as if on cue...

Argument by demonising others, smears by association, denunciations... it's like you want to be seen as a loudmouth partisan hack, Steve.

danivon wrote:as if on cue...

Argument by demonising others, smears by association, denunciations... it's like you want to be seen as a loudmouth partisan hack, Steve.

Her name is in the report. What do you know about Jan Schakowsky?

I mean, really, I hate to confuse you with facts and accurate representations.

I was referring more to your previous post. When you start with the facts and accurate representations, I'll let you know how confused I am, mmmkay?

danivon wrote:I was referring more to your previous post. When you start with the facts and accurate representations, I'll let you know how confused I am, mmmkay?

Oh, you don't need to let me know. It's apparent.

Back to Obama's plan. His good friends at Goldman Sachs have put some flesh on the rotting bones he presented. The picture is, predictably, not pretty:

So of the 3.4 percentage points of savings, more than half — 1.9 points — comes from taxes. That’s 56 percent, not the one-third or one-quarter that Obama was talking about. And I am assuming that Goldman is using the White House’s rosier economic forecasts when evaluating Obama’s plan. (Ryan uses the gloomier ones from the Congressional Budget Office.) I think the Republicans will be pointing this out.

UPDATE: Here is one more key bit from the Goldman Report:

Measured against the CBO alternative scenario, the President’s proposal relies more heavily on increased revenue than the other proposals. It assumes that the $1 trillion in proposed revenue increase (over 12 years) does not include the additional $700bn (over ten years) from allowing the upper-income tax provisions to expire; the President’s spending cut proposal is on the same general scale as the external commissions, though somewhat smaller, at around 1.5% of ten-year GDP.

To be clear, Obama is abolishing the Bush tax cuts for $250,000 and an additional $1 trillion tax hike.

Of course, unlike Walter Mondale, the One won't just say he's raising taxes. Nope. He called it "decreasing tax cut expenditures" or something crazy like that.

Spend, spend, spend--then try and convince Americans the only way to pay for what he just spent is to take more money from somebody, especially if it seems like it's not you.

There is inevitably a "trickle-down" effect on taxes. When you tax businesses and those who create businesses, sooner or later some of those costs are passed on.

And, don't be fooled. Obama's not done spending. He'll keep digging until there aren't enough dupes to support it.

geo

In some ways social liberalism may have grown out of political conservatism, as in the government should keep it's nose out of my business! It shouldn't care who I love, or marry, or what my gender is. Maybe. But honestly, I didn't even think about that until you mentioned

Perhaps your close examination of what conservatives in power actually do also might give you pause. As Steve has pointed out, there haven't been practicing "fiscal" conservatives in the US since ...Nixon or Ford. (Reagan wasn't, in practice).
A conservative is usually narrowly defined as pro-business. Eisenhower was a conservative, but he also warned about the dangers of subverting society and government to a willful business community. (Okay, in his case the military-industrial complex).
I think that if you really examine the Reagan period, you'll find that he believed foremost in limited government. But I'm not sure limited government is necessarily conservative. All it means is that you've given up control on the direction of your society to the whim of corporations. When those corporations are national in scope, I suppose that can usually work out. When they are multi-national their goals often do not support a positive direction for a nation. (exmples: Outsourcing jobs, development of foreign resources over domestic, development of foreign industry over domestic for short term profit.)
I think Geo, you long for Eisenhower more than Rockefeller. But either gave a damn about controlling the direction of the nation not simply relying upon the wisdom of the markets and the efficiencies of corporations.
The US is paying today for the abdication of its industrial policy to multi nationals in the 80s'. Everyone since then who says they are conservative have paid lip service to fiscal prudence, and fought the kinds of benefits derived from good governance that original conservatives practiced. Example: Banking regulation wasn't a socialist idea, but something that conservative people knew was essential to the practice of healthy commerce and the continued development of steady business investment and development.
Abandoning conservative banking and financial services regulation to the more laissez faire regime that pre-ordained the 08 collapse is an example of what redefining the idea of conservatism has meant.
Conservatism used to mean careful, gradual change to society. Now it just means limited government. The emphasis on the second is, in part, why society has had to endure sudden violent financial calamities lately. And why conservatism seems ill defined and has to hang onto social conservatism as a way of projecting any semblance of what its former nature.

