Reviewers Recommend
- review by Iggy Ego
Director: Stills by Alan
Starring: Jelena Jensen, Sarah Vandella, Syren De Mer, Georgia Jones, Alexis Fawx, Cadence Lux, Katrina Jade, Mindi Mink, Jenna Foxx, Alex Grey, Scarlett Sage.
All smartbuydisc.rus > World News Nonsense > Budget Battles: Tax Spending Myths Realities > Budget Battles: Tax & Spending Myths & Realities (page 15)
Page 15 of 22 First < 3 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 > Last
AuthorPost

Senior Member

2759 Posts
11/09
Posted - Feb 23 2013 : 12:00PM
Medicare is in there. And it should be!

Senior Member

2759 Posts
11/09
Posted - Feb 23 2013 : 12:15PM
As part of John Boehner’s “plan B” approach to avoiding the fiscal cliff (embarked upon after initial talks with the White House broke down), the House on Dec. 20, 2012, passed the Spending Reduction Act of 2012. The plan would have replaced the 2013 defense sequester with a variety of spending cuts, including cuts to food stamps, the Affordable Care Act and Dodd-Frank (including eliminating the “orderly liquidation authority” at the center of the legislation). It would have reduced the size of the domestic sequester in proportion to the $19 billion in discretionary savings included in the bill.

Republicans have conceded that they won’t be able to pass the bill again, even in the House, but it provides a model for what Republicans want in a temporary replacement: no tax increases, no defense cuts and considerable domestic spending reductions.
This is why I and many others would never support these guys.
 
Golden Age Classic

13495 Posts
5/01
Posted - Feb 23 2013 : 12:57PM
Cody, you have actually listed the true problem with tax cuts right in your own post.
That's it right there. No not defense cuts in specific, but the fact that everyone has some program that they themselves are financially attached to and therefore don't want cut and are incredibly happy to see everything but their special program(s) cut. You are all happy to cut Head Start, which can only serve to better our population through education, but defense cuts, no, they are "cutting into my accounts." I'm not trying to single you out. I think that every single person out there has this issue. There is some program that for one reason or another they want no cuts to, but are okay with anything they aren't attached to being slashed to pieces. The end result of this is constant bickering and fighting. If we are going to have cuts, plain and simple, each program has to be truly rated as to how it helps Americans and cut accordingly. Despite anyone's attachment to their bank accounts.

Senior Member

7415 Posts
8/10
Posted - Feb 23 2013 : 1:20PM
I fully agree which is why the sequester is sort-of a good start. It's a direct attack on the cuts-for-thee-not-for-me crowd.
to see fewer adsAdult DVD Talk is Sponsored by
email for advertising info

Senior Member

2709 Posts
6/06
Posted - Feb 23 2013 : 3:17PM
^^
 
All-Star Member

"You have sacrificed nothing and no one."
6309 Posts
8/10
Posted - Feb 23 2013 : 8:23PM
First, everything I posted is absolutely 100% word-for-word correct.
"Medicare is in there," while true, fails to convey accurately that Medicare is NOT being treated like other items in The Sequester.
When Cody says "...because the sequester exists to force cuts in exactly those programs," he is just wrong.
Not only wrong, but obviously wrong, and easily shown to be wrong by reading the factual information that is easily available to be read.
(Yes, Goldstein realizes that factual information has no use to Cody, or the partisans he shills for.)
[link inactive:404 - Page not found]Sequestration - CNBC Explains
"Which programs are exempt from sequestration?
The list is long which may make it difficult to reach an agreement between Republicans and Democrats. Among the programs currently exempt from being targeted for cutbacks are Social Security, Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly called food stamps), Supplemental Security Income, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
Also exempt are Pell grants, which are student loans, spending from most transportation trust funds (which support highways, mass transit, and airports), and all programs administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs. President Obama also exercised his discretion to exempt military personnel accounts for 2013.
Most of Medicare payments to providers are subject to sequestration but limited to a 2 percent reduction. (Some of Medicare is exempt, and a small portion is subject to the full sequester.)
Also on the list of exemptions: compensation of the current President -- as well as pensions of former presidents -- and payments to widows and heirs of deceased members of Congress.
Other exemptions include advances to the Unemployment Trust Fund and Other Funds, payment of Vietnam and USS Pueblo prisoner-of-war claims within the Salaries and Expenses, and the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Trust Fund."

As to what is being affected, I was obviously wasting my time when I posted this, here in this very thread.
If anyone bothered to actually read the post, they would have seen this in the very first paragraph:
"In less than two weeks, a cleaver known as the sequester will fall on some of the most important functions of the United States government. About $85 billion will be cut from discretionary spending over the next seven months, reducing defense programs by about 8 percent and domestic programs by about 5 percent. Only a few things will be spared, including some basic safety-net benefits like Social Security, as well as pay for enlisted military personnel."
Even though the article was not specifically discussing items that would be spared from The Sequester, it took a moment to properly frame the discussion.
Cody wastes our time with his inaccurate talking points.
The infuriating part of it is that, he does so to spread his agenda -- NOT to further the discussion trying to be had here (and, I suspect, often to merely try to derail it).
Now, HERE'S a piece of factual information (again, that I posted right here in this thread) that is completely ignored (other than being noticed by one poster):
"As for entitlements, Republicans mainly want to cut those that mostly go to the middle class and the poor, while ignoring nearly $1.1 trillion in annual deductions, credits and other tax breaks that flow disproportionately to the highest income Americans and that cost more, each year, than Medicare and Medicaid combined. Clearly then, there is both ample room and justification to reduce the deficit by curbing tax breaks at the high end, as Mr. Obama has proposed and Republicans have rejected."
The first comment following this?
You guessed it, Cody immediately throwing something else up (i.e. the David Brooks Op-Ed that has thoroughly been debunked).
So, I repeat, when do we work this FACT into the conversation?
"As for entitlements, Republicans mainly want to cut those that mostly go to the middle class and the poor, while ignoring nearly $1.1 trillion in annual deductions, credits and other tax breaks that flow disproportionately to the highest income Americans and that cost more, each year, than Medicare and Medicaid combined.
Edited by - Goldstein on 2/23/2013 8:24:42 PM

Senior Member

7415 Posts
8/10
Posted - Feb 24 2013 : 5:23AM
I didn't mean that the sequester cuts those programs.
I meant that the sequester exists to scare Democrats into agreeing to cut entitlement benefits, mainly Medicare. The sequester has a few choice cuts for Medicare providers, all of which are welcome, though it's far preferable to cut benefits.
 
Golden Age Classic

13495 Posts
5/01
Posted - Feb 24 2013 : 10:04AM
So if that is the case Cody, where is the other half, the part of the sequester to scare Republicans into agreeing to cut military funding?
 
Big Double Everything Fan

Poor Turkey running for her life with Christmas Hat
9726 Posts
9/01
Posted - Feb 24 2013 : 11:11AM
Yes, and add to that increase in taxes for everyone, especially the hedge fund managers. Their main goal is to move money around, avoid paying taxes, and extract all the wealth out of the economy. They are not the job producers my friend.

