Doctor Fate wrote:This is THE issue for this election,

OMGROTFPMPLMAO

That is by far the funniest comment I've read on Redscape--ever.

Thank you.

Guapo wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:This is THE issue for this election,

OMGROTFPMPLMAO

That is by far the funniest comment I've read on Redscape--ever.

Thank you.

Jeff, nice to hear from you again, and you are still true to form.

danivon wrote:So basically, Russell, these Republican congressmen and women are just like any other hypocritical politician would be. They make signed pledges they have no intention of being held to, and they would indeed give the opposite answer to someone else if they thought it would help them get elected.

Well, I don't see it as being hypocritical. They are saying they don't want to raise taxes. What Republican does. However, governing is the art of compromise. If they can get real cuts and not just promises of not increased spending or cuts in the future by compromising on some tax increases, I don't see that as hypocritical. Rather I see that as being realists.

Actually, what I find rich here is that the two guys who usually rip on me for standing on principle that providing healthcare is not government responsibility are now saying Republicans are hypocrites because they may be willing to compromise on taxes

danivon wrote:Notwithstanding any "but the Democrats do it too" arguments, don't you find that to be a very depressing picture of modern American politics? Does it not at least worry you that this is going on in your own Party?

Not really. Because I don't really see campaign pledges as moral promises but rather as guides on how a person would like to govern. However, I am not naive to think that is how it will always work out. Governing is about compromise. As long as main core principles are maintained, I am not going to sweat the small stuff. If a Republican can get real spending cuts in exchange for minor tax increases, I going to call that a win.

Taxpayer Protection Pledge
I, _____, pledge to the taxpayers of the (____
district of the) state of ______ and to the American
people that I will: ONE, oppose any and all efforts
to increase the marginal income tax rate for
individuals and business; and TWO, oppose any
net reduction or elimination of deductions and
credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further
reducing tax rates.

There is nothing in this pledge, which Boehner has signed, which talks about spending.
There is no room to move on tax rates whatsoever.
Whether or not republicans trusted democrats on spending is perhaps one dynamic.
The other definite dynamic is that the nut cases (labelled as such by Archduke) would end any republicans career (see primary defeats of moderate republicans). if they failed to honor this pledge.

So they can wink at their public commitment, but they pay at the next primary. Even Boehner. Perhaps, especially Boehner. No senior congressional leader, even one who thinks he's pretty safe, wants to have to fund an expensive primary campaign against a Tea party candidate who's complaint is that the incumbent is a RINO . And for proof they point to his default on his pledge....

The budget debate was Kabuki theatre... Boehner couldn't deliver a cowed republican congress anchored to their ATP pledges.

Doctor Fate wrote:

Guapo wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:This is THE issue for this election,

OMGROTFPMPLMAO

That is by far the funniest comment I've read on Redscape--ever.

Thank you.

Jeff, nice to hear from you again, and you are still true to form.

Right, because Romney was clearly the deficit hawk in the GOP Primary. How on earth can you say such a thing with Romney as your candidate?

Sassenach wrote:

To be frank, Europeans are in no position to lecture us. You need to heal yourselves.

You do follow the news I take it ? Half of Europe is up in arms right now because of budget measures that are way more severe than anything seen in America. Yes, Europe has been profligate over the years too, probably moreso, but action is being taken here.

Up in arms because suddenly they might not be able to retire at 60, but have to grind all the way to 62 (see France).

Many EU countries are taking measures, but some are not (like France). No matter how you slice it, EU nations have been more profligate/socialist and all President Obama has done is to try and help us "catch up."

And for the last time, I'm not a Democrat !

And, you're no Republican.

Just out of interest, why don't you accept a spending freeze as a cut in real terms ?

I reject it for two reasons: 1) Democrats won't even accept this (I'm pretty tired of reading how inflexible the GOP is--Democrats will take no non-military cuts); 2) So many programs have ballooned over the last couple of years, why should we freeze the bloat in place?

I find your position particularly odd when taking into account the fact that most Republicans seem to see cutting entitlement spending as the biggest priority.