The executives of Goldman Sachs should be in jail.

rickyp wrote:The executives of Goldman Sachs should be in jail.

Throw in the last couple of Treasury Secretaries, and I'm right with ya.

rickyp wrote:All it means is that you've given up control on the direction of your society to the whim of corporations.

In one sentence, you've nicely (perhaps unwittingly) summarized the modern liberal view: it's government versus corporations.

Let that marinate.

This story is good for a chuckle.

WASHINGTON – House Republicans scrambled Friday to vote down their own extremely conservative budget after Democrats called their bluff and withheld opposition, forcing GOP lawmakers to defeat the bill themselves.

The proposal, put forth by the Republican Study Committee, was a more extreme alternative to the plan offered by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI). It sought to make massive cuts to Social Security and Medicare while providing even larger tax breaks for high income earners.

A proposal like that would ordinarily have no chance of passing, typically earning total opposition from Democrats and dissent from enough Republicans. Yet voting on it would serve to please the GOP's right flank, while passage would tar the party with seeking to gut America's social safety net.

But, far from unified opposition, a total of 172 Democrats voted "present." That shocked Republicans, forcing some of them to flip their "yes" votes to "no" in order to defeat the bill that would otherwise have passed with a majority.

The measure ultimately failed 119-136.

Shortly after, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) wrote to his Twitter followers, "Dems voting present on RSC budget to highlight GOP divisions, plans to end Medicare - which bdgt does GOP support? Ryan or Ryan on steroids?"

Doctor Fate wrote:

geojanes wrote:More on topic, I think your attitude about my political views, which is similar to your previous comments regarding "RINOs," is part of the reason Obama will be reelected. In the American presidential system, big tent=winner while small tent=loser. Here you and your brethren in the Church of Ronald Reagan are working on excluding me, Colin Powell, Olympia Snowe, Lincoln Chafee, Paul O'Neil, etc..

By that reasoning, Michael Moore should be the reason you won't vote for Obama. How is he any less Left than I am right?

No. I'm sure Michael Moore and the far left would welcome me and my vote, unlike the far right. Besides, Michael Moore is funny. (OK, Huckabee's funny too, but he doesn't get the same chance to show it off.)

So . . . this is more indication that you are not a swing voter. You are a liberal. There is no Republican who might possibly run that you would support.

There are a lot of Republicans who I would vote for (like any of the moderates I mentioned) but are they going to run? Moderates like them get skewered by the primaries by guys like you, so they don't want to run, can't run, because their faith is suspect.

Who was the last Republican candidate for President that you voted for? My guess is you never have. If that is the case, you have to redefine "swing voter" to call yourself one. You're not open to voting for a GOP presidential candidate, so if there's a "swing" it's from Democrat to something more liberal.

As I told you, I typically vote for third party candidates, except for Obama, and when I was 18 years old I voted for Walter Mondale, but I was young. I might have voted for Bob Dole, but I was disenfranchised that year because I moved to NYC too close to the election date to register. I did, and still do, like Bob Dole.

The nation has drifted right over the past couple of generations, don't you think? Now, I'm talking about fundamentally, rather than budgetary stuff which is ideologically neutral.

Spending is not "ideologically neutral." Someone who is genuinely conservative does not want to expand the government's reach and therefore is less willing to spend more. That's why Bush was not a conservative and most Republicans have not been as conservative as I would like.

I thought that since Regan and Bush liked to spend money they didn't have and Clinton balanced the budget this has become neutral ideologically. Perhaps we can say it is classically conservative.

There was a lot of faith in govt culturally, which lead to people looking to gov't to help solve problems. Forty years ago, you really could say you were a socialist with a straight-face, because more gov't was not automatically a terrible thing. Not many people did, but a modern relic from that era, Bernie Sanders still says that's what he is. When he goes, he may be the last.

Swing voter? Not a chance.

You are misunderstanding me, I'm not saying that I think socialism is a good thing, I was saying that culturally 40 years ago, it was more acceptable to say that in America than it is today, largely because people thought of gov't in a different way.

So yeah, you're convincing me Steve: In 2012 Rockefeller Republicans = Regan Democrats of 1980.

I'm not convincing you of anything. You've always been a fan of big government.

