Republicans shoot down tax on rich

It's working, isn't it? :D

The only way to defeat this highly successful Republican strategy is to get the budget balanced so Republicans can't hold it hostage.

Further: I'm fine with the Buffet Rule getting the axe, for this reason: when an entity (person, government, doesn't matter) can't spend money responsibly, giving them more money is precisely the thing NOT to do. The U.S. government should get its credit cards figuratively snipped until they get the spending under control.

So if someone is burdened by debt (or even spending on a deficit, taking money from their savings every month), they shouldn't get a raise at work, which might solve the problem. Got it.

Of course, in this analogy, they're spending on a deficit now because their pay already got slashed years earlier, and now it's their fault for that.

No, what should happen is that the people who got us into this mess, and people who agree with their thinking, should be fired and kept very far away from the decision-making process, while right-minded people set up to try to fix it.
 
Oh I agree. Wealth without security is a curse not a blessing, our allies could more evenly share the cost of national defense, yadda yadda.

I just find it amusing along the lines of "We need our fiscal house in order! We need to cut spending! Wait no, don't cut benefits for me cut them for somebody else. Wait no, don't tax me, tax somebody else. I guess getting our fiscal house in order isn't important after all if I have to help pay for it."

Heck, even the American Catholic Church has canned the Republican budget proposal as unchristian and harmful to those who have the least ability to cope with it. You know something is just wrong with the bill when the Catholics are willing to issue that condemnation so soon after the row with the Democrats over birth-control.

Just because you are criticizing one guy for something doesn't mean you are applauding the other.
 
Just because you are criticizing one guy for something doesn't mean you are applauding the other.

Which just shows the utter hypocrisy of the Catholic Church's position. They would still rather have people vote for politicians who drive for the maximum human misery than those who support Christian values. And all over one issue that they have simply made up their position on in the first place.
 
Which just shows the utter hypocrisy of the Catholic Church's position. They would still rather have people vote for politicians who drive for the maximum human misery than those who support Christian values. And all over one issue that they have simply made up their position on in the first place.

That just goes to show the "utter hypocrisy" of anyone who deals with the reality of politics. Would it be more or less hypocritical if they remained silent on the issue of this budget? Regardless of whether or not you agree with the Catholics on some issues(I disagree with them on a bunch) you are being nothing short of disingenuous if you deny that they work darn hard to try and improve life for many of society's most vulnerable. That always involves some positions and relationships of expediency.

You are waxing ideologue here. Eww. I'm going to issue the most passive-aggressive compliment I know - you are better than that.
 
That just goes to show the "utter hypocrisy" of anyone who deals with the reality of politics. Would it be more or less hypocritical if they remained silent on the issue of this budget? Regardless of whether or not you agree with the Catholics on some issues(I disagree with them on a bunch) you are being nothing short of disingenuous if you deny that they work darn hard to try and improve life for many of society's most vulnerable. That always involves some positions and relationships of expediency.

You are waxing ideologue here. Eww. I'm going to issue the most passive-aggressive compliment I know - you are better than that.



I think you overstate. The Catholic Church has a lot of charitable activities, and it is a big part of what they do. Support of the poor is a big part of what they do. But when they get involved in politics, at least in the US, it is rarely on the side of the poor. The fact that the Church leaders are willing to abandon the poor over the issues of birth control (it's more than just abortion) is, to me, deeply offensive. They are willing to go to war with Obama and Democrats over an issue where Catholic doctrine is both immoral and had no religious basis. But they are not going to war with Republicans over the Republicans war against the people the Church should be helping.
 
I think you overstate. The Catholic Church has a lot of charitable activities, and it is a big part of what they do. Support of the poor is a big part of what they do. But when they get involved in politics, at least in the US, it is rarely on the side of the poor. The fact that the Church leaders are willing to abandon the poor over the issues of birth control (it's more than just abortion) is, to me, deeply offensive. They are willing to go to war with Obama and Democrats over an issue where Catholic doctrine is both immoral and had no religious basis. But they are not going to war with Republicans over the Republicans war against the people the Church should be helping.

Not really, I don't think. It's possible.

The Church's stance on birth control is not new and indeed they do view what they would interpret as intrusion from the Democratic party into their hospitals and charities with hostility. You can agree of disagree with them here as you want, but their reaction was mostly condemnation. Most of the noise about this issue has been whipped up by the Republican Party, not the church. It was a step the Republicans can exploit, and they will.

What the Catholics have done here again is issue a condemnation a budget that they think will harm the poor. Oddly, the Democrats are doing a piss-poor job of pointing this out. Perhaps the above reaction is a good example of why.
 
Not really, I don't think. It's possible.