Senior Member

7415 Posts
8/10
Posted - Feb 24 2013 : 11:39AM
They're in the sequester. The military cuts are, in part, the Democrats' means to scare the Republicans into agreeing to raise taxes.

Senior Member

2759 Posts
11/09
Posted - Feb 24 2013 : 6:44PM
First, everything I posted is absolutely 100% word-for-word correct.
"Medicare is in there," while true, fails to convey accurately that Medicare is NOT being treated like other items in The Sequester.
Cody wastes our time with his inaccurate talking points.
Click to expand
I didn't say it wasn't?
I barely scan what Cody writes. I hear enough of what the crazies on Fox spew on a regular basis.
 
All-Star Member

"You have sacrificed nothing and no one."
6309 Posts
8/10
Posted - Feb 25 2013 : 9:17AM
Bullshit nonsense.
The Sequester is an across-the-board-slash-and-burn -- cutting virtually everything indiscriminately -- precisely because the parties couldn't, wouldn't, can't and refuse to agree on targeted cuts and increased revenues.
Nobody received an "advantage" in The Sequester (although Speaker Boehner claims he got "98% of what he wanted").
 
All-Star Member

"You have sacrificed nothing and no one."
6309 Posts
8/10
Posted - Feb 25 2013 : 8:04PM
Just in time for the upcoming vacation season...
SouthRimCuts.jpg

By LESLIE MACMILLAN
February 22, 2013
Unless Congress can reach a budget agreement by March 1, the country's national parks will be hit by a $110 million budget cut, resulting in shuttered campgrounds, shorter seasons, road closings and reduced emergency services, a parks advocacy group reports.
Great Smoky Mountains National Park will close four campgrounds. The Grand Canyon National Park will shorten visitor center hours at the South Rim. Cape Cod National Seashore in Massachusetts will close its visitors center and restrict access to large sections of the Great Beach. And Yosemite and Yellowstone will delay summer road openings up to four weeks, according to the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, which said it obtained the details from sources in the park service.
Jeffrey Olson, a National Park Service spokesman, confirmed that the information in the coalition's statement was accurate. "We hope it doesn't come to pass," he said.
The park service itself has warned that the public should be prepared for reduced hours and services, including the "closing of camping, hiking and other recreational areas when there is insufficient staff to ensure the protection of visitors, employees, and historic, cultural and natural resources."
Park advocates like the coalition of former employees are urging Congress to prevent the cuts, which it estimates would slice 5 percent from the park service's $2.2 billion budget.
Joan Anzelmo, a spokeswoman for the retirees group, pointed out that America's 398 national parks and monuments attract 280 million visitors a year, and that consumer spending at the parks supports 247,000 jobs and yields a $31 billion economic impact. "Congress should be strategic, and if you're going to be strategic, you don't cut the revenue generators," she said.
Beyond providing revenue, she said, visitors "have a deep, emotional connection to the parks. They're our heritage. But if we relied on today's Congress, there would be no Yellowstone, there would be no Grand Canyon, because they can't put aside their partisan differences to get their job done."
Any entity that receives federal money, like school districts and military bases, is subject to the automatic federal budget cuts known as sequestration. The former park employees say that the effects would be severe because the cuts would be made over the seven remaining months of the 2013 fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30.
Chuck Neal, a retired ecologist with the Department of the Interior, which oversees the park service, said he worried that reduced staffing at the parks could "open opportunities for local, hooligan-types to create some mischief, such as poaching and harassing wildlife."
More broadly, conservationists see the looming cuts as part of a worrisome trend that undervalues natural resources like parks. "That trend has been in the works for some time, starting with Reagan," Mr. Neal said. In his view, President Obama has not reversed it.
State and local officials also worry about the impact on their economies. Tourism is the "No. 2 industry in Wyoming, and Yellowstone is a big part of that," said Renny MacKay, a spokesman for Gov. Matt Mead of Wyoming.
Rick Howe, director of visitor services at the Jackson Hole Chamber of Commerce, said that businesses in communities adjacent to Yellowstone were working with the state on contingency plans. He declined to offer specifics on whether, for example, state money could be used to plow park roads so that they opened on schedule.
Ms. Anzelmo said the coalition released the details of how the cuts would affect the parks to alert the public and to send a message to Congress. "This is America. Come on, run the country," she said.

Edited by - Goldstein on 2/25/2013 8:09:58 PM


Senior Member

7415 Posts
8/10
Posted - Mar 7 2013 : 5:05AM

But, wait a second, Obamacare may grease the skids for envisioned reforms.
No, of course that doesn't matter. But it's all true, and an interesting spin on things. I like it, that is for sure.
to see fewer adsAdult DVD Talk is Sponsored by
email for advertising info

Senior Member

7415 Posts
8/10
Posted - Mar 10 2013 : 11:12AM
^Well that was one idea.
In reality, well, :
Ryan's on Fox News Sunday right now, and Chris Wallace is actually hounding him, but, per Sunday show decorum, he gets to deliver all of his talking points, which are mostly good.

