|
|
Quote:
The 2010 election was about a rejection/reaction to the health care plan and the fact that the young voting group that voted Obama in, didn't bother to vote in the midterm elections. (probably because they didn't realize the importance) |
Quote:
And this is different than any other midterm election because??????? That's a given in a midterm election. Anyone who didn't see that coming simply doesn't know how midterm elections work. |
Quote:
Look at the ads run in competitive districts. The 500 billion in Medicare cuts from Obama care was front and center in nearly all of them. That's why seniors turned out in big numbers and voted for the GOP. Core GOP voters might have been voting about other issues, but the swing voters that broke for the GOP were largely concerned with keeping their Medicare benefits. There were all sorts of ads like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davecjohnson/5330494309/ |
Quote:
Seniors turn out in those numbers all the time. As rowech said, the tipping point was the midterm disappearance of the under-25 crowd, which is very common in midterm elections. |
No, seniors don't. They accounted for 24% of the electorate, the highest percentage since 1992. And the Dems had the lowest percentage of the 60+ vote in at least 30 years.
edit: Should say 34% not 24%. |
Missouri, as do many states, have a constitutional amendment that states that the state will have a balanced budget at the end of every year. Why dont we do that for the United States?
|
Quote:
I used to be a proponent of this idea actually, but then I read a bunch of articles about why it's not feasible on the national level. Let me see if I can pull up any of them with a google search. Well here's something off mediamatters where both liberal and conservative economists across the board say it's a bad idea: Fox News Lobbies For Balanced Budget Amendment That Economic Experts Say Would Hurt The Economy | Media Matters for America Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Basically it would make the hard times much worse and tip recessions into depressions easily, and is also a convenient "smokescreen" for the end goal of trying to end Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security entirely. |
I thought Social Security was supposed to be a self-sustaining entity that was not part of the budget, thus not available to be cut. Oh wait, nevermind.
|
Quote:
No it wouldn't, if done right. For example, North Carolina maintained a rainy day fund with its budget surpluses once upon a time to cover major disasters or economic downturns. If you use your surpluses to cover your down economic times, you'll be fine. You know, like most people, corporations, and others with actual economic sense. The problem is that "education" became a buzzword, the politicians started spending a lot more to cover it, we got hit by a hurricane or two, and not only was it gone but we were hopelessly in debt. So the problem here is not the concept, it's the implementors. Again. |
The bigger problem is enforcement. Who stops Congress if the budget isn't balanced? How would any enforcement work when we wouldn't know if it was balanced until the money was already spent? Would a judge have the power to order cuts to the budget?
It's an unworkable mess of an amendment that is nothing more than a bone to the Tea Party. |
Quote:
+1 It really isn't oversimplification to say that the government should (basically) do the same as most of us do. Save money in reserve (or savings if you will) for the rainy days. Then, if a truly temporary tax (i.e. not the type we have historically done) is needed to cover a shortfall...then so be it until such time we catch back up. But we don't put money into "savings" as a country...instead we simply spend every last dollar we earn, borrow more as we gamble & hedge bets on the future, and then pay interest on the borrowed money for the debt we couldn't pay in the first place. And I agree with JPhillips on the complications of enforcement...which is why I say you don't need to enforce that which can't be violated(or much). So you defer more things to the states so that deficits ONLY run to support things that are considered highest need such as defense. |
Quote:
For your idea to be workable (saving more than we spend as a country) the effective tax rate on everybody would have to go up (I don't have numbers, but I can't imagine this not being the case). |
And you still haven't addressed the "economics" argument against it, which is agreed upon by economists on both sides.
