The new RW Obama Talking Point: He'll spend all your money! (examined)

[banyon]

Just to recap, Republicans in the last 7 years have spent more and driven up our debt more than any administration in history. Clinton (the man) was tagged with this criticism too, but managed to balance the budget for the first time since Nixon. But still, this criticism is supposed to "stick" to Obama that he's a wastrel spendthrift and Republicans are the only ones you can trust with the taxpayers' money (seems like since he won the IA nomination, this is especially prevalent in our forum lately.

Here (from his website (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fiscal/)) is his fiscal policy and how he proposes to govern: (*edit: to simplify, I am placing costs in red and savings in green)

Barack Obama's Plan
Restore Fiscal Discipline to Washington

* Reinstate PAYGO Rules: Obama believes that a critical step in restoring fiscal discipline is enforcing pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budgeting rules which require new spending commitments or tax changes to be paid for by cuts to other programs or new revenue. * Reverse Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy: Obama will protect tax cuts for poor and middle class families, but he will reverse most of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers.
* Cut Pork Barrel Spending: Obama introduced and passed bipartisan legislation that would require more disclosure and transparency for special-interest earmarks. Obama believes that spending that cannot withstand public scrutiny cannot be justified. Obama will slash earmarks to no greater than year 2001 levels and ensure all spending decisions are open to the public. * Make Government Spending More Accountable and Efficient: Obama will ensure that federal contracts over $25,000 are competitively bid. Obama will also increase the efficiency of government programs through better use of technology, stronger management that demands accountability and by leveraging the government's high-volume purchasing power to get lower prices.
* End Wasteful Government Spending: Obama will stop funding wasteful, obsolete federal government programs that make no financial sense. Obama has called for an end to subsidies for oil and gas companies that are enjoying record profits, as well as the elimination of subsidies to the private student loan industry which has repeatedly used unethical business practices. Obama will also tackle wasteful spending in the Medicare program.

Make the Tax System More Fair and Efficient

* End Tax Haven Abuse: Building on his bipartisan work in the Senate, Obama will give the Treasury Department the tools it needs to stop the abuse of tax shelters and offshore tax havens and help close the $350 billion tax gap between taxes owed and taxes paid. * Close Special Interest Corporate Loopholes: Obama will level the playing field for all businesses by eliminating special-interest loopholes and deductions, such as those for the oil and gas industry.
Barack Obama's Record

* PAYGO: Obama voted in 2005, 2006, and 2007 to reinstate pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) federal budget rules.
* No-Bid Contracts: Obama has introduced and helped pass bipartisan legislation to limit the abuse of no-bid federal contracts.
* Against Raising the Federal Debt Limit: In 2006, Obama voted against misguided Republican efforts to raise the statutory debt limit at the same time the Republicans were pushing through massive debt-financed tax cuts for the wealthy.

[banyon]

The next boondoggle is health care. Ignoring again for the moment that Americans spend twice as much on healthcare as any other country in the world with our current system, here is what Obama proposes and how he'll pay for it:



Quality, Affordable and Portable Coverage for All

* Obama's Plan to Cover Uninsured Americans: Obama will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress. The Obama plan will have the following features:
1. Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.
2. Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the plan members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care.
3. Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles.
4. Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.
5. Simplified paperwork and reined in health costs.
6. Easy enrollment. The new public plan will be simple to enroll in and provide ready access to coverage.
7. Portability and choice. Participants in the new public plan and the National Health Insurance Exchange (see below) will be able to move from job to job without changing or jeopardizing their health care coverage.
8. Quality and efficiency. Participating insurance companies in the new public program will be required to report data to ensure that standards for quality, health information technology and administration are being met.
* National Health Insurance Exchange: The Obama plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and have the same standards for quality and efficiency. The Exchange would evaluate plans and make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, public.
* Employer Contribution: Employers that do not offer or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small employers that meet certain revenue thresholds will be exempt.
* Mandatory Coverage of Children: Obama will require that all children have health care coverage. Obama will expand the number of options for young adults to get coverage, including allowing young people up to age 25 to continue coverage through their parents' plans.
* Expansion Of Medicaid and SCHIP: Obama will expand eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs and ensure that these programs continue to serve their critical safety net function.
* Flexibility for State Plans: Due to federal inaction, some states have taken the lead in health care reform. The Obama plan builds on these efforts and does not replace what states are doing. States can continue to experiment, provided they meet the minimum standards of the national plan.

Lower Costs by Modernizing The U.S. Health Care System

* Reducing Costs of Catastrophic Illnesses for Employers and Their Employees: Catastrophic health expenditures account for a high percentage of medical expenses for private insurers. The Obama plan would reimburse employer health plans for a portion of the catastrophic costs they incur above a threshold if they guarantee such savings are used to reduce the cost of workers' premiums.
* Helping Patients:
1. Support disease management programs. Seventy five percent of total health care dollars are spent on patients with one or more chronic conditions, such as diabetes, heart disease and high blood pressure. Obama will require that providers that participate in the new public plan, Medicare or the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) utilize proven disease management programs. This will improve quality of care, give doctors better information and lower costs.
2. Coordinate and integrate care. Over 133 million Americans have at least one chronic disease and these chronic conditions cost a staggering $1.7 trillion yearly. Obama will support implementation of programs and encourage team care that will improve coordination and integration of care of those with chronic conditions.
3. Require full transparency about quality and costs. Obama will require hospitals and providers to collect and publicly report measures of health care costs and quality, including data on preventable medical errors, nurse staffing ratios, hospital-acquired infections, and disparities in care. Health plans will also be required to disclose the percentage of premiums that go to patient care as opposed to administrative costs.

[banyon]

Protect Social Security

Obama is committed to ensuring Social Security is solvent and viable for the American people, now and in the future. Obama will be honest with the American people about the long-term solvency of Social Security and the ways we can address the shortfall. Obama will protect Social Security benefits for current and future beneficiaries alike. And he does not believe it is necessary or fair to hardworking seniors to raise the retirement age. Obama is strongly opposed to privatizing Social Security.

Obama believes that the first place to look for ways to strengthen Social Security is the payroll tax system. Currently, the Social Security payroll tax applies to only the first $97,500 a worker makes. Obama supports increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security and he will work with Congress and the American people to choose a payroll tax reform package that will keep Social Security solvent for at least the next half century.

(I have been advocating this on this forum as the solution for some time as well)

[banyon]

Most expensive listed:

Create the American Opportunity Tax Credit: Obama will make college affordable for all Americans by creating a new American Opportunity Tax Credit. This universal and fully refundable credit will ensure that the first $4,000 of a college education is completely free for most Americans, and will cover two-thirds the cost of tuition at the average public college or university and make community college tuition completely free for most students. Obama will also ensure that the tax credit is available to families at the time of enrollment by using prior year's tax data to deliver the credit when tuition is due.


Recruit Teachers: Obama will create new Teacher Service Scholarships that will cover four years of undergraduate or two years of graduate teacher education, including high-quality alternative programs for mid-career recruits in exchange for teaching for at least four years in a high-need field or location.

