 |
Hello:
If the Super Committee fails, Intrade (Laura Ingrahams favorite new website), currently puts the odds at just under three to one in favor of both a Republican takeover of the Senate and retention of the House — 74.4 to 21.5 for the Senate, 72.2 to 28 for the House.
So, why should they give Obama and the Democrats a victory?
excon
I wouldn't... and I can live with the sequestration alternative... no problem!!
Even Pat Toomey is getting seduced by silly talk of "revenue enhancement" i.e. taxes .
There are times to talk taxes when they negotiate a broad tax reform .
But even Keynes himself wouldn't advise raising taxes during an economic downturn .
As you know ,under that theory taxes are raised in recovery and spending cut. Of course the Dems always forget the later .
However , I am not a Keynesian . I don't think that stimulating the economy through government spending works .
History is on my side .To stimulate the economy both Kennedy and Reagan cut the marginal tax rates ,and they ushered in economic expansion.
But ,since any talk of tax rate reduction or tax reform appears to be off the table ,then the best thing to do would be to continue to cut spending . The automatic squestration achieves that even if there is a temporary hit on the Defense budget.
Hello again, tom:
You're just as Keynesian You want to stimulate the economy by tax cuts and the I want to stimulate it by direct injection.. The result is the same, only my way is faster.
excon
Sir Maynard Keynes would never approve of allowing the private sector to stimulate the economy . Mine is an Uncle Miltie solution .
Milton Friedman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
When will you fellows learn that economic theories are like climate change theories, they are theories. Sometimes the observed criteria fits the theory and sometimes it does not. Your economy is over stimulated so further stimulation doesn't work. Tax cuts don't work because the basic fundamental earnings are low, government spending doesn't work because credit isn't available to take advantage of the opportunities and there are too many extra costs associated with employment. Your government has been paper shuffling and calling it stimulus while all the time soaking up more and more of the available money in its deficit.
Worse that that... it's been printing money and lying about the inflation it is causing .Quote:
Your government has been paper shuffling and calling it stimulus while all the time soaking up more and more of the available money in its deficit.
But that is what happens when you print money Tom. Economics 101, Cambridge Theory of the Velocity of Money. I know, too basic for your high flying economic planners.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Of course there may be another plan at foot, if inflation becomes rapid enough then currency looses value and all that national debt suddenly goes away, replaced by funny money at $1,000 to the dollar and your leaders could be that niaive.
Now let's all get in on the chorus of "don't cry for me Argentina (or was that america)"
Hello again,
Buy gold.
excon
Hello again, tom:
Although it pains me to do so, I think the Democrats are in for another wupping. I guess it's true, that we have to hit bottom before we can recover... With the Republicans in charge, we'll HIT bottom quicker, that's for sure. But, I digress...
Let me suggest that the libs LOST the battle when they, themselves, accepted the sliminess of the word "liberal". They thought progressive sounded much better. Although, I blame Reagan and the Republicans, their rise coincided with the complete collapse of the Democrats. In fact, the Democrats caving may even be MORE responsible for our plight than the Republicans... Did I say caving?? Hell, SOME Democrats even tried (and are STILL trying), to out Republican the Republicans...
You would call this evidence of the country being center right. I call it a complete abdication of liberalism. But, it's not that liberal ideas have gone out of fashion. It's that the PR machine behind them is long DEAD, while the right wing PR machine is alive and well.
But, there's hope. The OWS'rs. Yeah, they have trouble articulating a complaint... But, so does the ENTIRE Democratic party - with one, and ONLY one exception.. That would be Elizabeth Warren.. Why she scares the right wing, is NOT her liberalness, but her ability to ARTICULATE it, and articulate it well. She's the ONLY one out there doing that...
Maybe if the rest of the Democrats weren't so afraid of their own shadow, we wouldn't be facing the demise our country is about to go through.
That's all. I ain't got no more.
excon
PS> Ok, I got one more thing... If you LIKE the drug testing of the poor that Rick Scott is doing in Florida... If you LIKE the drug war. And, if you LIKE the union busting going on ALL over. And, if you LIKE the pullback of voter and women's rights, you ain't seen NOTHING YET.
If we let these people get their hands on the levers and dials of the federal government, be prepared to relive the 19th century...
Now, I'm done.
You are right about her ideological purity .
For expedience sake Warren is backing away from her statement that she provided the intellectual basis for OWS .It doesn't play well on the campaign and besides,Marx beat her to it. She refused to sign a OWS pledge . But if she is the inspiration of the movement ,then her ideas are the law of the land already because Czar Warren was the mover and shaker in the development of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).
It is an unaccountable (to Congress) bureaucracy with unparelleled control and discretion over the free market. This is what the OWS wants really . Mission accomplished. Yes I said it. The OWS wants government control of the market place and that is what the Obots are giving them.
