NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

[Duke Of Dystopia]

My whole point was that states should still be free to set their own civil union/marriage policies provided that they recognize those granted in other jurisdictions. If a state enacts a law that expressly does not recognize a marriage or civil union granted by another jurisdiction, strike that particular part of the law down - but don't usurp more state authority over such issues by either making it a federal issue, which is a constitutional argument that can be solved easily and still retain states' rights.

That's just silly.

Not to mention the instant lawsuit. "If you can recognize them why not us."

...This is really two things IMO: States Rights vs. Federal Govt. and the question of moral equality (is it really equal if gay marriage is not called marriage but a civil union?). ....

The judges ruling covers this quite well. His ruling was for California, but it will end up covering the US. Civil unions/domestic partnerships are not equal to marriage in the eyes of the law.

The Prop 8 case is a federal issue based on the language of the Prop, as I mentioned earlier (negative, exclusionary, etc), not because of the nature of gay marriage itself. If Prop 8 does go to the SCOTUS and is struck down, it will not not have a legal bearing on most other state marriage statutes because of this exclusionary differentiation in its actual language. The moral arguments and rationale, even within the arguments constructed by Judge Walker in his ruling (I'm about halfway through his 136-page decision), seem to support this (as a state-specific issue) so far. If the language of the Prop had not been exclusionary, many of the findings of fact (or at least in the first 2 of the 3 which I have read) become moot points.

Your right in that the ruling is a states case because that is where it has to start. What will make it federal, will be that they can only focus on the legitimacy of the state to set the standards. That ability will remain, but states will not be able to discriminate based on gender or sexual orientation. Similar in nature to the prohibition states have to sodomy laws, you can't outlaw or criminalize same sex sexual behavior. So yeah, you can set your own laws for indecency, but you can't single out a gender or sexual orientation. See? Its simple.

I also am about half way through the decision. The defense is made up of bungling idiots. That is why the SCOTUS will be in a hard position to overturn the judges ruling.

The talking heads pointed out last night that many of the issues will drop out and be moot. The most important points will stick. Those that say a state may not discriminate based on private morality.

 

[TexanOkie]

Not to mention the instant lawsuit. "If you can recognize them why not us."...

...a state may not discriminate based on private morality.

There is a large difference in the issuance/granting of a license and the recognition of one.

As to the second excerpt, there are many who will counter by saying that, due to the nature of the public election, it is no longer private morality but public morality. If you use the same reasoning in considering Prop 8 as private morality, I wonder how many other state, even federal, laws will be ripe for invalidation.

P.S. I have finished reading the decision. It was ruled correctly based on the produced arguments. I will repeat that the defendants' legal counsel was pitifully terrible. I am somewhat nervous about a few of the findings of fact regarding religion, since I think the findings focuses too much on that, to the point where it serves almost as an unofficial indictment of certain religious views. I will still echo my sentiment that the eventual outcome of this case in the appeals processes will still have limited applicability to many other states based on the nature of how the conclusion was reached. It will impact them, to be sure, but in a less affronting manner. It also would seem to support many Cyburbians' views expressed earlier about the state recognizing unions and leaving "marriage" out of the state equation and in the hands of individuals and their religious/etc. associations.

P.P.S. - While I don't believe the decision would have been different, I think California Attorney General Jerry Brown should receive heavy criticism for withdrawing the state from the defense of the Proposition. It was still a legally adopted (procedurally) constitutional amendment, and it should have been his duty to at least make a defense of the measure as a public servant in his position. I understand he, and a majority of the California state government, opposed the law. That's fine. The thing about being a lawyer is to make sure cases are decided fairly whether you agree with them or not, and as Attorney General, you are the state's lawyer. Shame on AG Brown. But like I said, I doubt the judges ruling would have been different, nor should it have been - just the finding of facts and the rationale behind it would have been much more thorough and objective (I fault the defense's poor counsel, and subsequently, the AG's refusal to defend it).

 

[mgk920]

In case anyone is wondering, that judge (Vaughn Walker) is a staunch libertarian (NOT a lefty) who was appointed by GHWB.

Mike

 

[btrage]

I'm still convinced that those who oppose same-sex marriage and/or same-sex civil unions are homophobic to some degree, and hide behind the state's rights/moral reasoning/marriage vs. civil union stances.

Sorry if this offends some very nice people on this forum. But I can't understand why anyone would want to put any type of roadblocks up against two individuals who love one another. As as civilized country, we should be encouraging same-sex marriage.

This should not be about state vs. federal rights. This is about people and love. :-@

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

.......This is about people and love. :-@

ANGRY love?

 

[CJC]

It seems like the cultural conservatives in CA are even crazier than those in TX.

Definitely. Everything's crazier out here! :-$

P.P.S. - While I don't believe the decision would have been different, I think California Attorney General Jerry Brown should receive heavy criticism for withdrawing the state from the defense of the Proposition. It was still a legally adopted (procedurally) constitutional amendment, and it should have been his duty to at least make a defense of the measure as a public servant in his position. I understand he, and a majority of the California state government, opposed the law. That's fine. The thing about being a lawyer is to make sure cases are decided fairly whether you agree with them or not, and as Attorney General, you are the state's lawyer. Shame on AG Brown. But like I said, I doubt the judges ruling would have been different, nor should it have been - just the finding of facts and the rationale behind it would have been much more thorough and objective (I fault the defense's poor counsel, and subsequently, the AG's refusal to defend it).

One of the inherent problems of having the Attorney General being an elected, partisan position, unfortunately.

 

[imaplanner]

I have to be honest here. After the republicans got together to defeat the 911 first responders bill, I have decided that the republicans are the most shameful, disgusting group of individuals in this Country. Anyone who supports these clowns after this vote should be ashamed of themselves. And if you aren't ashamed and you think this is a good thing that his bill was defeated then go F yourself.

 

[btrage]

ANGRY love?

Sometimes the best kind!

I have to be honest here. After the republicans got together to defeat the 911 first responders bill, I have decided that the republicans are the most shameful, disgusting group of individuals in this Country. Anyone who supports these clowns after this vote should be ashamed of themselves. And if you aren't ashamed and you think this is a good thing that his bill was defeated then go F yourself.

Pathetic. It's my understanding that funding was even identified by closing some tax loophole on foreign companies.

 

[Hink]

It would have closed a loop hole for foreign companies based in tax haven countries but doing business in the U.S. I just don't know how THAT is a talking point. They were paying for a good thing with a tax increase on cheaters...Come on congress, you know everyone hates you with your 11% approval rating, but at least try....:-@


On a lighter note - The Tennessee primary happened last night, and my candidate Basil Marceaux dot com lost. I guess I somewhat wanted him to win just to show how pointless politics has become, but at least I can get joy out of the fact that the candidate Mama Bear supported lost.

If you have never heard of Basil Marceaux... honestly look him up. Not sure how else to explain it. :-c

 

[Hink]

I am somewhat confused at all this talk about the "Ground Zero Mosque". Noting that it isn't a mosque, and it isn't at ground zero. Isn't this just the most political topic that exists?

Other than the fact that I think there is nothing to be discussing, I think Fox News has made it a point to try and make this HUGE. Even many of those who lost loved ones, or knew people who were close, don't care that they want to build a community center at this location. I think Bloomberg has done nothing but genuine in his response to the hub-bub.

The part that has been getting me lately, is how they are demonizing the entire religion. Our country has so politicized religion, that we can't even deal with minority religions in our country anymore. It has to be about some Imam who said this, or "really" believes that. This isn't a political point. It is someones religion. I don't understand how you can justify this politically?

The Daily Show had a great piece on the whole thing... how Fox News is partially owned by the same guy who is financing this Community Center. How they never mention his name. How they continue to push this ridiculous belief that he supports Al-Qaeda. This is weak political pandering. And I think that those that are making this a big deal will pay politically.

