imaplanner
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 6,672
- Points
- 28
Yes that is correct
This is a very disinegenous argument. I get no financial benefit from the government using our military to protect trade routes and oil pipelines.
-
Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!
NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread
- Thread starter imaplanner
- Start date
Yes that is correct
This is a very disinegenous argument. I get no financial benefit from the government using our military to protect trade routes and oil pipelines.
- Messages
- 18,113
- Points
- 66
But a guy from Ohio who makes $250,001 a year does? What is your definition of wealthy? Most people - even those who are defined as wealthy ($250k and up) - don't "use" those services. I would argue that even extremely wealthy individuals don't consider those "services".
You do get a benefit - gas and oil when you want it, and lower priced goods at your local stores. Those "services" are provided to all people. Not to the "wealthy" alone.
imaplanner
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 6,672
- Points
- 28
So a guy in Ohio who makes 250,001 a year would pay an extra 4% on that $1.00. Big deal.
But the point is that if those making obscene amounts are paying obscene amounts in taxes, they are financially benefitting from government services much mroe than me.
Perhaps I get a benefit from lower priced goods - maybe instead of 100 dollars at the store I pay 80. But instead of 50k a year, I don't make any more money because of those govt services. Someone who makes 1 billion a year primarily through oil lets say, if the govt doesny use our military to protect oil pipelines his annuual salary may be 100k instead of 1 billion. That is a huge financial benefit that person is getting thatI do receive.
The only way to have a truly fair tax system is to pay the full costs of all services provided to that individual. Make the oil magnate pay for the miltary, make me pay for the bus.
stroskey
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 1,212
- Points
- 17
Yes you do. You get cheap fuel when you want it.
You're argument is like saying I get no financial benefit from paying for public schools so the poor use more services than I do. Maybe you don't get direct cash0-in-your-pocket benefits but an educated population helps all of us, the same way available fuel and other goods helps all of us.
Who is benefiting from using the ER and not paying? The rich doctor or the poor person?
So who pays the military costs for 9/11? The owners of the twin towers? We have to take away services that we all use or else it becomes a flame war. I think we can civilly agree the military, FBI, EPA, etc. benefit us all so we can't say one group benefits over another for clean drinking water.
imaplanner
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 6,672
- Points
- 28
We are having two separate arguments I think. My point is that the rich benefit financially from government services much more so than others. I am not arguing that we do not continue to do the things we do, I am only saying that the rich get a much greater financial benefit from government services. Therefore, they should be responsible for a larger financial share of the cost of those services.
stroskey
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 1,212
- Points
- 17
I wonder if there is a study on whether or not they do get greater benefits? Even with a flat tax they would be responsible for a larger cost of those services. The guy paying 25% of 100K is getting more (by your book) and is paying more than the guy who pays 25% of 10K. His 25K in taxes buys more of the services you say he gets than the man who only pays 2,500. If that's the way it is now it seems you would want to switch to the flat tax. Get more = pay more/
If we really wanted to get technical I bet the guy with 100K doesn't send his kids to public school, has better fire protection due to better house construction, doesn't use as much police services, and isn't involved in the court system... so some may say his 25% tax is too high.
wahday
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 3,959
- Points
- 23
imaplanner's argument is not all that outrageous as others have made it before.
Some other things people have claimed the rich benefit from more than the poor:
• The defense argument centers around the rich having more value to defend, thus they benefit more. This is a "what do you stand to lose" type of argument.
• Infrastructure benefits interstate commerce and travel, more the domain of the wealthy than the poor. Energy use (which depends on government-built infrastructure) is disproportionately higher among the wealthy. Also, energy needs for industry also benefit the CEO more than the line worker and so one could argue that, because of the means they have at their disposal, the wealthy benefit more from cheap energy than the poor - economies of scale.
• While the rich may send their kids to private schools, the engineers and other skilled labor that do the complex work to make companies money most likely had a publicly-funded education and so the wealthy benefit from that as well. Even if their kids did not go to public school, they are still making money from the skills and knowledge that public education creates.
• Corporate welfare and tax breaks for corporations benefit the wealthy whereas the poor realize virtually none of this. Things like direct subsidies to agribusiness ($18 billion a year), to export companies, to maritime shippers, and to various industries-- airlines, nuclear power companies, timber companies, mining companies, automakers, drug companies. One figure I read claimed that tax breaks and expenditures gobbled up 400 billion dollars in corporate welfare while the budget for poverty programs amounted to $116 billion.
