[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
This is a very strong argument for the line-item veto.[/quote]
the line-item veto still has some pretty bad cons to it…in the wrong hands…look out!
how about this being a very strong argument for a balanced bugdet (with possible certain dire exceptions) amendment?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Any idea how much of the future debt will be due to entitlements like the old Dem fav Social Security? It’s broke, and getting broker - and there is no way to stop that or Medicare from breaking everyone - to the tune of OVER 50% of our budget.
But it’s all the Republican’s fault. [/quote]
unfortunately…both the dems and repubs are all about BIG government at this point…
what will it take for a party to get fiscal matters back on track?
no one that espouses tax increases is electable…and no one that espouses cutting government programs is electable either…seems like a no win situation…
[quote]harris447 wrote:
Well, you had the choice between a semi-literate Faulknerian man-boy told what to do by his daddy’s friends who is seemingly intent on tearing down the Bill of Rights and every safety net known to American society…
…or (shudder) a Democrat!
Whoo! Good call, man.
[/quote]
I meant wrt taxes and economic policy. Apparently, someone does have to stop your knee from jerking when you change a lightbulb. 
I vote for what I believe to be the best candidate regardless of party affiliations. Barack Obama was a much better candidate than Alan Keyes, guess who got my vote. Hint: Technically, you could say I voted against the debt ceiling increase.
If you want to take it off topic, I had the choice between a “semi-literate Faulknerian man-boy told what to do by his daddy’s friends who is seemingly intent on tearing down the Bill of Rights and every safety net known to American society” and the loser. No, really, look at Kerry’s campaign, it was no deeper than “I’ll do what W is going to do only different.” Seriously;
“Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires – a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.” President Bush in a Speech at Buffalo NY, April 20, 2004
“Kerry would require a judge to review the evidence before allowing a search of a person’s library records, instead of having the judge act as a rubber stamp, as under current law. In addition, Kerry would require real proof that a sneak-and-peek search is necessary before allowing that type of search, instead of allowing that search virtually anytime. These measures would not reduce the government’s power to fight terror?they would just ensure that the government’s use of these powers is truly necessary.” Kerry Campaign press release, May 5, 2004
One’s going to require a judge, the other a court order, both of which will be conducted in complete secrecy. IMO, my civil liberties are screwed either way.
Well, going off topic here but Bush lied when he said he was getting court orders for roving wiretaps. He’s bypassing the warrant process. That’s what the recent censure proposal from Senator Feingold seeks to address… the president is breaking the FISA law, because he finds the law inconvenient.
Back on topic somewhat
No, that’s not true. The gripe against the prescription drug bill is that it was written by lobbyists and it benefits the drug companies more than it benefits seniors. Plus, it’s confusing as hell. Plus the White House lied about how much it would cost.
You’re more on target re: the No Child Left Behind complaint being it’s underfunded. I would say it’s more accurate to say NCLB was a good idea on paper that was not implemented properly (underfunded for one thing) and is a failure when implemented in a half-assed way.
Yeah, good rebuttal. For example, just think of how much worse we would have been attacked on 9-11 with Democrats in office!!! Really convincing way to explain away Republican failures.
When you have no fact-based rebuttal, I guess you gotta resort to whining about how the big meanies are picking on poor little George Bush. WAAAAH!!!
Republicans finally get control over every branch of the federal government, and it turns out your party’s elected officials don’t actually have any principals when it comes to things like spending, smaller government, entitlement programs, corruption, and pork. You got the Congress that you wanted and the president that you wanted, and they are betraying a lot of their own self-defined principals.
The problem with enlarging the government and entitlement programs is that, as George Bernard Shaw said, “If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul.” Look at Europe: any reasonable politician in France or Germany will admit (and many have admitted, in the Economist recently for example) that they know what has to be done to revive the economy, they just can’t do it and get re-elected. When state power grows, the new dependents and employees of the enlarged state have a stake in the system. That’s what worries me the most about this new big government “conservatism” that Bush has ushered in.