Really? I had no idea. Thanks for setting me straight!

I also understand why, because for men of faith--the church of RR--you don't let just anyone in, you've really got to be a man of faith, a republican true believer. It makes me sad.

So much better to have a GOP that stands for nothing. That way, like Pelosi said the other day, elections mean nothing--since both parties (in her perfect world) want the same thing: a growing government.

Now that is interesting. If I follow your sarcastic logic, I think you're saying that you'd rather the GOP lose than compromise in fundamental way that changes the GOP into something else. I think it's fascinating and completely opposite to how I think of things. Being politically secular, parties have no meaning to me. I just look at what they're saying. Earlier, you picked up on my historical reference to socialism and tried to rip it apart. Socialism isn't evil to me, it isn't good, it just is. Politics isn't about good and evil, it's just about finding a way that's best for all Americans, and coming to a way we can move forward together. Politically you seem intent on having a nation that follows your personal ideology and you won't be happy until it does. But we can't all be members of your church. Not all of us have the faith it requires.

Questions: If making some compromises would allow all Americans to find something they like about their country and their government wouldn't' that be a good thing, even if it means you lose something that you wanted? I say absolutely. Compromise and respect for our fellow citizens is a fundamental part of our civil society. The idea of shared sacrifice for shared benefit is why our country functions. Would you rather have a gov't that you think is perfect but 1/2 the nation hates, or would you rather have a gov't that you and most people think is OK? I'd pick the latter every time.

rickyp wrote:geo

In some ways social liberalism may have grown out of political conservatism, as in the government should keep it's nose out of my business! It shouldn't care who I love, or marry, or what my gender is. Maybe. But honestly, I didn't even think about that until you mentioned

Perhaps your close examination of what conservatives in power actually do also might give you pause. As Steve has pointed out, there haven't been practicing "fiscal" conservatives in the US since ...Nixon or Ford. (Reagan wasn't, in practice).
A conservative is usually narrowly defined as pro-business. Eisenhower was a conservative, but he also warned about the dangers of subverting society and government to a willful business community. (Okay, in his case the military-industrial complex).
I think that if you really examine the Reagan period, you'll find that he believed foremost in limited government. But I'm not sure limited government is necessarily conservative. All it means is that you've given up control on the direction of your society to the whim of corporations. When those corporations are national in scope, I suppose that can usually work out. When they are multi-national their goals often do not support a positive direction for a nation. (exmples: Outsourcing jobs, development of foreign resources over domestic, development of foreign industry over domestic for short term profit.)
I think Geo, you long for Eisenhower more than Rockefeller. But either gave a damn about controlling the direction of the nation not simply relying upon the wisdom of the markets and the efficiencies of corporations.
The US is paying today for the abdication of its industrial policy to multi nationals in the 80s'. Everyone since then who says they are conservative have paid lip service to fiscal prudence, and fought the kinds of benefits derived from good governance that original conservatives practiced. Example: Banking regulation wasn't a socialist idea, but something that conservative people knew was essential to the practice of healthy commerce and the continued development of steady business investment and development.
Abandoning conservative banking and financial services regulation to the more laissez faire regime that pre-ordained the 08 collapse is an example of what redefining the idea of conservatism has meant.
Conservatism used to mean careful, gradual change to society. Now it just means limited government. The emphasis on the second is, in part, why society has had to endure sudden violent financial calamities lately. And why conservatism seems ill defined and has to hang onto social conservatism as a way of projecting any semblance of what its former nature.

Great post Ricky. But since I agree with what you're writing, I'm sure it means I just a big gov't loving liberal. Ah well. It's still a good post.

geojanes wrote:There are a lot of Republicans who I would vote for (like any of the moderates I mentioned) but are they going to run? Moderates like them get skewered by the primaries by guys like you, so they don't want to run, can't run, because their faith is suspect.

To be direct, plain, and clear: this is a crock.

I have told people we don't elect a theologian-in-chief. I never vote on the basis of faith.

And, in fact, you've indicated you may. You've certainly taken, at the least, some side-swipes at faith during this thread. I know MX has said he would discriminate against anyone who is a creationist.

I voted for Romney, the man who I believe belongs to a cult, not the "Baptist" Huckabee and not the "Born-again" McCain, because I judged him to have the best chance to win.