The Church's stance on birth control is not new and indeed they do view what they would interpret as intrusion from the Democratic party into their hospitals and charities with hostility. You can agree of disagree with them here as you want, but their reaction was mostly condemnation. Most of the noise about this issue has been whipped up by the Republican Party, not the church. It was a step the Republicans can exploit, and they will.

What the Catholics have done here again is issue a condemnation a budget that they think will harm the poor. Oddly, the Democrats are doing a piss-poor job of pointing this out. Perhaps the above reaction is a good example of why.


Well, the Democrat's political incompetence is the best weapon the Republicans have in their arsenal. So failing to make a good job of showing the bad of Republican positions is par for the course.

However the point is that in states that did what Obama did on the birth control issue the Church squawked a bit, and then lived with it and got on with their business. But while the Church may have condemned the Ryan plan, ultimately they do not go around saying that people like Paul Ryan are going to be excluded from participation in Church rituals. And they have said that about people who support birth control rights or sexual freedom. So my point is that they are a lot more aggressive in attacking sexual matters than they are about poverty matters. If they were really consistent, I would have less of a problem with it. But they do not say "those who persecute the poor shall be denied the Church", only, "those who don't follow all the Church's teachings on sexual matters shall be denied the Church". I find that deeply offensive. I was raised in the Catholic Church, and things like this just keep reminding me that no matter how much I am encouraged to go back, I never will.
 
You are free, by all means, to react with hostility towards a major institution that continually lobbies for eradicating poverty, respecting the right of workers to organize, reducing infant mortality, and having a fair and progressive income tax since you don't agree with them on everything. I cannot partake in their rituals because I do not believe in transubstantiation. It's a faith-based religion - my feelings aren't hurt enough that my first reaction is to pan the whole institution as hypocritical when it's pointed out that I agree with them on something. Besides, I thought we were taking pot-shots at the Republicans! :)
 
Which just shows the utter hypocrisy of the Catholic Church's position. They would still rather have people vote for politicians who drive for the maximum human misery than those who support Christian values. And all over one issue that they have simply made up their position on in the first place.
Just because one person is making terrible mistakes doesn't automatically excuse the other person's mistakes.

I think you overstate. The Catholic Church has a lot of charitable activities, and it is a big part of what they do. Support of the poor is a big part of what they do. But when they get involved in politics, at least in the US, it is rarely on the side of the poor. The fact that the Church leaders are willing to abandon the poor over the issues of birth control (it's more than just abortion) is, to me, deeply offensive. They are willing to go to war with Obama and Democrats over an issue where Catholic doctrine is both immoral and had no religious basis. But they are not going to war with Republicans over the Republicans war against the people the Church should be helping.
How anti-union is the Church?


If the right to life isn't protected what do you really have? The unborn are the most vulnerable.

The HHS row was about the exemption being if, and only if they primarily employ and serve members of their own faith for the purpose of inculcating religious values can they claim it.

Well, the Democrat's political incompetence is the best weapon the Republicans have in their arsenal. So failing to make a good job of showing the bad of Republican positions is par for the course.

However the point is that in states that did what Obama did on the birth control issue the Church squawked a bit, and then lived with it and got on with their business. But while the Church may have condemned the Ryan plan, ultimately they do not go around saying that people like Paul Ryan are going to be excluded from participation in Church rituals. And they have said that about people who support birth control rights or sexual freedom. So my point is that they are a lot more aggressive in attacking sexual matters than they are about poverty matters. If they were really consistent, I would have less of a problem with it. But they do not say "those who persecute the poor shall be denied the Church", only, "those who don't follow all the Church's teachings on sexual matters shall be denied the Church". I find that deeply offensive. I was raised in the Catholic Church, and things like this just keep reminding me that no matter how much I am encouraged to go back, I never will.

Actually in most places they simply self insured themselves.

Have you heard of Biden or Pelosi being denied communion?
 
So if someone is burdened by debt (or even spending on a deficit, taking money from their savings every month), they shouldn't get a raise at work, which might solve the problem. Got it.
I have a feeling you meant that as sarcasm. :) Well, it turns out you're exactly right. Give more money to somebody who's already in debt, and they'll simply spend themselves deeper in.

Of course, in this analogy, they're spending on a deficit now because their pay already got slashed years earlier, and now it's their fault for that.
Maybe. Don't really care. It's irrelevant. You have to live within your means, and nothing's going to change that.

No, what should happen is that the people who got us into this mess, and people who agree with their thinking, should be fired and kept very far away from the decision-making process
Fine and dandy. Except this is the point where I would normally make a comment about Obama being the guy who got us into this mess, at which point it would become clear you and I probably disagree on who actually caused it. And you and I both know how that argument is going to end, because we and others have already had it several times.