So, I think Imaplanner's points are well taken.
Some other things people have claimed the rich benefit from more than the poor:
• The defense argument centers around the rich having more value to defend, thus they benefit more. This is a "what do you stand to lose" type of argument.
• Infrastructure benefits interstate commerce and travel, more the domain of the wealthy than the poor. Energy use (which depends on government-built infrastructure) is disproportionately higher among the wealthy. Also, energy needs for industry also benefit the CEO more than the line worker and so one could argue that, because of the means they have at their disposal, the wealthy benefit more from cheap energy than the poor - economies of scale.
• While the rich may send their kids to private schools, the engineers and other skilled labor that do the complex work to make companies money most likely had a publicly-funded education and so the wealthy benefit from that as well. Even if their kids did not go to public school, they are still making money from the skills and knowledge that public education creates.
• Corporate welfare and tax breaks for corporations benefit the wealthy whereas the poor realize virtually none of this. Things like direct subsidies to agribusiness ($18 billion a year), to export companies, to maritime shippers, and to various industries-- airlines, nuclear power companies, timber companies, mining companies, automakers, drug companies. One figure I read claimed that tax breaks and expenditures gobbled up 400 billion dollars in corporate welfare while the budget for poverty programs amounted to $116 billion.
So, I think Imaplanner's points are well taken.
Mastiff
Gunfighter
- Messages
- 7,170
- Points
- 36
Me... and none of us.
The One
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 8,287
- Points
- 32
insert golf clap here
Wow.....Why would the Richublicans cave in 2012 and allow what they will brand as a "TAX INCREASE" (even though only on the top 2%) by allowing the expiration of the "temporary" tax breaks for the filthy rich? They won't.
Obama says:
Democrats need to "make sure we understand this is a long game, not a short one," he concluded, promising to take the fight to the GOP on the campaign trail in 2012.
Should have taken the fight to them during the last election:-{:-@ Lame.......
Don't get me wrong, the minute I net $250,000 a year in income, I'll become a republican, because then I'll know they represent my interests....but until then......
Wow.....Why would the Richublicans cave in 2012 and allow what they will brand as a "TAX INCREASE" (even though only on the top 2%) by allowing the expiration of the "temporary" tax breaks for the filthy rich? They won't.
Obama says:
Democrats need to "make sure we understand this is a long game, not a short one," he concluded, promising to take the fight to the GOP on the campaign trail in 2012.
Should have taken the fight to them during the last election:-{:-@ Lame.......
Don't get me wrong, the minute I net $250,000 a year in income, I'll become a republican, because then I'll know they represent my interests....but until then......
mgk920
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 4,200
- Points
- 26
Didn't the Supremes already slap down the FCC on the 'Net Neutrality' things a few months ago? OTOH, I can see ISPs eventually being declared to be 'common carriers' in the same manner as transport companies, telephone companies and so forth.
As for the proposed broadcast radio regs, I have seen nothing definite on what they are thinking of doing, but the chatter that I have heard has it being many steps beyond the old '(un)Fairness Doctrine' - examples that I have heard include setting up local 'boards' populated with all of the usual suspects who would make a yes/no decision on whether or not a station operated in 'the public interest' and can have its license renewed, as well as to try to force local station ownerships into certain select social/ethnic/racial groups. It strikes me as being the latest attempt to shut up any and all voices that the left disagrees with and will face VIGOROUS legal challenges on 1st Amendment grounds if adopted.
Mike
Duke Of Dystopia
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 2,702
- Points
- 26
Ah, the conflation continues. I assume you have a college education, but maybe not. Apparently you are either mistaken in your logic, or you are conflating the idea that a flat tax is the same as equal power. Lets try this. A young man working at McDonald's is making $16,640 a year. One of the Coche brothers makes 40 Billion a year. Their mutual tax rate is 25%. The young man working at McDonald's is equally powerful, wealthy, and capable of influencing the society.
Yeah, I have a unicorn at the stable, leprechauns in my grass, and the Loch Ness Monster is real.
People need affordable education, others need good nutrition while they will be in their early years. It doesn't end with that kind of stuff. Some need transparency in the market place. That means the government has to have oversight and regulation of the financial industries so they are not robed of savings, pensions, and or investments by transactions that can not be compared to others in a transparent way. I will keep going on. Citizens need to be protected from companies that offshore to foreign places and then their political shills insist that the millions of unemployed should be forced to have no safety net because they are unemployed. Some need health care. Big range of stuff there.