That's not really accurate. Republicans and Democrats see problems with Social Security and Medicare funding down the road. No one is proposing cutting other welfare. These two programs have to be reformed or they will go under eventually. It's so dire that Paul Ryan and Ron Wyden, a progressive Senator from Oregon have come up with a proposal. Of course, the President is hiding under his desk.

Let's face it, deficit reduction is very much like turning a supertanker. It can only be done slowly and over a period of time.

Some of it is easy. Some of it will be difficult. However, President Obama has campaigned for nothing in this area. All he has done is increase the problem.

Guapo wrote:Right, because Romney was clearly the deficit hawk in the GOP Primary. How on earth can you say such a thing with Romney as your candidate?

Not even the worst Republican wastrel in memory holds a candle to the President.

Up in arms because suddenly they might not be able to retire at 60, but have to grind all the way to 62 (see France).

Many EU countries are taking measures, but some are not (like France). No matter how you slice it, EU nations have been more profligate/socialist and all President Obama has done is to try and help us "catch up."

This is true. My point though is that European nations are currently involved in not just talking about budgetary responsibility but doing things about it, and the protests that we're seeing are evidence of the political difficulties that this entails. I don't think any nation in Europe, with the exception of Germany, has any right to lecture the States on profligacy in public spending. I do think though that a serious debate is taking place here which is being shaped by real actions that can be evaluated, which isn't really the case over there because both parties seem more bothered by blocking the other than they are with taking decisions in the national interest.

The other aspect of that point is to highlight that all countries which are currently engaged in actually trying to cut deficits are both cutting spending and raising taxes. I really don't think there's any other way you can do it that's going to be politically feasible.

And, you're no Republican.

Sure, but I've never claimed to be. I just don't see the relevance in countering my criticisms of Republicans by constant reference to how the Democrats are just as bad or worse.

That's not really accurate. Republicans and Democrats see problems with Social Security and Medicare funding down the road. No one is proposing cutting other welfare. These two programs have to be reformed or they will go under eventually. It's so dire that Paul Ryan and Ron Wyden, a progressive Senator from Oregon have come up with a proposal. Of course, the President is hiding under his desk.

My point in raising this was to illustrate that the really big issues around puiblic spending aren't ones that require immediate dollar terms cuts so much as long term measures to control the growth in future liabilities. As such I find it surprising that somebody could dismiss a spending freeze and claim that it isn't a cut. I wasn't necessarily saying that what Russ would term a 'real' cut shouldn't be taking place, I'm sure there are a number of areas where this would be appropriate. I was just saying that a freeze can also be a cut.

rickyp wrote:Taxpayer Protection Pledge
I, _____, pledge to the taxpayers of the (____
district of the) state of ______ and to the American
people that I will: ONE, oppose any and all efforts
to increase the marginal income tax rate for
individuals and business; and TWO, oppose any
net reduction or elimination of deductions and
credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further
reducing tax rates.

There is nothing in this pledge, which Boehner has signed, which talks about spending.
There is no room to move on tax rates whatsoever.
Whether or not republicans trusted democrats on spending is perhaps one dynamic.
The other definite dynamic is that the nut cases (labelled as such by Archduke) would end any republicans career (see primary defeats of moderate republicans). if they failed to honor this pledge.

So they can wink at their public commitment, but they pay at the next primary. Even Boehner. Perhaps, especially Boehner. No senior congressional leader, even one who thinks he's pretty safe, wants to have to fund an expensive primary campaign against a Tea party candidate who's complaint is that the incumbent is a RINO . And for proof they point to his default on his pledge....

The budget debate was Kabuki theatre... Boehner couldn't deliver a cowed republican congress anchored to their ATP pledges.

You know what is really insightful about your post here?

The complete lack of any insight. Well, also the pretense that Democrats bear no responsibility to actually compromise. It's funny: they had both Houses and the Presidency for two years and they did what, exactly, with regard to fiscal responsibility? Anyone remember then Speaker Pelosi announcing "pay-go?"