[banyon]

So, tell me where Obama is going to run up his giant deficits with these as his most costly policy initiatives (don't forget to subtract the costs of Iraq)?

BTW for myself I still support Edwards, but Obama is running 2nd now. I would have to see Bloomberg's policies if he runs.

[chiefforlife]

Patteau, are you reading this. Stated goals and policies. Not non-specific rhetoric.

:hmmm:

[banyon]

Cap and Trade: Obama supports implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary: 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Obama's cap-and-trade system will require all pollution credits to be auctioned. A 100 percent auction ensures that all polluters pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than giving these emission rights away to coal and oil companies. Some of the revenue generated by auctioning allowances will be used to support the development of clean energy, to invest in energy efficiency improvements, and to address transition costs, including helping American workers affected by this economic transition.

# Invest $150 Billion over 10 Years in Clean Energy: Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid. A principal focus of this fund will be devoted to ensuring that technologies that are developed in the U.S. are rapidly commercialized in the U.S. and deployed around the globe.
# Double Energy Research and Development Funding: Obama will double science and research funding for clean energy projects including those that make use of our biomass, solar and wind resources.

[banyon]

Shine the Light on Federal Contracts, Tax Breaks and Earmarks

* Create a Public “Contracts and Influence” Database: As president, Obama will create a "contracts and influence" database that will disclose how much federal contractors spend on lobbying, and what contracts they are getting and how well they complete them. * Expose Special Interest Tax Breaks to Public Scrutiny: Barack Obama will ensure that any tax breaks for corporate recipients — or tax earmarks — are also publicly available on the Internet in an easily searchable format.

* Sunlight Before Signing: Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.
* Shine Light on Earmarks and Pork Barrel Spending: Obama's Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act will shed light on all earmarks by disclosing the name of the legislator who asked for each earmark, along with a written justification, 72 hours before they can be approved by the full Senate.

[patteeu]

So, tell me where Obama is going to run up his giant deficits with these as his most costly policy initiatives (don't forget to subtract the costs of Iraq)?

BTW for myself I still support Edwards, but Obama is running 2nd now. I would have to see Bloomberg's policies if he runs.

IMO, there's more to fiscal responsibility than striving for a balanced budget if you're looking at things from a conservative perspective. There's no reason a full blown communist government couldn't achieve a balanced budget, but that's not the kind of fiscal responsibility I'm looking for.

There's a noticeable shortage of spending restraint in the Obama positions you've posted. You can argue that paygo is spending restraint, but that's only if you're convinced that democrats won't want to raise taxes. I think that's a poor gamble. And he's already proposing plenty of new spending (e.g. free college educations).

But in addition to that, we are far less likely to run up big deficits if we have divided government, IMO. Congress is going to remain democrat in the forseeable future, which works against Obama when it comes to his ability to make tough entitlement choices or to reign in pork even if his pledges to do so are sincere.

[banyon]

Help Americans Grab a Hold of and Climb the Job Ladder: Obama will invest $1 billion over five years in transitional jobs and career pathway programs that implement proven methods of helping low-income Americans succeed in the workforce.
* Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit: Obama will increase the number of working parents eligible for EITC benefits, increase the benefits available to parents who support their children through child support payments, increase benefits for families with three or more children, and reduce the EITC marriage penalty, which hurts low-income families.
* Create a Living Wage: Obama will raise the minimum wage and index it to inflation to make sure that full-time workers can earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs such as food, transportation, and housing.
* Provide Tax Relief: Obama will provide all low and middle-income workers a $500 Making Work Pay tax credit to offset the payroll tax those workers pay in every paycheck. Obama will also eliminate taxes for seniors making under $50,000 per year.

Increase the Supply of Affordable Housing

* Create an Affordable Housing Trust Fund: Obama will create an Affordable Housing Trust Fund to develop affordable housing in mixed-income neighborhoods.
* Fully Fund the Community Development Block Grant: Obama will fully fund the Community Development Block Grant program and engage with urban leaders across the country to increase resources to the highest-need Americans.

[patteeu]

Patteau, are you reading this. Stated goals and policies. Not non-specific rhetoric.

:hmmm:

The non-specific rhetoric and the pleasant demeanor I was talking about are his debate performances and other public speaking appearances. I can see how an inattentive Republican might find him appealing on a superficial level. I can't see how someone as committed to Republican principles as I'd imagine a "lifelong Republican" would be can look at these specifics about tax increases and aggressive new spending plans and decide that "this is the candidate for me". :shrug:

[banyon]

IMO, there's more to fiscal responsibility than striving for a balanced budget if you're looking at things from a conservative perspective. There's no reason a full blown communist government couldn't achieve a balanced budget, but that's not the kind of fiscal responsibility I'm looking for.

You're looking for the 9 trillion $ debt kind of responsibility then?

There's a noticeable shortage of spending restraint in the Obama positions you've posted. You can argue that paygo is spending restraint, but that's only if you're convinced that democrats won't want to raise taxes. I think that's a poor gamble. And he's already proposing plenty of new spending (e.g. free college educations).

Obama has only propsed rolling back Bush's tax cuts on people making >$200k, that's not "raising taxes" in general. There are also plenty of additional tax credits for middle class families littered throughout the proposals. For the vast majority of people, there's nothing in the plan that calls for raising their taxes.

As far as education goes, it's a tax credit, it's not direct government spending.

But in addition to that, we are far less likely to run up big deficits if we have divided government, IMO. Congress is going to remain democrat in the forseeable future, which works against Obama when it comes to his ability to make tough entitlement choices or to reign in pork.

Again, the data over the last 40 years doesn't show that Dem Congresses are likely to spend more than Republican ones, in fact it shows the opposite. But I understand the Republican need to cling to this point, since there aren't any other real policies that they are winning on domestically (except immigration which is sort of a hybrid domestic/foreign issue).

[Hydrae]

Help Americans Grab a Hold of and Climb the Job Ladder: Obama will invest $1 billion over five years in transitional jobs and career pathway programs that implement proven methods of helping low-income Americans succeed in the workforce.
* Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit: Obama will increase the number of working parents eligible for EITC benefits, increase the benefits available to parents who support their children through child support payments, increase benefits for families with three or more children, and reduce the EITC marriage penalty, which hurts low-income families.
* Create a Living Wage: Obama will raise the minimum wage and index it to inflation to make sure that full-time workers can earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs such as food, transportation, and housing.
* Provide Tax Relief: Obama will provide all low and middle-income workers a $500 Making Work Pay tax credit to offset the payroll tax those workers pay in every paycheck. Obama will also eliminate taxes for seniors making under $50,000 per year.

Increase the Supply of Affordable Housing

* Create an Affordable Housing Trust Fund: Obama will create an Affordable Housing Trust Fund to develop affordable housing in mixed-income neighborhoods.
* Fully Fund the Community Development Block Grant: Obama will fully fund the Community Development Block Grant program and engage with urban leaders across the country to increase resources to the highest-need Americans.