Here’s a possible solution though:
I haven’t bought a copy yet, but it looks fascinating.
[quote]metalsluggx wrote:
Q: What is owed to foreigners?
A: “…As recently as 1970, foreigners owned only 5% of the debt held by the public… By 2005, foreigners had increased their share to 45%…”
[/quote]
Okay, but I would caution you against thinking that this somehow makes us beholden to foreign interests somehow. Let’s pretend that Japan owns all of those T-bills. Does that suddenly make us Japan’s bitch, and now we have to do what they say? Of course not.
I would like to see the foreign ownership of our debt go up, not down. You see, even though interest payments are flowing out of the nation, what this means is that foreign nations have a vested interest in seeing us succeed. That’s how they get their money… a strong US economy = good.
And, an even more fun, but slightly crazy hypothetical way to look at this: the more foreign ownership of our debt, the fewer Americans we screw over if we default on our loans. Imagine that we use this possibility as a weapon, like some kind of global extortion. Sure, we can destroy the world with bombs and whatnot, but we can also do it with money, too. We have the power to collapse the Global economy with relative ease. He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing.
I guess I’m just trying to say that raising the debt ceiling isn’t the end of the world, and there are positive ways to look at it, although I admit I wouldn’t run my personal finances in the same way as our government manages our money. But of course, we all must realize that our nation is NOT the same as a singular citizen. The game our government plays in the world economy is nothing like the game we all play as individuals making our way in this life… different rules, different playing field, different objectives.
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Well, going off topic here but Bush lied when he said he was getting court orders for roving wiretaps. He’s bypassing the warrant process. That’s what the recent censure proposal from Senator Feingold seeks to address… the president is breaking the FISA law, because he finds the law inconvenient.
Back on topic somewhat
Generally when the Dems have been critical of overspending by this Congress, i.e. the prescription drug benefit or “No Child Left Behind,” they criticize them for not being funded well enough…
No, that’s not true. The gripe against the prescription drug bill is that it was written by lobbyists and it benefits the drug companies more than it benefits seniors. Plus, it’s confusing as hell. Plus the White House lied about how much it would cost.
You’re more on target re: the No Child Left Behind complaint being it’s underfunded. I would say it’s more accurate to say NCLB was a good idea on paper that was not implemented properly (underfunded for one thing) and is a failure when implemented in a half-assed way.
if the Democrats were in office do you think the debt would go down? Would the Democrats cut any spending except miliatary spending that would weaken us once again, ala Jimmy Carter or Slick Willy Clinton?
Yeah, good rebuttal. For example, just think of how much worse we would have been attacked on 9-11 with Democrats in office!!! Really convincing way to explain away Republican failures.
But I suspect this is really a red herring to once again just bash Bush.
When you have no fact-based rebuttal, I guess you gotta resort to whining about how the big meanies are picking on poor little George Bush. WAAAAH!!!
Republicans finally get control over every branch of the federal government, and it turns out your party’s elected officials don’t actually have any principals when it comes to things like spending, smaller government, entitlement programs, corruption, and pork. You got the Congress that you wanted and the president that you wanted, and they are betraying a lot of their own self-defined principals.[/quote]
Hey Brad – nice dodge of my questions. Your whinning about how republicans react to people that bash Bush only serves to prove my statement that your diatribe on this thread is nothing more than another veiled attempt to bash our President.
(Nice segway into the “illegal wiretapping” as well – see you really want to bash Bush).
Anyway, my question remains: [b] Are you saying that if Democrats were in office or would regain control of the Congress, that government spending would go down so that the federal debt would decrease?
Yes or No and give solid reasons why you think so…
[/b]
…and stop your liberal whinning, it only serves to make you guys look like bathering “I have no idea how to fix the problem, so I’ll just scream about it” morons.
No offense intended, of course…
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Your whinning about how republicans react to people that bash Bush only serves to prove my statement that your diatribe on this thread is nothing more than another veiled attempt to bash our President. [/quote]
I’m not ‘whinning’ (you mean whining) I’m mocking you.
Buh… Buh… Buh… But Clinton did it too!
