1. Send your money to the rich in the form of tax increases for ongoing bailouts to large corporations or sweetheart deals to special interest groups.
2. Send your money to the poor in the form of tax increases due to unfunded mandates at the state level, rising dependence on government programs, and escalating government employment to oversee all of the new and exiting regulations that will be coming down the pike.
Both options result in most Americans who work to support this great nation being continually pressured until they prosper enough to be included with the rich, or fail to do so and join the ranks of those benefiting from the vast array of entitlement programs.
This is what we have become.....
I remember the Clinton years quite well, and one thing is absolute: The Regan/Bush administrations left the country saddled with huge budget deficits and debt. During the Clinton years, taxes were raised ON EVERYBODY, the tax code was tweaked, spending was cut, and the economy grew and grew and grew, and not only was the debt paid off, but there was a huge budget surplus when he left office. Raising taxes did not cause unemployment, and it did not cause any financial burden that I recall. It raised revenues which were used to pay down the debt. That is called fiscal responsibility.
Now we must raise taxes again, and we must also cut spending. How can Congresss be convinced to do that when nearly all Republicans have signed a pledge, not to the American People, but to Grover Norquist, who is an unelected extortionist threatening all of the Republican Party with revenge and a loss of their Office if they do not do what HE tells them to do? That is not how our form of government is supposed to work, but it is a reality now.
Actually, I equate the successes of the Clinton era directly with his ineffectiveness as a fiscal president. We wound up with a de facto Smithian "Laissez Faire" economy, which let the free hand of the economy run it's course.
We should have ordained that man king!
You don't remember the Clinton era taxes? You know, the ones that GW immediately abolished as soon as he got in office, and then he went on a spending bender for 8 years with no way to pay for the expenses? You can't just ignore the facts of history and declare that we got rid of a bunch of debt without those tax hikes because you may be a big fan of Milton Friedman. The "Laissez Faire" economy you refer to didn't create the surplus and eliminate the debt that Clinton inherited. If the taxes had not been raised during those years, the debt that Obama inherited would have been even larger. One more thing those taxes did was to prove once and for all that raising taxes does not prevent growth or cause unemployment. Taxes purchase civilization and pay down government debt, especially when the debt is caused by excessive military spending. How do you think we paid for WWII? It wasn't by cutting taxes, I can gurantee.
Instead of ordaining the man anything, the foam at the mouth conservatives only wanted to destroy him, and eventually impeached him, because he had the audacity to be a Democrat elected to an Office that these same conservatives believe is owned by them and can only be held by a conservative.
Are we talking about the first term increase of taxes on the 1.2% of the wealthy, or the Decrease in taxes on 90% of small businesses? All part of the same act. Seems you only wish to remember the increase on the rich and give it all the credit while ignoring the other half? Convenient.
1. Send your money to the rich in the form of tax increases for ongoing bailouts to large corporations or sweetheart deals to special interest groups.
2. Send your money to the poor in the form of tax increases due to unfunded mandates at the state level, rising dependence on government programs, and escalating government employment to oversee all of the new and exiting regulations that will be coming down the pike.
Both options result in most Americans who work to support this great nation being continually pressured until they prosper enough to be included with the rich, or fail to do so and join the ranks of those benefiting from the vast array of entitlement programs.
This is what we have become.....
I remember the Clinton years quite well, and one thing is absolute: The Regan/Bush administrations left the country saddled with huge budget deficits and debt. During the Clinton years, taxes were raised ON EVERYBODY, the tax code was tweaked, spending was cut, and the economy grew and grew and grew, and not only was the debt paid off, but there was a huge budget surplus when he left office. Raising taxes did not cause unemployment, and it did not cause any financial burden that I recall. It raised revenues which were used to pay down the debt. That is called fiscal responsibility.
Now we must raise taxes again, and we must also cut spending. How can Congresss be convinced to do that when nearly all Republicans have signed a pledge, not to the American People, but to Grover Norquist, who is an unelected extortionist threatening all of the Republican Party with revenge and a loss of their Office if they do not do what HE tells them to do? That is not how our form of government is supposed to work, but it is a reality now.
Actually, I equate the successes of the Clinton era directly with his ineffectiveness as a fiscal president. We wound up with a de facto Smithian "Laissez Faire" economy, which let the free hand of the economy run it's course.
We should have ordained that man king!
You don't remember the Clinton era taxes? You know, the ones that GW immediately abolished as soon as he got in office, and then he went on a spending bender for 8 years with no way to pay for the expenses? You can't just ignore the facts of history and declare that we got rid of a bunch of debt without those tax hikes because you may be a big fan of Milton Friedman. The "Laissez Faire" economy you refer to didn't create the surplus and eliminate the debt that Clinton inherited. If the taxes had not been raised during those years, the debt that Obama inherited would have been even larger. One more thing those taxes did was to prove once and for all that raising taxes does not prevent growth or cause unemployment. Taxes purchase civilization and pay down government debt, especially when the debt is caused by excessive military spending. How do you think we paid for WWII? It wasn't by cutting taxes, I can gurantee.
Instead of ordaining the man anything, the foam at the mouth conservatives only wanted to destroy him, and eventually impeached him, because he had the audacity to be a Democrat elected to an Office that these same conservatives believe is owned by them and can only be held by a conservative.
Are we talking about the first term increase of taxes on the 1.2% of the wealthy, or the Decrease in taxes on 90% of small businesses? All part of the same act. Seems you only wish to remember the increase on the rich and give it all the credit while ignoring the other half? Convenient.
Tax rates on small businesses were decreased, but tax rates on EVERYONE else went up, including the middle class.
1. Send your money to the rich in the form of tax increases for ongoing bailouts to large corporations or sweetheart deals to special interest groups.
2. Send your money to the poor in the form of tax increases due to unfunded mandates at the state level, rising dependence on government programs, and escalating government employment to oversee all of the new and exiting regulations that will be coming down the pike.