==============

On another political topic - I look forward to the R's new Contract with America. I want to understand what they really are planning on doing, if they get any power. I think that they are being extremely optimistic at this point, as too many Tea Partiers have won GOP primaries, and most are too radical to win the general. I think they will take the house, but not the senate. Which is a good thing. We need a balanced government. Then everyone can take some blame, and maybe we can try and get some things done.

 

[Planit]

Ya think G. Beck will be throwing out the "Ground Zero Mosque" redderick at his rally in DC? You bet he will. Ya think he will mention pertinent details as hinky points out? You bet he won't! :-{:-@

First of all, it's not a mosque, it's a community center - something like a YMCA.
Second, there has been a real mosque nearby which predates the WTC.
Third, how far is an appropriate distance from the WTC? 2 blocks, 4 blocks, 6 blocks? 42 (blocks, miles, counties, states)?

For some reason I thought one of the principles this country was founded on had something to do with Freedom of Religion, but I guess that just gets in the way. I must have dreamed that when I fell asleep in American History class.

 

[Hink]

I have stated my affinity for Mayor Bloomberg before, but I really think he has something going for him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/nyregion/19bloomberg.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&ref=politics

The major things that caught my attention in the NYT article from yesterday were:

“Look, people are angry,” he said. “Their anger is understandable. Washington isn’t working. Government seems to be paralyzed and unable to solve all of our problems.”

“Anger, however, is not a government strategy,” he said. “It’s not a way to govern.”

“I think these boomlets come along when the public is dissatisfied,” he said. “There was a Ross Perot boomlet, there was a John McCain boomlet, there’s the Tea Party boomlet.”

“I feel very strongly we should not be — success should not be frowned on, and I have lots of friends, wealthy people, made a lot of money, were big Obama supporters, gave him money, raised money for him, who are not happy now,” he said.

“They all say the same thing: ‘I knew I was going to have to pay more taxes. Somebody’s got to do it, and I’ve got the money,’ ” he said. “ ‘But I didn’t expect to be vilified.’ ”

Can someone give me some reasons to not like Bloomberg? He is socially fairly liberal, a successful private businessman, has executive experience, is willing to work with both D's and R's, and is a rational billionaire. I see no downside... but I am sure there is. So can anyone help fill in the blanks?

 

[TexanOkie]

I have stated my affinity for Mayor Bloomberg before, but I really think he has something going for him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/nyregion/19bloomberg.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&ref=politics

The major things that caught my attention in the NYT article from yesterday were:







Can someone give me some reasons to not like Bloomberg? He is socially fairly liberal, a successful private businessman, has executive experience, is willing to work with both D's and R's, and is a rational billionaire. I see no downside... but I am sure there is. So can anyone help fill in the blanks?

I can't really think of a reason except that he won't sell east of the Appalachians or south of the Mason-Dixon line - for whatever reason, legitimate or not (most likely not, but it doesn't really matter). If he had come out of Midwest or one of the western states, he'd have an excellent shot.

 

[Hink]

I can't really think of a reason except that he won't sell east of the Appalachians or south of the Mason-Dixon line - for whatever reason, legitimate or not (most likely not, but it doesn't really matter). If he had come out of Midwest or one of the western states, he'd have an excellent shot.

Because he is "big-city?" Or because he doesn't have the religious right on his side? I think that 2012 will still be about fiscal issues and the social issues won't matter as much. He is much more palletable to the conservatives than McCain and they voted for him...

 

[btrage]

I can't really think of a reason except that he won't sell east of the Appalachians or south of the Mason-Dixon line - for whatever reason, legitimate or not (most likely not, but it doesn't really matter). If he had come out of Midwest or one of the western states, he'd have an excellent shot.

Because he is "big-city?" Or because he doesn't have the religious right on his side? I think that 2012 will still be about fiscal issues and the social issues won't matter as much. He is much more palletable to the conservatives than McCain and they voted for him...

Interesting question running through my head...

If Bloomberg runs as an Independent in 2012 (like Perot) against Obama and "fill in the blank Republican", which party does he hurt/help?

Most people think Perot handed the '92 election to Clinton by drawing votes from the right.

What would a Bloomberg candidacy cause? Would it depend who ends up on the Republican ticket?

 

[TexanOkie]

Because he is "big-city?" Or because he doesn't have the religious right on his side? I think that 2012 will still be about fiscal issues and the social issues won't matter as much. He is much more palletable to the conservatives than McCain and they voted for him...

Both. South of the Mason-Dixon, it'd be because of the religious right. West of the Appalachians, it'd be the populist/anti-elitist sentiment. He's not religious or moral enough for the south, he's got too much of an East Coast mentality for the Midwest, and he's too wealthy for the West Coast (and an odd mix of all three for the Mountain West).

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

Because he is "big-city?" Or because he doesn't have the religious right on his side?

BOTH!

I think that 2012 will still be about fiscal issues and the social issues won't matter as much. He is much more palletable to the conservatives than McCain and they voted for him...

I will be willing to bet that fiscal issues will be minor compared to the social issues. With what is about to happen in a few weeks here, if you thought the GOP was blocking things from happening now, just wait. The teabaggers are forcing ALL of the GOP to the right and social issues are popping out all over.

As has been noted, teabaggers are vocally for the government forcing women to bear children of rapists, including incest victims, and when her life is in danger. No exceptions, no way, no how. Not to mention the rampant racism, homophobia, and all around draconian social behavior.

I don't even blame GOP voters. They are what they have always ben. The voters I blame will be the 2/3 of people that won't bother to vote.

In 2012, the November 2010 wave will reverse again. Only larger. Time and demographics are against the GOP.

Gridlock isn't always a bad thing.

 

[Hink]

What would a Bloomberg candidacy cause? Would it depend who ends up on the Republican ticket?

I think that if it is Palin, it will hurt the R's. I think he will hurt Obama no matter what. Obama doesn't really have much of anyone "on his side" right now because he is pandering to the left and the middle.

Both. South of the Mason-Dixon, it'd be because of the religious right. West of the Appalachians, it'd be the populist/anti-elitist sentiment. He's not religious or moral enough for the south, he's got too much of an East Coast mentality for the Midwest, and he's too wealthy for the West Coast (and an odd mix of all three for the Mountain West).

I think he would do well in the midwest and the west coast. I agree about the south and the religious right. He is enough of a RINO that he will appeal to many conservatives in the midwest and those who aren't staunchly socially conservative.

 

[btrage]

I think a potential third-party run by someone like Bloomberg would hurt Obama more than the Republican nominee, unless it was a Tea Party affiliated person like Palin.

Obama won the centrists/independents - the exact same voters who would like Bloomberg.

 

[TexanOkie]

Republicans have (or are about to) release their "Pledge to America" for the upcoming election and subsequent next Congressional term. It's officially being released tomorrow, but the GOP sent a draft copy to CBS. Link's below.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20017335-503544.html

 

[Mastiff]

Other than getting R's elected, this "pledge" is the same crap pulled in 1994 with the "Contract with America." Did they try and implement it? Sure... So what? It's just another ploy by politicians to achieve their goal of getting elected.

Here's a question to the GOP folks. Why on earth would you even consider voting for politicians who, at present, would hold a gun to your head to keep tax cuts for people making over $250,000? If you are making that much, I understand. The lefties, who will cave on the issue because raising all taxes would get them tossed in November, disgust me too. If you try and argue trickle down speak, don't bother. Check out how the economy fared from the end of WWII to the early 60's. That period had the highest tax percentage, over 90% for any earnings over $200,000, of any time in the U.S.

What ever happened to doing what's right, not doing what gets you a seat in Congress?