In essence, people aren't necessarily asking to be rich, they are asking not to be blindsided at every corner by the powerful and rich who have real power, making their lives unstable. The ability to achieve a level of stability. What about that don't you get?
Now now, here is your tin foil hat.:-c Please put it on before you pick up any more cook radio you like to listen to.
There is not one credible shred of evidence for any of what you just posted.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Messages
- 18,113
- Points
- 66
So where is the line between having enough value to benefit from defense and being too poor to care? National defense isn't something that should be considered less valuable by any income class.
So driving a car is for the wealthy? I would argue that there are probably less trips taken on the roads by the super-wealthy than the middle class. The middle class and the poor use the infrastructure we have in place the most. The wealthy either don't go into work because they work from home, or do so less frequently because they don't deal with the company day to day. I am sure Bill Gates has the ability to teleconference instead of driving to work for a morning meeting. I don't - I drive.
As for energy, if you use more energy you pay for it. Are you saying that because wealthy individuals and corporations use more energy that they should be paying more taxes to support that energy? So they pay more for its use and more for its creation? Wouldn't you argue that the creation is factored into the monthly/yearly/etc. fee associated with the energy use?
Well you are now taking about secondary benefits. If you want to deal in benefits that are not directly related to income cohorts we are going to get into a much larger discussion. The wealthy "benefit" from society succeeding. If you count that as a benefit to them, they will lose EVERY time because every income cohort benefits from that, but obviously because the wealthy make more money they have more to lose. I don't find this to be an apples to apples comparison.
Yes and welfare and subsidies are not realized by any of the wealthy. We have programs within our country that are for the general health of the country and for our populous. Not everyone can use those programs. I am not going to argue with you about the tax breaks for corporations because I agree with you about those. Our tax system currently allows everyone to pay lower amounts of taxes than they should.
I think the FairTax System is valid. My disagreement with taxing the wealthy to oblivion is based solely on the want to succeed. What motivation do I have to succeed if I know that the second I make enough money to be considered "rich" by legislators I am going to feel like middle class again because of the tax structure. I might as well stay middle class and enjoy what I am doing now.
I don't like the Bush Tax cuts. I think they should be removed. I think those making over $5million a year can probably pay more taxes than those who make $50k a year. But "wealthy" and "rich" are really relative terms, and today are much different than when our tax code was created. We have created loopholes and ways to skirt the code to allow people to succeed. Why not get rid of the loopholes and create a tax code that pays for the services provided and does so with less need for oversight?
=============
Duke Of Dystopia said:
Other than it is Koch, you are saying that a McDonald's worker should be as powerful, wealthy, and capable of influencing society as a successful company owner who has years of success. (note: I think the Koch brothers are shameful and on the wrong side of many of my beliefs) That isn't how life is. If you work at McDonald's you shouldn't expect power, wealth, and influence should you? Are you against a FairTax system then? Or is it regressive because the Koch Brothers make a billion a year and the McDonald's worker makes $20k? If you spend more, you pay more. This isn't about power or influence, it is about equality of the tax system. Some working people in our country do not pay $1 into the system. This is not right. Every citizen should have a ball in the game. I hate the Koch Brothers, but I don't hold their success against them. I don't think that they should single-handily support our military because they make more money than I do and therefore have more to lose if our country gets invaded...
TexanOkie
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 2,903
- Points
- 23
Now now, here is your tin foil hat.:-c Please put it on before you pick up any more cook radio you like to listen to.
There is not one credible shred of evidence for any of what you just posted.
Yes, there is, albeit is seems to be coming only from FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, the most senior Democrat on the commission:
stroskey
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 1,212
- Points
- 17
Thank you for personally attacking my intellect ...and I have never argued in this thread for equal power.
First, flat tax is not the same as equal power. Taxation and power really are unrelated. Are you saying a woman on welfare who pays no taxes under our current system has the same power as Donald Trump, who pays millions? If not, your criticism on that point is not valid because it's a wash; both systems don't give power based on taxes.
In your example, the man at McDonald's pays $4,160 in taxes per year while the Coche brother pays $10,000,000,000 in taxes. Who is financially contributing more to the overall society? The Coche, brother, obviously. Is he getting more benefits as others have argued? Probably - but look at how much he contributes! No one said the McDonald's man should be as powerful or wealthy... that's just life in any society or culture. And even if the law was designed that way reasonable people would see there is a natural gravitation by different people into different roles. regardless of earning power. The average high school teacher is probably more influential than the city's IT Director but the IT Director gets paid more.