Both options result in most Americans who work to support this great nation being continually pressured until they prosper enough to be included with the rich, or fail to do so and join the ranks of those benefiting from the vast array of entitlement programs.
This is what we have become.....
I remember the Clinton years quite well, and one thing is absolute: The Regan/Bush administrations left the country saddled with huge budget deficits and debt. During the Clinton years, taxes were raised ON EVERYBODY, the tax code was tweaked, spending was cut, and the economy grew and grew and grew, and not only was the debt paid off, but there was a huge budget surplus when he left office. Raising taxes did not cause unemployment, and it did not cause any financial burden that I recall. It raised revenues which were used to pay down the debt. That is called fiscal responsibility.
Now we must raise taxes again, and we must also cut spending. How can Congresss be convinced to do that when nearly all Republicans have signed a pledge, not to the American People, but to Grover Norquist, who is an unelected extortionist threatening all of the Republican Party with revenge and a loss of their Office if they do not do what HE tells them to do? That is not how our form of government is supposed to work, but it is a reality now.
Actually, I equate the successes of the Clinton era directly with his ineffectiveness as a fiscal president. We wound up with a de facto Smithian "Laissez Faire" economy, which let the free hand of the economy run it's course.
We should have ordained that man king!
You don't remember the Clinton era taxes? You know, the ones that GW immediately abolished as soon as he got in office, and then he went on a spending bender for 8 years with no way to pay for the expenses? You can't just ignore the facts of history and declare that we got rid of a bunch of debt without those tax hikes because you may be a big fan of Milton Friedman. The "Laissez Faire" economy you refer to didn't create the surplus and eliminate the debt that Clinton inherited. If the taxes had not been raised during those years, the debt that Obama inherited would have been even larger. One more thing those taxes did was to prove once and for all that raising taxes does not prevent growth or cause unemployment. Taxes purchase civilization and pay down government debt, especially when the debt is caused by excessive military spending. How do you think we paid for WWII? It wasn't by cutting taxes, I can gurantee.
Instead of ordaining the man anything, the foam at the mouth conservatives only wanted to destroy him, and eventually impeached him, because he had the audacity to be a Democrat elected to an Office that these same conservatives believe is owned by them and can only be held by a conservative.
Are we talking about the first term increase of taxes on the 1.2% of the wealthy, or the Decrease in taxes on 90% of small businesses? All part of the same act. Seems you only wish to remember the increase on the rich and give it all the credit while ignoring the other half? Convenient.
Tax rates on small businesses were decreased, but tax rates on EVERYONE else went up, including the middle class.
Is that also ignoring the 15 million low income families who saw tax cuts
1. Send your money to the rich in the form of tax increases for ongoing bailouts to large corporations or sweetheart deals to special interest groups.
2. Send your money to the poor in the form of tax increases due to unfunded mandates at the state level, rising dependence on government programs, and escalating government employment to oversee all of the new and exiting regulations that will be coming down the pike.
Both options result in most Americans who work to support this great nation being continually pressured until they prosper enough to be included with the rich, or fail to do so and join the ranks of those benefiting from the vast array of entitlement programs.
This is what we have become.....
I remember the Clinton years quite well, and one thing is absolute: The Regan/Bush administrations left the country saddled with huge budget deficits and debt. During the Clinton years, taxes were raised ON EVERYBODY, the tax code was tweaked, spending was cut, and the economy grew and grew and grew, and not only was the debt paid off, but there was a huge budget surplus when he left office. Raising taxes did not cause unemployment, and it did not cause any financial burden that I recall. It raised revenues which were used to pay down the debt. That is called fiscal responsibility.
Now we must raise taxes again, and we must also cut spending. How can Congresss be convinced to do that when nearly all Republicans have signed a pledge, not to the American People, but to Grover Norquist, who is an unelected extortionist threatening all of the Republican Party with revenge and a loss of their Office if they do not do what HE tells them to do? That is not how our form of government is supposed to work, but it is a reality now.
Actually, I equate the successes of the Clinton era directly with his ineffectiveness as a fiscal president. We wound up with a de facto Smithian "Laissez Faire" economy, which let the free hand of the economy run it's course.
We should have ordained that man king!
You don't remember the Clinton era taxes? You know, the ones that GW immediately abolished as soon as he got in office, and then he went on a spending bender for 8 years with no way to pay for the expenses? You can't just ignore the facts of history and declare that we got rid of a bunch of debt without those tax hikes because you may be a big fan of Milton Friedman. The "Laissez Faire" economy you refer to didn't create the surplus and eliminate the debt that Clinton inherited. If the taxes had not been raised during those years, the debt that Obama inherited would have been even larger. One more thing those taxes did was to prove once and for all that raising taxes does not prevent growth or cause unemployment. Taxes purchase civilization and pay down government debt, especially when the debt is caused by excessive military spending. How do you think we paid for WWII? It wasn't by cutting taxes, I can gurantee.
Instead of ordaining the man anything, the foam at the mouth conservatives only wanted to destroy him, and eventually impeached him, because he had the audacity to be a Democrat elected to an Office that these same conservatives believe is owned by them and can only be held by a conservative.
Are we talking about the first term increase of taxes on the 1.2% of the wealthy, or the Decrease in taxes on 90% of small businesses? All part of the same act. Seems you only wish to remember the increase on the rich and give it all the credit while ignoring the other half? Convenient.
Tax rates on small businesses were decreased, but tax rates on EVERYONE else went up, including the middle class.
Is that also ignoring the 15 million low income families who saw tax cuts
What's your point? Taxes were raised during the Clinton Administration. That's a fact, and they were crucial in paying down the debt previous administrations created. They also created a budget surplus. GW eliminated them, and subsequent conservatives are also refusing to raise taxes in order to get us out of this hole we're in. That is irresponsible and childish. We have to raise taxes again. It's the only responsible thing to do.
I just hope this whole election works as a referendum on the obstructionism that is rampant in the last congress. It is hard to vote for or against policies when none ever make it off the floor to be shown to work/not work. Yes, there may be a rare issue that cannot be reconciled, but this constant refrain of blocking policy simply because the other side submitted it needs to stop.