 

[imaplanner]

Here's a question to the GOP folks. Why on earth would you even consider voting for politicians who, at present, would hold a gun to your head to keep tax cuts for people making over $250,000? If you are making that much, I understand. The lefties, who will cave on the issue because raising all taxes would get them tossed in November, disgust me too. If you try and argue trickle down speak, don't bother. Check out how the economy fared from the end of WWII to the early 60's. That period had the highest tax percentage, over 90% for any earnings over $200,000, of any time in the U.S.

This is not what Fox News tells me. So you must be a liar.

 

[TexanOkie]

Mastiff, so what if it's the same crap the GOP pulled in '94. It got them elected. Also, while they didn't accomplish near all of the Contract, many of the things they did get accomplished were remarkable, and many things eventually even drew the support of Bill Clinton. It's just as much a ploy as "hope and change" and "transformation" was for Obama, only in this case the GOP is actually spelling out it's legislative agenda.

Nobody's holding a gun to anyone's head. They're flashing a sheet of paper to the electorate with a promise that it will be debated. In fact, the text of the document actually furthers promise, if you read it.

Don't argue trickle down? Why not? It's a legitimate tax/economic theory, and has just as good/relevant a track record as Keynesian theories. The post-war economy of the 1950's and 1960's had much more to it than tax policy, and not everything was rosy with the New Deal and Great Society policies, either. There was just such a specific set of circumstances that led to that period of US economic history and dominance that it most likely would have blasted off in a similar fashion with any policy in place. When these factors started to dissipate, you got the malaise of the 1970's and recession of the early 1980's.

Your last question is incredibly loaded, and can be, and should be, levied against the entire political class, not just the GOP.

This is not what Fox News tells me. So you must be a liar.

Supply-side economic theory and the Laffer curve were thought up long before Fox News ever came around.

 

[mgk920]

Other than getting R's elected, this "pledge" is the same crap pulled in 1994 with the "Contract with America." Did they try and implement it? Sure... So what? It's just another ploy by politicians to achieve their goal of getting elected.

Here's a question to the GOP folks. Why on earth would you even consider voting for politicians who, at present, would hold a gun to your head to keep tax cuts for people making over $250,000? If you are making that much, I understand. The lefties, who will cave on the issue because raising all taxes would get them tossed in November, disgust me too. If you try and argue trickle down speak, don't bother. Check out how the economy fared from the end of WWII to the early 60's. That period had the highest tax percentage, over 90% for any earnings over $200,000, of any time in the U.S.

What ever happened to doing what's right, not doing what gets you a seat in Congress?

I keep wondering why the left keeps having this death wish for the fortunes of the job-creating class. Every dollar that is seized from the job-creators through taxation is a dollar that cannot be used to research and create new and improved things and to pay the people who will be making and distributing them. Even seeing a job-creator using that dollar to improve his or her own living space means that someone is being paid for the labor and/or materials. It's all basic Econ 101.



Mike

 

[Hink]

I keep wondering why the left keeps having this death wish for the fortunes of the job-creating class. Every dollar that is seized from the job-creators through taxation is a dollar that cannot be used to research and create new and improved things and to pay the people who will be making and distributing them. Even seeing a job-creator using that dollar to improve his or her own living space means that someone is being paid for the labor and/or materials. It's all basic Econ 101.



Mike

I disagree with those tax breaks because of our deficit. If you think that by not taxing those who make over $250k we are going to create jobs and all the sudden cover the deficit, I don't think you are fully looking at the situation we are in. I would support the cut if we didn't have a HUGE deficit. But as it is, the money that people make over $250k should be taxed more. They are still getting a break for all the money under $250k...

--------------

As for the pledge. The Contract with America in 1994 at least had some specifics. This Pledge is just a bunch of talking points that have no substance. " We pledge to advance policies that promote greater liberty..." That is just a bunch of B.S. Why not actually put down on paper what you plan on doing to create a solution. We plan on cutting the budget by 10% in year one. We plan on cutting taxes by 5% across the board on year 2. We will make government more transparent by allowing CSPAN in all committee meetings, etc.

The Contract with America worked because people were foolish enough to believe that it might be kept. I don't think this junk document has even done anything near what the Contract with America attempted.

Also the traditional marriage, families, and religion part is just the icing on the cake. You can say you support Christians, Straight people, and married couples in a lot of different ways. It is still closed minded and bigoted.

I like that they wanted to put something down on paper... I just don't think this is doing anyone any favors. Be honest. You have no clue what you can or can't get done. Your own party can't agree on what is the best route forward. Ugh. :-@

 

[TexanOkie]

As for the pledge. The Contract with America in 1994 at least had some specifics. This Pledge is just a bunch of talking points that have no substance. " We pledge to advance policies that promote greater liberty..." That is just a bunch of B.S. Why not actually put down on paper what you plan on doing to create a solution. We plan on cutting the budget by 10% in year one. We plan on cutting taxes by 5% across the board on year 2. We will make government more transparent by allowing CSPAN in all committee meetings, etc.

The Contract with America worked because people were foolish enough to believe that it might be kept. I don't think this junk document has even done anything near what the Contract with America attempted.

Also the traditional marriage, families, and religion part is just the icing on the cake. You can say you support Christians, Straight people, and married couples in a lot of different ways. It is still closed minded and bigoted.

I like that they wanted to put something down on paper... I just don't think this is doing anyone any favors. Be honest. You have no clue what you can or can't get done. Your own party can't agree on what is the best route forward. Ugh. :-@

It seems somewhat clear you only read the first page, page and a half - the preamble, as it were. The 21-page document outlines the following specific actions the GOP pledges to take, if elected to a majority:

• Permanently stopping all tax increases scheduled to take effect Jan. 1, 2011, effectively making the Bush tax cuts permanent.
• Grant small business owners a tax deduction equal to 20% of their income.
• Require Congressional approval of any new Federal regulation what costs $100 million or more to economy.
• Repeal Obamacare mandate for small business to report all purchases over $600 to IRS.
• Immediately cancel unspent stimulus funds and block any attempt to extend timeline for their expenditure.
• Enact budget caps on discretionary spending similar to those enacted in the 1990s.
• Cancel TARP.
• Impose a Federal hiring freeze of all non-security employees.
• Adopt a "sunset" provision for for all Federal programs similar to those adopted in many states.
• Repeal Obamacare.
• Pass medical liability reform.
• Pass legislation allowing the purchase of health care across state lines.
• Maintain the provision from Obamacare ensuring access for patients with pre-existing conditions.
• Require text of legislative bills to be posted online for a minimum of 3 days prior to vote.
• Require every bill in Congress to include a clause citing specific Constitutional authority upon which it is justified.
• Require major legislation to be advances one issue at a time, ending the practice of piggy-backing unpopular bills with "must-pass" legislation.
• Ensure foreign terrorists are tried in military, not civilian courts.
• Fully restore funding to the US Missile Defense system.
• Aggressively implement sanctions against Iran.

 

[Hink]

It seems somewhat clear you only read the first page, page and a half - the preamble, as it were.

No I sadly read the entire 21 pages... I stand by my original statement. It is not things that can be done. It is mainly concepts that sound great, but in reality are either not possible, or extremely unlikely to come to fruition.

i.e. Repeal Obamacare. Other than the fact that it is called Healthcare Reform (which says a lot about the respect of the party...) it has been proven over and over again that it cannot be repealed. It cannot even really be defunded. Unless the R's get a R in the presidency it isn't going to happen. Even then it will be probably too late...


Hink_Planner promises to:
-Serve the community...better
-Lower the time wasted by employees
-Change the world slowly
-And finally bring our budget to reasonable levels

We can all promise to do things that are not reasonably possible. Sure dreaming is awesome. Reality smacks around the dream world a whole lot though.

 

[btrage]

As a left-leaning dude, here are my responses....

