@JPB,
JPB wrote:
Quote:You don't want there to be 'sides,' but there clearly ARE sides in our government. The GOP hates Obama and will not agree to anything that helps him, period.
Not if there's a viable third party alternative.
There is none and there will BE none for a long, long time. You're not really considering the Legislature when you say such things; it's not about the exec branch, it's about having a body within each house who can actually push through legislation which, let's face it, isn't going to be popular - nobody likes to deal with cuts and tax increases, even if they know they need to happen.
We don't have time to **** around with pipe dreams of a third party... it would take years and even decades for such a force to arise in numbers large enough to make a significant difference.
Quote:I don't know that there will be one this year, but I'm more hopeful than I've been in that past. IF there is a centrist, small government conservative that filters through the America Elects process then I will work hard to bring attention to that candidate. Otherwise, I'll be working to eliminate the Republican stranglehold in the House.
Yup. I wouldn't hold my breath on America Elect getting a small-gov't conservative candidate this cycle, but I guess one can always hope. My question is - who would this person be? I can't think of a single Senator or Governor who fits the bill, who isn't already aligned with the GOP. Would anyone vote for someone who came out of the blue? History says no.
Cycloptichorn
Quote:it would take years and even decades for such a force to arise in numbers large enough to make a significant difference.
Tell that to the tea partiers. I believe they've lost the support of many people who are on the same mission I'm on. Reduce the size of the budget, eliminate the deficit and pay back our obligations in a balanced way that puts the burden on the folks who've been voting for the past 30 years (myself included).
@JPB,
JPB wrote:
Quote:it would take years and even decades for such a force to arise in numbers large enough to make a significant difference.
Tell that to the tea partiers. I believe they've lost the support of many people who are on the same mission I'm on. Reduce the size of the budget, eliminate the deficit and pay back our obligations in a balanced way that puts the burden on the folks who've been voting for the past 30 years (myself included).
There is no difference between the 'tea party' and the GOP. None. Don't buy into bullshit branding.
Pretty much every single 'tea party' candidate who was sent to the House this cycle immediately abandoned their principles and started larding bills up with pork for their home constituents... the entire idea that there is ANY force out there for 'smaller government' is a farce. It doesn't exist.
I would also add that the Tea Party is absolutely opposed to tax increases of any kind, so the idea that they are pursuing a 'balanced' deficit reduction plan is just, yeah. Not accurate.
Cycloptichorn
@JPB,
JPB wrote:Really? I just googled "Democrat solution to long term debt problem" and came up empty
Try Googling "Democrats' 2011 budget proposal" and take it from there. It doesn't end up paying off the debt---which is why I said it falls short of what you want. But it will balance the budget, allowing the economy to grow up to it and melt it down as a share of GDP.
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
JPB wrote:Really? I just googled "Democrat solution to long term debt problem" and came up empty
Try Googling "Democrats' 2011 budget proposal" and take it from there. It doesn't end up paying off the debt---which is why I said it falls short of what you want. But it will balance the budget, allowing the economy to grow up to it and melt it down as a share of GDP.
Hah - that's exactly what I just Googled!
Cycloptichorn
@Cycloptichorn,
Me too. I looked at the first 7 or 8 hits and didn't see that the Dems have a plan to balance the budget and eliminate the debt before everyone who voted for the situation is long dead.
@Thomas,
Correction: The budget I had in mind wasn't the Senate Democrats' proposal, as I had initially thought. It was the proposal from the Congressional Progressive Caucus, titled
The People's Budget. So the budget that eliminates the deficit comes from left-wing Congressional Democrats, not Congressional Democrats as a hole. My mistake notwithstanding, the people with a credible solution are Democrats, not some third-party organization in the middle between Democrats and Republicans.
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:Congressional Democrats as a hole
Not how I would have phrased it, but I do see the similarities.
@Thomas,
Huh! Paying off the debt isn't even a fantasy. Maybe an optimist could hope to reduce the rate of increase.
We've taken edgar's thread down a very different road so I'll stop this diversion with this statement. Thomas's link states
Quote:The CPC Budget addresses these problems by listening to the American people. In poll after poll,
they are telling us, their representatives in the American government, that they want to preserve
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, to make higher education more affordable, to expand jobtraining
programs, to cut taxes burdening the middle class, to subsidize affordable housing, and to
provide financial assistance for those struggling to prevent foreclosures.
The majority of America thinks cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, K-12 education,
heating assistance to low-income families, student loans, unemployment insurance, and scientific and
medical research are completely unacceptable. In contrast, Americans find a progressive tax policy
very acceptable. The overwhelming majority of America supports additional taxes on millionaires
and billionaires, eliminating unnecessary weapons systems, eliminating tax credits for the oil and gas
industries, phasing out Bush tax cuts, and eliminating subsidies for new nuclear power plants. Poll
after poll give voice to what Americans are asking of us.