This is one of the areas I will never agree with the Democrats on. "Poor" is a relative term and as such will always exist. It does not matter what they earn, if they are in the bottom 10-20% of earners they will, by definition, be poor. It doesn't matter if that is $1 a day or $1,000,000 per day. The only way to not be poor is to improve your own income relative to the incomes of those around you.

[Jenson71]

Recruit Teachers: Obama will create new Teacher Service Scholarships that will cover four years of undergraduate or two years of graduate teacher education, including high-quality alternative programs for mid-career recruits in exchange for teaching for at least four years in a high-need field or location.

There are some programs like this already. Work in an inner-city school and get your loans paid for. http://www.studentloan.org/special-programs/teacher/federal-stafford-program.asp

How many Teacher Service Scholarships will there be, I wonder? Every kid going to school to be a teacher gets free education? I would support that idea if they went through four years, also got a minor or certificate in something like Reading Education and passed a comprehensive test or achieved a certain GPA.

[chiefforlife]

IMO, there's more to fiscal responsibility than striving for a balanced budget if you're looking at things from a conservative perspective. There's no reason a full blown communist government couldn't achieve a balanced budget, but that's not the kind of fiscal responsibility I'm looking for.

There's a noticeable shortage of spending restraint in the Obama positions you've posted. You can argue that paygo is spending restraint, but that's only if you're convinced that democrats won't want to raise taxes. I think that's a poor gamble. And he's already proposing plenty of new spending (e.g. free college educations).

But in addition to that, we are far less likely to run up big deficits if we have divided government, IMO. Congress is going to remain democrat in the forseeable future, which works against Obama when it comes to his ability to make tough entitlement choices or to reign in pork.


The last time we had a balanced budget was under democratic leadership. I would expect a modern Republican to equate a balanced budget with communism.
Republicans have shown absolutely no restraint in spending and yet you say this is what you seek.
We currently have a divided government and it hasnt slowed this administration down a bit.

[banyon]

The non-specific rhetoric and the pleasant demeanor I was talking about are his debate performances and other public speaking appearances. I can see how an inattentive Republican might find him appealing on a superficial level. I can't see how someone as committed to Republican principles as I'd imagine a "lifelong Republican" would be can look at these specifics about tax increases and aggressive new spending plans and decide that "this is the candidate for me". :shrug:

Please point out a tax increase that will affect more than 15% of the public.

[Hydrae]

You're looking for the 9 trillion $ debt kind of responsibility then?



Obama has only propsed rolling back Bush's tax cuts on people making >$200k, that's not "raising taxes" in general. There are also plenty of additional tax credits for middle class families littered throughout the proposals. For the vast majority of people, there's nothing in the plan that calls for raising their taxes.

As far as education goes, it's a tax credit, it's not direct government spending.



Again, the data over the last 40 years doesn't show that Dem Congresses are likely to spend more than Republican ones, in fact it shows the opposite. But I understand the Republican need to cling to this point, since there aren't any other real policies that they are winning on domestically (except immigration which is sort of a hybrid domestic/foreign issue).

Does his education plan call for an increase, a decrease or staying even with regard to the bottom line of the budget? Just because you are giving people a break instead of giving it to them as cash, the affect is the same on the bottom line.

[banyon]

Does his education plan call for an increase, a decrease or staying even with regard to the bottom line of the budget? Just because you are giving people a break instead of giving it to them as cash, the affect is the same on the bottom line.

It's not the same. For the same reasons people have criticized some Republican plans for health care to make it tax incentivized. If you can't afford health care in the first place, the tax cut probably won't help much. The same is true for many who want to go to college. If we gave everyone $4k to go to college up front, many would take it. If, however, they have to put the money up and then ask for a credit, then fewer will do so.

From a pure budgetary point you are correct in the sense that a subtraction from the income stream or an addition to the expenditure stream is much the same. My point was really that the program isn't as massive as it would be if it were an expenditure only.

[patteeu]

You're looking for the 9 trillion $ debt kind of responsibility then?

No, I'm looking for a small government kind of responsibility though. Finding a way to kill off the deficit without creating new spending programs would be a good start. Figuring out how to defuse the ticking entitlement timebomb without compounding the problem by creating new entitlements would be swell too.

Obama has only propsed rolling back Bush's tax cuts on people making >$200k, that's not "raising taxes" in general. There are also plenty of additional tax credits for middle class families littered throughout the proposals. For the vast majority of people, there's nothing in the plan that calls for raising their taxes.

That's even worse than an across the board tax increase AFAIC.

As far as education goes, it's a tax credit, it's not direct government spending.

:shrug: That makes no difference.

Again, the data over the last 40 years doesn't show that Dem Congresses are likely to spend more than Republican ones, in fact it shows the opposite. But I understand the Republican need to cling to this point, since there aren't any other real policies that they are winning on domestically (except immigration which is sort of a hybrid domestic/foreign issue).

Link? Let's not play games with the way recent Republican spending swamps most of the previous 40 years just because of the enormous growth of the population and the economy which leads to a much larger budget baseline. For every major spending program passed by Republicans under GWB, democrats complained because we didn't spend more. At just about any point in time over that 40 year history, democrat spending proposals were more costly than those of their contemporary Republicans.

[Hydrae]

To me, rather than new programs to "solve" the issues we face, I want to hear politicos talking about how they are going to cut our day to day costs. This is why I am a fan of Ron Paul.

This is what I have done in my personal life. I was laid off in February of this year and knew that I would probably not be able to earn that much money again right away. We took the severance package that I received and paid off all credit cards (do not own a single one and never intend to own one again) as well as some other recurring monthly bills. I knew my income was going down so I made moves to alleviate the repurcussions of this and still keep the family afloat. I can not print money and I would really prefer my government not do so either.

[Hydrae]

To me, rather than new programs to "solve" the issues we face, I want to hear politicos talking about how they are going to cut our day to day costs. This is why I am a fan of Ron Paul.

This is what I have done in my personal life. I was laid off in February of this year and knew that I would probably not be able to earn that much money again right away. We took the severance package that I received and paid off all credit cards (do not own a single one and nevern intend to own one again) as well as some other recurring monthly bills. I knew my income was going down so I made moves to alliviate the repurcussions of this and still keep the family afloat. I can not print money and I would really prefer my government not do so either.


Oh, my net income with my new job (took 2 months to get another job, never took unemployment) was a decrease of nearly 30%. We are doing fine though, it is possible!

[chiefforlife]

No, I'm looking for a small government kind of responsibility though. Finding a way to kill off the deficit without creating new spending programs would be a good start. Figuring out how to defuse the ticking entitlement timebomb without compounding the problem by creating new entitlements would be swell too.

Small governments dont usually invade and then occupy other countries. I have no problem giving entitlements to the people who are entitled to them.

That's even worse than an across the board tax increase AFAIC.

It may take a tax increase across the board to get out of this mess.

:shrug: That makes no difference.



Link? Let's not play games with the way recent Republican spending swamps most of the previous 40 years just because of the enormous growth of the population and the economy which leads to a much larger budget baseline. For every major spending program passed by Republicans under GWB, democrats complained because we didn't spend more. At just about any point in time over that 40 year history, democrat spending proposals were more costly than those of their contemporary Republicans.