It seems somewhat clear you only read the first page, page and a half - the preamble, as it were. The 21-page document outlines the following specific actions the GOP pledges to take, if elected to a majority:

• Permanently stopping all tax increases scheduled to take effect Jan. 1, 2011, effectively making the Bush tax cuts permanent. OK with this.
• Grant small business owners a tax deduction equal to 20% of their income.OK with this.
• Require Congressional approval of any new Federal regulation what costs $100 million or more to economy. I need more detail about this one.
• Repeal Obamacare mandate for small business to report all purchases over $600 to IRS. OK with this.
• Immediately cancel unspent stimulus funds and block any attempt to extend timeline for their expenditure.NO
• Enact budget caps on discretionary spending similar to those enacted in the 1990s.OK
• Cancel TARP.OK
• Impose a Federal hiring freeze of all non-security employees.NO - this seems a little heavy handed
• Adopt a "sunset" provision for for all Federal programs similar to those adopted in many states.OK
• Repeal Obamacare.NO
• Pass medical liability reform.OK
• Pass legislation allowing the purchase of health care across state lines.OK
• Maintain the provision from Obamacare ensuring access for patients with pre-existing conditions.OK
• Require text of legislative bills to be posted online for a minimum of 3 days prior to vote.OK
• Require every bill in Congress to include a clause citing specific Constitutional authority upon which it is justified.OK, although this seems a little silly
• Require major legislation to be advances one issue at a time, ending the practice of piggy-backing unpopular bills with "must-pass" legislation.OK, although I'm not sure how this could be accomplished.
• Ensure foreign terrorists are tried in military, not civilian courts. OK
• Fully restore funding to the US Missile Defense system. NO
• Aggressively implement sanctions against Iran. Sure, why not.

So I agree with most of these platitudes, and yet I still dislike what the Republican Party has become.

 

[TexanOkie]

No I sadly read the entire 21 pages... I stand by my original statement. It is not things that can be done. It is mainly concepts that sound great, but in reality are either not possible, or extremely unlikely to come to fruition.

i.e. Repeal Obamacare. Other than the fact that it is called Healthcare Reform (which says a lot about the respect of the party...) it has been proven over and over again that it cannot be repealed. It cannot even really be defunded. Unless the R's get a R in the presidency it isn't going to happen. Even then it will be probably too late...


Hink_Planner promises to:
-Serve the community...better
-Lower the time wasted by employees
-Change the world slowly
-And finally bring our budget to reasonable levels

We can all promise to do things that are not reasonably possible. Sure dreaming is awesome. Reality smacks around the dream world a whole lot though.

The document never officially states "Obamacare". That was my paraphrase. It states "government takeover of healthcare", which both may and may not be accurate. More accurate would have been "massive government intervention and regulation of healthcare beyond what was currently existing". But, come on - that's too long and wordy to sound cool.

You may be right about healthcare. On the other hand, you may not. I don't think it's yet a foregone conclusion that it's permanent. The original 1994 Contract crowd managed to get a lot, nowhere near all of course, of their provisions through Bill Clinton. It depends on how they go about doing it. And I doubt they'll release (minus leaks) that before implementing it due to strategic advantage.

I also think the document is lacking in detail in key areas. However, it is much more specific than your example list of promises.

 

[Hink]

You may be right about healthcare. On the other hand, you may not. I don't think it's yet a foregone conclusion that it's permanent. The original 1994 Contract crowd managed to get a lot, nowhere near all of course, of their provisions through Bill Clinton. It depends on how they go about doing it. And I doubt they'll release (minus leaks) that before implementing it due to strategic advantage.

I also think the document is lacking in detail in key areas. However, it is much more specific than your example list of promises.

R's cannot repeal it. They might be able to defund portions of it, but they are opening up a big door when they do so. I don't think they will be able to defund the portions that really make them mad.

Barack Obama is not Bill Clinton. Obama has proved that :-{. Bill Clinton worked in a world that understood what compromise meant. In the Tea Party environment, this isn't an option. Nothing is going to get done for two years once the R's take the House, unless they actually start to work with moderates and D's. A pledge is great, and I agree with Btrage that I agree with most of what is in there, but it doesn't matter. It is all political mumbo-jumbo until they actually compromise on some of their beliefs. This my way or the highway junk, has got to stop. A pledge to accept nothing less just heightens the inability to work cooperatively.

 

[wahday]

I like that they wanted to put something down on paper... I just don't think this is doing anyone any favors. Be honest. You have no clue what you can or can't get done. Your own party can't agree on what is the best route forward. Ugh. :-@

And I think that is why the pledge is as vague as it is. It had to be in order to get this breadth of opinions to agree on anything.

Historically, and around the world, conservative groups have been better at circling the wagons to present a unified front. Progressives tend to more openly quibble about the details and that often gives the impression of fracture. That the Republicans/conservatives (because, really, I'm not sure many of the Tea Party candidates that won primaries are firmly in step with the Republican platform) are as visibly fractured as they are at this point says something about the times we live in.

It will be a very interesting mid-term election!

 

[TexanOkie]

[OT]

This my way or the highway junk, has got to stop.

But Dalton says "no"... http://www.ugo.com/therush/images/articles/road-house-dalton-philosophy-101-402/main.jpg[/OT]

:-D

 

[mgk920]

The document never officially states "Obamacare". That was my paraphrase. It states "government takeover of healthcare", which both may and may not be accurate. More accurate would have been "massive government intervention and regulation of healthcare beyond what was currently existing". But, come on - that's too long and wordy to sound cool.

You may be right about healthcare. On the other hand, you may not. I don't think it's yet a foregone conclusion that it's permanent. The original 1994 Contract crowd managed to get a lot, nowhere near all of course, of their provisions through Bill Clinton. It depends on how they go about doing it. And I doubt they'll release (minus leaks) that before implementing it due to strategic advantage.

I also think the document is lacking in detail in key areas. However, it is much more specific than your example list of promises.

One potential analogy that I can see with the current looming healthcare disaster is the NRA.

No, this is not the 'NRA' of today that many here in Cyburbialand appear to know and love, this 'NRA' was, among the whole tongue-twister of 'alphabet soup' that were passed back during FDR's first term, an incredible bureaucratic disaster that was signed into law on 1933-06-16, about three months after FDR took office (it was rammed through the House of Representatives in just seven days) called the 'National Industrial Recovery Act', administered by an entirely new bureaucracy called the 'National Recovery Agency'. The law set out to micro-manage nearly every aspect of the USA's economy, including price, wage and production controls and quotas and MOUNTAINS of paperwork. Federal prison sometimes was the result of a local shopkeeper pricing something juts a few cents below the NRA's legal floor.

It was (THANKFULLY!) declared unconstitutional in a unanimous ruling by the USSupremes on 1935-05-27, just under two years after it was signed into law.

Could the same thing happen to Obamacare™?

Mike

 

[btrage]

One potential analogy that I can see with the current looming healthcare disaster is the NRA.

No, this is not the 'NRA' of today that many here in Cyburbialand appear to know and love, this 'NRA' was, among the whole tongue-twister of 'alphabet soup' that were passed back during FDR's first term, an incredible bureaucratic disaster that was signed into law on 1933-06-16, about three months after FDR took office (it was rammed through the House of Representatives in just seven days) called the 'National Industrial Recovery Act', administered by an entirely new bureaucracy called the 'National Recovery Agency'. The law set out to micro-manage nearly every aspect of the USA's economy, including price, wage and production controls and quotas and MOUNTAINS of paperwork. Federal prison sometimes was the result of a local shopkeeper pricing something juts a few cents below the NRA's legal floor.

It was (THANKFULLY!) declared unconstitutional in a unanimous ruling by the USSupremes on 1935-05-27, just under two years after it was signed into law.

Could the same thing happen to Obamacare™?

Mike

Could it? Sure. Will it? Probably not.

 

[Hink]

Could the same thing happen to Obamacare™?