- Messages
- 38,516
- Points
- 78
- Messages
- 18,113
- Points
- 66
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1210/Bloomberg_in_major_speech_offers_a_middle_way.html
It looks like Bloomberg might be getting ready to throw his hat in the ring. I hope he does. His middle of the road approach is refreshing. I hope he has some concrete thoughts instead of many of the talking points in the article, but even if he is honest that the left and right are wrong, I would enjoy him.
I think if Palin runs, Bloomberg has a shot at an Independent run. Any other Republican and he doesn't. I think he knows this too. It would be easy to get conservatives and right-leaning independents when you have Palin as the other option. He is pro-business and strong on economic and fiscal policy. He also has leadership and executive experience. For this alone, I hope Palin runs.
It looks like Bloomberg might be getting ready to throw his hat in the ring. I hope he does. His middle of the road approach is refreshing. I hope he has some concrete thoughts instead of many of the talking points in the article, but even if he is honest that the left and right are wrong, I would enjoy him.
I think if Palin runs, Bloomberg has a shot at an Independent run. Any other Republican and he doesn't. I think he knows this too. It would be easy to get conservatives and right-leaning independents when you have Palin as the other option. He is pro-business and strong on economic and fiscal policy. He also has leadership and executive experience. For this alone, I hope Palin runs.
imaplanner
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 6,672
- Points
- 28
Aha! So the Kock brotehr shuold be paying 4,160 in taxes and the mcdonalds worker should pay 10,000,000,000 in taxes? When you take out the externalities, this is essentially what you are advocating - even if you don't know it.
Duke Of Dystopia
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 2,702
- Points
- 26
First, you are repeating what I said. My example to you, was that your logic of fairness was flawed. It's not "fair" at all.
So your a theorist. Its ok to stick to an idea if it harms millions for the purity of the idea. All systems are fallible and fail to address major issues. That is how patchwork systems evolve. Thats how we ended up at our recent system. An absolute stance on an idea is flawed.
I am saying that a stable society is a reflection of the base of that society understanding they have a chance at achieving. That stability does not mandate equal power between individuals. It does require that there be enough resources to spread around allowing people a chance to attain stability in their own lives through their efforts (living wage jobs, health care, education, transportation systems, proper regulation ob business ensuring safety and transparency of the markets, etc...).
As has been pointed out, the amount of taxes a person pays is a good representation to the power and influence an "entity" has over the political system. That increased influence is the ability to threaten the stability of the societal base. You should see some of the creepy and cruddy crap that comes from the Koch headquarters. Undue pressure to influence is there.
You repeat what I said. What I am saying is that the pounding for a flat tax, does not bring solvency or stability to our society.
Conflation - the process or result of fusing items into one entity; fusion; amalgamation.
You and Hink seem to think I was arguing for equal power. I have always argued that
btrage
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 7,283
- Points
- 51
- Messages
- 18,113
- Points
- 66
wahday
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 3,959
- Points
- 23
Hinkplanner:
You make some good points about the "who benefits more from the government" issue.
For clarity's sake, I was quoting some of the points OTHERS have made in arguing the rich benefit more from the government than the poor. They are not necessarily all points I agree with, nor are they ones I came up with on my own (though I think there is validity to some). I was mainly trying to give some credence to imaplanner's points which were being characterized a bit as "crazy talk." But these arguments have been around for a while and raise some important issues, particularly in shedding ight on the benefits the rich do enjoy (as some will characterize "those who have" as "better" because they do not use government services. I think its not such an easy claim to make)
Carry on.
You make some good points about the "who benefits more from the government" issue.
For clarity's sake, I was quoting some of the points OTHERS have made in arguing the rich benefit more from the government than the poor. They are not necessarily all points I agree with, nor are they ones I came up with on my own (though I think there is validity to some). I was mainly trying to give some credence to imaplanner's points which were being characterized a bit as "crazy talk." But these arguments have been around for a while and raise some important issues, particularly in shedding ight on the benefits the rich do enjoy (as some will characterize "those who have" as "better" because they do not use government services. I think its not such an easy claim to make)
Carry on.
