debt ceiling. Once the teabaggers and their sympathizers made them play that game, they even tried to tackle entitlements. The GOP balked because of the tax increases and reforms. They no longer have claim to being fiscal conservatives as reducing spending and raising revenue is the fastest way to deficit/debt reduction.

And no, it would not have resulted in an automatic downgrade. Perhaps down the road depending on what congress would do, but not now. S&P has said as much. The GOP has provided this climate of uncertainty about debt and the debt ceiling.

Which party wants a balanced budget amendment and which one opposes it?

The Balanced Budget Amendment is a bad idea. It severely restricts the governments ability to be flexible depending on the circumstances that we face as a people. I'm all for responsible fiscal policy, but that is a severe handicap to it. If one was in place before this crisis, the Great Depression would be viewed as a cakewalk in comparison. Anyone who advocates the BBA should be smacked with a wet trout wielded by no other than John Maynard Keynes' reanimated corpse.

The simple fact is that if the GOP had not taken over congress in 2012 they Democrats would have passed a clean debt bill and we would have been downgraded. The Democrats have shown no desire to cut spending until the GOP dragged them kicking and screaming to the table.

This paragraph is a bunch of baloney. The Democrats do want to reign in spending, just not the spending you want. Hence, you ignored that part. We would also not have been downgraded as per my other response. The Democrats wanted the more long term fix that included a much bigger deficit reduction package, which may have actually avoided the S&P downgrade. Also, you have invented a time machine?

And I mean TODAY not what happened when Bush was in office or Clinton was in office, but the politics of TODAY!

Ummm...okay. If you want some "but Bush", there's plenty of that to choose from, too. All you have to do is ask. :wub:

Responses in bold.

 

[hal2kilo]

This. He never quits on trying to define liberlism as viewed apparently from his ass.

 

[Jaskalas]

Dow is up 3K points since Obama came into office. Are you here to give him credit?

Rich people are richer, and poor people are poorer. You probably shouldn't boast about that.

 

[ProfJohn]

i would say, the biggest difference between liberals and conservatives is...

the liberals, care about the whole planet, everyone on the planet, regardless of country..

the conservatives, care about themselves, and think the governments should be focused on letting them succeed, at all cost..

If you believe that then you are an idiot.

If the liberals care so much then why do conservatives out give them when it comes to charities?

Liberals only care about stuff so long as they can use others people's money to care about it...

 

[zinfamous]

Rich people are richer, and poor people are poorer. You probably shouldn't boast about that.

so then why are repubs complaining? That is the utopia promised to them by Saint Reagen.