I believe 9 trillion trumps any spending in the last...

[banyon]

No, I'm looking for a small government kind of responsibility though. Finding a way to kill off the deficit without creating new spending programs would be a good start. Figuring out how to defuse the ticking entitlement timebomb without compounding the problem by creating new entitlements would be swell too.

Which entitlement? SSA was already addressed.



That's even worse than an across the board tax increase AFAIC.

I forget is "AFAIC" "as far as I care" or "as far as I see"? Either way? Why? Will it hit your taxes and you want everyone to share the pain?



:shrug: That makes no difference.

It does,for the reasons stated above.


Link? Let's not play games with the way recent Republican spending swamps most of the previous 40 years just because of the enormous growth of the population and the economy which leads to a much larger budget baseline. For every major spending program passed by Republicans under GWB, democrats complained because we didn't spend more. At just about any point in time over that 40 year history, democrat spending proposals were more costly than those of their contemporary Republicans.

I'll look for a chart after I get back from the lumber yard. Later.

[patteeu]

Please point out a tax increase that will affect more than 15% of the public.

Why? Soaking the rich is a democrat thing, not a Republican thing. I said he was going to raise taxes (rather than cut or restrain spending) and that's what your postings say too.

[chiefforlife]

"Pay as you go", alone is restraining spending. To a great degree when compared to what we are doing now.

[patteeu]

Small governments dont usually invade and then occupy other countries. I have no problem giving entitlements to the people who are entitled to them.
[color=blue]It may take a tax increase across the board to get out of this mess.

I believe 9 trillion trumps any spending in the last...

If you're the kind of guy who liked token responses (like ineffective cruise missile strikes or sternly worded diplomatic complaints) or no response at all to attacks against our citizens and our interests, you'll feel right at home voting for a post-McGovern democrat. And it sounds like your thoughts on taxes are going to be welcomed at democrat cocktail parties too. It sounds to me like you're making a good decision, Mr. Lifelong Republican. It's probably a decision that is long past due. I'd imagine you've felt something like a girl trapped in a guy's body for a while now.

I have no idea what your last comment about "9 million trumps" means.

[patteeu]

The last time we had a balanced budget was under democratic leadership. I would expect a modern Republican to equate a balanced budget with communism.
Republicans have shown absolutely no restraint in spending and yet you say this is what you seek.
We currently have a divided government and it hasnt slowed this administration down a bit.

You'll make a good democrat, comrade.

And your last two statements are incorrect.

Regarding Republicans restraint in spending: Republicans, despite having undivided government and despite spending like drunken sailors, failed to spend enough on new Education and Prescription Drug programs (among others) to satisfy their democrat counterparts. Compare the Bush program with the projected cost of the Senate democrat proposal (http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/WM130.cfm?renderforprint=1) to see an example. The democrats are worse than drunken sailors. As unrestrained as Bush spending has been, democrat proposals were even less restrained. I don't defend Bush on this count, but I'm not foolish enough to turn to the democrats either.

Regarding whether spending has slowed down under divided government: Expenditures in the federal budget grew by 6-7% per year during the first 6 years of the Bush administration (when he had a Republican congress). They only grew 4% last year (divided government).

[patteeu]

Which entitlement? SSA was already addressed.

Any entitlement. Here's one example: "Obama will expand eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs"

And while he does address SS with a tax increase, he doesn't explain how he's going to address medicare and medicaid. In fact, he talks about expanding some of these programs rather than fixing them.

[QUOTE=banyon]I forget is "AFAIC" "as far as I care" or "as far as I see"? Either way? Why? Will it hit your taxes and you want everyone to share the pain?

When I use it, it means "as far as I'm concerned". It doesn't have anything to do with how it hits me, but it does have to do with wanting everyone to share the pain. I'm opposed to progressivity in the tax code. Repealing just the high end tax cuts of the Bush administration will make the code even more progressive than it was when Bush took office. I'm sure you're a fan of that, but I'm not. To the extent that we allow progressivity in our system, I'd rather limit it to the spending side of our budget.

[QUOTE=banyon]It does,for the reasons stated above.

Well, yes, it makes a practical difference, but it doesn't make a difference philosophically. IOW, it's still a spending increase. I would have criticized it the same way if it had been a direct spending program for $2000 per person or $4000 per person or $6000 per person, so the fact that a $4000 tax credit equates to a direct spending program of some other dollar amount is irrelevant for my purposes.

[patteeu]

"Pay as you go", alone is restraining spending. To a great degree when compared to what we are doing now.

As I already mentioned, paygo doesn't provide nearly as much restraint on someone who is willing to raise taxes as it does on someone committed to keeping taxes low. Obama is the former. Lifelong Republicans are typically the latter.

[chiefforlife]

I have stated to you many times now that I have changed my mind on many issues. If reading the facts and evidence doesnt change your mind then nothing will.

For instance, I have long been against ANY tax increase. It is becoming more clear each day with a 9 trillion dollar debt, climbing at a astronomical rate each day, that we may in fact have to raise taxes to pay for it. The Republicans have forced me to change my mind on this issue.
"Staying the course" hasnt worked.

The things you say are important to you, your own party does the opposite. If you choose to stay just to stay, you may.

Interesting that you would bring up responses to being attacked. Osama was the person who attacked us and yet we let him go. Instead we focused our attention on GWs personal vendetta and went after Saddam and Iraq. No, I dont see that as an appropriate response.

[patteeu]

Interesting that you would bring up responses to being attacked. Osama was the person who attacked us and yet we let him go. Instead we focused our attention on GWs personal vendetta and went after Saddam and Iraq. No, I dont see that as an appropriate response.

Oh, I get it. You're one of those guys who thinks we're in Iraq because of a personal vendetta. Are you a 9/11 truther too?

I can understand that some people may not agree with GWB's response to the 9/11 attacks, but Iraq is indeed a part of that response. Our response was global and it involves activities (usually falling short of actual warfare) in all corners of the world. We are working with intelligence agencies and police/investigative agencies throughout the west. We are working diplomatically, clandestinely, and overtly. We have special forces involved in several (if not all) of the countries of the middle east as well as places like Mongolia, the Philippines, and South America. We probably haven't got anything going on in Antarctica, but that might be the only continent that isn't being addressed. The multitude of rationales for our invasion of Iraq and how that fight fits into the GWoT have been recited ad nauseum so if you're still sticking with the "personal vendetta" theory there probably isn't much point in going over them again.

[chiefforlife]

You'll make a good democrat, comrade.

And your last two statements are incorrect.

Regarding Republicans restraint in spending: Republicans, despite having undivided government and despite spending like drunken sailors, failed to spend enough on new Education and Prescription Drug programs (among others) to satisfy their democrat counterparts. Compare the Bush program with the projected cost of the Senate democrat proposal (http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/WM130.cfm?renderforprint=1) to see an example. The democrats are worse than drunken sailors. As unrestrained as Bush spending has been, democrat proposals were even less restrained. I don't defend Bush on this count, but I'm not foolish enough to turn to the democrats either.