TexanOkie
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 2,903
- Points
- 23
RE: Bloomberg
I don't believe candidates from New York City will ever really fare well on a national stage - or at least, candidates whose political careers are synonymous with NYC government and not NYS gov't. New York City is too peculiar and unique a place, and even if a candidate like Bloomberg or Giuliani has some good policy positions that might work in the national political sphere, there's a cultural issue that won't translate well west of the Appalachians (possibly even west of the Delaware, or even the Hudson, River).
A similar politico-cultural phenomena occurs for San Francisco politicians not translating well east of the Sierra Nevada, or possibly even the Diablos or even the Bay itself and/or the Berkeley Hills.
I don't believe candidates from New York City will ever really fare well on a national stage - or at least, candidates whose political careers are synonymous with NYC government and not NYS gov't. New York City is too peculiar and unique a place, and even if a candidate like Bloomberg or Giuliani has some good policy positions that might work in the national political sphere, there's a cultural issue that won't translate well west of the Appalachians (possibly even west of the Delaware, or even the Hudson, River).
A similar politico-cultural phenomena occurs for San Francisco politicians not translating well east of the Sierra Nevada, or possibly even the Diablos or even the Bay itself and/or the Berkeley Hills.
arcplans
As Featured in "High Times"
- Messages
- 7,042
- Points
- 47
As a dem i would give Bloomberg a very very very hard look. At least he wouldn't run on a platform that pretty much started and ended every sentence with "9/11"
Whose Yur Planner
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 14,093
- Points
- 60
This is one of things that will guantee that Obama will be a one term president. Bush's tax cuts should be allowed to expire. I can't believe that a man with enough savvy to get elected president can drop the ball this much during the actual presidency.
TexanOkie
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 2,903
- Points
- 23
I would also look strongly at Bloomberg, as a more economics-oriented Republican. I wasn't trying to compare Bloomberg's chances vs. Giuliani's performance in the '08 race. I was just trying to use examples of prominent NYC politicians who fared worse than people expected in the national primaries, largely for cultural reasons (which, arguably, shouldn't matter, yet somehow still do).
- Messages
- 18,113
- Points
- 66
I think he will pull blue dog democrats, "economics-oriented Republicans" as you put it, and any economic independent. The only demographic he is miss is the hard right (although if Tea Partier's actually looked at candidates, he would fit in with a lot of what they want in a candidate) and the religious right. Honestly though I think in the next 8 years we will see a sharp decline in the influence of the religious right as women's rights and gay marriage become more and more common.
TexanOkie
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 2,903
- Points
- 23
In my opinion, there are three main branches in the Republican establishment, not counting recent movements like the Tea Party folks (even though they strongly fit in one of them):
- Social Conservatives - Primary focus is on conservative social or cultural issues and "family values". People who fit in this group aren't exactly social conservatives first and foremost in their conservative philosophy, but if social conservatism is a part of it, it usually Examples: Religious Right, Mike Huckabee.
- Economics-oriented - Primary focus economic issues (not necessarily fiscal issues). This is the big, bad wing often decried in stereotype as the GOP in line with big business, though in reality is just pro-business, period, not just pro-big business. Examples: Wall Street Journal editorial board, Mitt Romney.
- Government-focused - Primary focus is on limited government and/or foreign policy (usually regarding military). Hawks, both war and deficit; big on national defense, but little on everything else. Here, not in economics-oriented, lie the tax-lowering crowd and the most Tea Party folks. This is probably the newest wing of the GOP establishment, but it's been around en masse since the late 1970's. Examples: The Weekly Standard, Ronald Reagan (though Reagan was a good mix of all three, he was more this than others).
In scaled order of my own personal priorities, it's 2 --> 3 ------------------>1.
(That last part was just f.y.i.)
mgk920
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 4,200
- Points
- 26
Toldya so - back throughout 2008. The guy was and still is an entirely idologically-driven 'empty suit' who had zero executive decision-making experience, zero 'boss' experience and can't form thoughts into words without a teleprompter - nothing of which is at all a surprise to me.
I knew all of that back in 2007.
Mike
btrage
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 7,283
- Points
- 51
Many on the left would argue that he hasn't been ideologically driven enough.
- Messages
- 38,516
- Points
- 78
In fact I'd say that anyone giving up on positions as readily as he has to buy (apparently with little success) cooperation/good will is no ideologue at all. Ideologues tend to view the world in black and white, and the word compromise is anathema to them.
imaplanner
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 6,672
- Points
- 28
Ironically, it is those calling Obama an "idealogue" that are the true ideologues.
