How does Marco Rubio hate poor people--the ones upon whose backs freeman3 says Rubio will balance the budget?

Our plan would also ensure that our tax code works together with the federal welfare system, so that low-income workers are able to climb into the middle class without having to overcome 80%-100% effective marginal tax rates. Often when a worker gets a modest pay raise, higher taxes and lost benefits conspire to leave the person with little extra money in their pocket. Ending this unfortunate reality will involve retooling the Earned Income Tax Credit in coordination with means-tested programs to create a welfare system that works better and removes poverty traps.

https://marcorubio.com/issues/tax-reform/

Pure hate.

I find it absurd that anyone from the party that came into power with a surplus
(in 2000) and frittered it away with two major unpaid for tax cuts and an unnecessary war in Iraq and did nothing to try and head off the Financial Crisis before it hit would be proposing a balanced budget amendment. No such amendment is needed; basic math skills might be good for Republicans, as in if you cut taxes and balloon military spending you are going to vastly increase the deficit. And Republicans like Rubio keep advocating for lower taxes and higher military spending (in non-emergencies) so this talk of a balanced budget amendment is complete nonsense. Republicans in Washington only attempt to be fiscally responsible when there is a Democratic president; when a Republican president gets elected it's massive tax cuts for the wealthy and increased military spending and who cares about the deficit. Voodoo economics is in their DNA.

In fairness, I suspect you may find that the next generation of Republicans, especially those elected on a TP ticket, will continue to be more hawkish on the deficit even when we next see a Republican in the White House. There does appear to have been something of a culture shift in that respect, although we'll obviously have to wait and see.

My point is more general really. I don't like the idea of balanced budget amendments and the like because they take what should be a simple matter of politics and place it into the legal sphere for no other reason than grandiose gesture making. The amounts that our government chooses to tax, spend and borrow are the absolute essentials of politics and responsibility for these things should never be handed over to the courts.

Sassenach wrote:The fad isn't only for balanced budget legislation, that's just one aspect of it. Our previous Labour government started it all over here with the Climate Change Act, which enshrines carbon reduction targets into law no matter the consequences. That's equally silly in my opinion. Gordon Brown wanted to make a big statement about how green he was so he passed a law because that made a bigger statement than setting out a coherent political program and sticking to it over many years. He knew that the opposition could be painted into a corner on the issue if they tried to oppose it, even if their opposition was on the perfectly rational grounds that it's anti-democratic for one government to try and bind the hands of its successors. Balanced budget legislation is just another incarnation of this same cheap tactic.

I understand. Our government has done the same.

Where I would differentiate the two is this: we have had no effort in 20 years to restrain (in any serious way) Federal spending. In fact, our politicians are best at finding new programs and new ways to send "pork" home. At the very least, raising the issue in a concrete format (BBA) forces discussion on it.

And, I don't think proposing an Amendment is a "cheap tactic." It's difficult, nigh-on impossible to do. So, if it were to pass, it would not be a stunt, but the clear will of the people.

fate

And, I don't think proposing an Amendment is a "cheap tactic." It's difficult, nigh-on impossible to do. So, if it were to pass, it would not be a stunt, but the clear will of the peopele

Its a cheap tactic if all they offer is periodic rhetoric about the subject, and never make the herculean effort required to actually move the process.
In the same way that the House voted hundreds of times to repeal the ACA knowing the outcome would be the same each time.

fate

How does Marco Rubio hate poor people

he seems like a decent enough fellow.
But every politician who has cast a vote, will have to defend something in their past. Rubio shouldn't have to defend his personal spending, and its an embarrassment that the NYTimes is trying to make it some kind of issue. The guy made $900K from a book deal, paid off his student debts and bought a boat. Who wouldn't?
For most of the republicans the Iraq war has been a trip wire... Including Rubio... Clinton settled that when she said her vote for the war was a mistake, as was the invasion. But every candidate will have a personal record to defend or deflect.

At some point I'd like to see Rubio explain why he voted for the Scarlett Letter Law in 2001. And Jeb explain why he let the law stand, until it was ruled unconstitutional. It reflects an almost medieval mindset.