Regarding whether spending has slowed down under divided government: Expenditures in the federal budget grew by 6-7% per year during the first 6 years of the Bush administration (when he had a Republican congress). They only grew 4% last year (divided government).

Of course anyone who would dare disagree with the Republicans must be a commie.(comrade)
Sure the Republicans spent 9 trillion on an un-necessary war but hey look, the democrats wanted to spend more on education for AMERICANS. They even tried to give the AMERICAN people some relief on prescription drugs.
As for Bush's spending going down his last year, I think he had to do something to help his legacy as the worst president ever. WE CANT AFFORD it any longer. That has more to do with the decrease in spending.

[Hydrae]

I have stated to you many times now that I have changed my mind on many issues. If reading the facts and evidence doesnt change your mind then nothing will.

For instance, I have long been against ANY tax increase. It is becoming more clear each day with a 9 trillion dollar debt, climbing at a astronomical rate each day, that we may in fact have to raise taxes to pay for it. The Republicans have forced me to change my mind on this issue.
"Staying the course" hasnt worked.

The things you say are important to you, your own party does the opposite. If you choose to stay just to stay, you may.

Interesting that you would bring up responses to being attacked. Osama was the person who attacked us and yet we let him go. Instead we focused our attention on GWs personal vendetta and went after Saddam and Iraq. No, I dont see that as an appropriate response.


Raising revenue is only a short term solution that removes many, many options from the common man. Perhaps a decrease in spending is the answer? Nah, can't be that, we just need every American family to work 3 jobs instead of 2 (which I contend is a leading factor in many of our social ills; both parents working out of the house and leaving the raising of our kids to the babysitter/childcare provider).

Our government are worse spend-a-holics than we are individually. :cuss:

[chiefforlife]

Oh, I get it. You're one of those guys who thinks we're in Iraq because of a personal vendetta. Are you a 9/11 truther too?

I can understand that some people may not agree with GWB's response to the 9/11 attacks, but Iraq is indeed a part of that response. Our response was global and it involves activities (usually falling short of actual warfare) in all corners of the world. We are working with intelligence agencies and police/investigative agencies throughout the west. We are working diplomatically, clandestinely, and overtly. We have special forces involved in several (if not all) of the countries of the middle east as well as places like Mongolia, the Philippines, and South America. We probably haven't got anything going on in Antarctica, but that might be the only continent that isn't being addressed. The multitude of rationales for our invasion of Iraq and how that fight fits into the GWoT have been recited ad nauseum so if you're still sticking with the "personal vendetta" theory there probably isn't much point in going over them again.


Why again is the response to the other countries you mentioned ok(which I agree with) but somehow Iraq called for an all out war, invasion and occupancy.
911 truther? You can keep trying to slam me with your little insults but perhaps some people dont fit into the little box that you do.
Why is it most Republicans feel the need to talk down to people who disagree with them. It is that arrogant stance that turns most people off.

[Adam]

I love it.

Democrats: Please give Republicans holy hell over their fiscal irresponsibility throughout this entire election cycle. Please, they need it.

If the Democrats start showing fiscally conservative or at least fiscally responsible policies I will begin consider voting for them again. It won't be in this election because I need to see it before I'll believe.

[chiefforlife]

Raising revenue is only a short term solution that removes many, many options from the common man. Perhaps a decrease in spending is the answer? Nah, can't be that, we just need every American family to work 3 jobs instead of 2 (which I contend is a leading factor in many of our social ills; both parents working out of the house and leaving the raising of our kids to the babysitter/childcare provider).

Our government are worse spend-a-holics than we are individually. :cuss:

As I stated, I have always felt that way too. The amount of debt that we now carry will be very difficult to erase without a higher tax. Your children and grandchildren are exactly why we need to do something about it. Yes our govt is spend-a-holics, lets change that too. It will most likely take both to pay this off.

[Hydrae]

As I stated, I have always felt that way too. The amount of debt that we now carry will be very difficult to erase without a higher tax. Your children and grandchildren are exactly why we need to do something about it. Yes our govt is spend-a-holics, lets change that too. It will most likely take both to pay this off.


Which is why I support Ron Paul. Only through aggressively ending subsidies, billions in foreign aid, useless wars and other means of stopping the monetary hemorraging will there be a country left for my kids and grand kids. Coming up with ideas on other ways to take the money out of my pocket to give it to my neighbor is not the answer and I will fight it tooth and nail.

[patteeu]

Of course anyone who would dare disagree with the Republicans must be a commie.(comrade)
Sure the Republicans spent 9 trillion on an un-necessary war...

Uh, $9 trillion on an unnecessary war? You'd better check your sources, comrade. That's not even close. :shake:

... but hey look, the democrats wanted to spend more on education for AMERICANS. They even tried to give the AMERICAN people some relief on prescription drugs.

You sure talk like a democrat. Forgive me if I still don't have any confidence that you've ever been a Republican, much less a lifelong one.

As for Bush's spending going down his last year, I think he had to do something to help his legacy as the worst president ever. WE CANT AFFORD it any longer. That has more to do with the decrease in spending.

There was no decrease in spending, there was a slower growth of spending. No recent President of either party has presided over a decrease in spending. You said that spending hasn't slowed under divided government. That was wrong. I don't care what you attribute the change to, the fact is that it has.

[chiefforlife]

Patteau,
I view my current politics much like my favorite team, the Chiefs right now.
Nothing is working its time to re-evaluate the whole thing. The fact that Im sounding like a democrat to you, I'll take as a compliment.

If you must know, I'm a small business owner and that has fueled my views as a Republican. I have been for smaller government and more private industry. In that I still believe but am willing to give on that for the greater good.
My views on foreign policy are becoming isolationist, I'm trying to be better about that but it's hard to .
I think we should fix our own country first which will put us in a better position to help others. There isnt a Rep. candidate out there that is capable of the kind of change we need. IMO.
I generally enjoy reading your posts and find you to be an intelligent person. I can like you and disagree with you as well. The fact that you have taken to calling me comrade is kind of funny but reflects on your views of others that may not agree with you.

If you find it hard to believe that I have been a Republican since I could vote which is 22 years now, it may be because I try to look at the process with an OPEN mind, I recommend you try it.

[patteeu]

Why again is the response to the other countries you mentioned ok(which I agree with) but somehow Iraq called for an all out war, invasion and occupancy.

The other countries that I specifically mentioned are on friendly terms with us. Not so with Iraq. There were a variety of reasons why we invaded Iraq. Prevent Saddam from continuing to work with terrorists, prevent him from collaborating with al Qaeda or anyone else on WMD, prevent him from threatening his neighbors, establish a US presence in the heart of the region that spawns islamist radicalism, foster a country in the region that respects its own people, embraces some of the liberal ideas of the west like individual freedom and democracy, and acts as an ally in the GWoT. ETC. The list goes on.

Reasonable people can disagree with the strategy or with the wisdom of the goals, but reasonable people don't fall for the "personal vendetta" hoax.