As I told you, I typically vote for third party candidates, except for Obama, and when I was 18 years old I voted for Walter Mondale, but I was young. I might have voted for Bob Dole, but I was disenfranchised that year because I moved to NYC too close to the election date to register. I did, and still do, like Bob Dole.

So, you would have voted for Dole, maybe. We'll never know what might have happened. What you have said is that you have never pulled the lever for a Republican for President. As I said, I don't know how that makes you a "swing voter," except that you go from the far Left (Nader) to the Left (Obama).

That doesn't make you a bad guy. It just kind of puts a damper on the whole "swing voter" thing.

I thought that since Regan and Bush liked to spend money they didn't have and Clinton balanced the budget this has become neutral ideologically. Perhaps we can say it is classically conservative.

I've let this go a number of times. "Regan" was a Secretary of the Treasury Department. Reagan was President.

Clinton balanced the budget because of a number of factors--explosion of Internet companies, Republican Congress, etc. It was not an ideological compulsion to cut government. This was the guy, after all, who tried to pass Hillarycare, so let's not turn him into the forerunner of Ron Paul. He was interested in expanding government, but circumstances restricted him.

You are misunderstanding me, I'm not saying that I think socialism is a good thing, I was saying that culturally 40 years ago, it was more acceptable to say that in America than it is today, largely because people thought of gov't in a different way.

Okay, and I would argue that's because so many of the programs you were extolling have failed utterly.

Now that is interesting. If I follow your sarcastic logic, I think you're saying that you'd rather the GOP lose than compromise in fundamental way that changes the GOP into something else. I think it's fascinating and completely opposite to how I think of things.

It's simple: when one party wants a rapid expansion of government (Democrats) and the other wants a slightly slower expansion of government (Republicans), they get along pretty well. That was Pelosi's point . . . she just left off the part about it leading to massive debt and inevitable tax increases to try and bail water on the flood of deficit-spending.

Being politically secular, parties have no meaning to me. I just look at what they're saying. Earlier, you picked up on my historical reference to socialism and tried to rip it apart. Socialism isn't evil to me, it isn't good, it just is. Politics isn't about good and evil, it's just about finding a way that's best for all Americans, and coming to a way we can move forward together.

You're right in this sense: Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, Jan Schakowsky, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Lee, et. al, and I have nothing in common. I am not interested in moving forward together with people who see victims everywhere and believe our common salvation lies in Washington DC.

Politically you seem intent on having a nation that follows your personal ideology and you won't be happy until it does. But we can't all be members of your church. Not all of us have the faith it requires.

"Faith" is what you possess. You "believe" government is basically (maybe not entirely) good. Public housing has been a disaster, yet you bemoan the fact that we no longer seize houses and build projects in their place. What is that if not blind "faith?" Welfare has created a dependency mindset.

If we cut government by 40%, much of what you don't like, like lobbyists and subsidies, would disappear.

The idea of shared sacrifice for shared benefit is why our country functions. Would you rather have a gov't that you think is perfect but 1/2 the nation hates, or would you rather have a gov't that you and most people think is OK? I'd pick the latter every time.

I would rather have a country that survives. If we continue to follow the path of least resistance, we will go broke.

To liberals, "shared sacrifice" means raising taxes on the rich. Once they can no longer pay or don't hire because there's no profit in it, well then, the State will step in and spend even more.

Do you think "most people think (our current government) is OK?" Do you think most people think our government is too small or doesn't spend enough money?

Polls show close to 70% think we're on the wrong track. Obama's approval is in the low 40's personally, and much lower on the economy and other issues.

The problem, largely, is that there are a number of people who do not understand where the government gets money, how the government functions, and don't care. We have created a permanent underclass of folks who see the government as their breadwinner. That is not only sad, it is un-American.