Senior Member

7415 Posts
8/10
Posted - Mar 13 2013 : 5:49AM
[link inactive:404 - Page not found]The budget is out. This time, it will be paired with a competing offer from Senate Democrats. On a just-the-numbers basis, the House's pledge to balance the federal books in ten years faces off against the Senate's "balanced approach" that achieves less than half of the deficit reduction.
It's much more like the first iteration in that it spends less time dwelling on the past and focuses heavily on selling reform. The budget, in fact, takes a firm stance on capping Pell Grants, tailoring student aid to the "truly needy", further reforming the "safety net" with stronger work requirements, and passing a SKILLS Act to upgrade workers' training programs. It gets downright specific in the call to approve the Keystone Pipeline. And of course, it calls for dramatic reforms to Medicare.
And even with all that, Ryan concedes all of the post-November occurrences, as Think Progress pointed out. $600 billion from the "fiscal cliff" tax increase to restore the top rate under Bill Clinton, the $1.2 trillion sequester figure, and the whole 2013 baselines. And still, the Democrats sneer. Supposedly, they are "gleeful" to run against the Ryan budget in 2014 (perhaps they should be more gleeful about entering serious budget negotiations in 2013). It's why the official talking points are rather defensive - spending goes up under both plans, but less under this one.
Paul Ryan devoted :
I've been saying that for almost a year. So did Ryan, but he felt a better message was needed. Now he realizes sensibility is a component of "prudence" and largely missing from political discourse.
Once again, the plan is all in for revenue-neutral tax reform. When the president or Simpson/Bowles propose it, it's all the rage. When Romney did, it was a key segway to talk about the Cayman Islands. When Ryan does, it's "flim-flam." THIS is another egregious double standard. We absolutely can produce a revenue-neutral clearing of the tax code, and we should, and why? Because there is no fucking point in raising taxes, or "it’s not fair to take more just to spend more in Washington." It is total bullshit how this gets bogged down in the "tax cuts for fat cats" political rhetoric, so much so that is hardly worth the fight. That Ryan and House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp think it still is worth it is encouraging, and galvanizing.
The typical tax reform call to arms, that the economy will come roaring back, is too optimistic. No, we don't have a plan to revitalize the economy - we don't plan economies - any revitalization is going to come in spite of gov't action, for the most part.
The best part of this budget is its forceful 1996 Workfare rehash. Reform will help you. It will save money. It will help the economy. It's more fair than the status quo. Why not reform under-performing government programs, and we know the 1996 efforts worked so why not apply them across the whole slate of government aid? There really is no good retort. Democrats demagogue, that is it. But it's rather easy to digest.
Programs to help the poor should be run better. They would be run better by the states, and all of their funding will still increase, so no, this is not "to fuck the poor." No one wants to "fuck the poor.". Even "the 47% are victims and takers" shit wasn't about fucking the poor, but about ignoring their politics, and "takers vs. makers" is a quixotic tax revolt trick. Once again, all of their funding increases so how is it fucking the poor to insist these programs be run better? It's not. There's no excuse to not reform gov't programs, none.
But still, "empowerment" vs. "dependency" is easily demagogued, and it will be. And we tend to respond to it poorly (think "gifts", "free stuff"). It's a good message - "the best welfare program is temporary and ends with a job and a stable, independent life for the beneficiary" - and all true - the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families [TANF] reforms cut welfare caseloads in half as poverty rates declined. Child poverty in single-female-headed households fell from 55 to 39 percent by 2001, which was the largest ten-year decline in poverty among such children since the 1960s, but truth is the first casualty of bitter partisan turf wars over truly disappointing government programs. If anyone's fucking the poor, it's the government that under-serves them.
And then there's Medicare and Social Security. Nothing new. He calls for Obama to address Social Security's long term sustainability and means-tested premium-support with traditional Medicare as an option, exactly as he did one year ago. Ron Wyden isn't here to give the idea a bipartisan coat. I think that is a good thing though.
Then it goes onto rethink fairness, Republican-style, as in capitalism, baby, yeah!
Not totally wipe out green energy funding, but give it a good whack, and it deserves it.
Also, drilling.
Also, wind down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, no specifics. "Revisit" Dodd-Frank, few specifics, broad principles.
Defense spending remains high. The [link inactive:404 - Page not found]team reasons "We’re providing the minimum level that the Joint Chiefs have testified is necessary to execute President Obama’s defense strategy."
That is "$560.2 billion in funding for fiscal year 2014, an amount consistent with our responsibilities.
The rest is process,
So, yeah, that.
All to lead to a surplus in 2023. Gotta assume a lot of growth to get there. It's rosy, too rosy, but they've made the numbers work. The president "my budget will not be balanced for the sake of balance." Not that Paul Ryan and the Republicans would let that suffice, including "a balanced budget is a means to an ends; a balanced budget will foster a healthier economy and help create jobs." Sure it will, but I'll take better retort for $800 Alex.
Supposedly, the Democrats are taking the president's approach but, finally, will present their own long-term budget, which will receive the same treatment, but I have less insight into traditional Democratic thinking, as I'm not a liberal Democrat. I'll try my best though.
 
Golden Age Classic

13495 Posts
5/01
Posted - Mar 13 2013 : 1:19PM
If we wanted energy independence, shouldn't we be looking at breeder reactors not the vastly depleted oil, which everyone knows won't hold out too much longer.

fubar

7535 Posts
12/09
Posted - Mar 13 2013 : 9:47PM
We should (and will) be using less energy. Fissible elements will run out soon enough, and there is no place on earth stable enough to hold nuclear waste for the duration of its radioactivity.

Senior Member

7415 Posts
8/10
Posted - Mar 13 2013 : 10:33PM
Before getting to the Senate budget, the Morning Joe crew hosted a downright budget debate this morning between and the ranking member, .
Ryan was downright conciliatory, insisting there compromises between his and the Senate budget outline that "do not offend the principles of either party" and that the passage of budgets "provides a vehicle" for those compromises to become law. That probably requires presidential leadership, so it's certainly wishful thinking that the compromises will be made, but there's room for them, for sure. In fact, Ryan flatly said a compromise between the current spending level (5%) and the one in the House budget (3.4%) is ideal.
He did hold the line on Obamacare, saying it will "collapse under the weight of its own unpopularity." We've been saying that for years, but now that it's being implemented and it's having a mostly negligible effect on the economy as a whole, those warnings have not become reality. Perhaps some more headlines about rising health care premiums, small business jobs vanishing, and liberals lashing out at business for once again, as always, and as they should, adapting to rather than submitting to the torrent of regulations will dampen its legacy. But I don't think negative headlines derail government programs. So Ryan and the Republicans should take a page out of their donor base's playbook and adapt to the existence of the ACA, to improve it where they can, and fight for alternatives to empowering bureaucrats at the expense of patients, doctors, and insurance providers. The fight isn't over, but repealing it with an ear toward public opinion is just not the right call.
Van-Hollen did his best, but really just outlined the budget outline. Some messaging points like "we start with Simpson-Bowles and raise about the same amount of revenue, beg the question why not include fundamental entitlement reform as Simpson-Bowles as well? Because cuts in Medicare should happen in the ten-year budget window. Sure that would help, but the point of long-term reform is long-term balance. He said the president can push Dems to accept some long-term reforms but wasn't all that specific.
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13912 Posts
1/08
Posted - Mar 13 2013 : 11:24PM
What was most striking about the unveiling of Paul Ryan’s latest budget blueprint on Tuesday was how familiar it felt. Here was the chairman of the House Budget Committee for the third time in three years offering a dramatic reimagining of the size and scope of the federal government, with plans for deep tax cuts slanted heavily toward the rich, the voucherization of Medicare, and a thinning of the safety net. In the spring of 2011 and 2012, Ryan put forward similar plans, which his House Republican colleagues quickly pushed through the chamber only to watch them die in the Senate. And now, with a few politically cynical tweaks, the annual ritual is once again being observed.
In terms of Ryan’s political standing, there are two ways of looking at this. On the plus side, he remains a very relevant figure in Washington and in his party. On the downside, you’d never know that just a few months ago he was the nominee of a major political party for the second most powerful office in America. Watching his latest budget rollout, there’s no evidence Ryan enjoys any additional clout or stature thanks to his vice-presidential campaign. He’s playing the same role he played before Mitt Romney drafted him onto the GOP ticket last summer.

-
"Here we go again. Republicans are stuck in a perpetual Groundhog Day." - Rachel Maddow.
woodchuck1.jpg
 
Golden Age Classic

13495 Posts
5/01
Posted - Mar 13 2013 : 11:42PM
Breeder Reactors nuclear waste as a much shorter lifespan than the nuclear reactors we are using in the US right now.