The OWS in fact is the perfect fusion of anarchy and statism. The anrchy is their view of property rights and statism at this point is self explanatory.
One thing is clear. The leaders of OWS are perfect Democrats in their hypocrisy.
Golden tents for some Occupiers - NYPOST.com
As far as the "super committee goes... sequestration will reduce spending by $1.2 trillion over a decade . Add to that the $1 trillion over a decade in reductions from the debt limit deal and you have yourself a whopping 1% of GDP in reductions. And that's considered painful cuts ?
The only thing they would agree on would be less cuts ,not more.. and counterproductive tax increases. Both the OWS and the Super committee should go home.
The way I hear it this attempt like most attempts at non partisan politics have failed. I can't image where this leaves you but someone needs to get the axe
Aides: 'Super Committee' likely to announce failure to reach debt deal - CNN.com
Hello again:
They are going to fail... Is it on purpose? Sure it is for the reasons we've discussed here... It's the Republicans who are doing it.
I think it's a dangerous proposition with serious ramifications that the blinders the right wing wears PREVENTS them from seeing... Is it good to use the American people as fodder so you can win?
excon
Frankly , there was no way this would've been solved this year . Blaming failure is a pure political ploy . The only thing this committee could've accomplished would've been worse than accepting the sequestration cuts.
I don't see it as the Republican's failure either way . From what I hear ,the Dems wouldn't budge on the programs important to them ;and why should they ? Both sides know this will be decided at the polls next year .
They need to get away from these stupid grand bargain ideas. The budget did not become bloated over night and it will not be fixed with one bucket list . The tax code needs to be a separate issue from spending .
Hello tom:
Ok. Who's going to win?
excon
Ask Chris Matthews .
Matthews: Obamas not happy in the White House - Video on mnsbc.com
Hello again, tom:
He's right... But, I don't need to ask Chris Mathews. Obama lost me during the health care debate. He lost me further when he became George W. Bush on steroids. No, I'm not talking about the war over seas... I'm talking about the drug war right here at home. George W. Bush let the states decide the medical marijuana issue... Obama is BUSTING pot smokers at TEN times the rate that Bush did... During an internet conference, where he ASKED people to submit questions, and they asked about pot, he made a joke.
The ONLY reason to support him, is because of the two, and maybe three Supreme Court nominations the next president will make. If president Gingrich decides them, we're headed BACK to the 19th century... I don't say this hysterically. I actually BELIEVE they will repeal ALL the advances of the 20th Century. You do too. Only you HOPE for it.
excon
Advances is such a subjective word .
I think most such 'advances' should have automatic expiration dates to determine if they are effective.
I don't consider the legalized killing of unborn children for any reason an "advance," but I don't believe abortion will ever be overturned. What other "advances" do you think we'd like to repeal? I for one can't wait to return to those coal burning steam belching locomotives.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
You joke about those coal burners, but your guys SAY they will get rid of the EPA... No, really. I HEARD 'em. Plus, you'll take Social Security and Medicare private. Do I think you'll do something along racial lines, like reducing minority's access to voting, and maybe jobs, and maybe schools, and maybe to student loans?? Yeah, I think you will.
You may not think abortion will be outlawed again, but I do. There's others, but that's a start. Ok, let me finish by saying you'll STRENGTHEN the police and support them unequivocally, no matter HOW BRUTAL they are, just like you're doing now. Good for tom.
excon
The EPA line was a mistake . The 3 dept's he'd wack are Energy ,Education and Commerce.
Ron Paul would add FEMA to the chopping block.
As always ,the funding of them is Congressional perusal.
Um, I was interrupted and had not refreshed the page while Smoothy was posting so I made an immediate edit.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
P.S. I am a believer in defending my castle but not urinating on others. Besides, I have Molly.
P.P.S. Do you really think I'd support urinating on others? That's disgusting.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Nahhh... Smoothy's pissing post, was post my post about your post..
excon
Well I posted about my post about your post about my post, so you should be clear now that I do not support the cops' behavior.
Well, the Super Committee has declared defeat. What's next, another downgrade followed by a Republican sweep?
It was a phony kick the can down the road Politboro constructed to be a failure.
What a crock . Even the sequestrations when subject to base line budget rules represents at best a reduction in the rate of increased government spending .
No agreement in the committee would've amounted to similar painful budget decisions. Heck ,chicken littles on both sides call the sequestration cuts draconian.
Hello again,
Ok, the super committee blew it... Next!
I want to address a question to Steve. We've discussed your mortgage interest deduction, that I, as a renter, don't get... One could, and some do, call it a loophole.
For most people, the bulk of their monthly payment is interest, which is ALL presently deductible. Now, instead of taxing the rich a little bit more, the Republicans want to close "loopholes". Guess what loophole they're talking about.
