Dems Double Pork Pleasure

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]100meters wrote:

So the path to fiscal responsibility is to first eliminate the tiniest problem.

The reality is this another phony issue, that of course McCain will repeat over and over, because he can’t talk about the cost of his tax cuts, and/or be honest on what exactly he would have to gut to balance the budget. So he talks about “earmarks”, lies about their costs, and then changes his mind (clearly going to keep quite a few earmarks)

Of course today he says he’s going to veto every beer. Economy not his strong suit.[/quote]

Horseshit - and your partisan numbskullery is getting dull.

Earmarks represent exactly what is wrong in government - they are the currency of special interests and a form of political bribery. Democrats claim to give a damn about taming “special interests”, but it’s all manure - and your desire to cavalierly dismiss earmarks as a waste of a policy discussion is nothing more than intellectual dishonesty (to which, you admit, you are no stranger).

McCain at least is willing to stake out a claim to curtailing earmarks, which is a start - the Democrats offer the same K Street politics they always have.

Nope, and your conclusory bullet points fall well short of whatever your goal is. You don’t even know what “better at the economy” means - does it mean Jimmy Carter’s malaise? Or Clinton’s triangulation?

Economic growth - is that based on a raw percentage, or are other factors controlled for, like who inherited a peak or valley in the business cycle that Presidents don’t control?

Are we accounting for the Federal Reserve, which controls monetary policy and credit, and whose Chairman is independent of the President and often serves through several administrations, and whose decision have substantially more direct impact on economic conditions (particularly investment)?

Keep flipping through you DNC brochure - you won’t find a bullet point that answers.

22

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
100meters wrote:

So the path to fiscal responsibility is to first eliminate the tiniest problem.

The reality is this another phony issue, that of course McCain will repeat over and over, because he can’t talk about the cost of his tax cuts, and/or be honest on what exactly he would have to gut to balance the budget. So he talks about “earmarks”, lies about their costs, and then changes his mind (clearly going to keep quite a few earmarks)

Of course today he says he’s going to veto every beer. Economy not his strong suit.

Horseshit - and your partisan numbskullery is getting dull.

Earmarks represent exactly what is wrong in government - they are the currency of special interests and a form of political bribery. Democrats claim to give a damn about taming “special interests”, but it’s all manure - and your desire to cavalierly dismiss earmarks as a waste of a policy discussion is nothing more than intellectual dishonesty (to which, you admit, you are no stranger).

McCain at least is willing to stake out a claim to curtailing earmarks, which is a start - the Democrats offer the same K Street politics they always have.

[/quote]
Partisan? Uh, your party currently king of earmarks. And they spend more.

[quote]

It actually doesn’t ignore those factors. Democrats just better at the economy.

Nope, and your conclusory bullet points fall well short of whatever your goal is. You don’t even know what “better at the economy” means - does it mean Jimmy Carter’s malaise? Or Clinton’s triangulation?

Economic growth - is that based on a raw percentage, or are other factors controlled for, like who inherited a peak or valley in the business cycle that Presidents don’t control?

Are we accounting for the Federal Reserve, which controls monetary policy and credit, and whose Chairman is independent of the President and often serves through several administrations, and whose decision have substantially more direct impact on economic conditions (particularly investment)?

Keep flipping through you DNC brochure - you won’t find a bullet point that answers.[/quote]

Dems have been better at all economic measures, not just GDP. That’s my point.

And again you’ll play by different rules all the time.

Frequently claimed: Obama will raise taxes and said taxes will destroy the economy. (conclusion: dem policies exist in vacuum)

Historical fact: Dems better than Republicans at economy (your conclusion: dem policies don’t exist in vacuum)

23

[quote]100meters wrote:

As already pointed out, republicans worse on earmarks…even now. Truly a fake issue for you.

[/quote]

What was pointed out was that a few Republicans were among the worst - but on average, Democrats create more pork, and are less likely to vote to restrain it.

http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_Ratings_Intro&JServSessionIdr009=qnz8ck6421.app23a

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/08/the_2007_club_for_growth_repor.php

24

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:

Clearly the tax cuts a far, far, far, far, more enormous waste of money.

People keeping their own money is a waste?

Yes, paying that money back with interest is clearly a waste.[/quote]

You say some really dumb things on this forum.

25

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:

Clearly the tax cuts a far, far, far, far, more enormous waste of money.