Senior Member

7415 Posts
8/10
Posted - Mar 14 2013 : 4:37AM
Well, so far, the most consistent reaction to the unveiling of the House Budget for FY 2014 has been, well, that ^^. But this year, a companion piece joins the fray, the [link inactive:404 - Page not found]Senate Budget for FY 2014. And a lot of that ^^ applies here too. Barack Obama's grand retort to the House Budget for FY 2013 was that it was "thinly veiled social-darwinism" because it had the nerve to suggest the government could do without $6 trillion it planned to spend over fifty years.
Now, the Democrats have their own reality-based vision document. And it's actually good. Most importantly, all those things that Paul Ryan's budget said we could do without - marginal increases in the budget authority for infrastructure, welfare spending, unemployment insurance, tuition grants, and above all the direct subsidization of millions of Americans' health care are all due to face cutbacks.
The Senate's budget pledges $493 billion worth of cutbacks "including $275 billion in health care savings made in a way that does not harm seniors or families." The rest of deficit reduction comes from "$240 billion saved by carefully and responsibly cutting defense spending to align with the drawdown of troops in our overseas operations" and "$242 billion saved in reduced interest payments." Ryan usually dismisses those as "gimmicks" but then adds them in the House budget, and 2014's iteration is no different so gimmicks or not, we'll take them.
The plan actually takes the lame approach of the last two House budgets to explain "how we got here" in a partisan, biased way. Ryan white-washed war spending to blame the deficit on Obama. And lo and behold the Democrats white-wash Obama's record to blame the deficit on George W. Bush. Then they admit the recession of 2008 depleted the federal coffers after record highs in 2007. That 2007 record is on track to get trounced in 2013 (because federal revenue is largely influenced by the vast expansions of wealth driven by the health of the financial industry), but deficits, well, they will persist. Spending is the problem.
But the Senate Democrats pledge $100 billion in new spending. Why not leave infrastructure spending at its current record high and target the spending better? It seems that is sort of what they're doing. The table doesn't record an increase of $100 billion dollars for transportation and energy spending. I don't know why transportation/infrastructure spending needs a net increase, year over year, starting with a $100 billion stimulus. That shit gets wasted and doled out to unworthy but politically-connected industries far too easily. Go ahead and propose a detailed stimulus bill. Now that the Republicans are in control of the House, I'm sure all the pork and favors will fall out fast.
But the rest is labeled "prioritization." What an interesting concept. You mean some programs should grow slower than others, and some not at all? Not exactly, but the Democrats here begin making some sense.
They defend, and fund, the federal investment in early education. Not a Republican priority, that is missing from the Ryan budget entirely, slated for significant reduction, and backed up by plenty of evidence that it's worthless. The Dems have their evidence that it's not. Budget battle.
Higher education is the place of debate.
Pell Grants, after bloviating for a few paragraphs on how the House's budget would slash them and leave middle class families with no way to afford college, they go for, wait for it, indexing the grants to inflation. Tuition inflation is HUGE, and . Chasing runaway tuition with runaway federal spending - that is the ticket. Not only is it not sexy, it's stupid.
Then it's energy and transportation. A new energy grid, mass-transit (that better not be that fuckin' bullet train), road improvement, and the holy grail of government waste, research grants. It's more than a few dimes cut out, but not much, and certainly not enough. Oh how I hope the Democrats will continue to insist that we can't much from programs that have sent millions of dollars to colleges that have , among other things. I love those headlines.
Beyond that, the real difference between Ryan's approach to discretionary spending and the Democrats' is the sequester. Democrats want it replaced "with a balanced approach" of half new revenue and half "more targeted spending reductions". Republicans want its figure exactly as it is, considering it a down-payment on fiscal sobriety. But even the Democrats don't note just how much "prioritizing investment" will require reductions, actual cutbacks in spending.
You have to go into the [link inactive:404 - Page not found]summary [link inactive:404 - Page not found]tables to find them but they're there. In fact, props to the Dems this year in listing, by "function", what needs to be funded, in their eyes. The Republicans just toss the functions into "discretionary" and "other" and you (and your lawyer) have to dig into the legislation to figure out exactly which programs are due for a hit. In fact, they always put defense spending into "Global War on Terrorism" and "other mandatory" spending" to keep the numbers smaller.
So, prioritization. Democrats propose cutting:
National defense by $87 billion. The exact same as Republicans. Ryan's budget gets all high-and-mighty about national defense, proposing a baseline of $560.2 billion in 2014, and the Democrats pledge...$560.2 billion. The sequester makes it $491 billion.
International Affairs by $10.5 billion.
Energy by $1.9 billion.
National Resources and Environment protection by $1.4 billion.
Transportation by $12 billion.
Community and Regional Development by $26 billion. The fuck? What is in there that we're currently funding that even Democrats could accept a $26 billion cut? Was that sequestered?
Let's [link inactive:404 - Page not found]check that out, from the House Budget website, it "provides appropriated funding for the Community Development Block Grant, Department of Agriculture rural development programs, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and other disaster mitigation and community development-related programs." Oh, it's Hurricane Sandy Relief.
I'm pretty sure Medicare cuts are according to Obamacare. So that is a wash. Supposedly, the House budget cuts $716 billion from Medicare over the next ten years, and I know Obamacare does. The differences aren't huge. The changes occur in 2022, when the gov't will have to spend $885 billion on Medicare. After that, the Democrats insist that the changes in Obamacare provide a sustainable baseline.
The Republicans think provider cuts aren't enough. So starting in 2023 a means-tested benefit cut would take effect, and with it the option of more market-based Medicare, with traditional Medicare offered as well. That's a "voucherization" say the Democrats, one that would see seniors forced to pay how much more out of pocket? $0. Zero dollars more than they would under current law. What horror!
But health care is the huge difference. The Democrats pledge a total of $6.6 trillion to health care, as opposed to the House's $2.6 trillion. $4 trillion of the touted headline number of the House budget - $4.6 trillion in cuts - all come from "health." None of that is from the sequester. It's simply the Democrats refusing to reduce healthcare spending from its current path, on track to overwhelm the entire current budget.
They refuse to cut Medicaid. Republicans want to cut about $700 billion there. And then it's Obamacare. The Republican budget only balances with Obamacare gone, but as Chris Van-Hollen will note, only its benefits, not its taxes. So that is why Ryan's ideal situation to repeal it is so controversial. The whole idea of balance is gone. This isn't Paul Krugman or Steve Kornacki saying this. It's me. It's my analysis, and Paul Ryan is my hero. But it's the truth. No amount of hero worship can cover it. I too believe to my core Obamacare is a disaster, and should be repealed, and replaced with patient-centered not-so-universal health insurance. But it won't be.
So there are the key differences in spending. It's good to hear that spending needs to be cut, but I was hoping it would be long-term spending, and thus health care spending. Democrats can't stomach that. That is why their budget never balances, not even with $1 trillion in revenue demands. Barack Obama, of all people, articulated it best.
He said, "if you look at the numbers, Medicare in particular will run out of money, and we will not be able to sustain that program no matter how much taxes go up. It’s not an option for us to just sit by and do nothing." Medicare's the most precarious, but it is not self-funding and the totality of health spending threatens the fiscal longevity of the whole country. You know it, I know it, and even Barack Obama knows it - health care spending is unsustainable. If there is a debt crisis, it will be because of mandatory, unsustainable health care spending.
But the Dems say we can try. Their headline is the "balanced approach."
Hell, the Democrats even quote their counterpart.
He's exactly right. But the point of revenue is to fund government functions, right? What's really so important to fund that we need to extract $975 billion from taxpayers over the next ten years? And if it's that important, why not pledge to fully fund it?
Back to the Dems.
And so your budget never balances...ever? Both budgets insist that year over year increases in actual outlays can be sustained, but at least one of them pretends to chart a path to a balanced budget. It isn't that hard. A freeze in spending would balance the budget much quicker than ten years. But not even Paul Ryan's "party of austerity" would propose that. Not even Rand Paul proposes that. A balanced budget is always a worthwhile goal, and the economic benefits of even pursuing one are on the whole positive, according to most credible economists. It's a means to an ends, with a long-term growing economy as the ends.
But the Democrats are choosing politics on tax reform. They officially propose that their Finance Committee look into it and report by October 1st. Ryan has taken major heat for officially proposing that the House Ways and Means Committee take up the burden. Egregious double standards are killing the country, media. Of course, we can whack loopholes and I'd argue revenue neutrality is more of a misnomer anyway. There are plenty of egregious expenditures and getting to $975 billion will give them all a shaking. Hey Democrats, so fond of quoting Paul Ryan, look into circumscribing some deductions as he has, and Mitt Romney offered this great idea to put a cap on all deductions that rich people would only get to take a "basket of deductions" in the end.
But the parties have their sides here, and couple the Democrats' electoral advantage with a GOP that feels it was sodomized in the "fiscal cliff" embarrassment and you have all the ingredients for pure gridlock. And hand that one the GOP - the status quo is no new revenue. That beats raising revenue any day to the majority of Republican voters. That is why the only prospect is "the grand bargain", a grand compromise where the Democrats pledge to significantly and permanently slash long-term entitlement spending. The prospects for that are dim and getting dimmer. And the politics of changing that are still unclear.
Of course there are more key differences. For one, the House budget balances partially because a cap is maintained on federal spending. The limits set forth in the Budget Control Act of 2011 are due to expire in 2021. The Democrats let them, which is why all of the ten-year totals are extremely high as all spending would then get a major hike. The Republicans might as well consider those caps permanent, saying they should be extended throughout the whole ten-year budget window.
But it's better than phrases. The politics are kind of muddy. Do red state Democratic Senators want to vote for $1 trillion+ in net tax increases? How about defend every dollar in Obamacare and Medicaid? Chuck Todd thinks Paul Ryan's plan is meant to get just 218 Republican votes and Patty Murray's to get just 51 Democratic votes. No bipartisanship in budget battles. But then what? Well, it becomes a vehicle for long-term compromises, or a campaign issue, and likely both. The Democrats supposedly really like being on offense against Paul Ryan's House Budget, but now they have their own, so at least it's a fair fight.
Budget battles.
 