911 truther? You can keep trying to slam me with your little insults but perhaps some people dont fit into the little box that you do.
Why is it most Republicans feel the need to talk down to people who disagree with them. It is that arrogant stance that turns most people off.

LMAO

[chiefforlife]

The other countries that I specifically mentioned are on friendly terms with us. Not so with Iraq. There were a variety of reasons why we invaded Iraq. Prevent Saddam from continuing to work with terrorists, prevent him from collaborating with al Qaeda or anyone else on WMD, prevent him from threatening his neighbors, establish a US presence in the heart of the region that spawns islamist radicalism, foster a country in the region that respects its own people, embraces some of the liberal ideas of the west like individual freedom and democracy, and acts as an ally in the GWoT. ETC. The list goes on.

Reasonable people can disagree with the strategy or with the wisdom of the goals, but reasonable people don't fall for the "personal vendetta" hoax.



LMAO

So with that logic we should invade and occupy Korea and several other countries. Pakistan is harboring AlQaeda, it is a known hiding and training ground. They are known to have WMDs.
GW wanted to invade Iraq the moment he took office, this is very well known. The CIA was told to find a reason to go to Iraq as one of GWs first decisions. Doesnt sound like a hoax, if you are reasonable.

[mlyonsd]

As I stated, I have always felt that way too. The amount of debt that we now carry will be very difficult to erase without a higher tax. Your children and grandchildren are exactly why we need to do something about it. Yes our govt is spend-a-holics, lets change that too. It will most likely take both to pay this off.

Psst. Cut spending and we'll all be ok. Group hug.

[chiefforlife]

Psst. Cut spending and we'll all be ok. Group hug.


We are going to make up 9 trillion dollars by cutting spending? Oh and a group hug?

[Hydrae]

We are going to make up 9 trillion dollars by cutting spending? Oh and a group hug?


It ain't gonna happen overnight no matter how you attack it.

[mlyonsd]

We are going to make up 9 trillion dollars by cutting spending? Oh and a group hug?

I might have missed it but I thought you considered yourself a Republican.

We can make up infinite dollars if we spend our money right.

[chiefforlife]

I might have missed it but I thought you considered yourself a Republican.

We can make up infinite dollars if we spend our money right.


I would certainly like to do it that way but I fear the debt is just to big. Yes I am a Republican but will be voting democratic for the first time. By spending our money right, do you mean pulling out of Iraq, the single largest drain on our dollars?

[patteeu]

Patteau,
I view my current politics much like my favorite team, the Chiefs right now.
Nothing is working its time to re-evaluate the whole thing. The fact that Im sounding like a democrat to you, I'll take as a compliment.

If you must know, I'm a small business owner and that has fueled my views as a Republican. I have been for smaller government and more private industry. In that I still believe but am willing to give on that for the greater good.
My views on foreign policy are becoming isolationist, I'm trying to be better about that but it's hard to .
I think we should fix our own country first which will put us in a better position to help others. There isnt a Rep. candidate out there that is capable of the kind of change we need. IMO.
I generally enjoy reading your posts and find you to be an intelligent person. I can like you and disagree with you as well. The fact that you have taken to calling me comrade is kind of funny but reflects on your views of others that may not agree with you.

If you find it hard to believe that I have been a Republican since I could vote which is 22 years now, it may be because I try to look at the process with an OPEN mind, I recommend you try it.

Whatever. I have no problem with people who disagree with me. What I have a problem with is someone who hasn't ever posted anything here that would give an unbiased observer a reason to think he has a Republican bone in his body prefacing his pro-democrat remarks with "As a lifelong Republican...". My opinions are based on what I read here. For all I know, you could have been the greatest Republican ever before you decided that being Republican was incompatible with "the greater good", but I don't apologize for being skeptical.

FWIW, I'm sure you're a great guy irl and none of this is intended to be personal.

BTW, my mind is plenty OPEN. Its open enough that I understand why we're in Iraq, whether I agree with it or not, and I'm not reduced to repeating false anti-Bush smears from the leftwing blogosphere. ;)

[patteeu]

So with that logic we should invade and occupy Korea and several other countries. Pakistan is harboring AlQaeda, it is a known hiding and training ground. They are known to have WMDs.
GW wanted to invade Iraq the moment he took office, this is very well known. The CIA was told to find a reason to go to Iraq as one of GWs first decisions. Doesnt sound like a hoax, if you are reasonable.

Which logic is that? I don't see a connection between what you say we "should" do and the logic I was describing.

I'm not convinced that GW wanted to invade Iraq from the moment he took office although I'll grant you that some of his advisors, including his VP, probably did. You do realize that radical islamism and intractable instability in the middle east existed prior to 9/11 don't you? It had nothing to do with a personal vendetta.

[chiefforlife]

Whatever. I have no problem with people who disagree with me. What I have a problem with is someone who hasn't ever posted anything here that would give an unbiased observer a reason to think he has a Republican bone in his body prefacing his pro-democrat remarks with "As a lifelong Republican...". My opinions are based on what I read here. For all I know, you could have been the greatest Republican ever before you decided that being Republican was incompatible with "the greater good", but I don't apologize for being skeptical.

FWIW, I'm sure you're a great guy irl and none of this is intended to be personal.

BTW, my mind is plenty OPEN. Its open enough that I understand why we're in Iraq, whether I agree with it or not, and I'm not reduced to repeating false anti-Bush smears from the leftwing blogosphere. ;)


I didnt realize I needed to establish my Republicanism to you before I decided to vote for the best candidate IMO, whom happens to be Democratic.
If you do understand why we are in Iraq then you are one of the few.
This happens to be a hot topic on most of the political talk shows both left and right wing. We were given many reason why we should invade Iraq, most of which changed as they were found to be untrue. We are now stuck in a quagmire, much like the Vietnam war. There is no way to win.
For the record, I was for invading and now feel duped like most of the country.
Skepticism is not a bad trait, apply it to your own leaders and see what you find.

BTW, I mentioned in some other threads that I have been a long time republican, I did not in this one until you brought it up.

[patteeu]

I would certainly like to do it that way but I fear the debt is just to big. Yes I am a Republican but will be voting democratic for the first time. By spending our money right, do you mean pulling out of Iraq, the single largest drain on our dollars?

Come on, man. None of your statements about the cost of this war or it's impact on the budget are correct. Not only is it not the single largest drain on our dollars, it isn't a recurring and ever-growing cost like Social Security, Medicare and the other entitlements.

[chiefforlife]

Which logic is that? I don't see a connection between what you say we "should" do and the logic I was describing.

I'm not convinced that GW wanted to invade Iraq from the moment he took office although I'll grant you that some of his advisors, including his VP, probably did. You do realize that radical islamism and intractable instability in the middle east existed prior to 9/11 don't you? It had nothing to do with a personal vendetta.


I do realize that, in fact it has existed for a thousand years. The logic I was speaking of was that other leaders were also helping terrorism and in fact do posses WMDs but we dont invade them. Saudi Arabia is a rather large supporter of terrorism but somehow they escape our wrath. Pakistan, Korea.

You can deny that thats what GW wanted to do but perhaps this is the reason he chose his advisors and VP. You would need a strong staff to pull off a war.