Mike

It could be declared unconstitutional. I just don't think it will be. The only provision that would be even close - the mandate - will be proven to be a constitutionally sound principle under the commerce clause. Honestly though, I think that could be the only way that this gets taken away as a whole. Otherwise, if the R's want to modify it, they can try to start making relationships that can get some things done - i.e. tort reform, cost structures, personal health savings accounts - which us moderates agree with.

It is a waste of time to try and get rid of it - work to modify it to better serve the country. It is a first draft that needs tweaking.

 

[Mastiff]

Mastiff, so what if it's the same crap the GOP pulled in '94. It got them elected. Also, while they didn't accomplish near all of the Contract, many of the things they did get accomplished were remarkable, and many things eventually even drew the support of Bill Clinton. It's just as much a ploy as "hope and change" and "transformation" was for Obama, only in this case the GOP is actually spelling out it's legislative agenda.

Emphasis mine. That is basically all it did, because it only promised to bring bills for a vote, not to get the job done. Did some pass? Yes. Did most either die on the floor or get vetoed? Yes. I do know the Cato Institute said, "... the combined budgets of the 95 major programs that the Contract with America promised to eliminate have increased by 13%." This new crap is just recycled crap, as is the "hope and change" crap. So what happens when this new "agenda" is blocked by Dems? You think they won't roadblock the R's like they are doing now? It's... all... crap... I read it and see this:

1) I want to get elected.
2) I want to get elected.
3) I want to get elected.
4) I want to get elected.
5) I want to get elected.
6) I want to get elected.

Nobody's holding a gun to anyone's head. They're flashing a sheet of paper to the electorate with a promise that it will be debated. In fact, the text of the document actually furthers promise, if you read it.

I read all of it. A promise? From a politician?! NO WAY! Show me in the "pledge" the part about removing lobbying activities, which I consider legalized bribery, and campaign finance reform, and a separation of Wall Street and corporations from politics. That would impress me...

Don't argue trickle down? Why not? It's a legitimate tax/economic theory, and has just as good/relevant a track record as Keynesian theories.

Uh, "trickle down economics" isn't even a theory of economics... it's a political buzzword. But hey, let's put it into perspective. How about all of us folks who have just enough to feed our families take that food and make a huge feast for rich people. Then, we can wait and see if any scraps fall off the table for us. That's sound thinking... if you're one of the rich people.

The post-war economy of the 1950's and 1960's had much more to it than tax policy, and not everything was rosy with the New Deal and Great Society policies, either. There was just such a specific set of circumstances that led to that period of US economic history and dominance that it most likely would have blasted off in a similar fashion with any policy in place. When these factors started to dissipate, you got the malaise of the 1970's and recession of the early 1980's.

Really? What circumstances? Don't come with an unloaded gun... I'm saying that a high tax rate for high earners created an incredibly strong middle class that has been eroded by both parties since then, because they prefer catering to an increasingly wealthy upper class, and don't mind one bit making them wealthy on your back. Yeah, the trickle down is from ultra-rich people to politicians.

Your last question is incredibly loaded, and can be, and should be, levied against the entire political class, not just the GOP.

False. I'm talking to you and your Republican contemporaries because it is your people in Congress blocking this particular item. The D's wanted to extend tax cuts to those of us... yes, us... the people like you and me who can't afford it, while removing them from people making over $250,000. Do you make over that? If not, you are one of us... not one of them. It's the REPUBLICANS who have their arms crossed and refuse to do it. Nope, they say, the rich get the breaks, or no one does. How on earth do you think they speak for you?!

Please don't give me the party line about the rich being the "job creators" of this land, because they are not. This is personal wealth, not corporate wealth. You think a CEO making $20 million in salary and benefits is going to go down to the warehouse and fire someone because his taxes go up? Bullshit. It's just a red herring to keep you occupied while they fleece you even more.

And then this:

"We pledge to honor families, traditional marriage, life, and the private and faith-based organizations that form the core of our American values."

Placing that in a document... a pledge to all of America, makes me want to puke. That doesn't represent my position, and has no business in the document. It's just something to make you come out and vote. How many of the politicians who've dreamed this kind of garbage up have abandoned their families, been divorced, had mistresses get abortions, and go to church just so they can play the piety card? Many... based on the number who've been caught. It's a joke, and we're the punchline.

I keep wondering why the left keeps having this death wish for the fortunes of the job-creating class. Every dollar that is seized from the job-creators through taxation is a dollar that cannot be used to research and create new and improved things and to pay the people who will be making and distributing them. Even seeing a job-creator using that dollar to improve his or her own living space means that someone is being paid for the labor and/or materials. It's all basic Econ 101.

Your econ teacher must have sucked. Personal wealth doesn't create jobs, at least, not in the sense you are thinking. How I invest my money, were I rich, might have some effect. But it could just as well be a negative one as positive. What if I tie my wealth up in overseas markets? Is creating jobs in Taiwan good for this country?

But, instead of arguing, explain how these awesome cuts Bush made in 01' and '03 have helped with job creation? How can unemployment be hovering at 10% with all those philanthropic rich people out there? It's just a mind scrambler!

 

[TexanOkie]

Emphasis mine. That is basically all it did, because it only promised to bring bills for a vote, not to get the job done. Did some pass? Yes. Did most either die on the floor or get vetoed? Yes. I do know the Cato Institute said, "... the combined budgets of the 95 major programs that the Contract with America promised to eliminate have increased by 13%." This new crap is just recycled crap, as is the "hope and change" crap. So what happens when this new "agenda" is blocked by Dems? You think they won't roadblock the R's like they are doing now? It's... all... crap... I read it and see this:

1) I want to get elected.
2) I want to get elected.
3) I want to get elected.
4) I want to get elected.
5) I want to get elected.
6) I want to get elected.



I read all of it. A promise? From a politician?! NO WAY! Show me in the "pledge" the part about removing lobbying activities, which I consider legalized bribery, and campaign finance reform, and a separation of Wall Street and corporations from politics. That would impress me...

All you had to say is that the items in the pledge don't mesh with your politics. While we're at it, let's separate unions, non-profits, and individual citizens from politics. Then people can be run by automatons and thus at last finally be free from any personal bias in government!

And you're going on about how items in the Pledge are unrealistic?

Uh, "trickle down economics" isn't even a theory of economics... it's a political buzzword. But hey, let's put it into perspective. How about all of us folks who have just enough to feed our families take that food and make a huge feast for rich people. Then, we can wait and see if any scraps fall off the table for us. That's sound thinking... if you're one of the rich people.

"Trickle-down economics", in modern parlance, is a colloquialism referring to supply side economic theories, which, in fact, ARE economic theories - peer-reviewed and everything! How are raising taxes on wealthy folks in-and-of-itself going to improve your personal economic situation? It won't. If anything, it'll lower the top so the gap isn't as large, but that still doesn't matter for your personal economic situation. Is better by comparison really any better overall, or quelling your jealousy that worthy of an end goal? Plus, if you follow the Laffer curve, when you tax people too high, the economy won't produce as much money to the necessary social programs I'm assuming you're relying on to make your argument, let alone the effects it has on (lack of) wealth creation. So even if our current tax rates are too low for efficiency, it doesn't necessarily mean we should impose 90% tax rates like we did in the 1950's.

Really? What circumstances? Don't come with an unloaded gun... I'm saying that a high tax rate for high earners created an incredibly strong middle class that has been eroded by both parties since then, because they prefer catering to an increasingly wealthy upper class, and don't mind one bit making them wealthy on your back. Yeah, the trickle down is from ultra-rich people to politicians.

How about the circumstances that the entire world's industrialized countries were either in ruins or in debt out their asses, most of it being paid to US. Combine that with our still-plentiful natural resources at the time and a large pool of money sitting in bank accounts from frugal war culture to kick things off on the home front, and you've got your circumstances.