All-Star Member

"You have sacrificed nothing and no one."
6309 Posts
8/10
Posted - Mar 14 2013 : 9:01AM

Editorial
March 12, 2013
There's nothing wrong with President Obama speed-dating members of Congress. Meeting face to face over food and wine, as Mr. Obama has recently done with several groups of lawmakers from both parties, may ease the demonizing politics of the last four years -- along with the president's well-earned reputation for aloofness. And given how little some Republicans know about his budget proposals -- one senator confessed he had no idea what Mr. Obama wanted to cut before last week's dinner -- the shared meals were probably overdue.
But Mr. Obama should have no illusions about the core beliefs of some of his Republican dining partners, or their willingness to accept change. That was made clear on Tuesday when the House Budget Committee chairman, Representative Paul Ryan, unveiled his 2014 spending plan: a retread of ideas that voters soundly rejected, made even worse, if possible, by sharper cuts to vital services and more dishonest tax provisions.
The budget, which will surely fly through the House, was quickly praised as "serious" and job-creating by the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, though it is neither. By cutting $4.6 trillion from spending over the next decade, it would reverse the country's nascent economic growth, kill millions of real and potential jobs, and deprive those suffering the most of social assistance.
All the tired ideas from 2011 and 2012 are back: eliminating Medicare's guarantee to retirees by turning it into a voucher plan; dispensing with Medicaid and food stamps by turning them into block grants for states to cut freely; repealing most of the reforms to health care and Wall Street; shrinking beyond recognition the federal role in education, job training, transportation and scientific and medical research. The public opinion of these callous proposals was made clear in the fall election, but Mr. Ryan is too ideologically fervid to have learned that lesson.
The 2014 budget is even worse than that of the previous two years because it attempts to balance the budget in 10 years instead of the previous 20 or more. That would take nondefense discretionary spending down to nearly 2 percent of the economy, the lowest in modern history. And in its laziest section, it sets a goal of slashing the top tax rate for the rich to 25 percent from 39.6 percent, though naturally Mr. Ryan doesn’t explain how this could happen without raising taxes on middle- and lower-income people. (Sound familiar?)
There's no need, of course, to balance the budget in 10 years or even 20; these dates are arbitrary, designed solely to impress the extreme fiscal conservatives who now compose the core of the Republican Party. That same core in the House will almost certainly reject the 2014 Democratic budget expected from the Senate on Wednesday. It will take a far more evenhanded approach, cutting spending by $1 trillion while eliminating tax breaks for the wealthy and spending $100 billion on job training and infrastructure.
If the Ryan budget is any indication, Mr. Obama’s quest to bring reason to an unreasonable party may be doomed from the outset.

Senior Member

7415 Posts
8/10
Posted - Mar 14 2013 : 6:04PM
[invalid URL removed]President Obama told Democrats to make concessions on entitlements
Conservatives are supposed to dismiss this , but I'm with Ryan - there are substantive reforms and reductions that won't offend either party.
to see fewer adsAdult DVD Talk is Sponsored by
email for advertising info

Senior Member

7415 Posts
8/10
Posted - Mar 15 2013 : 7:33AM
Yeah, well,
And :

Senior Member

7415 Posts
8/10
Posted - Mar 20 2013 : 8:02PM
The votes are coming in.
The Senate passed the continuing resolution that has already passed the House. No government shutdown...until September.
Mulvaney (R-SC) Substitute Amendment (Senate Democratic Concurrent Resolution on the Budget) – FAILED 154 - 261. 35 House Democrats voted against it despite House Leadership whipping support for it. Almost all of them are new members elected in competitive districts in 2012, and likely vulnerable in the 2014 midterm election.
Scott (D-VA) Substitute Amendment (Congressional Black Caucus Substitute) – FAILED 105 – 305
Grijalva (D-AZ) Substitute Amendment (Congressional Progressive Caucus Substitute) – FAILED 84 – 327. Almost no one outside the Progressive Caucus voted for their budget.
Woodall (R-GA) Substitute Amendment (Republican Study Committee Substitute) – FAILED 104 – 132. 171 Democrats voted "present" which would force another vote so several Study Committee Republicans, most notably Paul Ryan, had to vote against their budget.
Van Hollen (D-MD) Substitute Amendment (Democratic Caucus Substitute) – FAILED 165 - 253. Again, House Leadership whipped heavily for their caucus's budget, and again, 28 Democrats in vulnerable districts voted against it.
The House Republican Caucus budget (the Ryan budget) will be voted on early tomorrow. The Senate has begun 50 hours of debate on the majority caucus's budget, and will hold an extensive amendment process beginning tomorrow, with a vote expected early Friday.
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13912 Posts
1/08
Posted - Mar 20 2013 : 9:45PM

OF COURSE WE'RE LYING.jpg
I never thought I’d write these words, but here goes: Thank you, John Boehner. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for finally admitting on national television that all the fiscal cliffs, sequestrations and budget battles you’ve created are, indeed, artificially fabricated by ideologues and self-interested politicians and not the result of some imminent crisis that’s out of our control.