People keeping their own money is a waste? [/quote]

They’re not tax cuts, it’s the government tasking less of my money. It’s my money. I swear I might vote for a democrat if he honestly said he would take more of my money for a specific thing.

Well, not really, but I’m waiting for a candidate to say he wants to take less of our money.

26

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:

Clearly the tax cuts a far, far, far, far, more enormous waste of money.

People keeping their own money is a waste?

Yes, paying that money back with interest is clearly a waste.

You say some really dumb things on this forum. [/quote]

Funny.
Please post the programs that would have to be cut to bring balance to the budget in addition to the further tax cuts proposed and the war in iraq, and the republicans who will actually vote for those cuts. Since that has never happened and never will happen, can we please discuss the actual realistic solutions.

Keeping in mind you have hilariously voted to support a party that never pays for its spending and spends more than the rival party.

Also, how close are you to the tooth fairy?

27

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:

Clearly the tax cuts a far, far, far, far, more enormous waste of money.

People keeping their own money is a waste?

Yes, paying that money back with interest is clearly a waste.

You say some really dumb things on this forum.

Funny.
Please post the programs that would have to be cut to bring balance to the budget in addition to the further tax cuts proposed and the war in iraq, and the republicans who will actually vote for those cuts. Since that has never happened and never will happen, can we please discuss the actual realistic solutions.

Keeping in mind you have hilariously voted to support a party that never pays for its spending and spends more than the rival party.

Also, how close are you to the tooth fairy?[/quote]

Do you think we should raise the tax rate until the budget is “balanced”? (Lets pretend that this was even possible and these extra taxes were not a brake on the economy.)

You appear to think we are drones of the state.

Your post is complete nonsense, you fling all blame of spending on Republicans when it is clearly both parties that spend wildly.

I do not seem to remember any Democrats pay for their spending. The fictitious balance budget of the Clinton years was driven by a Republican Congress and was never truly balanced.

You live for the Democratic Party and appear to care nothing for the truth or the welfare of our country. You have made so many ridiculous statements in the last few days I don’t even know why I bother to reply to you.

28

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:

Clearly the tax cuts a far, far, far, far, more enormous waste of money.

People keeping their own money is a waste?

Yes, paying that money back with interest is clearly a waste.

You say some really dumb things on this forum.

Funny.
Please post the programs that would have to be cut to bring balance to the budget in addition to the further tax cuts proposed and the war in iraq, and the republicans who will actually vote for those cuts. Since that has never happened and never will happen, can we please discuss the actual realistic solutions.

Keeping in mind you have hilariously voted to support a party that never pays for its spending and spends more than the rival party.

Also, how close are you to the tooth fairy?

Do you think we should raise the tax rate until the budget is “balanced”? (Lets pretend that this was even possible and these extra taxes were not a brake on the economy.)

You appear to think we are drones of the state.

Your post is complete nonsense, you fling all blame of spending on Republicans when it is clearly both parties that spend wildly.

I do not seem to remember any Democrats pay for their spending. The fictitious balance budget of the Clinton years was driven by a Republican Congress and was never truly balanced.

You live for the Democratic Party and appear to care nothing for the truth or the welfare of our country. You have made so many ridiculous statements in the last few days I don’t even know why I bother to reply to you.[/quote]

So you’re avoiding the question?

29

[quote]100meters wrote:

So you’re avoiding the question? [/quote]

Irony.

30

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
100meters wrote:

So you’re avoiding the question?

Irony.

[/quote]

Not really.

Got a question you want me to answer?

31

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I do not seem to remember any Democrats pay for their spending. The fictitious balance budget of the Clinton years was driven by a Republican Congress and was never truly balanced. [/quote]

Tha same as the projected surpluses that never materialized. Playing with the numbers was all…

32

[quote]
thunderbolt23 wrote:

So you’re avoiding the question?

Irony.

100meters wrote:

Not really.

Got a question you want me to answer?[/quote]

Is raising taxes on everyone who makes over $31,850 a year a good way to pay for all of the pork that Obama doesn’t want to cut?

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODBjMjAxOGYzYTRhN2Q3ZDk5NzNmMTIyOWM1MjJmMmM=

33

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

thunderbolt23 wrote:

So you’re avoiding the question?

Irony.

100meters wrote:

Not really.

Got a question you want me to answer?

Is raising taxes on everyone who makes over $31,850 a year a good way to pay for all of the pork that Obama doesn’t want to cut?