Forget that it's the "common sense" thing to do. Just because it's the right thing for a family to do doesn't mean that it scales up to be the right thing for a federal government to do. |
But hasnt the Federal Government way overstepped its original boundaries? Isnt this the root cause of the economic problems? Big government?
|
Quote:
You'd have an extremely difficult time proving that theory. I can't see any evidence that shows varying levels of democratic governments have a decisive impact on the economy. |
Quote:
:lol: Big government?? Hardly. Not saying the government isn't big or anything, but that's not even close to the root cause of the current economic problems. In fact, in the case of these economic problems it's that the government wasn't doing its job (in terms of regulation and oversight largely). |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Not sure I understand your point. It's not a viable long-term solution for the economics reasons discussed in all of those reports (again - from economists on both sides of the aisle). Passing it into law (let alone as an amendment to the Constitution) means that it will never be taken off the books, so it will just be waiting there as a landmine for people to play political games with in the future, when the stakes are equally as high. I'd rather give neither side a "hostage" that they can take in the future. Maybe if they don't have so many "hostages" they will actually behave like fucking grownups and solve problems (which is ya know...a part of the reason they're supposedly elected). |
Quote:
??? I thought we pointed out the fallacy in those economics arguments, although maybe it's a key point of the law that needs to change. You spend less / take in more during the good times, save the overage, and use it when you are spending more / taking in less during the bad times. The economist argument above was "you need to deficit spend during the bad times" which I agree with, but as long as you are willing to save the overages during the good times you break even. The key is not to pile up a huge national debt like we have now by deficit spending during good times, let alone bad times. |
Quote:
So are you willing to see higher EFFECTIVE tax rates on everybody even during the good time in order to stockpile that money? Where are the votes for that going to come from - let alone the continued votes to not roll it back the second the party in control of the legislative branch changes? Taxes are already largely a campaign-gimmick, so how is that going to get anything but worse under this proposed system? Furthermore, our political setup doesn't encourage that type of long-term thinking by elected officials (one place where monarchies have an advantage). Reluctant votes for higher taxes, protection of "pork", unwillingness to take "hard votes." Nobody's going to vote to spend less when that will result in them getting tossed out of office and them losing their cushy job and cushy salary. Plus you have situations where (and yes, you knew we'd get there) you get someone like Clinton who balanced the budget (on the back of a booming economy) and left us with a SURPLUS and then that surplus got eaten up by 8 years of Bush thanks to both the tax-cuts and the foreign wars entered into during those times. It's also not workable. You can't dial-up and dial-down government spending like that for things like infrastructure say (which doesn't respond to economic timelines for needing repair/rebuilding), or other programs. You can't have say educational funding bouncing around like that. Just stop and think about it for a moment. You'd have massive waves of layoffs/hirings based on what government educational spending flowing to the states was (to use just that one example). There's no long-term accountability for it. We're not flexible enough and willing to accept the changes that it would entail. It's not workable. It's "feel good" and it makes sense for families, and yeah...even for states to a degree, but it's not feasible. |
Quote:
Might as well just pack it in...we're screwed. :D |
Quote:
That's a mischaracterization - any solution to the current debt requires more taxes, but it's not the only way. There also have to be spending cuts - I acknowledge that. Any solution that doesn't involve more taxes is a joke, and isn't a serious, adult solution. |
Quote:
I don't see how it's hard to come to that conclusion given the current political situation and the willingness of politicians to actually make the tough decisions needed to solve it on both sides of the aisle. Maybe I'm just being pessimistic but really, what situation do you envisage in the next couple of election cycles that could possibly get us out of this that actually has a snowballs chance in hell of being agreed on? |
Quote:
That gets back to the whole argument about how insane those of us who were willing to let the debt ceiling crash go through, since it seemed to be the only way to force some real change. All the "reasonable" approaches are doomed to failure in our current political setup. |
Quote:
Alright, this is getting a bit silly. Are we arguing the situation at hand or are we arguing political points? I, along with several others who tend to fall on the conservative side of things, have repeatedly said that we're not inherently opposed to tax increases. What we are opposed to is increasing taxes without first cutting much of the spending 'fat' that exists in the government entities. Let's stop pretending that all Republicans or conservative-minded individuals are against increased taxes in any form. That's simply not the case. |
I guess it comes down to do we want the cataclysm now or do we want to see increasingly bad recessions over the next 20-30 years with the time in between greatly reduced until eventually everything is irreversably ruined? Neither seems very appealing.