So let's just skip all that, and save everybody some trouble. :) So here's where the nation is now: doesn't really matter who got us into this mess any more, and in fact, depending on the varying opinions of people in this thread, the people who caused the problem may already have been fired. Doesn't matter how we got here. We're here. And the only thing to do is deal with it. The federal government is clearly incapable of spending responsibly (regardless of who's actually running it) so the only thing to do is chop the purse strings.


They only way to defeat [insert terrorist, communist, socialist etc] is to give them what they want so it wont be held hostage anymore. ... wait isnt that like appeasement ?
Umm, no. We're not talking about terrorists or communists or socialists here. We're dealing with moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans. Terrorists and socialists and communists have to be dealt with in entirely different ways. The correct way to deal with terrorists is to shoot them; the correct way to deal with irresponsible spending is to cut off the irresponsible spender.

With socialists and communists, the correct response is different from all of the above. They can be safely ignored; they are so few in number that they'll never be a threat to anybody.
 
BasketCase said:
So here's where the nation is now: doesn't really matter who got us into this mess any more, and in fact, depending on the varying opinions of people in this thread, the people who caused the problem may already have been fired. Doesn't matter how we got here. We're here. And the only thing to do is deal with it. The federal government is clearly incapable of spending responsibly (regardless of who's actually running it) so the only thing to do is chop the purse strings.
And this is why that saying old saw is so important:
"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it"

In this case, it certainly DOES matter who got us into this, and how. Republicans' fetishization of deregulation is a huge factor. Clinton-era repeal of Glass-Steagall is right up there (but likely would not have happened without Republican pressure).

The way the Obama administration's DOJ has turned their noses up at the idea of prosecuting - or even investigating - the crimes that may have been committed is nothing short of negligence. Same thing with their refusal to pursue action against Bush officials for torture, violations of wiretap laws, and all the rest of the crap Obama has embraced whole-cloth.

The only reason the federal government appears to be incapable of spending responsibly is because Congress enables that behavior. Stealing assets from Social Security to squelch deficits, the Bush Tax cuts (by far the single biggest contributor to the deficit, and overwhelmingly benefiting the very wealthiest), Responsible government is impossible when the minority leader publicly proclaims that his only goal is to ensure that the President is limited to one term.

This is not Obama's fault, as you surely must know.

This is, I'd say, 80% Republican's fault, 20% Democrats.

And remember who pulls the strings of the Republican marionette: Corporate interests.

Corporate interests are looting this country dry. Sucking the wages out of workers, the pensions out of unions, forcing new hires into internships, the list goes on.

So stop pretending that an individual elected 3 years ago is single-handedly responsible for the status quo. You know it's not true.
 
Followed by a second Great Depression 4 years later...

Wouldn't it have been preferable to have "dark days" over "global economic crisis"?

Double meta sarcasm score?
 
Umm, no. We're not talking about terrorists or communists or socialists here. We're dealing with moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans. Terrorists and socialists and communists have to be dealt with in entirely different ways. The correct way to deal with terrorists is to shoot them; the correct way to deal with irresponsible spending is to cut off the irresponsible spender.

With socialists and communists, the correct response is different from all of the above. They can be safely ignored; they are so few in number that they'll never be a threat to anybody.

But Obama is both a terrorist and a communist !
Just as long as it is ok for Democrats to do the very same to Republicans.

Rnd 3 of Tax cuits and deregulation coming right up.
Third times the charm. :king:
 
In this case, it certainly DOES matter who got us into this, and how.
Wrong. It doesn't matter at all. I'll now show you why.

Republicans' fetishization of deregulation is a huge factor. Clinton-era repeal of Glass-Steagall is right up there (but likely would not have happened without Republican pressure).
Did Clinton sign off on it, or not? His decision.

The way the Obama administration's DOJ has turned their noses up at the idea of prosecuting - or even investigating - the crimes that may have been committed is nothing short of negligence.
If Obama could have done that, he certainly would have. Prosecute greedy bankers and lenders? That would have been a golden haymaker for him. The reason he didn't try is because the charges were bogus from the beginning.

Same thing with their refusal to pursue action against Bush officials for torture, violations of wiretap laws, and all the rest of the crap Obama has embraced whole-cloth.
Off-topic.

The only reason the federal government appears to be incapable of spending responsibly is because Congress enables that behavior.
Such as the Democrat-controlled Congress of 2008-2010? Obama and the Democratic Congress performed more deficit spending in those two years than Bush Jr. pulled off in eight. Also remember Bush Jr.'s largest deficits were in 2006-2008.....when the Democrats controlled Congress. So, if Congress is the enabler, which party is at fault? The Democrats.