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/10/jeb_bus ... it_sounds/

rickyp wrote:fate

How does Marco Rubio hate poor people

he seems like a decent enough fellow.
But every politician who has cast a vote, will have to defend something in their past. Rubio shouldn't have to defend his personal spending, and its an embarrassment that the NYTimes is trying to make it some kind of issue. The guy made $900K from a book deal, paid off his student debts and bought a boat. Who wouldn't?
For most of the republicans the Iraq war has been a trip wire... Including Rubio... Clinton settled that when she said her vote for the war was a mistake, as was the invasion. But every candidate will have a personal record to defend or deflect.

At some point I'd like to see Rubio explain why he voted for the Scarlett Letter Law in 2001. And Jeb explain why he let the law stand, until it was ruled unconstitutional. It reflects an almost medieval mindset.

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/10/jeb_bus ... it_sounds/

So, if Mr. Rubio says voting for that bill was a mistake, and the law was a mistake it would resolve that issue to you, RickyP?

People don't get to wipe their past clean by just saying they made a mistake. Both Jeb Bush and Rubio have some explaining to do and saying they made a mistake is not enough to clear the issue. I can just imagine Hillary hammering either one of them on voting/not vetoing a bill requiring women to list their sexual history in a newspaper in order to put their child up for adoption. I don't know how they explain that one away.

freeman3 wrote:People don't get to wipe their past clean by just saying they made a mistake. Both Jeb Bush and Rubio have some explaining to do and saying they made a mistake is not enough to clear the issue. I can just imagine Hillary hammering either one of them on voting/not vetoing a bill requiring women to list their sexual history in a newspaper in order to put their child up for adoption. I don't know how they explain that one away.

But RickyP said Mrs. Clinton resolved her Iraq war vote by saying it was a mistake. Does that apply for Rubio?

Sidebar concerning adoption:
As an adoptive parent, I understand some of the difficulties of the process. Both the father and mother have to release custody. Each state is different, of course. Perhaps they are trying to find the father? I think that broadcasting sexual histories is a bit much, but if the father is not named; something must be done to protect the adoptive parents from a claim being made post adoption. (Which I have seen, but not experienced).

Hillary still has to answer for that vote but voting for a war a president is saying is vital for national security is a more understandable mistake (as long as you now do acknowledge it's a mistake) than voting for that public shaming bill .

bbauska wrote:Sidebar concerning adoption:
As an adoptive parent, I understand some of the difficulties of the process. Both the father and mother have to release custody. Each state is different, of course. Perhaps they are trying to find the father? I think that broadcasting sexual histories is a bit much, but if the father is not named; something must be done to protect the adoptive parents from a claim being made post adoption. (Which I have seen, but not experienced).

I'm not sure that warrants the law as described in the link.

bbauska

So, if Mr. Rubio says voting for that bill was a mistake, and the law was a mistake it would resolve that issue to you, RickyP

Depends on how he answers the question when and if its asked...
He struggled mightily to answer questions about Iraq.... for those voters who've decided that at the very least the Iraq invasion was a mistake ... his equivocations were probably not effective.

If he struggles to justify the vote for the Scarlet Letter law in the same way .... what are we to think?
I sure would like to see the question asked though.

freeman3

Hillary still has to answer for that vote

I think she has...

In her comments Tuesday she made clear that she viewed her past vote as a mistake, with no qualifications

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/h ... z3crtVAMAz

Well, I guess I don't see anything wrong with requiring the mother to notify potential fathers but it should be done privately. The requirement of public disclosure was simply to shame a woman who who was (purportedly) promiscuous and was unsure of the father.

Ricky: My point is that Hillary does not get rid of that issue merely by saying it's a mistake--it's still an issue. I don't think it will be a very big one , but just because she said it was a mistake does not mean she still does not have to answer for it (note that answer for does not mean the same as provide an answer for)

rickyp wrote:

Hillary still has to answer for that vote

I think she has...

In her comments Tuesday she made clear that she viewed her past vote as a mistake, with no qualifications

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/h ... z3crtVAMAz

Nah, she said Bush misused the authority given to him. She needs to explain what she would have done differently. My guess is she will try to say it was a lever, but no amount of sanctions was going to get Saddam's compliance.

As for Rubio, if the Scarlet Letter law vote was so heinous, how did he subsequently win state-wide election to the Senate?

Hmm, makes you wonder . . .