Some Thoughts on The budget "Negotiations"

Where in the **** in what I wrote did you get that?

I didn't think you did which is why I said I hate republicans as much as you hate democrats.



You sure like to talk in hyperbole.

Yes I do realize that, after reading from several different articles, that it would take years of both wise spending cuts and an increase in revenue. Taxes right now are too low to sustain our obligations, some of those obligations could be cut, but some are needed. Removing the tax loopholes and tax havens will not solve the problem but it would make it more fair if the boss of an assistance pays more than the assistance and it would bring more money to the coffers of our government which we do need to survive.



source

BTW a good deal of those billionairs say to raise taxes on them.

Warren Buffett: Read My Lips, Raise My Taxes



My husband and I have been pay taxes every year and as of right now we don't have any government assistance. We are getting older though at 46 and 47.

Right at this particular moment SS is solvent until the year 2030 and after that it only goes down a relatively small percentage. However, if we keep making stupid decisions then yes, the money that we have paid into social security will raided and be in a dangerous crises.

If anything good comes out of the past debt ceiling debate, perhaps it has opened people eyes who know about economics and we fix things so that don't happen.

Paying money into our government so that we get the help we need when we need it is not same as communism. We elect our government and they can be got rid of the same way they get in to make or erase laws for our benefit. (ideally)

I think that's a false dilemma, he had tools available to him that he did not use. If it were really a choice between going off a cliff and caving that is one thing, but those are simply not the only options.

He had several options where the choice was between spending his political capital to fight their spend of their own and as usual he (and all the Democrats, who are as spineless as I've seen any politicians in my life) chose the route that rocked his political boat the least. He could have played hardball long before he was held over a cliff, but he lacks the spine for hardball.



It's simply nonsense that he's putting the greater interest first, he's putting his political ass first which is why he's unwilling to endure any real conflict, whether it's backing down to Bibi or Republicans Obama has shown that he will consistently back down if the other side is willing to escalate the conflict.

If he really wanted to put the greater good first, he would have started this process earlier and told Republicans that he's willing to play hardball (such as the "Constitutional Option") but instead he spent as little political capital as he could get away with and consequently handed a victory to Republicans who were willing to spend political capital for what they believe in.

And frankly I am sick to death of American Democrats and their incessant justification of political expediency over their purported principles. All liberals do is talk about these closely-held principles and explain away why they can't actually do any of that (hint: it's because of the Republicans!).

I agree with you completely, every word, except the word spine re Obama. I think it has been his considered judgement to always negotiate on these or any other issues and that his judgement as a whole and on this in particular is fatally flawed. I think he thinks his process is correct and that others are foolish - and I find that he is dead wrong, dangerously wrong, and as contributary to our troubles as much as all the teabaggers together, and more. Major failed leadership process, the heart of which is the getalongness.

Do you mean "to fight their spending of their own"? If so, what specific spending of their own are you refering to?


By "political ass" are you refering to his poll numbers?

What is hyperbolic about stating a fact?

If Warren Buffet, and Bill Gates and Matt Damon et al want to give more of their money to the US Treasury, they can, or they can give it directly to the programs they would like it to fund like Head Start and Planned Parenthood.

In any case, and I repeat, raising taxes on the mega-rich is not going to get it done, and couples who make $250k per year are not "rich" by anything even remotely approaching Warren Buffet's or even Matt Damon's level of "rich."

My wife and I have paid our fair share of taxes for about 39 years now, and we donate to charity at a rate that is higher than the average couple. I'm not bragging about this because I often feel like we should give more, but that's our decision, not Warren Buffets, and not the Government's.

If Warren Buffet believes he has it too good, there is a very simple way for him to balance the scales. By all accounts he is relatively generous as far as charitable donations. I emphasize relatively because even when he pledged to donate the majority of his enormous fortune he held back enough to keep him and his children living grand lifestyles: including multiple residences and private aircraft.

I don't for one second begrudge Buffet the extent of wealth he intends to preserve for himself and his family, and it's good to see that he is sane enough to not want to hold on to an amount he cannot possible spend, but he should shut the hell up about what other people should do...even if he intends to give up all of his fortune (which he most assuredly does not).

Anyone who insists on lumping "hundred thousandaires" with the mega-rich to assert some concept of equity is either just ignorant or cynically rationalizing grabbing someone else's money to pay for what they want.

What astounds me is that folks like you believe that the government actually needs more in taxes to pay for it's reasonable obligations. You buy into the Democrats' charade about needing more and more money to take care of the needy, when the reality is that they really need more and more money to buy votes...and not just from the permanent underclass they have been trying to establish since LBJ was president.

If you feel the needy need more, give it to them out of your own purse, and stop judging the generosity of others.

If you don't want tax dollars going to corporations, foreign countries, and what you believe is unnecessary defense expenditures by all means make your position known and vote for candidates who will attempt to advance that position.

If I think the government is not spending enough in these areas, than you have every right and reason to tell me to reach into my own pocket.

You and others seem to think the Relatively Rich, the Rich and the Mega-Rich gained their wealth through criminal means. Undoubtedly a few have but certainly nowhere near the majority.