JDH:
I have no idea why that posted in bold - not intentional.
Edit: It posted bold because the closing bold tag in your quote is "B/" instead of "/B".
I have no idea why that posted in bold - not intentional.
My point is simple: Both sides have become polarizing forces in this country. The fact that people throw around words like "always" and "every" like you did, in absence of facts, leads those unwilling to dig into the truth to become left or right wing sheep. I despise both.
The facts are all there and as in life, the truth often lies in the middle. A middle which no longer exists politically. The largest class in this country is essentially unrepresented, and economically and politically uneducated.
I agree. The obstructionism must stop. Both parties must find common ground and compromise in the interest of the nation as a whole.
What can be done about Grover Norquist? He isn't elected. He represents a "special interest group", and he is holding the entire Republican Party hostage, forcing them to be obstructionist, unless all of HIS demands are met.
Mr. Norquist, who grew up a couple of towns away from me, definitely pushes his group's weight around with regard to the reduction of overall taxes, but, again, you cannot forget the part where he wants to reduce government also.
This is theoretically possible, as a reduction in expenses such as eliminating bloated, ineffective agencies (TSA anyone?) can offset a reduction in taxes, and create a balanced budget. Unfortunately that would take near 100% inter-party co-operation due to the special interest on both sides.
These zealots can't even sit at the table together, let alone compromise to the point where an intelligent policy is written.
Unfortunately what we need is a general population unswayed by rhetoric and willing to demand a functioning governement. As long as we let the "issues" become irrelevant news snippets on abortion, marital affairs, and personal wealth, we are in serious trouble.
Hummmmmmmmm. A mandantory bi-partasian cocktail hour. Teatotallers could be required to act as servers and bartenders. Mandantory interaction with spirits and libtions between people from both sides of the cultural divide. They could have a mandantory joke hour too. Since they behave like little kids, why not treat them like little kids, and they would learn how play nice nice with each other.
I have no problem with combining spending cuts and tax code reform with actual tax cuts in order to reduce the deficit. However, Mr. Norquist is insisting that no taxes will be raised at any time for any reason by anybody who signs his little pledge, or he will bring down the wrath of himself upon the vile offenders.
This aint how it's supposed to work. The GOP has made themselves subservient to this little punk. Elected members of Congress are supposed to be responsible to the electorate, not to this guy. He is subverting our very form of government. Besides, it will be impossible to seriously attack the deficit without raising tax revenues in additionto the other possibilities I listed. It has to be done, and Mr. Norquist is preventing our government from functioning as it was designed to function. Our government wil not function without compromise. Mr. Norquist is making compromise impossible,and he must be delt with.
pross:
Mr. Norquist, who grew up a couple of towns away from me, definitely pushes his group's weight around with regard to the reduction of overall taxes, but, again, you cannot forget the part where he wants to reduce government also.
This is theoretically possible, as a reduction in expenses such as eliminating bloated, ineffective agencies (TSA anyone?) can offset a reduction in taxes, and create a balanced budget. Unfortunately that would take near 100% inter-party co-operation due to the special interest on both sides.
These zealots can't even sit at the table together, let alone compromise to the point where an intelligent policy is written.
Unfortunately what we need is a general population unswayed by rhetoric and willing to demand a functioning governement. As long as we let the "issues" become irrelevant news snippets on abortion, marital affairs, and personal wealth, we are in serious trouble.
Compromise was reached. It comprises both tax increases and spending cuts across the board, in a form which each side may conveniently blame upon the other. It will go into effect automatically come the new year. Let it work. Take your punishment. Get it over with. Then make it bigger next time.
Compromise was reached. It comprises both tax increases and spending cuts across the board, in a form which each side may conveniently blame upon the other. It will go into effect automatically come the new year. Let it work. Take your punishment. Get it over with. Then make it bigger next time.
I would rather sequestration didn't go into effect, if only because I don't want to find a new job. I am selfish that way.
Compromise was reached. It comprises both tax increases and spending cuts across the board, in a form which each side may conveniently blame upon the other. It will go into effect automatically come the new year. Let it work. Take your punishment. Get it over with. Then make it bigger next time.
I would rather sequestration didn't go into effect, if only because I don't want to find a new job. I am selfish that way.
Sequestration (or "see castration", as I've heard it called) is not a solution, it is a sword of Damacles that was supposed to be so undesirable that it would force an uncompromising Congress to do it's job. If Congress does not avoid this self-inflicted wound, those who are responsible will be removed from office at the mid-term because the American people will be mad as hell that Congress brought back an avoidable recession. That reality is begining to sink in, and I am predicting that there will be 15 or so House Republicans who will find a way to do a deal (which is their job, and which is what they were elected to do, and which is what the American people want Congress to do) to avoid sequestration. Besides, the business community does not want to see this happen; they would rather see a modest increase in taxation than the possibility of even higher un-employment which will produce lower sales and even lower profits, etc. Only someone who does not understand market economic forces would want this to go forward.
Compromise was reached. It comprises both tax increases and spending cuts across the board, in a form which each side may conveniently blame upon the other. It will go into effect automatically come the new year. Let it work. Take your punishment. Get it over with. Then make it bigger next time.
I would rather sequestration didn't go into effect, if only because I don't want to find a new job. I am selfish that way.
Sequestration (or "see castration", as I've heard it called) is not a solution, it is a sword of Damacles that was supposed to be so undesirable that it would force an uncompromising Congress to do it's job. If Congress does not avoid this self-inflicted wound, those who are responsible will be removed from office at the mid-term because the American people will be mad as hell that Congress brought back an avoidable recession. That reality is begining to sink in, and I am predicting that there will be 15 or so House Republicans who will find a way to do a deal (which is their job, and which is what they were elected to do, and which is what the American people want Congress to do) to avoid sequestration.
Hopefully you're right JDH - and Congress can come to an agreement on the taxes and budget cuts.