Anyone remember the President vowing to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term?

But, it's ALL the Republicans' fault in Rickyworld.

Just out of interest, why don't you accept a spending freeze as a cut in real terms ?

I reject it for two reasons: 1) Democrats won't even accept this (I'm pretty tired of reading how inflexible the GOP is--Democrats will take no non-military cuts); 2) So many programs have ballooned over the last couple of years, why should we freeze the bloat in place?

Here's how the republican candidaye actually feels about spending cuts in 2013.

Halperin: Why not in the first year, if you're elected — why not in 2013, go all the way and propose the kind of budget with spending restraints, that you'd like to see after four years in office? Why not do it more quickly?
Romney: Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I'm not going to do that, of course. [emphasis mine]

It couldn't be clearer: Mitt Romney believes that a large cuts to federal outlays will throw us into a recession or depression.
It is a repudiation of the Tea Party style thinking that you can grow the economy by cutting.
Our own Joe Weisenthal has been arguing fiercely that Romney has always understood this and would not fall for the Tea-Party idea that you can cut your way to prosperity, that austerity will unleash growth

http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-rom ... omy-2012-5

Sassenach wrote:I do think though that a serious debate is taking place here which is being shaped by real actions that can be evaluated, which isn't really the case over there because both parties seem more bothered by blocking the other than they are with taking decisions in the national interest.

I don't think this is accurate. Democrats had both Houses and the Presidency. Because of the Tea Party, Republicans took back the House in 2010.

So now, unless the Republicans simply agree to accept the 30% bloat in the budget since 2008, accept tax increases (contra what brought them into power), and accept faux cuts by Democrats, they're being obstructionists?

I don't buy it.

The other aspect of that point is to highlight that all countries which are currently engaged in actually trying to cut deficits are both cutting spending and raising taxes. I really don't think there's any other way you can do it that's going to be politically feasible.

Make some actual cuts, reform entitlements, and I think Republicans could be a bit squishy when it came to raising revenue by reforming the tax code. How would they do that? By, for example, announcing they had cut subsidies for ethanol. There are a lot of things, common sense cuts, that would make political sense. Who would cry, other than Obama bundlers, if Green Energy companies no longer got subsidized? What if they went really "crazy" and auctioned off the Postal Service? There are all kinds of things that the middle of America would think were "about time" items.

And, you're no Republican.

Sure, but I've never claimed to be. I just don't see the relevance in countering my criticisms of Republicans by constant reference to how the Democrats are just as bad or worse.

Your critique of the Republicans is sorrily one-sided. They did not preside over the last $5T in debt--and more if you go back to 2007, when Democrats took over the House. Additionally, it is the President's job, no matter which party he's in, to lead, to be a problem-solver. Obama has made that impossible with his constant cheap-shotting of Republicans in Congress, dating back to the healthcare debate (before the law was even passed). He has done all he can to embarrass them, ridicule them, and caricature them. Then he is mystified when they don't bow to his demands. He does not negotiate. He demands.

You have ignored all of that and put all the weight on the Republicans. I think you're being unreasonable.

My point in raising this was to illustrate that the really big issues around puiblic spending aren't ones that require immediate dollar terms cuts so much as long term measures to control the growth in future liabilities. As such I find it surprising that somebody could dismiss a spending freeze and claim that it isn't a cut.

Let me give you an illustration. My wife and I have "allowances," money we are allowed to spend without question (see we actually have a budget, so the analogy to the government instantly breaks down, but bear with me). If I announced three years ago that I was going to increase my allowance by 30% and it put us into a precarious financial situation, would my wife be shouting "Hallelujah" when I announce a "freeze?" I don't think so.

President Obama and the Democrats have gone on a binge that would make Bush blush. And, as far as I know, they haven't even offered a freeze. Even if they did, is a freeze on a bloated budget a "cut?" I don't think so.

I wasn't necessarily saying that what Russ would term a 'real' cut shouldn't be taking place, I'm sure there are a number of areas where this would be appropriate. I was just saying that a freeze can also be a cut.