[chiefforlife]

Come on, man. None of your statements about the cost of this war or it's impact on the budget are correct. Not only is it not the single largest drain on our dollars, it isn't a recurring and ever-growing cost like Social Security, Medicare and the other entitlements.


Every person drawing from social security invested their own money in to it, matched by their employers. They are entitled to it, its theirs. This was set up to be a mandatory savings account, never to be used or borrowed against. This isnt a drain on OUR dollars. Its money put aside for a lifetime to use when one retires. Medicare is also a tax taken from each persons paycheck to be used for the people who cant afford healthcare. These are Americans who have paid into these accounts!

WAR is a complete drain on American taxpayers money, we are borrowing money to fight this war. 6 years now, I'd call that recurring and evergrowing.

[patteeu]

I didnt realize I needed to establish my Republicanism to you before I decided to vote for the best candidate IMO, whom happens to be Democratic.
If you do understand why we are in Iraq then you are one of the few.
This happens to be a hot topic on most of the political talk shows both left and right wing. We were given many reason why we should invade Iraq, most of which changed as they were found to be untrue. We are now stuck in a quagmire, much like the Vietnam war. There is no way to win.
For the record, I was for invading and now feel duped like most of the country.
Skepticism is not a bad trait, apply it to your own leaders and see what you find.

BTW, I mentioned in some other threads that I have been a long time republican, I did not in this one until you brought it up.

You were made for the democrat party. The more you say the more remarkable it is that you were ever a Republican. WTF were you thinking? You must just be a guy who thought tax cuts sounded good or whose parents were Republicans because it's apparent that you didn't come by your life long Republicanism through a deep understanding of current affairs or any adherence to conservative principles. :shake:

[banyon]

You were made for the democrat party. The more you say the more remarkable it is that you were ever a Republican. WTF were you thinking? You must just be a guy who thought tax cuts sounded good or whose parents were Republicans because it's apparent that you didn't come by your life long Republicanism through a deep understanding of current affairs or any adherence to conservative principles. :shake:

Careful. You may run him off and he won't ever post again.







for two weeks.

[patteeu]

I do realize that, in fact it has existed for a thousand years. The logic I was speaking of was that other leaders were also helping terrorism and in fact do posses WMDs but we dont invade them. Saudi Arabia is a rather large supporter of terrorism but somehow they escape our wrath. Pakistan, Korea.

You can deny that thats what GW wanted to do but perhaps this is the reason he chose his advisors and VP. You would need a strong staff to pull off a war.

If you think "my logic" suggests that we need to invade every country that has a leader who deals with terrorists or who might possess WMD, you don't have a grasp of "my logic". Our foreign policy should have some level of consistency, but total consistency based on a limited number of characteristics is ridiculous. Each relationship is unique and, as such, deserves case by case consideration.

I do deny it. BTW, you never answered my question. Are you a 9/11 truther? You fit the profile.

[patteeu]

Every person drawing from social security invested their own money in to it, matched by their employers. They are entitled to it, its theirs. This was set up to be a mandatory savings account, never to be used or borrowed against. This isnt a drain on OUR dollars. Its money put aside for a lifetime to use when one retires. Medicare is also a tax taken from each persons paycheck to be used for the people who cant afford healthcare. These are Americans who have paid into these accounts!

WAR is a complete drain on American taxpayers money, we are borrowing money to fight this war. 6 years now, I'd call that recurring and evergrowing.

Yes, that's what an entitlement is, more or less. And they are the real fiscal problem facing in this country, not the Iraq war, despite your emotional take on the latter.

[patteeu]

Careful. You may run him off and he won't ever post again.

Yeah, I guess I should stop. We need more lefties around here.

[chiefforlife]

Yes, that's what an entitlement is, more or less. And they are the real fiscal problem facing in this country, not the Iraq war, despite your emotional take on the latter.


My whole point on this matter is that they are entitled to it because THEY PAID FOR IT! Money was taken out of their paychecks specifically for it.The money spent on the war could fix MANY problems our country faces. The astronomical amount of money spent daily in Iraq doesnt negatively effect our debt?? How could you post that with a straight finger?

Not even sure what a 911 truther is? If it has to do with all the conspiracy theories of inside jobs then NO.

You sound a great deal like Dick Cheney, since we are making comparisons.

[banyon]

Yes, that's what an entitlement is, more or less. And they are the real fiscal problem facing in this country, not the Iraq war, despite your emotional take on the latter.

Currently most of the entitlement programs are either balanced, running a miniscule deficit, or in surplus. Future entitlement obligations aren't included in our debt/deficit figures for the most part. reforms such as the ones Obama suggested for SSA will still leave us with the $9 trillion in debt absent further action.

[chiefforlife]

If you think "my logic" suggests that we need to invade every country that has a leader who deals with terrorists or who might possess WMD, you don't have a grasp of "my logic". Our foreign policy should have some level of consistency, but total consistency based on a limited number of characteristics is ridiculous. Each relationship is unique and, as such, deserves case by case consideration.

I do deny it. BTW, you never answered my question. Are you a 9/11 truther? You fit the profile.
Patty's
Quote: There were a variety of reasons why we invaded Iraq. Prevent Saddam from continuing to work with terrorists, prevent him from collaborating with al Qaeda or anyone else on WMD, prevent him from threatening his neighbors, establish a US presence in the heart of the region that spawns islamist radicalism, foster a country in the region that respects its own people, embraces some of the liberal ideas of the west like individual freedom and democracy, and acts as an ally in the GWoT. ETC. The list goes on.

This was your stated "logic" for invading Iraq, I pointed out how all that can also be attributed to many other leaders. Then you deny it is your "logic".

Sounds just like the current administration doesnt it?

[chiefforlife]

Currently most of the entitlement programs are either balanced, running a miniscule deficit, or in surplus. Future entitlement obligations aren't included in our debt/deficit figures for the most part. reforms such as the ones Obama suggested for SSA will still leave us with the $9 trillion in debt absent further action.


Bravo! Who's figures are not correct?

[patteeu]

My whole point on this matter is that they are entitled to it because THEY PAID FOR IT! Money was taken out of their paychecks specifically for it.The money spent on the war could fix MANY problems our country faces. The astronomical amount of money spent daily in Iraq doesnt negatively effect our debt?? How could you post that with a straight finger?

You'll make a great little tax and spender: BRING THE MONEY HOME SO IT CAN BE SPENT HERE! lol

You sound a great deal like Dick Cheney, since we are making comparisons.

Thank you. :thumb:

[patteeu]

Currently most of the entitlement programs are either balanced, running a miniscule deficit, or in surplus. Future entitlement obligations aren't included in our debt/deficit figures for the most part. reforms such as the ones Obama suggested for SSA will still leave us with the $9 trillion in debt absent further action.

Our entitlements represent our largest expenditures (not the Iraq war as cfl has claimed) and they are also the real fiscal problem facing this country. If we didn't have entitlement-related problems looming on the horizon, neither the cost of the Iraq war nor our $9 trillion debt would be such a big deal.