Compromise was reached. It comprises both tax increases and spending cuts across the board, in a form which each side may conveniently blame upon the other. It will go into effect automatically come the new year. Let it work. Take your punishment. Get it over with. Then make it bigger next time.
I would rather sequestration didn't go into effect, if only because I don't want to find a new job. I am selfish that way.
Sequestration (or "see castration", as I've heard it called) is not a solution, it is a sword of Damacles that was supposed to be so undesirable that it would force an uncompromising Congress to do it's job. If Congress does not avoid this self-inflicted wound, those who are responsible will be removed from office at the mid-term because the American people will be mad as hell that Congress brought back an avoidable recession. That reality is begining to sink in, and I am predicting that there will be 15 or so House Republicans who will find a way to do a deal (which is their job, and which is what they were elected to do, and which is what the American people want Congress to do) to avoid sequestration.
Hopefully you're right JDH - and Congress can come to an agreement on the taxes and budget cuts.
I am expecting to see the Bush tax cuts expire on individuals and /or couples making over $500k, for them to stay in place for small businesses, for the mortgage interest deduction to be eliminated on home values over $500k, for corporate taxes to be lowered, and for pretty big cuts in defense and medicare (again, mostly aimed at higher income individuals), and for the tax code to be tinkered with, or some similar type deal.
Compromise was reached. It comprises both tax increases and spending cuts across the board, in a form which each side may conveniently blame upon the other. It will go into effect automatically come the new year. Let it work. Take your punishment. Get it over with. Then make it bigger next time.
I would rather sequestration didn't go into effect, if only because I don't want to find a new job. I am selfish that way.
Sequestration (or "see castration", as I've heard it called) is not a solution, it is a sword of Damacles that was supposed to be so undesirable that it would force an uncompromising Congress to do it's job. If Congress does not avoid this self-inflicted wound, those who are responsible will be removed from office at the mid-term because the American people will be mad as hell that Congress brought back an avoidable recession. That reality is begining to sink in, and I am predicting that there will be 15 or so House Republicans who will find a way to do a deal (which is their job, and which is what they were elected to do, and which is what the American people want Congress to do) to avoid sequestration.
Hopefully you're right JDH - and Congress can come to an agreement on the taxes and budget cuts.
I am expecting to see the Bush tax cuts expire on individuals and /or couples making over $500k, for them to stay in place for small businesses, for the mortgage interest deduction to be eliminated on home values over $500k, for corporate taxes to be lowered, and for pretty big cuts in defense and medicare (again, mostly aimed at higher income individuals), and for the tax code to be tinkered with, or some similar type deal.
The only so-called budget cuts which Democrats will tolerate would be some fictional scenario in which fudged numbers achieve some minor projected reduction twenty years from now only if preposterous rosy recovery estimates are achieved. They will call that compromise. Real taxes now, projected fictional cuts at some distant date. They cannot tolerate any reduction in either bread or circuses for the obvious reason that public largesse is how they buy votes. Sequestration is therefore the best balance achievable in the real world. Both cuts and taxes in equal measure across the board. Yes, it will hurt. Get over it. There is no painless way out of this mess.
No, you cannot rob rich men to recoup your extravagance. Class warfare has become fashionable to espouse, but in practice it never works. Any increase in taxes is inevitably paid by the working man. You may hike the top tier income tax to 65% like Hoover did, or even to 90% like FDR did, but even they could not tax our way to prosperity. The CEO of Coke is not about to forego his mistress, his trophy wife, his Bentley, his house in the Hamptons, lodge in Aspen, or vineyard in Tuscany, his Lear, his children's private schools... and submissively move to the trailer park down the street from you. Forget it. He will take his money to the Caymans, charge another dime per can of soda, buy another senator, and lawyer his way out of it. It is really that simple. You may insist on your class warfare all you want --- it ain't in the cards. There is always an oligarchy, and the oligarchy always prevails. Regardless of system. You cannot have good government. You can only have less government. Even in the old sagas, government is not Robin Hood; government is Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham.
In truth, we need to cut the budget in half, hike taxes a quarter, and pay down the debt, to leave our grandchildren a country worth living in. Half as much government and no debt. Fat chance.
Compromise was reached. It comprises both tax increases and spending cuts across the board, in a form which each side may conveniently blame upon the other. It will go into effect automatically come the new year. Let it work. Take your punishment. Get it over with. Then make it bigger next time.
I would rather sequestration didn't go into effect, if only because I don't want to find a new job. I am selfish that way.
Sequestration (or "see castration", as I've heard it called) is not a solution, it is a sword of Damacles that was supposed to be so undesirable that it would force an uncompromising Congress to do it's job. If Congress does not avoid this self-inflicted wound, those who are responsible will be removed from office at the mid-term because the American people will be mad as hell that Congress brought back an avoidable recession. That reality is begining to sink in, and I am predicting that there will be 15 or so House Republicans who will find a way to do a deal (which is their job, and which is what they were elected to do, and which is what the American people want Congress to do) to avoid sequestration.
Hopefully you're right JDH - and Congress can come to an agreement on the taxes and budget cuts.
I am expecting to see the Bush tax cuts expire on individuals and /or couples making over $500k, for them to stay in place for small businesses, for the mortgage interest deduction to be eliminated on home values over $500k, for corporate taxes to be lowered, and for pretty big cuts in defense and medicare (again, mostly aimed at higher income individuals), and for the tax code to be tinkered with, or some similar type deal.
The only so-called budget cuts which Democrats will tolerate would be some fictional scenario in which fudged numbers achieve some minor projected reduction twenty years from now only if preposterous rosy recovery estimates are achieved. They will call that compromise. Real taxes now, projected fictional cuts at some distant date. They cannot tolerate any reduction in either bread or circuses for the obvious reason that public largesse is how they buy votes. Sequestration is therefore the best balance achievable in the real world. Both cuts and taxes in equal measure across the board. Yes, it will hurt. Get over it. There is no painless way out of this mess.