And even if we do take the cataclysm now, do we trust the system we have in place to actually fix things for the better afterwards? Not a chance. I think we've backed ourselves into a corner where there isn't a right answer. God I'm cheerful this afternoon. |
Quote:
"All the reasonable approaches are doomed to failure...might as well just push the 'Armageddon' button over there and launch Global Thermonuclear War." That makes no sense. I honestly don't think you understand the potential ramifications to YOU if we were to default. Quote:
Don't overlook the little "cities and states won't be able to borrow money to fund themselves" line in there either. Because that's all those other services - education, police & fire, snow removal, pothole repair, electricity for the traffic lights and streetlights, trash pickup, etc. that we see as the normal "background" type parts of our lives. So add on top of that that you'll be paying more out of pocket for loans on anything - at a time when the economy is ALREADY sputtering and not really restarted...not a good idea. |
Quote:
Not viable long term because the economists assume the government continues to operate as it does today. Reckless, careless, and without the discipline to do what is right in the face of politics & bribery. |
Quote:
That's not the case, true. But it seems to be the case as far as elected officials go, which is where the problem lies. |
Quote:
You assume differently? I have some oceanfront property in Arizona I'd like to talk to you about... |
Saxby better plan on staying in D.C., he's not going to be very welcome back in Georgia any time soon ... at least not anywhere he's been welcome before.
Sorry ass sellout son of a diseased whore. |
The problem isn't with educated rank and file conservative citizens. The conservatives to whom I speak all seem to agree that tax increases coupled with spending cuts is both acceptable and a good thing. You guys want more cuts, I want more revenue, but we are in the same ballpark.
The problem is that pretty much every GOP member of Congress has taken that stupid pinkie-swear with Norquist that somehow trumps any other oath they have ever taken in their life and makes it impossible to pass any sort of a comprehensive package that involves increasing revenue in addition to cutting spending. |
Quote:
For this immediate short-term crisis? Of course you raise taxes, but you cut spending as well. But that doesn't fix a dam thing...that just pushes things out because whatever deal our brilliant leaders come up with, will have the net effect of screwing over our kids. They just...can't..help themselves. You have to correct these fundamental government problems in more digestible chunks. And imo, it starts with diverting federal authority to states. This creates a more fault tolerant environment to bribery, recklessness, & sheer stupidity. |
I get that they're all afraid of Norquist's money, or the attack ads he'd bring, but why don't any of them have the guts to stand up in front of their districts and say "Listen...I took that pledge because I thought it was right. Clearly times have changed and we need tax increases of some sort. You all agree on that - my polls show you that. So I'm going to vote for them. And you're going to see a ton of nasty attack ads against me in the future because I did, but just remember that I voted for them because we all know that we need them."
I mean...don't get me wrong...I know why they DON'T - I'm not some starry-eyed idealist...I just wish one of them would show a little spine and ya know...actually do it. |
Quote:
More like a "hang up" ... Sellout Sax is going to be lucky if he isn't lynched if he comes back here & gets anywhere near an actual conservative. |
Quote:
You obviously have been too far removed from the rednecks. All he's gotta do is shout down gays, talk about God, and promise to do his best to repeal Roe v Wade. He hasn't passed (or even had anything out of committee) legislation in his entire career and he still won 54% of the vote...or whatever. Like you are going to vote for a democrat when Saxby runs for re-election. I get it, you will follow the nearest well funded teabagger who shouts about repealing health care and lowering taxes, but really Saxby gots the money. |
Quote:
|
Well, here's the "gang of six" cuts. I don't like that it's all "We'll cut this, but we don't know how".. but I think the AMT repeal and single corporate tax rate are good ideas.