This is not Obama's fault, as you surely must know.
Wrong. Obama is more at fault than Bush Jr. was.

And remember who pulls the strings of the Republican marionette: Corporate interests.
Definitely wrong. Corporate interests (try to) pull the strings of both parties. They donate as much to the Democratic party as to the Republicans. Mostly because a lot of corporations actually stand to reap more benefits from having the Democrats in power.

That so much goes wrong for corporations in D.C. (such as Keystone XL getting the axe) proves that corporations have very little actual power.​


Okay. That entire indented block up there? That whole section is just to prove a point. Here's the Big Secret: you disagree with me on everything in that indented section, don't you?

See? That's why it doesn't matter who got us into this mess: because you and I can't agree on who did. The question of "who's fault is it" is worthless (Obama and the Democrats are mostly to blame, but that's academic at this point).


That's the reason my solution is the proper one: because if you cut the government's revenue stream, the government can't spend us into Icelandville, regardless of which party is in control.

I say the Buffet Rule should not be passed. And that's the reason why.
 
Wrong. It doesn't matter at all. I'll now show you why.

Did Clinton sign off on it, or not? His decision.

Such as the Democrat-controlled Congress of 2008-2010? Obama and the Democratic Congress performed more deficit spending in those two years than Bush Jr. pulled off in eight. Also remember Bush Jr.'s largest deficits were in 2006-2008.....when the Democrats controlled Congress. So, if Congress is the enabler, which party is at fault? The Democrats.

So its the President fault except when its the congress fault ? :confused:

/meh

As Vice President Cheney said "deficits don't matter"
 
Here's a list of liberal media outlets, off the top of my head:

AntiWar.com
AntiWar.com is most certainly not leftist. Back when I had a subscription to the American Conservative, I'd see writers from Antiwar.com all the time in the pages. That and they're one of the few places on the internet that wrote about Lawrence Dennis, and there's was the most positive take I'd seen about him outside some unsavory parts of the Internet.
 
So its the President fault except when its the congress fault ? :confused:
Yup. And at other times, it's the President's fault and Congress' fault at the same time (2008 to 2010 being one such case). No, the Democrats aren't 100% to blame, and the Republicans aren't 0% to blame--but a significant majority of America's current debt was rubber-stamped by Democratic Presidents/Congresses.
 
BasketCase said:
Okay. That entire indented block up there? That whole section is just to prove a point. Here's the Big Secret: you disagree with me on everything in that indented section, don't you?

Actually, I don't disagree with you on everything there.
1. Yes, Clinton signed off on it. I never claimed he didn't. But no liberal would have done that without 20 prior years of conservative pressure to deregulate. It's not as if he came up with the idea out of the blue.

2. My personal opinion, which is certainly not fully-informed on the matter, is that Obama's DOJ has 2 reasons to ignore investigating the banking + mortgage crisis: a) their boss has surrounded himself with bankers, b) there is no political reward for them. I don't think it's because the charges were bogus. Do you read Matt Taibbi? He's been like a pitbull on this, and it seems pretty clear to me that people could be prosecuted if there was political will.

3. Agreed

4. Mostly agree, but would quibble on the details.

5. Disagree

6. Agree. I never claimed that the Democratic party was immune from corporate influence. And I completely agree with you that corporations can sometimes get away with more under Democratic control than Republican. But I maintain that the backbone of the Republican party is an idealogical allegiance to big corporate interests. It's all to easy to find data that shows that corporations give more to republican campaigns than democratic ones. It doesn't mean that they DON'T give to Dems, which is what you seem to have mistakenly taken me to think.


In sum, I agree with you that you and I won't agree on who got us into this mess ;)

But that doesn't mean that it's not in the government's, the economy's, or the citizen's interest to investigate what happened and pursue legal action if it's warranted.

But your stance, unless I'm mistaken, is that there's no point since nobody did anything wrong. How can you be so sure without looking into it??

That's the reason my solution is the proper one: because if you cut the government's revenue stream, the government can't spend us into Icelandville, regardless of which party is in control.
And this is our fundamental disagreement. However I think you could have picked a better example than Iceland. Maybe Greece?

Do you know what happened when the creditors came knocking on the doors of the Althing? Iceland's political establishment told them to GTFO - that Icelanders were not going to bail out the reckless banking sector, making the creditors whole. And if that meant a bad bond rating then so be it.

Iceland's representatives kept the interests of their citizens prioritized above the interests of the corporate sector. Is that really the America you want to see? :dubious:
 
Top Bottom