Duke Of Dystopia
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 2,702
- Points
- 26
It's a shame when the woman Speaker of the House has more balls than the man President.
Its not a shame. The shame is that Democrats don't know how to fight. All they have to do is copy the people beating up on them. What does it take for them to learn?
Frustrating
TexanOkie
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 2,903
- Points
- 23
This bodes poorly for Dems if they can't wrangle up some other compromise on taxes. Regardless of whether the Bush cuts expiring is good or bad idea for whatever social justice or economic rationale you can think of, any action to not keep tax rates stable at this point in our (lack of) recovery will stall said recovery. Think short-term economic policy, not long-term economic theory. I can guarantee that was the key point in Obama's logic - he was gambling on the economy definitively being on the upswing by then, thereby making the Bush cuts' expiration much less volatile, both politically and economically.
btrage
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 7,283
- Points
- 51
I'm not saying I agree with the House Democrats' actions. Rather, the President is continuing his slide away from much of what he promised on the campaign trail and continues with his inability to sell his vision to the American public (something Reagan was brilliant at, whether you agreed with him or not). Granted, this is most likely a calculated political decision, a la Clinton after the '94 landslide. But it's still making him look weak among many Democratic supporters.
kalimotxo
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 412
- Points
- 13
Can't form thoughts into words without a teleprompter? Do you honestly believe that? :lmao:
Say what you will about his politics, but Obama is a smart dude. It takes some serious arrogance to question his intellect. What have you accomplished exactly that gives you room to judge how smart he is? Whatever it is, it's certainly not reflected in the Drudgereport/Rush/FoxNews-esque superficiality of pretty much everything you post here.
Oh, I missed it. It was your clairvoyance. Why didn't you warn us?! Instead of an intellectual who actually understands nuance, we could have a senile old bastard who likes to argue with the military about repealing DADT and a reality TV star/failed governor who thinks killing animals is wholesome family entertainment. What could have been...
TexanOkie
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 2,903
- Points
- 23
After examining the details in the Obama-McConnell tax deal that Dems failed to pass yesterday, Charles Krauthammer wrote a piece for the National Review today about it. In it he argues that Obama won the entire showdown but that both sides of the aisle are apparently too dumb to see it. The gist of his argument is that, in exchange for 2-year postponement of a meager 4.6-percent increase in marginal tax rates for upper income brackets, President Obama got the GOP to "make a mockery of their newfound, second-chance, post-Bush, tea-party, this-time-we're-serious persona of debt-averse fiscal responsibility" by agreeing to have Obama place an approximately $1 trillion "Stimulus II" - increased spending and cut taxes equaling $630 billion above and beyond the Bush tax cut extension - as his condition. And then the Democrats were just as caught up in the 2-year postponement of the small increase in upper brackets as the GOP, albeit from the opposite context, to look beyond it at his main objective, the "Stimulus II".
Last edited:
btrage
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 7,283
- Points
- 51
Interesting take on it. I guess the President is smarter than me. I take back my earlier comments about him having a lack of a backbone. He clearly has an endgame in mind. I still abhor the fact that that the upper class tax rates are remaining the same and the deficit is growing even larger.
kalimotxo
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 412
- Points
- 13
Did anybody catch any of Sen. Bernie Sanders' 8.5 hour non-filibuster filibuster today? Could it be that the crazy Socialist from Vermont is the most reasonable person in the U.S. Congress? He spent equal time chastising Democrats for selling out and Republicans for being hypocrites unwilling to take any serious action to reduce the deficit. Probably not enough to flip the script on the tax debate, but a much needed dose of reality in a town that doesn't seem to know what reality is.
btrage
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 7,283
- Points
- 51
I've never understood the hate and vitriol that people have towards the President of the United States. And not the current person, but the position in general. Do people really believe that the President is responsible for absolutely everything that happens, or can make things happen with the snap of a finger?
Sure, the President sets the tone of the administration, but the federal government is such a complex machine.
I just don't get it.
Sometimes I think we're just a hate-filled society. But it's probably the same in other countries. I guess "the people" need to find someone to blame something on, and the President is just an easy target. Either way, we come off as an ignorant-looking people.
Sure, the President sets the tone of the administration, but the federal government is such a complex machine.
I just don't get it.
Sometimes I think we're just a hate-filled society. But it's probably the same in other countries. I guess "the people" need to find someone to blame something on, and the President is just an easy target. Either way, we come off as an ignorant-looking people.