Senior Member

7415 Posts
8/10
Posted - Mar 21 2013 : 11:31AM
Then [link inactive:404 - Page not found]the U.S. House of Representatives approved a funding bill, 318 to 109, to avert a government shutdown on March 27.

Senior Member

7415 Posts
8/10
Posted - Mar 22 2013 : 5:44PM
The Senate turned the budget process into a proxy war for...everything.
Right now they're having dueling votes on carbon taxes. An hour ago, they had dueling votes on contraception coverage.
That would be Heller (vulnerable Nevada), Maine Sen. Susan Collins, and the crusaders Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Mike Lee. Paul, Cruz, and Lee were also
Republicans seem to have emphasized unity in this series of votes. The Democrats are all over the map. Obamacare kickbacks, carbon taxes, and now an "America first" provision on the Keystone Pipeline, all proposed by Democrats, have been defeated.
That unity will be tested later as a measure to allow states to collect sales taxes from online purchases out of state is expected to get dicey.
Of course, nothing in a one-chamber budget is binding, but should it be a vehicle for a budget deal, the votes on specific provisions will matter, and I think it says something about the division in the Democratic Party ranks.
UPDATE: Unity tested indeed. The final vote was 75-25 and several delegations split.
Edited by - Cody McLarge on 3/22/2013 7:17:12 PM
UPDATE: Rand Paul's balanced budget was offered as an amendment in the form as a substitution. It received a total of 18 votes, 80 against.
Edited by - Cody McLarge on 3/22/2013 9:48:35 PM
UPDATE: They're still going, at the point where the Senators start to get upset they have to stay so late. Voice votes, and pretty much all votes, are especially meaningless now as any amendments that "pass" or "fail" will have to actually be written into legislative form and reintroduced in the appropriate committees. They could all "unanimously" agree to invade Ireland right now and tomorrow take no action. Even trying to catch some colleagues in a flip-flop now or down the road would be useless.
Edited by - Cody McLarge on 3/23/2013 2:29:03 AM
UPDATE: On a 50-49 vote, the U.S. Senate has passed their budget. They can now fund government services according to their outline. The House can appropriate according to its outline, and the two can, hopefully, reconcile the differences.
The House Republicans had to force them to do it, with a no budget-no pay law, but after four years of failing to pass one, and three years of not even offering one, the Senate has passed a budget. And regular order may return to the Capitol.
Edited by - Cody McLarge on 3/23/2013 5:04:02 AM

Senior Member

7415 Posts
8/10
Posted - Apr 1 2013 : 12:44PM

Senior Member

7415 Posts
8/10
Posted - Apr 5 2013 : 6:47AM
Sigh, I guess I'll have to go through the thing line by line as well.
 
All-Star Member

"You have sacrificed nothing and no one."
6309 Posts
8/10
Posted - May 16 2013 : 11:49PM
C.B.O. Cuts 2013 Deficit Estimate by 24%

By ANNIE LOWREY
May 14, 2013
WASHINGTON — Since the recession ended four years ago, the federal budget deficit has topped $1 trillion every year. But now the government’s annual deficit is shrinking far faster than anyone in Washington expected, and perhaps even faster than many economists think is advisable for the health of the economy.
That is the thrust of a new report released Tuesday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, estimating that the deficit for this fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30, will fall to about $642 billion, or 4 percent of the nation’s annual economic output, about $200 billion lower than the agency estimated just three months ago.
The agency forecast that the deficit, which topped 10 percent of gross domestic product in 2009, could shrink to as little as 2.1 percent of gross domestic product by 2015 — a level that most analysts say would be easily sustainable over the long run — before beginning to climb gradually through the rest of the decade.
"Revenues have been strong as the economy has outperformed a bit," said Joel Prakken, a founder of Macroeconomic Advisers, a forecasting firm based in St. Louis.
Over all, the figures demonstrate how the economic recovery has begun to refill the government’s coffers. At the same time, Washington, despite its political paralysis, has proved remarkably successful at slashing the deficit through a variety of tax increases and cuts in domestic and military programs.
Perhaps too successful. Given that the economy continues to perform well below its potential and that unemployment has so far failed to fall below 7.5 percent, many economists are cautioning that the deficit is coming down too fast, too soon.
“It’s good news for the budget deficit and bad news for the jobs deficit,” said Jared Bernstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-of-center research group in Washington. “I’m more worried about the latter.”
Others, however, are warning that the deficit — even if it looks manageable over the next decade — still remains a major long-term challenge, given that rising health care spending on the elderly and debt service payments are projected to eat up a bigger and bigger portion of the budget as the baby boom generation enters retirement.
“It takes a little heat off, and undercuts the sense of fiscal panic that prevailed one or two years ago when the debt-to-G.D.P. ratio was climbing,” said Mr. Prakken, of referring to the growth of the country’s debt relative to the size of the economy. “These revisions probably release some pressure to reach a longer-term deal, which is too bad, because the longer-term problem hasn’t gone away.”
With the government running a hefty $113 billion surplus in the tax payment month of April, according to the Treasury, analysts now do not expect the country to run out of room under its debt ceiling — a statutory borrowing limit Congress needs to raise to avoid default — until sometime in the fall. That has left both Democrats and Republicans hesitant to enter another round of negotiations over painful cuts to entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, and tax increases on a broader swath of Americans, despite the still-heated rhetoric on both sides.
For the moment, the deficit is largely repairing itself. Just three months ago, the Congressional Budget Office projected that the current-year deficit would be $845 billion, or about 5.3 percent of economic output.
The $200 billion reduction to the estimated deficit comes not from the $85 billion in mandatory cuts known as sequestration, nor from the package of tax increases that Congress passed this winter to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff. The office had already incorporated those policy changes into its February forecasts.
Rather, it comes from higher-than-expected tax payments from businesses and individuals, as well as an increase in payments from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance companies the government took over as part of the wave of bailouts thrust upon Washington in the darkest days of the financial crisis.

The C.B.O. said it had bumped up its estimates of current-year tax receipts from individuals by about $69 billion and from corporations by about $40 billion. The office said the factors lifting tax payments seemed to be “largely temporary,” due in part, probably, to higher-income households realizing gains from investments before tax rates went up in the 2013 calendar year.
It also reduced its estimated outlays on Fannie and Freddie by about $95 billion. The mortgage giants, which have required more than $180 billion in taxpayer financing since the government rescued them in 2008, have returned to profitability in recent quarters on the back of a stronger housing market and have begun to repay the Treasury for the loans.
But there is a darker side to the brighter outlook for the deficit. The immediate spending cuts and tax increases Congress agreed to for this year are serving as a partial brake on the recovery, cutting government jobs and preventing growth from accelerating to a more robust pace, many economists have warned. The International Monetary Fund has called the country’s pace of deficit reduction “overly strong,” arguing that Washington should delay some of its budget cuts while adopting a longer-term strategy to hold down future deficits.
In revising its estimates for the current year, the budget office also cut its projections of the 10-year cumulative deficit by $618 billion. Those longer-term adjustments are mostly a result of smaller projected outlays for the entitlement programs of Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, as well as smaller interest payments on the debt.
The report noted that the growth in health care costs seemed to have slowed — a trend that, if it lasted, would eliminate much of the budget pressure and probably help restore a stronger economy as well. The C.B.O. has quietly erased hundreds of billions of dollars in projected government health spending over the last few years.