My question about how a high tax rate for high earners created a middle class is also applicable here. In fact, if I take your words literally, taxing high earners more is more a trickling (or in this case, a coercion) from ultra-rich to politicians than taxing them less. You're missing several needed connections to make that kind of statement. Correlation does not equal causation.

False. I'm talking to you and your Republican contemporaries because it is your people in Congress blocking this particular item. The D's wanted to extend tax cuts to those of us... yes, us... the people like you and me who can't afford it, while removing them from people making over $250,000. Do you make over that? If not, you are one of us... not one of them. It's the REPUBLICANS who have their arms crossed and refuse to do it. Nope, they say, the rich get the breaks, or no one does. How on earth do you think they speak for you?!

Please don't give me the party line about the rich being the "job creators" of this land, because they are not. This is personal wealth, not corporate wealth. You think a CEO making $20 million in salary and benefits is going to go down to the warehouse and fire someone because his taxes go up? Bullshit. It's just a red herring to keep you occupied while they fleece you even more.

Who's more likely to invest personal wealth into some economic endeavor designed to create more wealth, personal or otherwise, one of "us" or one of "them"? And no, a CEO making $20 million in salary and benefits will probably not go down to the warehouse and fire someone because his taxes go up. Instead, he'll have less money to invest in new economic endeavors, so economic growth will slow or stagnate and inhibit creation of new wealth, which would include all the people working either for him or for some group who he can or can't invest in as much. That is economics, my friend. It is no red herring at all.

And then this:

"We pledge to honor families, traditional marriage, life, and the private and faith-based organizations that form the core of our American values."

Placing that in a document... a pledge to all of America, makes me want to puke. That doesn't represent my position, and has no business in the document. It's just something to make you come out and vote. How many of the politicians who've dreamed this kind of garbage up have abandoned their families, been divorced, had mistresses get abortions, and go to church just so they can play the piety card? Many... based on the number who've been caught. It's a joke, and we're the punchline.

That's in the preamble to the forward. That is not one of their pledged action items, and really it's not like it's changed from the GOP anyway, so there's not too big of a reason to make a new, bigger fuss over old news.

Your econ teacher must have sucked. Personal wealth doesn't create jobs, at least, not in the sense you are thinking. How I invest my money, were I rich, might have some effect. But it could just as well be a negative one as positive. What if I tie my wealth up in overseas markets? Is creating jobs in Taiwan good for this country?

But, instead of arguing, explain how these awesome cuts Bush made in 01' and '03 have helped with job creation? How can unemployment be hovering at 10% with all those philanthropic rich people out there? It's just a mind scrambler!

See my previous arguments. Also, tax-cuts aren't the be-all-end-all of economic policy. Hence the other parts, which I'm sure you disagree with, of trade policy, monetary policy, can definitely help with job creation here and abroad.

It would appear that you think that international economics seems to be almost a zero-sum game. That would be the case if new wealth weren't being created through economic activity. I'm not saying tying up wealth in overseas is automatically, or even often, good for this country's economy, or that it doesn't sometimes have similarities to a zero-sum game. However, free trade policies and the laws of comparative advantage can and often do provide mutual gains from trade from trading partners. That is also economics. Capitalist economics, anyway.

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

What it REALLY SAYS!

[*]Permanently stopping all tax increases scheduled to take effect Jan. 1, 2011, effectively making the Bush tax cuts permanent.

Because it worked so well the last 10 years, we should continue a policy that will continue to make the rich even more rich, while starving the many in society of needed services. Services to which they should have access, but we shall deny.

[*]Grant small business owners a tax deduction equal to 20% of their income.

Small business means S Corp owners. S Corp owners have "pass through" taxation. Money passes through the business to the "owners". The number of owners of any business must be 100 or less. The Koche brothers are the owners of multiple "small business'". So remember serfs, the richest men in America are merely small business owners. Just like all those insignificant enterprises out there with a hand full of employees or more like the self employed.

[*]Require Congressional approval of any new Federal regulation what costs $100 million or more to economy.

Insert filibuster/block/kill/rebuff/derail in the place of "approval". Because anything can be inflated to get the results the GOP wants. So the next time there is a Salmonella outbreak caused by factory farms the Corporations that threaten your life can not be held accountable.

[*]Repeal Obamacare mandate for small business to report all purchases over $600 to IRS.

See "SMALL BUSINESS" above. & Because it should continue to be easy for the self employed and sub contractors to cheat the IRS and the rest of us by default from paying their fare share like everybody else. Because only wage slaves should be forced to pay taxes.

[*]Immediately cancel unspent stimulus funds and block any attempt to extend timeline for their expenditure.

Herbert Hoover was an AMAZING president! We think his model of running the economy was right on the mark! As we also think with Shrub. So take your money OUT of your bank before its to late and stuff it in your mattress or in a jar in your back yard... or whatever.

[*]Enact budget caps on discretionary spending similar to those enacted in the 1990s.

Because the more we cut off social services, the more successful christian organizations will be. Seriously, somebody has to help those whiny lazy slugs asking for handouts. Least we will still have money for bombs!

[*]Cancel TARP.

See "Unspent stimulus funds" above.

[*]Impose a Federal hiring freeze of all non-security employees.

See "Approval of all regulations" above.

[*]Adopt a "sunset" provision for for all Federal programs similar to those adopted in many states.

because we cant do math, you will pay. We intend to end social security with its .9 percent administrative overhead cost, with wall street brokers that will start at a 5 percent fee for administrative costs and proceed to invent costs for you to pay from that point.

[*]Repeal Obamacare.

Seriously, you don't expect the insurance industry to provide a real service to you..... do you? Sick people are going to die any way. It leaves more for the poor rich people who can afford to pay for their care.

[*]Pass medical liability reform.

The GOP does not believe a doctor who cuts of an incorrect limb or prescribes a lethal or dangerous dose of medications should be held liable for their actions and neither should you. Besides, if you were rich enough, you could afford competent medical aid, so live with it beotches!

[*]Pass legislation allowing the purchase of health care across state lines.

So the medical industry can hide in a solid GOP state and not have to deal with any rules required in other states. We can then take your money and provide no services.

[*]Maintain the provision from Obamacare ensuring access for patients with pre-existing conditions.

See, we are being OVERLY generous with this provision!

[*]Require text of legislative bills to be posted online for a minimum of 3 days prior to vote.

Don't worry, this is just a ruse. We will use it to pull some more ridiculous hi-jinks. Even if it is a good idea.

[*]Require every bill in Congress to include a clause citing specific Constitutional authority upon which it is justified.

We like stating the obvious. We won't hold the states to this same clause or Jan Brewer in Arizona would have never ben able to make that ridiculous immigration law of hers.

[*]Require major legislation to be advances one issue at a time, ending the practice of piggy-backing unpopular bills with "must-pass" legislation.

More common sense (if your sarah palin) sounding stuff for ya! We know we can make hay with this claus as well. It would be EASY to be able to grind the house and senate to a standstill with this thing!

[*]Ensure foreign terrorists are tried in military, not civilian courts.

We, the GOP are afraid that 200 plus years of rule of law just doesn't work anymore. We fear that after 20 out of 30 years of GOP presidents, the judiciary is just to liberal. So we think that the JAG core is much more trustworthy, and we get to keep the results secret to boot!

[*]Fully restore funding to the US Missile Defense system.

We won't be happy until we have trained sharks with laser beams on their heads!

[*]Aggressively implement sanctions against Iran.

OK, we really mean declare war on Iran. You get the point. Your sons and daughters are canon fodder any way. If we don't use them when they are young, they will get old and won't have insurance any way. At least this way, they get will get vouchers for care when we defund and abolish all those VA hospitals.

You got to understand! It took us 40 years to outlast the Russians. Look at us! Do you think most of us are going to live another 40 years just so we can gloat at a bunch of hick Mullah's? You have to believe us when we tell you that IRAN is MUCH WORSE than the Russians!