Well I would hope so. It’s hard to imagine spending getting any worse. You assume that just because I don’t like Bush’s policies that automatically means I support everything Democrats do. That’s not how it works with me (with most people I’d bet). I hope there is a Dem who will run in 2008 as a deficit hawk, he would get a lot of votes.
Bush and the GOP are making a hell of a fiscal mess and they will certainly not clean it up themselves, they will pass on the problems. Bush has shown repeatedly that he won’t step up and take responsibility for anything. He will pass on the budget problems he is creating.
Here’s my prediction… In November 2006 Congress will stay in GOP control, or it will be 50-50 with Cheney there to cast the tie-breaking vote. Bush leaves office with continued out of control spending, record-setting deficits, New Orleans still a shambles, and troops still in Iraq to the tune of 6 billion dollars a month.
If Democrats do get the presidency in 2008 they will probably want to roll back tax cuts for the wealthiest levels. Republicans will complain bitterly. After two years Democrats will balance the budget. Then Republicans will take credit for it (it was Bush’s tax cuts that actually did it).
But anyway I like your crazy rationale… that no matter how awful a job Bush is doing, somehow it would be even worse if someone else was president.
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Your whinning about how republicans react to people that bash Bush only serves to prove my statement that your diatribe on this thread is nothing more than another veiled attempt to bash our President.
I’m not ‘whinning’ (you mean whining) I’m mocking you.
Buh… Buh… Buh… But Clinton did it too!
Anyway, my question remains: [b] Are you saying that if Democrats were in office or would regain control of the Congress, that government spending would go down so that the federal debt would decrease?
Well I would hope so. It’s hard to imagine spending getting any worse. You assume that just because I don’t like Bush’s policies that automatically means I support everything Democrats do. That’s not how it works with me (with most people I’d bet). I hope there is a Dem who will run in 2008 as a deficit hawk, he would get a lot of votes.
Bush and the GOP are making a hell of a fiscal mess and they will certainly not clean it up themselves, they will pass on the problems. Bush has shown repeatedly that he won’t step up and take responsibility for anything. He will pass on the budget problems he is creating.
Here’s my prediction… In November 2006 Congress will stay in GOP control, or it will be 50-50 with Cheney there to cast the tie-breaking vote. Bush leaves office with continued out of control spending, record-setting deficits, New Orleans still a shambles, and troops still in Iraq to the tune of 6 billion dollars a month.
If Democrats do get the presidency in 2008 they will probably want to roll back tax cuts for the wealthiest levels. Republicans will complain bitterly. After two years Democrats will balance the budget. Then Republicans will take credit for it (it was Bush’s tax cuts that actually did it).
But anyway I like your crazy rationale… that no matter how awful a job Bush is doing, somehow it would be even worse if someone else was president.[/quote]
Well to be fair to you, I have not said that Bush is doing a good job here because I think clearly he is not doing a good job at all with the budget or his fiscal policy.
I am a true conservative who belives in limited government – you know the way the framers originally viewed it. I do feel that the debt is ridiculous and Bush should have the guts to cut spending, but you Dems wouldn’t want the cuts in things beside military spending, which is exactly how the Federal government should be spending its money.
I only asked the question I asked about the Democrats, because where were you Democrats 2 trillion dollars ago when the Democratic controlled government got us up to the 7 trillion dollar debt mark? Is 7 trillion OK, but 9 trillion is bad?
The fact of the matter is that it was the Dems beginning with Roosevelt that began all of the “programs” which the government quite frankly has no business being in the business of. Health and drug programs, a retirement program that makes people forfeit their money if they die without heirs before they collect it, etc.
Social spending is the key to the debt, but you guys seem to have no problem with runaway social programs. Only with our security, but that is exactly where the government is supposed to spend it!