An average monthly payment of, say, $1,500, even if I'm generous, includes a $1,000 going to interest... That's $12,000 a year that used to be deductible and now won't be. At an average 25% tax rate, that's a net $4,000 tax INCREASE for your average American family...
That might include you, Steve, and certainly your children... Wouldn't you rather they tax the rich a little bit more and leave you the hell alone??
I don't even GET the deduction, and I'm on your side. I think, unless you're on the side of the Republicans, in which case I'm not on your side. I'd be on your side as a homeowner who is paying taxes that SHOULD be paid by richer people than my friend Steve.
excon
Not sure I'd call it the GOP plan. It is a plan floated by Toomey ;one of the commissars of the politboro Super Committee ,in a spirit of "compromise " .
What you fail to mention was that the idea he floated was in exchange for lower marginal rates . But it would affect that top tier more so it meets the Dems criteria of screwing the rich.
I'm more concerned with them tinkering with the charitable deduction . The Dems and the President have made it no secret that they desire to control the allocation and distribution of all charitable giving in the US ,be it public or private .
Ultimately I'd like to see the end of all deductions and a similar flattening of the tax rates . But not now. The housing market is in too much flux now to add any more uncertainty . Clearly there are many people who purchased their homes based on the deduction as part of the calculation. It would have a negative impact on an already shaky market to suddenly change the rule. But over time , it would be beneficial to eliminate the deduction in return to a lower base rate of taxes ;and there would be a truer sense of the value of the home.
Yeah we discussed it, and I said my house is paid for so I don't get the deduction. Haven't gotten it in years. Getting rid of it would certainly suck for a lot of people who quite frankly, are in homes they couldn't afford to begin with. But I don't see that happening yet for the reasons tom mentioned.
I'm all for beginning with the obvious things, like cutting out the thousands of unnecessary cellphones in the hands of federal workers, buying base Ford Fiestas instead of Volts, pooling purchases, competitive bidding without the union advantages and taking away credit cards, cutting salaries and perks of congress and their staff, etc. Maybe if the bureaucrats feel a little pain they'll get serious about doing something.
The super committee had to fail, because Grover said so. This ain't about Keynes, or Uncle Miltie, its about GROVER, the real power behind the republicans. He said we were going back to the way it was a hundred years ago, and you better believe he has the power to do it.
You gave it to him when you signed his silly pledge.
Oh come on Tal, this is exactly what Democrats wanted so they could have a campaign theme.
I'm with the President . Let the sequestered cuts begin... the sooner the better . Let's see who blinks 1st. RINOs like McCain are making a mistake whining about defense cuts that Leon Panetta would've done anyway despite his current phoney rhetoric.
I'll say it again.. a $trillion in a decade is chicken feed . It doesn't even stop the growth of spending .
Wonder what they are going to do with all those soldiers they will have to lay off? That's right, all those dishwashing jobs are still open, and the south is looking for a few good men to pick crops since the immigrants are disappearing.
Now tha's mean, Tal, you know the way it goes, the vets get the jobs an someoneelse gets the layoff. That's what the Congress said?
I'm a big fan of the military . But a blind person could see that their budget is bloated and could easily be trimmed without significant cuts in personel... and if there is cuts in personel then they probably don't need them.
By the way... late next month will be the next budget battle as Congress "negotiates " a continuing resolution right before the adjourn for the year .
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Way back in the day, when I was a sailor in the intelligence division aboard ship, I took my turn serving as a mess cook... Now, I didn't cook. I peeled potatoes. The peeled potatoes didn't cost too much because they didn't PAY me too much to peel them... Guess who peels 'em now.
During some cutback in some long past administration, they eliminated ALL the grunt jobs the military did with very low wage workers, and replaced them with very HIGH wage contractors... Yes, the dreaded military contractors... They make, ohhhhh, I don't know, about 20 times what a private makes... Not only do they peel potatoes, they also fight wars, at about 100 times what a soldier or sailor makes..
We've been hearing about them for years... Ain't NOTHING been done about it. That would be NOTHING.
Happy Thanksgiving.
excon
It is a complete waste of resources to train soldiers and sailors to peel potatoes. They could get away with it in your time because there was a draft .
Funny you should bring that up Ex, because I found this list,
List of United States defense contractors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia,
And guess what, it lead to even more lists.
List of NASA contractors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No wonder they don't need a draft, they have contractors... outsourcing!!
Wow a revelation!! The military and NASA hires contractors! And here I thought the government built their own space ships . Guess what... all those roads and bridges you want built... here's a secret... the government contracts that work out too...
That's a good thing ain't it? Contracting to Americans is a job!
Unlike ATT having a call center in the Philippines, and no doubt many foreign nations get jobs from contracting, and sub contracting and it's a balancing act to get benefit from.What you thought those bridges would get built with just American building materials?? I doubt we would have enough.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:40 AM. |