What you also seem unable to grasp is that if the government punishes success by increasing taxes on the successful you will the condition we have today where billions of dollars in captital is sitting on the sidelines.

Do you think that if the government crosses into the sideline and seizes this wealth that it will be able to convert it into jobs and more healthy economy? It spent nearly a trillion dollars on a crazy stimulus that has had no positive impact on the economy, and even if you buy into Keynesian economics, you can't buy into all of the politically pork the Democrats funded with Stimulus money that came from our pockets.

The reality is that we can't rely on governmental competency that is not hamstrung by the imperative of a few hundred politicians to get themselves re-elected and feather their own nests. This includes Republicans as well as Democrats, and there are , of course, some exceptions in both parties.

The only reason I find Republicans more acceptable than Democrats is that they are marginally more inclined to rein government in. The Bush Administration proved that this is not always the case, but at least Republicans spend our money like drunken accountants, while Democrats spend it like drunken sailors.

If you are a supporter of the Democrat party, what do you feel about the excess perks Nancy Pelosi insisted upon? A-OK, because while she personally insisted on being treated like royalty, she "cares about the poor?"

If Obama is such a champion of the under-privledged, why does he insist on taking advantage of the numerous costly perks of his office? Because as a tireless fighter for the poor he deserves a little luxury?

After all, even a saint like Mother Teresa insisted on flying First Class, and you should have seen her luxurious digs in Calcutta.

Liberals tend to consider hypocrisy as the greatest of sins when they can pin it on Conservatives, but they have an enormous blind spot when it comes to the life styles of their heroes, which in any other case they would consider excessive.

I'm interested in learning why you feel tax reform will not suffice in terms of increasing revenues. Are you such a slave to the "increased taxes!" mantra of Democrats? Is it part of your personal priorities to obtain increased political power for Democrat politicians?

You are being duped but you are desperate to be identified with the Good Guys and you have bought into the nonsense that Democrats are the Good Guys.

Simple logic:

You are always ready to wield the torch and pitchfork against conservatives. That you have considered using these implements against Obama, implies you consider him too conservative. A nominally Liberal president who is too conservative, is a "stealth conservative."

Was it really necessary to use "****" in your response? Was that supposed to somehow signify your outrage with what I posted?

I'm OK with profanity when it serves a purpose, but when it is gratuitously used as some sort of badge of coolness, it bothers me.

Warren isn't a huge fan of closing the corporate jet tax loophole, but then he does own NetJets. Taxes for thee but not for me?

As the caterpillar said, "Exactly!"

The spending of political capital. Republicans were willing to engage in political combat for which spending of political capital is needed. Obama is very conservative with political capital and will almost invariably capitulate rather than use much of it. He's another campaigner, hoarding it for election.

That being said, targeting spending dear to Republicans was one way they should have invested their political capital, defense spending should have been more aggressively put on the table. Republicans would have had to spend political capital to defend defense spending (which is not broadly popular unless you have a bogey man to justify it) in the face of their call to cut spending. Instead this was barely used, and Democrats gave republicans social spending cuts.



Political capital in general, of which transient poll numbers play a small part.

You realize of course that you are claiming that Obama is selfish....

What I said had no connection in any way to anything you tried to entwine it with - with all your bizarro, twisted chop-logic.

If you don't want to respond to what I actually said - regarding Obama's limited real-life options when dealing with cretins who would sink the whole country with no greater goals than to defeat Obama and support the rich, saying nothing at all would sure make you look better than intentionally obfuscating.

And by the way, you wouldn't know "cool" if it took a doberman-sized chunk of your over tight ass. As if I would have never used such language if I'd had an inkling it "bothers" you...

How clueless can you be? **** off.

Get a hold of yourself snood, you're foaming at the mouth and no matter what one's cultural origins might be, that isn't very cool.

Sez the uptight rightwingnut. Here's a clue - someone doesn't have to be maddog out of control to have a distaste for the likes of you. To prove it, I'll let you have the last( blowhard, officious windbag) word.

Not only do you speak in hyperboles but you are also fairly long winded.

I never said we need to raise taxes, maybe we do maybe we don't, I don't really know. It may be enough to fix the loopholes and tax havens which is what Obama has been calling for and most polls agreed with.

Most economist think we need to take a balanced approach to spending cuts and increased revenues to be able to sustain our government responsibilities in needed things like infrastructure of our nations roads and bridges which BTW are in lousy shape. We also need to sustain our responsibilities to seniors who have paid into social security to make sure when they need it, they get it. Also we are a nation that realizes you got to invest in our people in order to have a nation that is not third world like where you have the super rich and the super super poor. We have been heading that way because of the Bush tax cuts, we currently are paying very low taxes, but it is not doing our country any good and hasn't since they have been enacted.

By all means keep giving to charity, I do when I can, my extended family who has more money than I do, do a lot more and they are democrats. However, charity does not cut it or else we have had no need to invest in welfare in the first place. I do agree it shouldn't be a way of life unless you are disabled or elderly. I think the welfare programs which were put in place in the nineties were a good start to help get single mothers and others working.

The recession obviously has it everything hard and it is going to take a lot to get things moving again.


Not that its either here or there, but I was under the impression you were female.