According to a copy of a summary of the Gang of Six plan, the group would impose a two-step legislative process that would first make $500 billion worth of cuts immediately, then create a “fast-track process” that would propose a comprehensive bill aimed at dramatically restructuring tax and spending programs. The plan calls for changes to Social Security to move on a separate track, and establishes an elaborate procedure for considering the deficit reduction measures on the floor. The $500 billion in cuts would come from a range of sources, including shifting to a new consumer price index to make cost-of-living adjustments to Social Security. The plan would impose statutory spending caps through 2015, freeze congressional pay and sell unused federal property. To enact a comprehensive deficit plan, the group calls for existing congressional committees to report legislation within six months that would “deliver real deficit savings in entitlement programs over 10 years,” the plan says. The Senate Finance Committee would be instructed to deliver “real deficit savings” through simplifying the tax code and raising as much as $1 trillion in revenue. It would do this by establishing three tax brackets with rates of 8-12 percent, 14-22 percent and 23-29 percent. It would permanently repeal the $1.7 trillion Alternative Minimum Tax, which was initially enacted to prevent the wealthy from using tax loopholes to avoid paying income tax but has since affected millions of middle-income families. And it calls for establishing a single corporate tax rate, between 23 percent and 29 percent. The group punts many of the specifics to other committees, which would be asked to find savings in discretionary and mandatory spending. This includes: $80 billion out of Armed Services; $70 billion out of Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; $65 billion out of Homeland Security and Government Affairs; $11 billion out of Agriculture; $11 billion out of Commerce; and $6 billion out of Energy and Natural Resources. The Judiciary Committee would be asked to find savings through medical malpractice reform. |
No one gave a shit about Saxby Chambliss and him signing on to big spending over the years, but he works with a Democrat on actually cutting spending and he should be lynched apparently. Another case of not caring about the issue, just the game.
|
Quote:
I saw a chart recently that showed the dramatic growth in government employees over the past fifty years has come almost exclusively at the state and local levels. I'm not sure shifting the responsibility would get you any less government. |
Quote:
None of the tax part will become law with the current GOP. The spending part at least recognizes that any deal is going to have to go through the committee system. The House has to originate spending bills and the yearly budget has to go through committees. Any deficit deal has to be realistic enough to know the committee system will make alterations. |
Quote:
Disagree totally. The state and local levels are MUCH more reachable by citizens looking to make real change. You can nail down state and local officials and put their feet to the fire much easier. The national leaders are almost untouchable in that regard. Perfect example is some of the recent changes Missouri voters put into place. For years, our roads were rated amongst the worst in the U.S. The problem was that state officials were diverting funds for transportation improvements to everything except transportation improvements. Voters put an initiative on the ballot to ensure that all transportation funds were used only for that purpose. We now have some of the best roads in the nation. It's way easier to pull those kinds of initiatives at a state level. It's all but impossible at a national level. |
Quote:
As a whole, I imagine state & local would make up quite a chunk of the tax burden but that's how it should be. And if I (and enough members of my community) don't like it I have realistic options such as attending townhall events & voicing my opinion, voting them out, and I can also move if I am not in agreement with my other locality members. What is the honest alternative, though? You think this system works great if not for having Republicans in it? |
I don't think the system works great, I just don't think the magic bullet is moving things to more local control. As fucked up as the US may be, it functions better than the NY state government and that functions a whole lot better than the city of Newburgh government. In my life I haven't seen any reason to think my local government, regardless of the many places I have lived, will produce better outcomes or will be more responsive to my wishes.
|
Quote:
I agree with you as a fellow NY stater (now)...though I would submit if NY wanted different leadership, NY would vote that way, and get it. But while a lot of people move out of NY state (i.e. vote with their feet)...a lot still move in in hopes of prosperity and most newcomers don't tend to get heavily into local politics right away when moving some place(exceptions aside). But NY gets what it gets because the people vote for who they vote for. It really does not get any more democratic than that. Lots of cronyism, to be sure. But that's what local people accept. |
Quote:
A lot of it is likely related to a bunch of demographic factors too though. |
Sounds like the Senate R's are along.. the House R's want everything they've demanded, and a pony too (and they know they're not going to get it).. but it sounds like it wouldn't take many R defectors to pass the Gang of Six bill
Debt deal momentum builds as House resists - David Rogers - POLITICO.com |
Ugh. That's not a good deal.
|
I have a relative who works as an engineer for the Fed govt. Over the past 3 years he has received $21,000 in raises and bonuses. He is in his late 20s. Guy is making some scratch. More power to him. Bummer for us.
|
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:20 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.