- Messages
- 18,113
- Points
- 66
I find it amazing that the party that isn't in power finds ways to make the President this evil body and then when they are in power, they go after how much the other party does it. It happened with Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, and now Obama ( I am sure it happened before that... that is just what I know). We spew hate at each president as if they wanted something other than the best for our country. You may disagree with how they want to get there, but you really shouldn't believe that they want anything but the best for our country.
I think the democrats who are mad the the R's who are going crazy at Obama now should look back at the Bush years. History will show how bad Bush was... there is no need to be stupid during the time. Same with Obama. History will show whether he is horrible or great. Why throw out stupid messages that just make your party look...well stupid.
TexanOkie
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 2,903
- Points
- 23
Because stupid wins elections. :not:
TexanOkie
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 2,903
- Points
- 23
Oh crap...
Looks like we all get to look forward to another nearly-two-year (20+month) presidential race/political season, because TVNewser is reporting that Fox News will host a GOP primary presidential debate at the Reagan Library in California this May.
Story: http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fox-news-to-host-gop-primary-debate-next-may_b44033
Looks like we all get to look forward to another nearly-two-year (20+month) presidential race/political season, because TVNewser is reporting that Fox News will host a GOP primary presidential debate at the Reagan Library in California this May.
Story: http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fox-news-to-host-gop-primary-debate-next-may_b44033
- Messages
- 18,113
- Points
- 66
And half the candidates will be paid staff of fox news...
============================
The tax deal made it though the Senate... it looks like it will make it through the House. I think that it has something that makes both sides happy. Except that it is going to require Republican's to agree with Obama... OH NO!!!
Romney is already against it, Rush has his minions seething over it. And Palin is still just stupid and incoherent, but what I can gather from her rambling is that she doesn't like it. The establishment and Boehner will win this one, and it is going to be a fighting point when the primaries come up...
Whose Yur Planner
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 14,093
- Points
- 60
And half the candidates will be paid staff of fox news...
============================
The tax deal made it though the Senate... it looks like it will make it through the House. I think that it has something that makes both sides happy. Except that it is going to require Republican's to agree with Obama... OH NO!!!
Yet more evidence that the system is becoming a farce. It's our bread and circuses. I believe in America and what it is capable of. We are a great county, but this is getting downright silly.
We are at the point that the only functional government we will have is at the local level. I am blessed to live in an area where the local government is very functional. It's at the national level that scares me.
mgk920
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 4,200
- Points
- 26
This constant thing about bringing 2000+ page bills before Congress with only a day or so to digest them before an up/down vote is beyond scary, too - and in a lame-duck session....
:-@
No wonder Gallup just reported its lowest ever approval rating (low teens) for Congress a couple of days ago.
Mike
:-@
No wonder Gallup just reported its lowest ever approval rating (low teens) for Congress a couple of days ago.
Mike
imaplanner
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 6,672
- Points
- 28
Which bills are you talking about? I was running code enforcement today and had to stop in a shop to talk to a business owner and he had Rush on pretty loud. I heard Rush ranting about this, but AFAIK all the bills except the tax cut bill being considered currently have been in congress for months. And remember the tax cuts either get passed or no cuts. So i'm not so sure you are well informed.
mgk920
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 4,200
- Points
- 26
Let's see, the Omnibus Appropriations bill, introduced a couple of days ago, is over 1.9K pages of pork, Obamacare™ was 2K+ pages rammed through on short notice ("We must pass it to see what's all in it" :-@ ), the financial reform bill was nearly 2K pages passed on short notice, etc.
One can very easily hide some really, really nasty 'Easter eggs' in such piles of gibberish and *NOBODY KNEW WHAT WAS ALL IN THEM WHEN THEY WERE VOTED ON!*
Mike
btrage
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 7,283
- Points
- 51
Let's see, the Omnibus Appropriations bill, introduced a couple of days ago, is over 1.9K pages of pork, Obamacare™ was 2K+ pages rammed through on short notice ("We must pass it to see what's all in it" :-@ ), the financial reform bill was nearly 2K pages passed on short notice, etc.
One can very easily hide some really, really nasty 'Easter eggs' in such piles of gibberish and *NOBODY KNEW WHAT WAS ALL IN THEM WHEN THEY WERE VOTED ON!*
Mike
Down with the system! Down with the system! We need a revolution!!! Pour the tea in the harbor!!! Someone must die for this!!!!!