It did so again on Tuesday. In February, the budget office projected that the United States would spend about $8.1 trillion on Medicare and $4.4 trillion on Medicaid over the next 10 fiscal years. It now projects it will spend $7.9 trillion on Medicare and $4.3 trillion on Medicaid.
 
All-Star Member

"You have sacrificed nothing and no one."
6309 Posts
8/10
Posted - Aug 17 2013 : 8:16AM

Op-Ed Columnist
By PAUL KRUGMAN
August 15, 2013
We all know how democracy is supposed to work. Politicians are supposed to campaign on the issues, and an informed public is supposed to cast its votes based on those issues, with some allowance for the politicians’ perceived character and competence.
We also all know that the reality falls far short of the ideal. Voters are often misinformed, and politicians aren’t reliably truthful. Still, we like to imagine that voters generally get it right in the end, and that politicians are eventually held accountable for what they do.
But is even this modified, more realistic vision of democracy in action still relevant? Or has our political system been so degraded by misinformation and disinformation that it can no longer function?
Well, consider the case of the budget deficit — an issue that dominated Washington discussion for almost three years, although it has recently receded.
You probably won’t be surprised to hear that voters are poorly informed about the deficit. But you may be surprised by just how misinformed.
In a well-known paper with the discouraging title, “It Feels Like We’re Thinking,” the political scientists Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels reported on a 1996 survey that asked voters whether the budget deficit had increased or decreased under President Clinton. In fact, the deficit was down sharply, but a plurality of voters — and a majority of Republicans — believed that it had gone up.
I wondered on my blog what a similar survey would show today, with the deficit falling even faster than it did in the 1990s.
Ask and ye shall receive: Hal Varian, the chief economist of Google, offered to run a Google Consumer Survey — a service the company normally sells to market researchers — on the question. So we asked whether the deficit has gone up or down since January 2010. And the results were even worse than in 1996: A majority of those who replied said the deficit has gone up, with more than 40 percent saying that it has gone up a lot. Only 12 percent answered correctly that it has gone down a lot.
Am I saying that voters are stupid? Not at all. People have lives, jobs, children to raise. They’re not going to sit down with Congressional Budget Office reports. Instead, they rely on what they hear from authority figures. The problem is that much of what they hear is misleading if not outright false.
The outright falsehoods, you won’t be surprised to learn, tend to be politically motivated. In those 1996 data, Republicans were much more likely than Democrats to hold false views about the deficit, and the same must surely be true today. After all, Republicans made a lot of political hay over a supposedly runaway deficit early in the Obama administration, and they have maintained the same rhetoric even as the deficit has plunged. Thus Eric Cantor, the second-ranking Republican in the House, declared on Fox News that we have a “growing deficit,” while Senator Rand Paul told Bloomberg Businessweek that we’re running “a trillion-dollar deficit every year.”
Do people like Mr. Cantor or Mr. Paul know that what they’re saying isn’t true? Do they care? Probably not. In Stephen Colbert’s famous formulation, claims about runaway deficits may not be true, but they have truthiness, and that’s all that matters.

Still, aren’t there umpires for this sort of thing — trusted, nonpartisan authorities who can and will call out purveyors of falsehood? Once upon a time, I think, there were. But these days the partisan divide runs very deep, and even those who try to play umpire seem afraid to call out falsehood. Incredibly, the fact-checking site PolitiFact rated Mr. Cantor’s flatly false statement as “half true.”
Now, Washington still does have some “wise men,” people who are treated with special deference by the news media. But when it comes to the issue of the deficit, the supposed wise men turn out to be part of the problem. People like Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, the co-chairmen of President Obama’s deficit commission, did a lot to feed public anxiety about the deficit when it was high. Their report was ominously titled “The Moment of Truth.” So have they changed their tune as the deficit has come down? No — so it’s no surprise that the narrative of runaway deficits remains even though the budget reality has completely changed.
Put it all together, and it’s a discouraging picture. We have an ill-informed or misinformed electorate, politicians who gleefully add to the misinformation and watchdogs who are afraid to bark. And to the extent that there are widely respected, not-too-partisan players, they seem to be fostering, not fixing, the public’s false impressions.

So what should we be doing? Keep pounding away at the truth, I guess, and hope it breaks through. But it’s hard not to wonder how this system is supposed to work.
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13912 Posts
1/08
Posted - Aug 19 2013 : 8:38PM

 
Big Double Everything Fan

Poor Turkey running for her life with Christmas Hat
9726 Posts
9/01
Posted - Aug 19 2013 : 10:08PM
^ Cutting headstart will affect future generations. This is saving a few dollars now at a large future cost.

Senior Member

7829 Posts
6/01
Posted - Aug 20 2013 : 10:43AM
I'm of two minds on Head Start. Either get rid of it, or do it better.
It has been proven to work - until all gains made disappear by 6th grade. What that says to me is that those same kids that needed enrichment and extra attention when they were 4&5 still need it (maybe need it even more) when they're 10&11. Poor kids don't stop being poor kids just because they get older. Their parents don't magically become capable of providing for their needs and the environment they live in doesn't magically become rich with opportunities for growth and development.
By the time enrichment programs become available again in high school most of the kids they would have benefited have been lost.
 
Big Double Everything Fan

Poor Turkey running for her life with Christmas Hat
9726 Posts
9/01
Posted - Aug 20 2013 : 7:14PM
^ I sort of agree with you Kimi. Head start should be expanded to the fifth and sixth grade. Having an enhanced program does improve children's intellectual abilities, but not continuing the program basically negates many of the benefits.
But head start has been shown to last a lifetime in outcomes. While the IQ scores drop once head start stops, children who received head start early in life do tend to succeed better in the job market and have better success attending college and staying in school. Expanding head start will have better outcomes for everyone and is cost beneficial.

Senior Member

7415 Posts
8/10
Posted - Aug 20 2013 : 8:31PM
I think the studies show that third grade is the more critical developmental level. Connecting cognitive reading and, now, critically, comprehension ability at that level is the more useful indicator of further success, eventually graduation. Our resources would be much, much better focused there.

fubar

7535 Posts
12/09
Posted - Aug 20 2013 : 10:40PM
There is no wrong year for improving children's education, but directing most of the effort towards the beginning would be the most cost-effective, since not everyone can stay in school for the full fourteen years.

Senior Member

12345
12200 Posts
9/02
Posted - Aug 21 2013 : 12:34AM
They aren't cutting Head Start so that they can redirect money to some terrific new program.
Are they, now?
They're just cutting it. Cutting it to cut it.