As for the tax cuts for the “rich,” Brad, please study economic history. Every time there is a tax cut, our economy grows, jobs are created, and everyone does better. The fact is that the more money you make, the more taxes you pay so when taxes are cut, the people who pay the most get the most back. It is called being fair – but what do you libs know about fair. You believe in “Robin Hood” economics – er, I should say “Robber Hood” economics…
Oh, by the way, sorry about the spelling errors, but it is late and I do type fast, so stop it with the idiotic mocking – stick to the facts (if you have any).
Take care…
Let me ask you a question Steveo
I see you are a Ronald Reagan fan. Since raising taxes seems to be a big issue with you, how many times did Reagan raise taxes while he was president?
[quote]DPH wrote:
unfortunately…both the dems and repubs are all about BIG government at this point…
what will it take for a party to get fiscal matters back on track?
no one that espouses tax increases is electable…and no one that espouses cutting government programs is electable either…seems like a no win situation…[/quote]
Soc Sec is not a program - it is an entitlement. I remember Bush stumping for privatized SS and winning…twice.
I refuse to pay into the Soc Sec system. I am not giving my money to a bunch of spoiled brat baby boomers. Anyone that thinks Social Security will around for even another 20 years is lying to themselves. FDR should be dug up and shot. and every politician that has vowed to protect it should be drug behind the bumper of a 1967 Dodge half-ton pick up until there is no skin left on their lifeless, evil bodies.
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Let me ask you a question Steveo
I see you are a Ronald Reagan fan. Since raising taxes seems to be a big issue with you, how many times did Reagan raise taxes while he was president?
[/quote]
I don’t know…
…but didn’t he also cut taxes? I do remember that.
When was the last time a Democrat cut taxes? That I cannot remember.
Bear in mind, honestly, I don’t agree with everything Bush does or even what Reagan did. These Presidents more reflect my views than any others in recent times, but I don’t agree in “lock step” with their fiscal programs.
However, that being said, I do remember that the Democrats who were in control of the Congress (or at least the U.S. House of Representatives) during the 1st Bush administration basically forced Bush '41 to raise taxes against his “read my lips” pledge, which eventually cost him the election of '92. Were you aware of this?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
DPH wrote:
unfortunately…both the dems and repubs are all about BIG government at this point…
what will it take for a party to get fiscal matters back on track?
no one that espouses tax increases is electable…and no one that espouses cutting government programs is electable either…seems like a no win situation…
Soc Sec is not a program - it is an entitlement. I remember Bush stumping for privatized SS and winning…twice.
I refuse to pay into the Soc Sec system. I am not giving my money to a bunch of spoiled brat baby boomers. Anyone that thinks Social Security will around for even another 20 years is lying to themselves. FDR should be dug up and shot. and every politician that has vowed to protect it should be drug behind the bumper of a 1967 Dodge half-ton pick up until there is no skin left on their lifeless, evil bodies. [/quote]
Going a little overboard here RJ.
Social security has a ton of problems, I agree.
I think the statistic is that in 1950, 45 % of people over 65 were still working- now, its under 20%. Not only that, but the jobs have gotten easier since 1950, people are in better shape, and living far, far longer than they used to.
Something must be done about social security, and I think it has to do with raising the age at which one can receive it. This might force people to be a little more careful with what they put away, knowing that that check isn’t coming on your 65th birthday.
I would like to see that program evolve into something that is based more off of need than age. If a person is severely disable at 65, let the payments start. If not, they keep working.
Not to mention that the amount of baby boomers is going to be an unbelievable burden. However, social security can survive this. Eliminating it would be one of the worst possible things we could do- it is one program that has undeniably helped the working class and the elderly. Not everyone has money to throw around in saving for retirement. This must be acknowledged.
Well, since the answer to everything is debt, and the baby boom crisis will come and go, why not balloon the debt by another several hundred billion until the baby boomers die off?
It’s just another temporary emergency, like Katrina or the Iraq war… throw money at it until it goes away.
Hey, I think I’m starting to think like a republican!!!
Thought I’d contribute:
Bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch
Bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch
Bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch
Bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch
…Bith bitch bitch bitch bitch
Ummmm…Bitch!
Bitch.
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
I see you are a Ronald Reagan fan. Since raising taxes seems to be a big issue with you, how many times did Reagan raise taxes while he was president?