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODBjMjAxOGYzYTRhN2Q3ZDk5NzNmMTIyOWM1MjJmMmM=[/quote]

I’ll assume you know that Obama’s tax plan would cut taxes for those folks. In fact his tax cuts would benefit the majority of Americans, where McCain’s will primarily benefit the very upper class.

Since it appears most in here aren’t even aware that Obama is actually going to cut taxes, and given McCain’s incessant distortions about Obama’s plans

it would help if folks read this:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411693
first.

But to answer the question, raising taxes would help pay for the pork, that BOTH would still have. Neither one is going to raise taxes to pay for that, both will increase the debt, but clearly McCain is going to increase the debt substantially more than Obama, requiring vastly more spending cuts, which again, have never happened as promised.

34

[quote]

thunderbolt23 wrote:

So you’re avoiding the question?

Irony.

100meters wrote:

Not really.

Got a question you want me to answer?

BostonBarrister wrote:

Is raising taxes on everyone who makes over $31,850 a year a good way to pay for all of the pork that Obama doesn’t want to cut?

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODBjMjAxOGYzYTRhN2Q3ZDk5NzNmMTIyOWM1MjJmMmM=

100meters wrote:

I’ll assume you know that Obama’s tax plan would cut taxes for those folks. In fact his tax cuts would benefit the majority of Americans, where McCain’s will primarily benefit the very upper class.

Since it appears most in here aren’t even aware that Obama is actually going to cut taxes, and given McCain’s incessant distortions about Obama’s plans

it would help if folks read this:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411693
first.

But to answer the question, raising taxes would help pay for the pork, that BOTH would still have. Neither one is going to raise taxes to pay for that, both will increase the debt, but clearly McCain is going to increase the debt substantially more than Obama, requiring vastly more spending cuts, which again, have never happened as promised.[/quote]

So, allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, and allowing the rates to increase = not a tax increase in Obamamessiah-speak?

From your WaPo article:

McCain spokesman Brian Rogers pointed to an analysis by the nonpartisan Annenberg Political Fact Check that found that the gross tax increase would amount to $103.3 billion in 2011, the largest single-year tax increase since World War II. The Annenberg study pointed out, however, that “most economists” prefer to measure tax changes as a percentage of gross national product, in which case it would be the fifth-largest increase since 1943.

Only the 5th largest! Change be praised! Unity express!

Whereas McCain proposes tax cuts, a pro-family doubling of the dependent exemption, addressing the AMT and not allowing Bush tax cuts to expire (would those be new tax cuts in Obamamessiah speak?).

BTW, arguing that McCain’s trying to eliminate and/or cut pork and not being successful (which is your conclusion, that you project into reality), and Obama’s ignoring pork and participating in earmarks up his yin-yang are the same thing is completely disingenuous. I’m sure in your world the person who pushes an old lady in front of a bus (Obama to taxpayers here) and the person who pushes an old lady out of the way of a bus (McCain to taxpayers here) are both guilty of pushing around an old lady, and thus equally bad…

35

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

thunderbolt23 wrote:

So you’re avoiding the question?

Irony.

100meters wrote:

Not really.

Got a question you want me to answer?

BostonBarrister wrote:

Is raising taxes on everyone who makes over $31,850 a year a good way to pay for all of the pork that Obama doesn’t want to cut?

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODBjMjAxOGYzYTRhN2Q3ZDk5NzNmMTIyOWM1MjJmMmM=

100meters wrote:

I’ll assume you know that Obama’s tax plan would cut taxes for those folks. In fact his tax cuts would benefit the majority of Americans, where McCain’s will primarily benefit the very upper class.

Since it appears most in here aren’t even aware that Obama is actually going to cut taxes, and given McCain’s incessant distortions about Obama’s plans

it would help if folks read this:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411693
first.

But to answer the question, raising taxes would help pay for the pork, that BOTH would still have. Neither one is going to raise taxes to pay for that, both will increase the debt, but clearly McCain is going to increase the debt substantially more than Obama, requiring vastly more spending cuts, which again, have never happened as promised.

So, allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, and allowing the rates to increase = not a tax increase in Obamamessiah-speak?