Well, aren't
we special? We want all sorts of things and we want someone else to pay for them. In the meantime, those who are responsible for the economic situation we face (the American voter of the past 30 years) wants to make sure they're comfortable and leave the future generations to pick up the tab for our outstanding debt and financial irresponsibility. Sorry, I'm not part of that we.
@JPB,
JPB wrote:
We've taken edgar's thread down a very different road so I'll stop this diversion with this statement. Thomas's link states
Quote:The CPC Budget addresses these problems by listening to the American people. In poll after poll,
they are telling us, their representatives in the American government, that they want to preserve
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, to make higher education more affordable, to expand jobtraining
programs, to cut taxes burdening the middle class, to subsidize affordable housing, and to
provide financial assistance for those struggling to prevent foreclosures.
The majority of America thinks cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, K-12 education,
heating assistance to low-income families, student loans, unemployment insurance, and scientific and
medical research are completely unacceptable. In contrast, Americans find a progressive tax policy
very acceptable. The overwhelming majority of America supports additional taxes on millionaires
and billionaires, eliminating unnecessary weapons systems, eliminating tax credits for the oil and gas
industries, phasing out Bush tax cuts, and eliminating subsidies for new nuclear power plants. Poll
after poll give voice to what Americans are asking of us.
Well, aren't
we special? We want all sorts of things and we want someone else to pay for them.
The people's budget calls for the elimination of the Bush tax cuts for ALL taxpayers. That's how it balances the budget so quickly. I can't agree that this is the same thing as 'wanting someone else to pay.'
(it does retain some middle-class tax benefits, such as lower rates for joint filers, etc - but everyone's taxes would be going up some).
Quote:In the meantime, those who are responsible for the economic situation we face (the American voter of the past 30 years) wants to make sure they're comfortable and leave the future generations to pick up the tab for our outstanding debt and financial irresponsibility. Sorry, I'm not part of that we.
You probably ought to read things in greater depth before accusing those who support them of being irresponsible.
Cycloptichorn
@JPB,
JPB wrote:Sorry, I'm not part of that we.
Fair enough. Then you're right to look for alternatives in the places where you're looking.
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:You probably ought to read things in greater depth before accusing those who support them of being irresponsible.
I agree, but for purposes of Edgar's thread, I'd separate the merits of JPB's policy preference from the question which politicians she'd best vote for,
given her preferences. If JPB wants politicians who pay down the debt, and can't settle for politicians who just balance the budget in 10 years, she
should be looking outside the two-party system. I disagree with JPB that paying down the debt is a reasonable thing to want, given the alternative of just balancing the budget. But her conclusion about third-party candidates is sound,
given the fiscal policy she wants.
@Thomas,
Paying down the debt is a logical conclusion from a balanced-budget strategy, so I don't fault anyone for looking for such an outcome.
Cycloptichorn
@Cycloptichorn,
Obama has no plans to balance the budget, he is all about spending and building more debt.
@Cycloptichorn,
Excuse me?
Quote:Overview of Our Policies
Individual Income Tax Policies
• Allow the Bush-era tax cuts to expire at the end of 2012, but extend marriage relief, credits, and
incentives for children, families, and education
• Immediately rescind the upper-income tax cuts in December’s tax deal
• Index the AMT for inflation for a decade (the AMT patch is fully paid for)
• Schakowsky millionaire tax rates proposal (adding 45%, 46%, 47%, 48%, and 49% top rates)
• Tax all capital gains and qualified dividends as ordinary income
• Progressive estate tax (Sanders’ estate tax, repeal of Kyl-Lincoln)
• Limit the rate at which itemized deductions can reduce tax liability to 28%for high earners
• Replace the tax exclusion for interest on state and local bonds with a subsidy for the issuer
Corporate Tax Reform
• Tax U.S. corporate foreign income as it is earned
• Eliminate corporate welfare for oil, gas, and coal companies
• Enact a financial crisis responsibility fee
• Financial speculation tax (derivatives, foreign exchange)
• Reinstate Superfund taxes
Health Care
• Enact a public option
• Negotiate Rx payments with pharmaceutical companies
• CMS program integrity and other Medicare and Medicaid savings in the president’s budget
• Prevent a cut in Medicare physician payments for a decade (maintain doc fix)
Social Security
• Raise the taxable maximum on the employee side to 90% of earnings and eliminate the taxable
maximum on the employer side
• Increase benefits based on higher contributions on the employee side
Defense Savings
• End overseas contingency operations emergency supplementals starting in Fiscal Year 2013,
providing $170 billion in FY2012 to fund redeployment, while saving more than $1.8 trillion
from current law spending levels over ten years
• Reduce baseline defense spending by reducing strategic capabilities, conventional forces,
procurement, and R&D programs
Comprehensive Jobs Program
• Invest $1.45 trillion in job creation, education, clean energy and broadband infrastructure,
housing, and R&D
• Infrastructure bank
• Surface transportation reauthorization bill ($213 billion)
I actually support more than half of those things including repealing the GWB tax cuts. What I don't support is using the increase revenue for current recipients until we've balanced the budget and paid off our debt.