No, you cannot rob rich men to recoup your extravagance. Class warfare has become fashionable to espouse, but in practice it never works. Any increase in taxes is inevitably paid by the working man. You may hike the top tier income tax to 65% like Hoover did, or even to 90% like FDR did, but even they could not tax our way to prosperity. The CEO of Coke is not about to forego his mistress, his trophy wife, his Bentley, his house in the Hamptons, lodge in Aspen, or vineyard in Tuscany, his Lear, his children's private schools... and submissively move to the trailer park down the street from you. Forget it. He will take his money to the Caymans, charge another dime per can of soda, buy another senator, and lawyer his way out of it. It is really that simple. You may insist on your class warfare all you want --- it ain't in the cards. There is always an oligarchy, and the oligarchy always prevails. Regardless of system. You cannot have good government. You can only have less government. Even in the old sagas, government is not Robin Hood; government is Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham.
In truth, we need to cut the budget in half, hike taxes a quarter, and pay down the debt, to leave our grandchildren a country worth living in. Half as much government and no debt. Fat chance.
Why not just sell Florida to China? That makes about as much sense as what you're proposing, and it has about as much chance of happening too.
Compromise was reached. It comprises both tax increases and spending cuts across the board, in a form which each side may conveniently blame upon the other. It will go into effect automatically come the new year. Let it work. Take your punishment. Get it over with. Then make it bigger next time.
I would rather sequestration didn't go into effect, if only because I don't want to find a new job. I am selfish that way.
Sequestration (or "see castration", as I've heard it called) is not a solution, it is a sword of Damacles that was supposed to be so undesirable that it would force an uncompromising Congress to do it's job. If Congress does not avoid this self-inflicted wound, those who are responsible will be removed from office at the mid-term because the American people will be mad as hell that Congress brought back an avoidable recession. That reality is begining to sink in, and I am predicting that there will be 15 or so House Republicans who will find a way to do a deal (which is their job, and which is what they were elected to do, and which is what the American people want Congress to do) to avoid sequestration.
Hopefully you're right JDH - and Congress can come to an agreement on the taxes and budget cuts.
I am expecting to see the Bush tax cuts expire on individuals and /or couples making over $500k, for them to stay in place for small businesses, for the mortgage interest deduction to be eliminated on home values over $500k, for corporate taxes to be lowered, and for pretty big cuts in defense and medicare (again, mostly aimed at higher income individuals), and for the tax code to be tinkered with, or some similar type deal.
The only so-called budget cuts which Democrats will tolerate would be some fictional scenario in which fudged numbers achieve some minor projected reduction twenty years from now only if preposterous rosy recovery estimates are achieved. They will call that compromise. Real taxes now, projected fictional cuts at some distant date. They cannot tolerate any reduction in either bread or circuses for the obvious reason that public largesse is how they buy votes. Sequestration is therefore the best balance achievable in the real world. Both cuts and taxes in equal measure across the board. Yes, it will hurt. Get over it. There is no painless way out of this mess.
No, you cannot rob rich men to recoup your extravagance. Class warfare has become fashionable to espouse, but in practice it never works. Any increase in taxes is inevitably paid by the working man. You may hike the top tier income tax to 65% like Hoover did, or even to 90% like FDR did, but even they could not tax our way to prosperity. The CEO of Coke is not about to forego his mistress, his trophy wife, his Bentley, his house in the Hamptons, lodge in Aspen, or vineyard in Tuscany, his Lear, his children's private schools... and submissively move to the trailer park down the street from you. Forget it. He will take his money to the Caymans, charge another dime per can of soda, buy another senator, and lawyer his way out of it. It is really that simple. You may insist on your class warfare all you want --- it ain't in the cards. There is always an oligarchy, and the oligarchy always prevails. Regardless of system. You cannot have good government. You can only have less government. Even in the old sagas, government is not Robin Hood; government is Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham.
In truth, we need to cut the budget in half, hike taxes a quarter, and pay down the debt, to leave our grandchildren a country worth living in. Half as much government and no debt. Fat chance.
Yes, more extremism. That's the way to fix it. Screw rational thinking. Screw the actual economics. Lets just cut everything. Sure, it will hurt, because there is no planning. Sequestration is not a balanced rational approach. It would be like trying to cut your family budget and weighting cuts in groceries and housing the same as entertainment and cigars. The budget needs to be cut. Revenue needs to be increased. These things can be agreed upon. But taking a hatchet to the whole system? That is not how to do it.
Every one should read the book the Submerged State by Susan Mettler. It examines how both parties have expanded government in away that citizens do not even recognize that they are receiving government service. As a result disconnect has formed between the people and their law makers. This is an interesting read that may interest some of you. Mettler looks at three recent examples that have expanded or reduced the submerged state during the Obama administration. The most interesting ones being HMID, and EITC. Obamacare is also a prominent example in this text. I would say the text is left leaning ( if that matters to you) but the basic premise of the book provides an enlightened discussion about american governance and policy creation at the end of the 20th/beginning of the 21st century. PM me you addy if you would like to read it!
Compromise was reached. It comprises both tax increases and spending cuts across the board, in a form which each side may conveniently blame upon the other. It will go into effect automatically come the new year. Let it work. Take your punishment. Get it over with. Then make it bigger next time.
I would rather sequestration didn't go into effect, if only because I don't want to find a new job. I am selfish that way.
Sequestration (or "see castration", as I've heard it called) is not a solution, it is a sword of Damacles that was supposed to be so undesirable that it would force an uncompromising Congress to do it's job. If Congress does not avoid this self-inflicted wound, those who are responsible will be removed from office at the mid-term because the American people will be mad as hell that Congress brought back an avoidable recession. That reality is begining to sink in, and I am predicting that there will be 15 or so House Republicans who will find a way to do a deal (which is their job, and which is what they were elected to do, and which is what the American people want Congress to do) to avoid sequestration.
Hopefully you're right JDH - and Congress can come to an agreement on the taxes and budget cuts.