From your WaPo article:

McCain spokesman Brian Rogers pointed to an analysis by the nonpartisan Annenberg Political Fact Check that found that the gross tax increase would amount to $103.3 billion in 2011, the largest single-year tax increase since World War II. The Annenberg study pointed out, however, that “most economists” prefer to measure tax changes as a percentage of gross national product, in which case it would be the fifth-largest increase since 1943.

Only the 5th largest! Change be praised! Unity express!

Whereas McCain proposes tax cuts, a pro-family doubling of the dependent exemption, addressing the AMT and not allowing Bush tax cuts to expire (would those be new tax cuts in Obamamessiah speak?).

BTW, arguing that McCain’s trying to eliminate and/or cut pork and not being successful (which is your conclusion, that you project into reality), and Obama’s ignoring pork and participating in earmarks up his yin-yang are the same thing is completely disingenuous. I’m sure in your world the person who pushes an old lady in front of a bus (Obama to taxpayers here) and the person who pushes an old lady out of the way of a bus (McCain to taxpayers here) are both guilty of pushing around an old lady, and thus equally bad…[/quote]

To be clear, the working class person will be getting 3x as much in tax cuts under Obama vs. McCain.

Also my point on pork was:
A. It’s not a lot of money (not really going to balance the budget)
B. Won’t really be cut (His own party is running against him on this)
C. He’s not sure what is pork (funding for everglades Ok, when he’s campaigning in the everglades, pork for military families, israel, etc.,etc.)
D. His emphasis on pork/earmarks is overblown relative to other expenses
E. He is proposing further extreme debt for very regressive tax cuts that one can’t pretend removing pork balances in anyway, shape, or form. To balance that requires dramatic spending cuts that he doesn’t discuss.
F. Those dramatic spending cuts will never happen because they are political losers for either party.

36

[quote]100meters wrote:

To be clear, the working class person will be getting 3x as much in tax cuts under Obama vs. McCain. [/quote]

Depends on your definition of “working class” and where the person lives - surprisingly, Obama would be hammering couples with working class purchasing power in big, expensive blue states…

And $300 reduction under McCain vs. $1000 reduction under Obama (only includes income tax analysis) - that’s just under $1 per day versus just under $3 per day. I know I’d base a vote on that difference - whereas Barack intends to enact socialist tax rates on those in the upper income quintiles.

Also, it makes sense that those in the lower quintiles see the least increase in after tax income since they already pay very little in taxes. Short of increasing the amount of ‘refundable’ tax credits there is no way to substantially improve there income. Which, actually, I’m surprised isn’t part of Obama’s plan - at least this one…

[quote]100meters wrote:
Also my point on pork was:
A. It’s not a lot of money (not really going to balance the budget)[/quote]

Not the point - the point is wasting taxpayer money. And in the aggregate, it would be a substantial amount, even if not enough to balance the ridiculous programs of medicare and social security.

[quote]100meters wrote:
B. Won’t really be cut (His own party is running against him on this)[/quote]

His party may come around on the issue - particularly if the Presidential candidate provides leadership - whereas the Dems will not.

[quote]100meters wrote:
C. He’s not sure what is pork (funding for everglades Ok, when he’s campaigning in the everglades, pork for military families, israel, etc.,etc.)[/quote]

Close calls do not defeat the concept. And just look at his record to see the pork he’s voted against - and then look at Barack handing out the pork. No wonder you don’t like the issue…

[quote]100meters wrote:
D. His emphasis on pork/earmarks is overblown relative to other expenses[/quote]

This is the same point as your first point - so re-read my response.

[quote]100meters wrote:
E. He is proposing further extreme debt for very regressive tax cuts that one can’t pretend removing pork balances in anyway, shape, or form. To balance that requires dramatic spending cuts that he doesn’t discuss.[/quote]

The rich will pay 33% instead of 35% - while lower quintiles will still pay lesser percentages - and that constitutes “very regressive”? Maybe to a socialist… High earners would be bending over just a little less than they used to…

And Obama’s plan will reduce revenues by trillions of dollars - and that doesn’t even count his health-care spending plan - so the concern about the “extreme debt” is a mirage. To take your line of argument, you obviously can’t be voting for Obama then, right?

[quote]100meters wrote:
F. Those dramatic spending cuts will never happen because they are political losers for either party.
[/quote]

I’ll grant dramatic cuts in SS are unlikely - but they can do a lot to control its growth without direct “cuts” (cap growth at CPI, raise retirement age, etc.). Medicare is a scary beast - gotta love socialist medicine…