 

[TexanOkie]

Dang, Mastiff, Duke's got you beat on fun factor.

 

[wahday]

Who's more likely to invest personal wealth into some economic endeavor designed to create more wealth, personal or otherwise, one of "us" or one of "them"? And no, a CEO making $20 million in salary and benefits will probably not go down to the warehouse and fire someone because his taxes go up. Instead, he'll have less money to invest in new economic endeavors, so economic growth will slow or stagnate and inhibit creation of new wealth, which would include all the people working either for him or for some group who he can or can't invest in as much. That is economics, my friend. It is no red herring at all.

At the same time, studies show that when you give people a large tax return, the tendency is to save it and not spend it. That is as true for the wealthy as the poor. Its also why last year's tax return was meted out little by little in your paycheck instead of coming in a large lump sum. Most did not notice this, unfortunately, though it did result in increased spending. The result, though, is that many people do not realize they did get a larger refund.

As to the argument that wealthy people are more likely to invest in new businesses (and I don't think very many will invest in business expansion these days unless its a pretty sure thing that the demand is there), we hear a lot about how "small businesses" employ the majority of people in this country. So, who starts and runs a small business? I really don't know the answer, but I have some suspicion that a healthy percentage are started by innovative thinkers and I have certainly read a number of articles in the last year about start-ups that were stimulated by the hard times of the recession. That is, folks with good skills that are out of work and have tried innovative ways to go it alone, or find an opening in a market that others have not capitalized on. I suspect these people are not the elite $250k plus crowd, but those struggling because of difficult circumstances. They are probably not the working poor, either (as they may still have some access to credit and financing) but probably middle class.

Personally, I really have a hard time accepting the argument about the top earners maintaining the tax break they have enjoyed in recent years. If they already have a couple million in the bank and I haven't already invested in something that would create more jobs, is that extra return on my taxes this year really going to push me over the edge?

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

Dang, Mastiff, Duke's got you beat on fun factor.

True, but your not really arguing against my interpretation either....

 

[TexanOkie]

True, but your not really arguing against my interpretation either....

Duke, a large part of that is because we've had our spats in the past and we're fairly comfortable with where the other stands. Plus, your manner of presentation is less affronting to my sensibilities. I respond well to over-the-top humor, even when it's infused with pointed commentary that disagrees with my own opinions.

No offense intended, Mastiff. I still respect your opinions. I just feel compelled to respond more often.

 

[Mastiff]

All you had to say is that the items in the pledge don't mesh with your politics. While we're at it, let's separate unions, non-profits, and individual citizens from politics. Then people can be run by automatons and thus at last finally be free from any personal bias in government!

And you're going on about how items in the Pledge are unrealistic?

Unrealistic? How about a total bag of turd to get votes. Do you honestly believe that "we the people" have a say anymore? We don't. And every single time you vote one or the other party into office, you do Americans a disservice. Unions and non-profits should not have special access to our elected officials. And how can you possibly think Congress being in bed with corporations and lobbyist is a good thing?

"Trickle-down economics", in modern parlance, is a colloquialism referring to supply side economic theories, which, in fact, ARE economic theories - peer-reviewed and everything! How are raising taxes on wealthy folks in-and-of-itself going to improve your personal economic situation? It won't. If anything, it'll lower the top so the gap isn't as large, but that still doesn't matter for your personal economic situation. Is better by comparison really any better overall, or quelling your jealousy that worthy of an end goal? Plus, if you follow the Laffer curve, when you tax people too high, the economy won't produce as much money to the necessary social programs I'm assuming you're relying on to make your argument, let alone the effects it has on (lack of) wealth creation. So even if our current tax rates are too low for efficiency, it doesn't necessarily mean we should impose 90% tax rates like we did in the 1950's.

I know that and it seems you know that. Step out to a teabag rally or some liberal crusade and ask a few people. They have no idea. Now then, quit trying to put this on me personally. It isn't my situation or some jealous reaction because others have more money, it's what is best for this country. Many economists, even Reagan's budget guy, have said that the Laffer curve is often taken much too literally and given too much credence. You think I'm some crazy lefty who wants the rich people to pay my way... and you're wrong. Our social spending and war spending, among other things, needs to be cut drastically along with higher tax rates if we ever want out of this mess.

Who said 90%? I didn't say go back to that level. I say repeal the cuts Bush gave those over $250,000. Why? Because it's quite obvious they haven't done a damed thing but make things worse. How can you disagree with that?

How about the circumstances that the entire world's industrialized countries were either in ruins or in debt out their asses, most of it being paid to US. Combine that with our still-plentiful natural resources at the time and a large pool of money sitting in bank accounts from frugal war culture to kick things off on the home front, and you've got your circumstances.

Much better. But also cold war spending helped, too. So, if we have to go fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, why aren't we using the spoils of those wars... oil and massive quantities of metal ore, to finance them? And man, don't get me started on WWII. It was made clear by the war presidents there would be no profiteering from the war, and oh how far we have come. The Iraq war was all about making a profit, and they sure did. Know who paid? You and me... and 4,287 of our troops who paid in blood.

My question about how a high tax rate for high earners created a middle class is also applicable here. In fact, if I take your words literally, taxing high earners more is more a trickling (or in this case, a coercion) from ultra-rich to politicians than taxing them less. You're missing several needed connections to make that kind of statement. Correlation does not equal causation.

Surely you jest. I'm simply stating that those in power work for the rich and their corporation, not you and me. How simple is that? You don't believe that to be true? Well, here you go:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/lists/most_corrupt_politicians/introduction.html

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/...most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-for-2009.html

http://www.crewsmostcorrupt.org/

You'll notice it spans R's and D's quite well.

Who's more likely to invest personal wealth into some economic endeavor designed to create more wealth, personal or otherwise, one of "us" or one of "them"? Instead, he'll have less money to invest in new economic endeavors, so economic growth will slow or stagnate and inhibit creation of new wealth, which would include all the people working either for him or for some group who he can or can't invest in as much. That is economics, my friend. It is no red herring at all.

Wait, you charged that I didn't have a nexus for my argument and you put this forth? Who knows what people with gobs of money will do next! They can put it off-shore, they can invest in Sri Lanka, they can buy a yacht built in Canada! And let me tell you this, lately their "economic endeavors" haven't been to create anything, but to take money from us! Did you even read what they did to us down on Wall Street?! That wasn't an "endeavor" as must as a prison rape scene! You just keep watching the magician as they empty your pockets.

That's in the preamble to the forward. That is not one of their pledged action items, and really it's not like it's changed from the GOP anyway, so there's not too big of a reason to make a new, bigger fuss over old news.

Bigotry and intolerance is never "old news."

See my previous arguments. Also, tax-cuts aren't the be-all-end-all of economic policy. Hence the other parts, which I'm sure you disagree with, of trade policy, monetary policy, can definitely help with job creation here and abroad.

I'd wager you are flat wrong, and we would agree on many policies that would help the country as a whole, and not just one small segment.

It would appear that you think that international economics seems to be almost a zero-sum game. That would be the case if new wealth weren't being created through economic activity. I'm not saying tying up wealth in overseas is automatically, or even often, good for this country's economy, or that it doesn't sometimes have similarities to a zero-sum game. However, free trade policies and the laws of comparative advantage can and often do provide mutual gains from trade from trading partners. That is also economics. Capitalist economics, anyway.

My point is that lowering taxes on the rich does not equal more jobs or prosperity for other classes. As you have pointed out, there has to be a figuring of other factors. I don't believe at this juncture keeping the Bush cuts for everyone is a good idea. The D's had this one right, and the R's stopped it. Face it, our government is... not... working... for us. If you truly believe what they tell you, or "contract" with you, or "promise" you while they pander for your vote will be accomplished, you are sadly mistaken. I may be jaded, but I don't have my head in the sand. With very few exceptions, the only concern of those in Washington is staying in Washington. If that means lying to you at election time and then suckling at the corporate tit, they'll do it.