I am expecting to see the Bush tax cuts expire on individuals and /or couples making over $500k, for them to stay in place for small businesses, for the mortgage interest deduction to be eliminated on home values over $500k, for corporate taxes to be lowered, and for pretty big cuts in defense and medicare (again, mostly aimed at higher income individuals), and for the tax code to be tinkered with, or some similar type deal.
The only so-called budget cuts which Democrats will tolerate would be some fictional scenario in which fudged numbers achieve some minor projected reduction twenty years from now only if preposterous rosy recovery estimates are achieved. They will call that compromise. Real taxes now, projected fictional cuts at some distant date. They cannot tolerate any reduction in either bread or circuses for the obvious reason that public largesse is how they buy votes. Sequestration is therefore the best balance achievable in the real world. Both cuts and taxes in equal measure across the board. Yes, it will hurt. Get over it. There is no painless way out of this mess.
No, you cannot rob rich men to recoup your extravagance. Class warfare has become fashionable to espouse, but in practice it never works. Any increase in taxes is inevitably paid by the working man. You may hike the top tier income tax to 65% like Hoover did, or even to 90% like FDR did, but even they could not tax our way to prosperity. The CEO of Coke is not about to forego his mistress, his trophy wife, his Bentley, his house in the Hamptons, lodge in Aspen, or vineyard in Tuscany, his Lear, his children's private schools... and submissively move to the trailer park down the street from you. Forget it. He will take his money to the Caymans, charge another dime per can of soda, buy another senator, and lawyer his way out of it. It is really that simple. You may insist on your class warfare all you want --- it ain't in the cards. There is always an oligarchy, and the oligarchy always prevails. Regardless of system. You cannot have good government. You can only have less government. Even in the old sagas, government is not Robin Hood; government is Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham.
In truth, we need to cut the budget in half, hike taxes a quarter, and pay down the debt, to leave our grandchildren a country worth living in. Half as much government and no debt. Fat chance.
Yes, more extremism. That's the way to fix it. Screw rational thinking. Screw the actual economics. Lets just cut everything. Sure, it will hurt, because there is no planning. Sequestration is not a balanced rational approach. It would be like trying to cut your family budget and weighting cuts in groceries and housing the same as entertainment and cigars. The budget needs to be cut. Revenue needs to be increased. These things can be agreed upon. But taking a hatchet to the whole system? That is not how to do it.
If the Republican Party continues to take it's leadership from the Koch boys and Rush and Trump and Hannity and Rove and Fox and Beck etc., who lead from the extreme far right , and who tell other Americans that they are Femi-*** and Socialists and Communists who should "Get the hell out of the United States", because they are degenerates and sluts and that they aren't really Americans anyway, and that all Latinos should be treated like Alabama and Arizona treats them, then the Republican Party will become extinct.
If, however, the Republican Party can find leadership from the center-right who will respect other Americans and their right to be here, and their right to vote, and stay out of the private lives of other Americans, and recognize that women are citizens too who deserve respect, and behave with civility towards their Democratic counterparts who are not Communists or Socialists or ***, but good, decent Americans just like they are, and who will govern with rationality and pragmatism and with fiscally conservative core values, and who recognize that compormise is the lifes blood of our Republic, then they may well dominate the political landscape for years to come.
Personally, I'm betting on the latter, because the rich guys who just spent a bundle on the former with nothing to show for their efforts are not going down that path again.
Compromise was reached. It comprises both tax increases and spending cuts across the board, in a form which each side may conveniently blame upon the other. It will go into effect automatically come the new year. Let it work. Take your punishment. Get it over with. Then make it bigger next time.
I would rather sequestration didn't go into effect, if only because I don't want to find a new job. I am selfish that way.
Sequestration (or "see castration", as I've heard it called) is not a solution, it is a sword of Damacles that was supposed to be so undesirable that it would force an uncompromising Congress to do it's job. If Congress does not avoid this self-inflicted wound, those who are responsible will be removed from office at the mid-term because the American people will be mad as hell that Congress brought back an avoidable recession. That reality is begining to sink in, and I am predicting that there will be 15 or so House Republicans who will find a way to do a deal (which is their job, and which is what they were elected to do, and which is what the American people want Congress to do) to avoid sequestration.
Hopefully you're right JDH - and Congress can come to an agreement on the taxes and budget cuts.
I am expecting to see the Bush tax cuts expire on individuals and /or couples making over $500k, for them to stay in place for small businesses, for the mortgage interest deduction to be eliminated on home values over $500k, for corporate taxes to be lowered, and for pretty big cuts in defense and medicare (again, mostly aimed at higher income individuals), and for the tax code to be tinkered with, or some similar type deal.
The only so-called budget cuts which Democrats will tolerate would be some fictional scenario in which fudged numbers achieve some minor projected reduction twenty years from now only if preposterous rosy recovery estimates are achieved. They will call that compromise. Real taxes now, projected fictional cuts at some distant date. They cannot tolerate any reduction in either bread or circuses for the obvious reason that public largesse is how they buy votes. Sequestration is therefore the best balance achievable in the real world. Both cuts and taxes in equal measure across the board. Yes, it will hurt. Get over it. There is no painless way out of this mess.
No, you cannot rob rich men to recoup your extravagance. Class warfare has become fashionable to espouse, but in practice it never works. Any increase in taxes is inevitably paid by the working man. You may hike the top tier income tax to 65% like Hoover did, or even to 90% like FDR did, but even they could not tax our way to prosperity. The CEO of Coke is not about to forego his mistress, his trophy wife, his Bentley, his house in the Hamptons, lodge in Aspen, or vineyard in Tuscany, his Lear, his children's private schools... and submissively move to the trailer park down the street from you. Forget it. He will take his money to the Caymans, charge another dime per can of soda, buy another senator, and lawyer his way out of it. It is really that simple. You may insist on your class warfare all you want --- it ain't in the cards. There is always an oligarchy, and the oligarchy always prevails. Regardless of system. You cannot have good government. You can only have less government. Even in the old sagas, government is not Robin Hood; government is Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham.