I don’t know…
…but didn’t he also cut taxes? I do remember that.
When was the last time a Democrat cut taxes? That I cannot remember. [/quote]
Reagan raised taxes six times in total, if I recall right. According to this article, he raised taxes four times just between 1982 and 1984 alone. He also imposed the largest corporate tax increase in history. He enlarged Social Security, and he enlarged the size of the federal government.
“Reagan’s Liberal Legacy”
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0301.green.html
and this:
[quote]Reagan may have resisted calls for tax increases, but he ultimately supported them. In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year, and the Highway Revenue Act of 1982 raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.
According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year.
In 1983, Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate. This is a tax increase that lives with us still, since it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. As a consequence, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year.
The following year, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP. A similar sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion.
The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again. Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first two years. And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more.
The year 1988 appears to be the only year of the Reagan presidency, other than the first, in which taxes were not raised legislatively. Of course, previous tax increases remained in effect. According to a table in the 1990 budget, the net effect of all these tax increases was to raise taxes by $164 billion in 1992, or 2.6 percent of GDP. This is equivalent to almost $300 billion in today’s economy.[/quote]
Great article:
As far as Bill Clinton goes, he didn’t give across-the -board tax cuts. Hows the saying go, Of those who have been given much, much is expected(?) Anyway, you asked for some examples of a Democratic president cutting taxes, here’s a few examples.
[quote]To achieve more growth and more economic opportunity for working families, I have a balanced-budget plan with targeted tax cuts for America’s families:
-more generous Individual Retirement Accounts with funds that can be used without penalty for important investments;
-a tax deduction for the cost of college up to $10,000 a year, and a tax credit up to $1,500 a year for up to two years of community college. [/quote]
This is just what I found on a quick Google search. Now you can stop saying you don’t remember the last time a Democratic president cut taxes.
Tax cuts are good for getting votes but just giving out tax cuts alone doesn’t make good fiscal policy. Dubya may have cut taxes more than Clinton but Clinton had a far more fiscally responsible administration.
You should take a closer look at the Congresses that passed those tax-cutting or tax-increasing laws for the respective Presidents to sign…
And of course, remember that, without a line-item veto, Presidents often sign bills that have sections with which they vigorously disagree in order to get what they consider higher priorities. With Reagan, those would be defense bills during the Cold War…
Oh I get it.
Reagan deserves more credit than Congress, while Clinton deserves less.
Nice flip flopping.
Reagan raised taxes but he spun it as ‘tax reform’. The biggest increase in corporate taxes in history. Six increases in taxes.
When it suits you, then DURR, TAX INCREASE ALWAYS BAD. Except when a Republican raises taxes, and then all of a sudden it all gets very nuanced, doesn’t it.
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Oh I get it.
Reagan deserves more credit than Congress, while Clinton deserves less.
Nice flip flopping.[/quote]
Where did you get that? Did you pull it entirely out of your own butt? Or was it partially formed elsewhere and molded together with the steamy pile of crap that coalesced into that non-sequiter? Because you surely didn’t get it from comprehending my point…
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Reagan raised taxes but he spun it as ‘tax reform’. The biggest increase in corporate taxes in history. Six increases in taxes.
When it suits you, then DURR, TAX INCREASE ALWAYS BAD. Except when a Republican raises taxes, and then all of a sudden it all gets very nuanced, doesn’t it.[/quote]
I was attempting to give you the historical context and get you to wrap you mind around how the process of passing a law actually works. Perhaps you should rent the best of School House Rock and watch the “I’m Just A Bill” cartoon a few times, and then come back to the discussion.
Or you can just keep not comprehending things, pulling points out of your own butt to attribute to others, and generally providing amusement in the manner of the intellectual equivalent of a midget-wrestling battle royale.
Aw, you’re just mad that Reagan passed the biggest corporate tax increase in history, and that Reagan raised taxes six times, and you don’t have a good rebuttal.
Here, watch this
http://www.toptips.com/debtclock.html