Senior Member

7415 Posts
8/10
Posted - Aug 21 2013 : 12:38AM
Well, yeah, because it's not a federal responsibility.

fubar

7535 Posts
12/09
Posted - Aug 23 2013 : 4:45PM
Minors have less choice about avoiding official propaganda. Pre-college history and social classes may be worthless, depending on what bullshit the teachers are required to shovel instead of critical thinking skills.
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13912 Posts
1/08
Posted - Sep 10 2013 : 1:14PM

ByPaul Wiseman
WASHINGTON - The income gap between the richest 1 per cent and the rest of America widened to a record last year.
The top 1 per cent of U.S. earners collected 19.3 per cent of household income in 2012, their largest share in Internal Revenue Service figures going back a century.
U.S. income inequality has been growing for almost three decades. But until last year, the top 1 per cent's share of pre-tax income had not yet surpassed the 18.7 per cent it reached in 1927, according to an analysis of IRS figures dating to 1913 by economists at the University of California, Berkeley, the Paris School of Economics and Oxford University.
One of them, Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, Berkeley, said the incomes of the richest Americans might have surged last year in part because they cashed in stock holdings to avoid higher capital gains taxes that took effect in January.
Last year, the incomes of the top 1 per cent rose 19.6 per cent compared with a 1 per cent increase for the remaining 99 per cent.
The richest Americans were hit hard by the financial crisis. Their incomes fell more than 36 per cent in the Great Recession of 2007 to 2009 as stock prices plummeted. Incomes for the bottom 99 per cent fell just 11.6 per cent, according to the analysis.
But since the recession officially ended in June 2009, the top 1 per cent have enjoyed the benefits of rising corporate profits and stock prices: 95 per cent of the income gains reported since 2009 have gone to the top 1 per cent.
tHE rICH.jpg
 
All-Star Member

"You have sacrificed nothing and no one."
6309 Posts
8/10
Posted - Sep 19 2013 : 2:06PM

Editorial
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
September 17, 2013
Representative Aaron Schock is a conservative Republican from Illinois, but not conservative enough for the hard-right activist group Club for Growth, which is seeking someone to run against him in next year’s primary.
His crime? In 2011, he voted to increase the debt ceiling, and, in 2012, he voted for a stopgap spending bill that prevented a government shutdown. In neither case did he demand the defunding of health care reform.
Club for Growth and other extremist groups consider a record like his an unforgivable failure, and they are raising and spending millions to make sure that no Republicans will take similar positions in the next few weeks when the fiscal year ends and the debt limit expires.

If you’re wondering why so many House Republicans seem to believe they can force President Obama to accept a “defunding” of the health care reform law by threatening a government shutdown or a default, it’s because these groups have promised to inflict political pain on any Republican official who doesn’t go along.
Heritage Action and the Senate Conservatives Fund have each released scorecards showing which lawmakers have pledged to “defund Obamacare.” When a senator like Tom Coburn of Oklahoma refuses to pledge, right-wing activists are told: “Please contact Senator Coburn and tell him it’s dishonest to say you oppose Obamacare, but then vote to fund it. Tell him he swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution.”
Mr. Schock and 10 other lawmakers considered suspiciously squishy by the Club for Growth were designated as RINO’s (Republicans in name only), and the club has vowed to find primary opponents and support them with cash — a formidable threat considering that it spent $18 million backing conservative candidates in the 2012 cycle. Americans for Prosperity, a Koch brothers group that has already spent millions on ads fighting health reform, is beginning a new campaign to delay the law’s effects.
These groups, all financed with secret and unlimited money, feed on chaos and would like nothing better than to claim credit for pushing Washington into another crisis. Winning an ideological victory is far more important to them than the severe economic effects of a shutdown or, worse, a default, which could shatter the credit markets.
They also have another reason for their attacks: fund-raising. All their Web sites pushing the defunding scheme include a big “donate” button for the faithful to push. “With your donation, you will be sending a strong message: Obamacare must be defunded now,” says the Web site of the National Liberty Federation, another “social welfare” group that sees dollar signs in shutting down the government.
Brian Walsh, a longtime Republican operative, recently noted in U.S. News and World Report that the right is now spending more money attacking Republicans than the Democrats are. “Money begets TV ads, which begets even more money for these groups’ personal coffers,” he wrote. “Pointing fingers and attacking Republicans is apparently a very profitable fund-raising business.”
It may be good for their bank accounts, but the combination of unlimited money and rigid ideology is proving toxic for the most basic functioning of government.

Senior Member

7415 Posts
8/10
Posted - Sep 20 2013 : 2:29AM
It's a little too soon to get on the "these people can't govern" bandwagon, because, ultimately, they do. In the final hour, often the final minute, something gets done, some half-measure, some punt and promise, something. For thirty-plus years, the loud and incredulous drive the debate but the action ultimately occurs. The governing happens, never to anyone's liking and always setting up the next crisis perfectly, but crisis averted, prepare for crisis. It's a predictable pattern.
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13912 Posts
1/08
Posted - Oct 4 2013 : 9:56PM
^
Disagree. I don't remember anything like this since Kennedy through Carter (Cuba, Assassinations, Civil Rights Battles, Vietnam, OPEC, Iran) Relatively, even when accounting for 9/11, external threats and crises to this country have been low.
What we have now is internal crises caused by a party that is ever more driven by fringe elements.

Senior Member

2709 Posts
6/06
Posted - Oct 6 2013 : 1:58PM
Always nice for a little reality check when it comes to "out of control spending"

% of Increase in the National Debt during Presidential Term...
42% - Carter
189% - Reagan
56% - Bush Sr.
36% - Clinton
89% - Bush Jr.
54% - Obama
So the current "Spender in Chief" still trails Reagan and both the Bush's.
Come on Obama. Get your game up!
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13912 Posts
1/08
Posted - Oct 6 2013 : 6:25PM
^ ref_stop2.jpg

Senior Member

12345
12200 Posts
9/02
Posted - Oct 8 2013 : 5:25PM
Republicans scream that government shouldn't be picking winners and losers.
And now, they want to pass the budget in very tiny pieces so they can fund just the very most narrowly defined winners.
Tomorrow, it will be funeral benefits for military killed in action.

Senior Member

7415 Posts
8/10
Posted - Oct 10 2013 : 7:10PM
For what it's worth, the House conservatives' :
So you let Ted Cruz and his confederates have their Obamacare fight, which they're not carrying out very well in my opinion.
Then you put Paul Ryan in charge to press for the so-called grand bargain, which the President always torpedoes with his talk of "revenues" and goal posts on wheels.
Are we still going to breach the debt ceiling? Magic 8 Ball says "it's likely." It's more likely than it's ever been.
I always like the idea of super short CRs and debt ceiling increases. Six weeks is too much in my opinion. I wanted to see 15% of the government shut down, for one, but if not, I wanted the Republicans to keep it open, day by day, literally. But if six weeks is the plan to force the President to come negotiate like everyone else, then on we go...six weeks...
Page 15 of 22 First < 3 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 > Last



Jump To:

Online porn video at mobile phone