@JPB,
Excuse me what? It says right here:
Quote:
• Allow the Bush-era tax cuts to expire at the end of 2012, but extend marriage relief, credits, and
incentives for children, families, and education
It allows the Bush tax cuts to expire for ALL levels. That isn't the same at all as 'asking others to pay for things.' It's asking everyone to pay for things.
And it balances the budget, even with the new spending involved. Can't beat that.
Cycloptichorn
Robert Scheer:
I'll admit it: Listening to Barack Obama, I am ready to enlist in his campaign against the feed-the-rich Republicans ... until I recall that I once responded in the same way to Bill Clinton's faux populism. And then I get angry because betrayal by the "good guys" for whom I have ended up voting has become the norm.
Yes, betrayal, because if Obama meant what he said in Tuesday's State of the Union address about holding the financial industry responsible for its scams, why did he appoint the old Clinton crowd that had legalized those scams to the top economic posts in his administration? Why did he hire Timothy Geithner, who has turned the Treasury Department into a concierge service for Wall Street tycoons?
Why hasn't he pushed for a restoration of the Glass-Steagall Act, which Clinton's deregulation reversed? Does the president really believe that the Dodd-Frank slap-on-the-wrist sellout represents "new rules to hold Wall Street accountable, so a crisis like this never happens again"? Can he name one single too-big-to-fail banking monstrosity that has been reduced in size on his watch instead of encouraged to grow ever larger by Treasury and Fed bailouts and interest-free money?
When Obama declared Tuesday evening "no American company should be able to avoid paying its fair share of taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas," wasn't he aware that Jeffrey Immelt, the man he appointed to head his jobs council, is the most egregious offender? Immelt, the CEO of GE, heads a company with most of its workers employed in foreign countries, a corporation that makes 82 percent of its profit abroad and has paid no U.S. taxes in the past three years.
It was also a bit bizarre for Obama to celebrate Steve Jobs as a model entrepreneur when the manufacturing jobs that the late Apple CEO created are in the same China that elsewhere in his speech the president sought to scapegoat for America's problems. Apple, in its latest report on the subject, takes pride in attempting to limit the company's overseas suppliers to a maximum workweek of 60 hours for their horribly exploited employees. Isn't it weird to be chauvinistically China baiting when that country carries much of our debt?
I'm also getting tired of the exhortations to improve the nation's schools, certainly a worthy endeavor, but this economic crisis is the result not of high school dropouts as Obama suggested, but rather the corruption of the best and brightest graduates of our elite academies. As Obama well knows from his own trajectory in the meritocracy, which took him from one of the most privileged schools in otherwise educationally depressed Hawaii to Harvard Law, the folks who concocted the mathematical formulas and wrote the laws justifying fraudulent collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps were his overachieving professors and classmates.
If he doesn't know that, he should check out the record of Lawrence Summers, the man he picked to guide his economic program and who had been rewarded with the presidency of Harvard after having engineered Clinton's deregulatory deal with Wall Street.
That is the real legacy of the Clinton years, and it is no surprise that GOP presidential contender Newt Gingrich has been campaigning on his rightful share of it. The international trade agreements that exported good U.S. jobs, the radical financial deregulation that unleashed Wall Street greed, and the free market zealotry of then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, who was reappointed by Clinton, were all part of a deal Clinton made with Gingrich, House speaker at that time.
As Gingrich put it in the first Republican debate in South Carolina: "As speaker ... working with President Bill Clinton, we passed a very Reagan-like program, less regulation, lower taxes." Even the 15 percent tax break that Mitt Romney exploited for his carryover private equity income was a result of the unholy Clinton-Gingrich alliance. Both principals of that alliance were pimps for the financial industry, and that includes Freddie Mac, the for-profit stock-traded housing agency that Clinton coddled while it stoked the Ponzi scheme in housing and that rewarded the former speaker with $1.6 million to $1.8 million in consulting fees.
There were, finally, some bold words in Obama's speech about helping beleaguered homeowners, but they ring hollow given this administration's efforts to broker a sweetheart deal between the leading banks and the state attorneys general that would see the banks fined only a pittance for their responsibility in the mortgage meltdown. Obama could have had success demanding mortgage relief if he had made that a condition for bailing out the banks. Now the banksters know he's firing blanks, and they are placing their bets on their more reliable Republican allies to prevent any significant demand for helping homeowners with their underwater mortgages.
Of course, Romney, Obama's most likely opponent in the general election, will never challenge the Wall Street hold on Washington, since he is the personification of the vulture capitalism that is the true cause of America's decline. Obama should shine in comparison with his Republican challenger, but there is little in his State of the Union speech to suggest he will chart a much-needed new course in his second term.
@edgarblythe,
A good piece, edgar. Thanks for sharing it.