We ought to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves, not those who will not do so. Somewhere along the line, that difference was lost--and I think it was during "the Great Society."

geojanes wrote:

rickyp wrote:geo

In some ways social liberalism may have grown out of political conservatism, as in the government should keep it's nose out of my business! It shouldn't care who I love, or marry, or what my gender is. Maybe. But honestly, I didn't even think about that until you mentioned

Perhaps your close examination of what conservatives in power actually do also might give you pause. As Steve has pointed out, there haven't been practicing "fiscal" conservatives in the US since ...Nixon or Ford. (Reagan wasn't, in practice).
A conservative is usually narrowly defined as pro-business. Eisenhower was a conservative, but he also warned about the dangers of subverting society and government to a willful business community. (Okay, in his case the military-industrial complex).
I think that if you really examine the Reagan period, you'll find that he believed foremost in limited government. But I'm not sure limited government is necessarily conservative. All it means is that you've given up control on the direction of your society to the whim of corporations. When those corporations are national in scope, I suppose that can usually work out. When they are multi-national their goals often do not support a positive direction for a nation. (exmples: Outsourcing jobs, development of foreign resources over domestic, development of foreign industry over domestic for short term profit.)
I think Geo, you long for Eisenhower more than Rockefeller. But either gave a damn about controlling the direction of the nation not simply relying upon the wisdom of the markets and the efficiencies of corporations.
The US is paying today for the abdication of its industrial policy to multi nationals in the 80s'. Everyone since then who says they are conservative have paid lip service to fiscal prudence, and fought the kinds of benefits derived from good governance that original conservatives practiced. Example: Banking regulation wasn't a socialist idea, but something that conservative people knew was essential to the practice of healthy commerce and the continued development of steady business investment and development.
Abandoning conservative banking and financial services regulation to the more laissez faire regime that pre-ordained the 08 collapse is an example of what redefining the idea of conservatism has meant.
Conservatism used to mean careful, gradual change to society. Now it just means limited government. The emphasis on the second is, in part, why society has had to endure sudden violent financial calamities lately. And why conservatism seems ill defined and has to hang onto social conservatism as a way of projecting any semblance of what its former nature.

Great post Ricky. But since I agree with what you're writing, I'm sure it means I just a big gov't loving liberal. Ah well. It's still a good post.

"Great post Ricky?"

Really?

To just take one major flaw:

Abandoning conservative banking and financial services regulation to the more laissez faire regime that pre-ordained the 08 collapse is an example of what redefining the idea of conservatism has meant.

This is a gross misrepresentation of "laissez faire." The government had its hands all over the housing market, with a goal of increasing home ownership at any cost. That was the political goal of Presidents Clinton and Bush 43. As a result, Fannie and Freddie went out on a limb, as did many banks--with government encouragement.

if you think that is "laissez faire," you don't understand the term.

If you think Ricky's post was "great," I suspect you may mean "not as bad as usual."

For those who see raising taxes as our saving grace:

When Maryland passed a higher tax rate on people earning $1 million a year or more, which took effect in 2008, the number of millionaires living in Maryland fell from nearly 8,000 to fewer than 6,000. Although it had been projected that the additional tax revenue collected from the rich in Maryland would rise by $106 million, instead those revenues fell by $257 million.

It has become increasingly obvious that to balance America’s national budget, we must cut spending and optimize tax revenues. The challenge is to find the tax rate that will best yield the necessary revenue. Consider these obvious scenarios: A tax rate of zero percent would yield zero in revenues, while a tax rate of 100 percent would also yield zero in revenues because no one would work for nothing. Americans aren’t stupid. Clearly, then, simply increasing tax rates will not always increase revenues.

This economic reality spares no political party. When Democratic President Kennedy and Republican Presidents Reagan and George W. Bush reduced income tax rates, total tax revenues coming into the Treasury increased because, as JFK explained, “a rising tide lifts all boats.” When Democratic Presidents Carter and Clinton and Republican President George H.W. Bush raised income tax rates, total tax revenues fell. The same holds true for other types of taxes. Reagan’s capital-gains tax increase reduced revenues, while tax-rate reductions instated by Mr. Carter, Mr. Clinton and George W. Bush yielded increased revenues.

Economics 101 students have long understood this concept. In fact, even John Maynard Keynes himself, the Democrats’ high economic priest of big government, acknowledged that “taxation may be so high as to defeat its object.” In a 2008 presidential debate, when candidate Barack Obama was presented with these undeniable facts and asked why he would possibly still favor nearly doubling the capital gains tax rate, he replied, “… for purposes of fairness.”

Why didn't MD get more money when they raised taxes?

Why when Reagan raised capital-gains taxes did the revenues for them go down?