In truth, we need to cut the budget in half, hike taxes a quarter, and pay down the debt, to leave our grandchildren a country worth living in. Half as much government and no debt. Fat chance.
Yes, more extremism. That's the way to fix it. Screw rational thinking. Screw the actual economics. Lets just cut everything. Sure, it will hurt, because there is no planning. Sequestration is not a balanced rational approach. It would be like trying to cut your family budget and weighting cuts in groceries and housing the same as entertainment and cigars. The budget needs to be cut. Revenue needs to be increased. These things can be agreed upon. But taking a hatchet to the whole system? That is not how to do it.
If the Republican Party continues to take it's leadership from the Koch boys and Rush and Trump and Hannity and Rove and Fox and Beck etc., who lead from the extreme far right , and who tell other Americans that they are Femi-*** and Socialists and Communists who should "Get the hell out of the United States", because they are degenerates and sluts and that they aren't really Americans anyway, and that all Latinos should be treated like Alabama and Arizona treats them, then the Republican Party will become extinct.
If, however, the Republican Party can find leadership from the center-right who will respect other Americans and their right to be here, and their right to vote, and stay out of the private lives of other Americans, and recognize that women are citizens too who deserve respect, and behave with civility towards their Democratic counterparts who are not Communists or Socialists or ***, but good, decent Americans just like they are, and who will govern with rationality and pragmatism and with fiscally conservative core values, and who recognize that compormise is the lifes blood of our Republic, then they may well dominate the political landscape for years to come.
Personally, I'm betting on the latter, because the rich guys who just spent a bundle on the former with nothing to show for their efforts are not going down that path again.
All I did was provide a few examples of the "name calling" that was pouring out of conservatives during the last election. That list could have been much much longer. If conservatives want to continue to talk to the rest of us in this way, I am predicting that they will continue to loose elections. I hope that a leadership of the conservative party will emerge and distance itself from this kind of discourse, and from the far extremes of the conservative party, like LA Governor Bobby Jinda is encouraging:
"Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal on Monday called on Republicans to “stop being the stupid party” and make a concerted effort to reach a broader swath of voters with an inclusive economic message that pre-empts efforts to caricature the GOP as the party of the rich."
“It is no secret we had a number of Republicans damage our brand this year with offensive, bizarre comments — enough of that,” Jindal said. “It’s not going to be the last time anyone says something stupid within our party, but it can’t be tolerated within our party. We’ve also had enough of this dumbed-down conservatism. We need to stop being simplistic, we need to trust the intelligence of the American people and we need to stop insulting the intelligence of the voters.”
Compromise was reached. It comprises both tax increases and spending cuts across the board, in a form which each side may conveniently blame upon the other. It will go into effect automatically come the new year. Let it work. Take your punishment. Get it over with. Then make it bigger next time.
I would rather sequestration didn't go into effect, if only because I don't want to find a new job. I am selfish that way.
Sequestration (or "see castration", as I've heard it called) is not a solution, it is a sword of Damacles that was supposed to be so undesirable that it would force an uncompromising Congress to do it's job. If Congress does not avoid this self-inflicted wound, those who are responsible will be removed from office at the mid-term because the American people will be mad as hell that Congress brought back an avoidable recession. That reality is begining to sink in, and I am predicting that there will be 15 or so House Republicans who will find a way to do a deal (which is their job, and which is what they were elected to do, and which is what the American people want Congress to do) to avoid sequestration. Besides, the business community does not want to see this happen; they would rather see a modest increase in taxation than the possibility of even higher un-employment which will produce lower sales and even lower profits, etc. Only someone who does not understand market economic forces would want this to go forward.
I think the DOD needs a huge haircut and these cuts should go forward. One thing the DOD doesn't need is such a huge budget. Bring back the cost to when Clinton was in office and perhaps a bit more but for the amount our tax dollars are being spent when it comes to the DOD there's no reason for it.
Personally I hope no deal is made and come jan 1st Obama gets to sign a bill for the taxes of the people making under 250k to get a tax decrease and he calls it the Obama cuts. Personally I don't think anyone should get tax cuts, and I think the more you make the more tax percentage you pay. Like in days before Reagan. Maybe not 90 percent max but maybe 74 or something max. This who tax issue is a great thing to discuss but the way it has been discussed is not cool. I would love that overtime would be exempt from taxes.
Compromise was reached. It comprises both tax increases and spending cuts across the board, in a form which each side may conveniently blame upon the other. It will go into effect automatically come the new year. Let it work. Take your punishment. Get it over with. Then make it bigger next time.
I would rather sequestration didn't go into effect, if only because I don't want to find a new job. I am selfish that way.
Sequestration (or "see castration", as I've heard it called) is not a solution, it is a sword of Damacles that was supposed to be so undesirable that it would force an uncompromising Congress to do it's job. If Congress does not avoid this self-inflicted wound, those who are responsible will be removed from office at the mid-term because the American people will be mad as hell that Congress brought back an avoidable recession. That reality is begining to sink in, and I am predicting that there will be 15 or so House Republicans who will find a way to do a deal (which is their job, and which is what they were elected to do, and which is what the American people want Congress to do) to avoid sequestration. Besides, the business community does not want to see this happen; they would rather see a modest increase in taxation than the possibility of even higher un-employment which will produce lower sales and even lower profits, etc. Only someone who does not understand market economic forces would want this to go forward.
I think the DOD needs a huge haircut and these cuts should go forward. One thing the DOD doesn't need is such a huge budget. Bring back the cost to when Clinton was in office and perhaps a bit more but for the amount our tax dollars are being spent when it comes to the DOD there's no reason for it.
Personally I hope no deal is made and come jan 1st Obama gets to sign a bill for the taxes of the people making under 250k to get a tax decrease and he calls it the Obama cuts. Personally I don't think anyone should get tax cuts, and I think the more you make the more tax percentage you pay. Like in days before Reagan. Maybe not 90 percent max but maybe 74 or something max. This who tax issue is a great thing to discuss but the way it has been discussed is not cool. I would love that overtime would be exempt from taxes.