I would agree--IF the budget had only gone up to cover inflation and population increase. It has not.

rickyp wrote:

Just out of interest, why don't you accept a spending freeze as a cut in real terms ?

I reject it for two reasons: 1) Democrats won't even accept this (I'm pretty tired of reading how inflexible the GOP is--Democrats will take no non-military cuts); 2) So many programs have ballooned over the last couple of years, why should we freeze the bloat in place?

Here's how the republican candidaye actually feels about spending cuts in 2013.

Halperin: Why not in the first year, if you're elected — why not in 2013, go all the way and propose the kind of budget with spending restraints, that you'd like to see after four years in office? Why not do it more quickly?
Romney: Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I'm not going to do that, of course. [emphasis mine]

It couldn't be clearer: Mitt Romney believes that a large cuts to federal outlays will throw us into a recession or depression.
It is a repudiation of the Tea Party style thinking that you can grow the economy by cutting.
Our own Joe Weisenthal has been arguing fiercely that Romney has always understood this and would not fall for the Tea-Party idea that you can cut your way to prosperity, that austerity will unleash growth

http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-rom ... omy-2012-5

Great find, Ricky! What a swell article!

So, when he endorsed the Ryan budget?

Look, anyone can take one paragraph out of anyone's mouth and spin it anyway they want. "Romney Admits It--Cutting Government Spending Hurts the Economy."

Sounds fair.

Doctor Fate wrote:Look, anyone can take one paragraph out of anyone's mouth and spin it anyway they want.

qft

Archduke Russell John wrote:Well, I don't see it as being hypocritical. They are saying they don't want to raise taxes. What Republican does. However, governing is the art of compromise. If they can get real cuts and not just promises of not increased spending or cuts in the future by compromising on some tax increases, I don't see that as hypocritical. Rather I see that as being realists.

Sorry, but signing a pledge is not just saying they don't want to increase tax rates. It is explicitly saying that they will not. The Pledge does not mention spending. It only concerns taxes.

Actually, what I find rich here is that the two guys who usually rip on me for standing on principle that providing healthcare is not government responsibility are now saying Republicans are hypocrites because they may be willing to compromise on taxes

Hmm. I disagree with your position on healthcare, but it's not hypocritical. I disagree with the pledge too. What I wonder is what Tea Party Republicans will think if they see Republican politicians sign a pledge and then trash it. I'd rather that politicians were 'honest' when seeking office, so people can decide what they want and live with it. You are telling me that honesty in electioneering doesn't matter.

ARJ wrote:

danivon wrote:Notwithstanding any "but the Democrats do it too" arguments, don't you find that to be a very depressing picture of modern American politics? Does it not at least worry you that this is going on in your own Party?

Not really. Because I don't really see campaign pledges as moral promises but rather as guides on how a person would like to govern. However, I am not naive to think that is how it will always work out. Governing is about compromise. As long as main core principles are maintained, I am not going to sweat the small stuff. If a Republican can get real spending cuts in exchange for minor tax increases, I going to call that a win.

Ah, well, I guess that's where we differ. I take campaign pledges seriously. If you are going to be a compromising politician, it is only honest to tell the electorate that. We should treat voters like adults, and let them live with the consequences. Too often we see the public taken for fools by politicians, pandered to, lied to, abandoned for special interests.

No wonder election turnouts in many western nations are low.

danivon wrote:Ah, well, I guess that's where we differ. I take campaign pledges seriously. If you are going to be a compromising politician, it is only honest to tell the electorate that. We should treat voters like adults, and let them live with the consequences. Too often we see the public taken for fools by politicians, pandered to, lied to, abandoned for special interests.

Well, no offense but I find that naively idealistic and just asking to be disappointed. If your hypothetical politician was going to be an elected dictator then sure. However, when you are 1 of a couple hundred there is no way you are going to get everything you campaigned on. The only way you anything done is by compromise.

Voters should act like adults an recognize that fact.