My rant is done.


P.S. I'm not offended.

 

[TexanOkie]

My point is that lowering taxes on the rich does not equal more jobs or prosperity for other classes. As you have pointed out, there has to be a figuring of other factors. I don't believe at this juncture keeping the Bush cuts for everyone is a good idea. The D's had this one right, and the R's stopped it. Face it, our government is... not... working... for us. If you truly believe what they tell you, or "contract" with you, or "promise" you while they pander for your vote will be accomplished, you are sadly mistaken. I may be jaded, but I don't have my head in the sand. With very few exceptions, the only concern of those in Washington is staying in Washington. If that means lying to you at election time and then suckling at the corporate tit, they'll do it.

I don't "truly" believe it. I am, in fact, quite skeptical. I agree with you on politicians' primary concern. I will defend against hasty accusations, though. That's all. I did the same for Obama during the 2008 election (and some to this day), and I did with Bush during his presidency. I'll also bring down hastily applied hopes, too.

Glad you're not offended. If we ever meet one day, allow me to buy you a beer. :b:

 

[Mastiff]

I don't "truly" believe it. I am, in fact, quite skeptical. I agree with you on politicians' primary concern. I will defend against hasty accusations, though. That's all. I did the same for Obama during the 2008 election (and some to this day), and I did with Bush during his presidency. I'll also bring down hastily applied hopes, too.

Glad you're not offended. If we ever meet one day, allow me to buy you a beer. :b:

I suppose I show my skepticism in a different way. I'd like to have some hope, but I just don't think anyone in office cares about us anymore... and it makes me worry more about my sons than myself.

Oh yeah, beer for sure, maybe even some single malt Irish! :a:

 

[imaplanner]

It's all basic Econ 101.



Mike

No its not. Its very questionable. in fact- studies, polling data and other research have shown that the rich are the biggest savers/hoarders of money. No one denies that the rich create jobs; but they don't spend all of their money. you know who does spend all of their money? The poor and lower middle class.

 

[Richmond Jake]

.... you know who does spend all of their money? The poor and lower middle class.

They must....to survive.

 

[Hink]

See "SMALL BUSINESS" above. & Because it should continue to be easy for the self employed and sub contractors to cheat the IRS and the rest of us by default from paying their fare share like everybody else. Because only wage slaves should be forced to pay taxes.

Both sides agree that the $600 is onerous. It was a poorly written law, and it will be changed. I don't see this being much of an argument.

The GOP does not believe a doctor who cuts of an incorrect limb or prescribes a lethal or dangerous dose of medications should be held liable for their actions and neither should you. Besides, if you were rich enough, you could afford competent medical aid, so live with it beotches!

This is just silly. Bad doctors will still exist. The difference is that good doctors won't have to be as worried about bad people suing them. Problem is that there are probably more people willing to sue doctors than bad doctors around. Did your grandmother die after they tried to save her life...SUE! I am sure you will be able to find SOMETHING that the doctor did wrong. Tort reform is needed. I don't think it will lower costs tremendously, but I think it will allow the medical field to attract more smart minds. I know many people who won't be an OB/GYN, Anesthetists, or an Emergency doc because they think they will get sued. Which leaves these specialties empty or filled by less qualified applicants.

 

[imaplanner]

As a left leaning dude- here are my thoughts

• Permanently stopping all tax increases scheduled to take effect Jan. 1, 2011, effectively making the Bush tax cuts permanent. Not cool. Our kids will pay for the substantial increase in the debt. Repeal ALL the Bush tax cuts!!
• Grant small business owners a tax deduction equal to 20% of their income.The GOP's idea of small business includes Halliburton, Exxon, etc.
• Require Congressional approval of any new Federal regulation what costs $100 million or more to economy.Congress is too disfunctional
• Repeal Obamacare mandate for small business to report all purchases over $600 to IRS.Whatever
• Immediately cancel unspent stimulus funds and block any attempt to extend timeline for their expenditure.Let's just handicap any future econimic recovery actions, bad idea
• Enact budget caps on discretionary spending similar to those enacted in the 1990s.Then why did the GOP block this proposed legislation just a year ago?
• Cancel TARP.Whaever, its done
• Impose a Federal hiring freeze of all non-security employees.retarded
• Adopt a "sunset" provision for for all Federal programs similar to those adopted in many states.Look what happened with the Bush tax cuts "sunset provision". This is retarded
• Repeal Obamacare.replace it with what?
• Pass medical liability reform.Lose the wrong leg in surgery? too bad for you
• Pass legislation allowing the purchase of health care across state lines.Will not do a single thing to help costs
• Maintain the provision from Obamacare ensuring access for patients with pre-existing conditions.Good.
• Require text of legislative bills to be posted online for a minimum of 3 days prior to vote.whatever
• Require every bill in Congress to include a clause citing specific Constitutional authority upon which it is justified.retarded
• Require major legislation to be advances one issue at a time, ending the practice of piggy-backing unpopular bills with "must-pass" legislation.right. They wont do this
• Ensure foreign terrorists are tried in military, not civilian courts.who cares
• Fully restore funding to the US Missile Defense system.because the terrorists are going to attack us with cruise missles?
• Aggressively implement sanctions against Iran.translation - new war

Both sides agree that the $600 is onerous. It was a poorly written law, and it will be changed. I don't see this being much of an argument.




This is just silly. Bad doctors will still exist. The difference is that good doctors won't have to be as worried about bad people suing them. Problem is that there are probably more people willing to sue doctors than bad doctors around. Did your grandmother die after they tried to save her life...SUE! I am sure you will be able to find SOMETHING that the doctor did wrong. Tort reform is needed. I don't think it will lower costs tremendously, but I think it will allow the medical field to attract more smart minds. I know many people who won't be an OB/GYN, Anesthetists, or an Emergency doc because they think they will get sued. Which leaves these specialties empty or filled by less qualified applicants.

In the states that have implemented tort reform - its been shown to do zero for lowering costs

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

......

Did your grandmother die after they tried to save her life...SUE! I am sure you will be able to find SOMETHING that the doctor did wrong. .....

No.

My father died because doctors can't always make right decisions. Might he still be alive if they had found out he had neuropathy so bad he couldn't move around. Maybe. He certainly would have had medication that took the nerve pain away. If he had been able to move around, he might not have contracted the rare pneumonia that did kill him. If he had access to medical marijuana, it might have relieved the pain of the neuropathy mentioned above. Maybe. It also might have gave him the munchies, so he could have fought off the rare pneumonia. The type you get when you are run down. The type a normal persons body can fight off.

I don't hate the doctor at all. Like the VAST MAJORITY of patients out there, we have no desire to sue the Dr.

What you don't seem to understand, is that it is not that easy to sue. If you don't win, you are liable for all costs. On top of that, harm is pretty cut and dried.

The GOP flail their arms around over there head with a few case outliers and you seem convinced. Pass tort reform the way the conservatives want to, and you will be enshrining a permanent inability to STOP medical malpractice.

Tell me, what is the price of the following really worth?:

A persons life
A family member
Lifetime earning potential when not artificially handicapped.
Cost to you of a lifetime of taking care of a newborn infant harmed by drugs?
Does it happen on the 1st time a crapy dr. screws up? or after the 15th?
Once a limit is set, can the crapy dr. just buy his way out of the repercussions (cause the cost to him will be to low for him to care about)?


This list is endless. Seriously, why do you feel qualified to put limits on other peoples right to seek proper settlement? Remember now good folks, since you are putting the case before a panel of your peers at trial, limiting their judgment is an arbitrary limit on "the market of worth". Which, as our Teabagger friends with torches and pitchforks on high would tell you, the "Gubment" should stay out of.