If it only was the DoD being hit, I might agree, as it has become a rather bloated mess... other than large, unplanned, and indescriminate budget reductions seem to always make things worse. Orgs will overreact and artificially inflate their budgets to attempt to protect their assets. Also, this will drive more reliance on cheaper contract work, which, while good for me, isn't ideal for long term stability. The whole idea of contracting is to fill short term needs, not long term reliance.
But this hypothetical is moot because it isn't just the DoD being hit. It is everything, once again with no real eye to the long term. Just cuts and hikes to hit a magic target number. Sequestration is not a solution, it is not a compromise, it is the stick of the carrot and stick equation, meant to force both sides to agree to painful changes in order to avoid both political and economic suicide.
Except that family lives in a house it can't afford and eats at 5 star resturants every night. The buget has so many items and buy the law makers votes that it will be next to impossible for them to agree on what to cut. At a 15 trillion debt I'm afraid an axe wouldn't be enough. Taxing people will not make a dent in the debt and I'm afraid all it will do is give the law makers an excuse to spend more. It's a spending problem not a revenue problem.
Comments
Are we talking about the first term increase of taxes on the 1.2% of the wealthy, or the Decrease in taxes on 90% of small businesses? All part of the same act. Seems you only wish to remember the increase on the rich and give it all the credit while ignoring the other half? Convenient.
Is that also ignoring the 15 million low income families who saw tax cuts
Edit: It posted bold because the closing bold tag in your quote is "B/" instead of "/B".
My point is simple: Both sides have become polarizing forces in this country. The fact that people throw around words like "always" and "every" like you did, in absence of facts, leads those unwilling to dig into the truth to become left or right wing sheep. I despise both.
The facts are all there and as in life, the truth often lies in the middle. A middle which no longer exists politically. The largest class in this country is essentially unrepresented, and economically and politically uneducated.
This is not a good thing.
What can be done about Grover Norquist? He isn't elected. He represents a "special interest group", and he is holding the entire Republican Party hostage, forcing them to be obstructionist, unless all of HIS demands are met.
Our government is not supposed to work that way
This is theoretically possible, as a reduction in expenses such as eliminating bloated, ineffective agencies (TSA anyone?) can offset a reduction in taxes, and create a balanced budget. Unfortunately that would take near 100% inter-party co-operation due to the special interest on both sides.
These zealots can't even sit at the table together, let alone compromise to the point where an intelligent policy is written.
Unfortunately what we need is a general population unswayed by rhetoric and willing to demand a functioning governement. As long as we let the "issues" become irrelevant news snippets on abortion, marital affairs, and personal wealth, we are in serious trouble.
I think this could work.
And as much as I dislike Boehner, I gotta commend him for anticipating this problem and trying to tell the GOP congressman to get their $hit together - REPORT: Boehner Tells House Members That GOP Lost Badly, And That They Can't Afford Another Huge Debt Showdown
No, you cannot rob rich men to recoup your extravagance. Class warfare has become fashionable to espouse, but in practice it never works. Any increase in taxes is inevitably paid by the working man. You may hike the top tier income tax to 65% like Hoover did, or even to 90% like FDR did, but even they could not tax our way to prosperity. The CEO of Coke is not about to forego his mistress, his trophy wife, his Bentley, his house in the Hamptons, lodge in Aspen, or vineyard in Tuscany, his Lear, his children's private schools... and submissively move to the trailer park down the street from you. Forget it. He will take his money to the Caymans, charge another dime per can of soda, buy another senator, and lawyer his way out of it. It is really that simple. You may insist on your class warfare all you want --- it ain't in the cards. There is always an oligarchy, and the oligarchy always prevails. Regardless of system. You cannot have good government. You can only have less government. Even in the old sagas, government is not Robin Hood; government is Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham.
In truth, we need to cut the budget in half, hike taxes a quarter, and pay down the debt, to leave our grandchildren a country worth living in. Half as much government and no debt. Fat chance.
If, however, the Republican Party can find leadership from the center-right who will respect other Americans and their right to be here, and their right to vote, and stay out of the private lives of other Americans, and recognize that women are citizens too who deserve respect, and behave with civility towards their Democratic counterparts who are not Communists or Socialists or ***, but good, decent Americans just like they are, and who will govern with rationality and pragmatism and with fiscally conservative core values, and who recognize that compormise is the lifes blood of our Republic, then they may well dominate the political landscape for years to come.
Personally, I'm betting on the latter, because the rich guys who just spent a bundle on the former with nothing to show for their efforts are not going down that path again.
"Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal on Monday called on Republicans to “stop being the stupid party” and make a concerted effort to reach a broader swath of voters with an inclusive economic message that pre-empts efforts to caricature the GOP as the party of the rich."
“It is no secret we had a number of Republicans damage our brand this year with offensive, bizarre comments — enough of that,” Jindal said. “It’s not going to be the last time anyone says something stupid within our party, but it can’t be tolerated within our party. We’ve also had enough of this dumbed-down conservatism. We need to stop being simplistic, we need to trust the intelligence of the American people and we need to stop insulting the intelligence of the voters.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83743.html )
Personally I hope no deal is made and come jan 1st Obama gets to sign a bill for the taxes of the people making under 250k to get a tax decrease and he calls it the Obama cuts. Personally I don't think anyone should get tax cuts, and I think the more you make the more tax percentage you pay. Like in days before Reagan. Maybe not 90 percent max but maybe 74 or something max. This who tax issue is a great thing to discuss but the way it has been discussed is not cool. I would love that overtime would be exempt from taxes.
But this hypothetical is moot because it isn't just the DoD being hit. It is everything, once again with no real eye to the long term. Just cuts and hikes to hit a magic target number. Sequestration is not a solution, it is not a compromise, it is the stick of the carrot and stick equation, meant to force both sides to agree to painful changes in order to avoid both political and economic suicide.