[chiefforlife]

You'll make a great little tax and spender: BRING THE MONEY HOME SO IT CAN BE SPENT HERE! lol

As opposed to your, spend it all and Dont spend it here, especially on silly social programs like SSA or medicare that people have paid into their entire lives.
Whats so wrong with spending Americans money on Americans. You are twisting what Ive said, I'm NOT for raising any taxes but I fear the amount of debt we have it MAY be necessary.
You little war monger.


Thank you. :thumb:

Few would take that as a compliment. LOL!

[patteeu]

Patty's
Quote: There were a variety of reasons why we invaded Iraq. Prevent Saddam from continuing to work with terrorists, prevent him from collaborating with al Qaeda or anyone else on WMD, prevent him from threatening his neighbors, establish a US presence in the heart of the region that spawns islamist radicalism, foster a country in the region that respects its own people, embraces some of the liberal ideas of the west like individual freedom and democracy, and acts as an ally in the GWoT. ETC. The list goes on.

This was your stated "logic" for invading Iraq, I pointed out how all that can also be attributed to many other leaders. Then you deny it is your "logic".

Sounds just like the current administration doesnt it?

I didn't deny that what I described was my logic. I denied that the logic you tried to extrapolate to other applications was my logic because it wasn't.

I gave you reasons for our invasion. I didn't say that those reasons, regardless of all the other conditions and factors present, dictated war in all cases. For a simple example, if we establish an adequate presence in the middle east with an invasion of Iraq, why would we necessarily need to establish a redundant presence in Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran? Answer: We wouldn't, we've already got one in Iraq. That's the logic I'm using.

[patteeu]

Bravo! Who's figures are not correct?

Yours.

[chiefforlife]

Our entitlements represent our largest expenditures (not the Iraq war as cfl has claimed) and they are also the real fiscal problem facing this country. If we didn't have entitlement-related problems looming on the horizon, neither the cost of the Iraq war nor our $9 trillion debt would be such a big deal.

Patty, I just dont understand how you can think that paying people back the money they paid into a mandatory savings account, on the promise it would be paid back is somehow a burden. If we dont it would be stealing!

Now we are going to steal from seniors to ease the pain of the war?

Am I missing something?

[banyon]

Our entitlements represent our largest expenditures (not the Iraq war as cfl has claimed) and they are also the real fiscal problem facing this country. If we didn't have entitlement-related problems looming on the horizon, neither the cost of the Iraq war nor our $9 trillion debt would be such a big deal.


I can't agree. Owing 60% of what you make is a bad problem. For over a year, if you were an individual asking me about your finances, I probably told you to file Chapter 7 (assuming more debts weren't expected to accrue). One problem with this debt servicing, as the Ron Paul acolytes will correctly tell you is that it creates deflationary pressures on the dollar. Another, subtler effect, is that it transfers wealth from the middle class to the upper class. The higher the interest paid onthe debt, the worse this problem is. The biggest problem now, though, is that more of our debt is foreign owned, and thus any default threatens our national credit. And, as I think you can appreciate, the ability of a nation to borrow is a strong predictor on its ability to wage war.

[chiefforlife]

I didn't deny that what I described was my logic. I denied that the logic you tried to extrapolate to other applications was my logic because it wasn't.

I gave you reasons for our invasion. I didn't say that those reasons, regardless of all the other conditions and factors present, dictated war in all cases. For a simple example, if we establish an adequate presence in the middle east with an invasion of Iraq, why would we necessarily need to establish a redundant presence in Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran? Answer: We wouldn't, we've already got one in Iraq. That's the logic I'm using.

Thank you for clarifying but I think its flawed. As we both have stated there has been radical islamism and unrest in the middle east for many many years. Our presence has only added fuel to the fire and given them another enemy to unite against.

All of those factors you mention do exist in other countries over there so again we are back to...Why Iraq. This logic is redundant because we already had a presence in Afghanistan before we invaded Iraq.

[patteeu]

Patty, I just dont understand how you can think that paying people back the money they paid into a mandatory savings account, on the promise it would be paid back is somehow a burden. If we dont it would be stealing!

Now we are going to steal from seniors to ease the pain of the war?

Am I missing something?

The entitlements aren't savings accounts, they are redistributive ponzi schemes. We've already broken the promises made in some ways and we are headed toward a major set of broken promises in the future because the schemes as they're currently structured are unsupportable (unless we do something like dramatically increase our birthrate and/or our immigration rate to keep them going, neither of which are going to happen).

No, I'm not saying that we steal from seniors to ease the pain of war, I'm saying that the war isn't the big fiscal problem that we face. It's like buying a car when you're already in debt up to your ears for a house and you know that there's a baloon payment coming due on your mortgage in a few years that you aren't going to be able to meet. Sure the car is a large expense that represents a significant portion of your annual income, but it's that balloon payment that you know you can't afford and that you've been ignoring that is the real problem coming down the pike.

[patteeu]

Thank you for clarifying but I think its flawed. As we both have stated there has been radical islamism and unrest in the middle east for many many years. Our presence has only added fuel to the fire and given them another enemy to unite against.

All of those factors you mention do exist in other countries over there so again we are back to...Why Iraq. This logic is redundant because we already had a presence in Afghanistan before we invaded Iraq.

Why Iraq? It was thought to be low hanging fruit. We'd already softened up their army with a previous war and a sanctions regime. We had a pre-existing beef with them that also gave us some international legitimacy due to UN resolutions demanding disarmament and our activities in the no-fly zones. And Saddam was something of a pariah among his neighbors.

[chiefforlife]

The entitlements aren't savings accounts, they are redistributive ponzi schemes. We've already broken the promises made in some ways and we are headed toward a major set of broken promises in the future because the schemes as they're currently structured are unsupportable (unless we do something like dramatically increase our birthrate and/or our immigration rate to keep them going, neither of which are going to happen).

No, I'm not saying that we steal from seniors to ease the pain of war, I'm saying that the war isn't the big fiscal problem that we face. It's like buying a car when you're already in debt up to your ears for a house and you know that there's a baloon payment coming due on your mortgage in a few years that you aren't going to be able to meet. Sure the car is a large expense that represents a significant portion of your annual income, but it's that balloon payment that you know you can't afford and that you've been ignoring that is the real problem coming down the pike.


This is the kind of thing that really upsets me about our government. Im not saying its one party's fault because it isnt. It is the kind of thing that has me wanting change very badly. I do appreciate you taking the time to discuss things.

[patteeu]

I can't agree. Owing 60% of what you make is a bad problem. For over a year, if you were an individual asking me about your finances, I probably told you to file Chapter 7 (assuming more debts weren't expected to accrue). One problem with this debt servicing, as the Ron Paul acolytes will correctly tell you is that it creates deflationary pressures on the dollar. Another, subtler effect, is that it transfers wealth from the middle class to the upper class. The higher the interest paid onthe debt, the worse this problem is. The biggest problem now, though, is that more of our debt is foreign owned, and thus any default threatens our national credit. And, as I think you can appreciate, the ability of a nation to borrow is a strong predictor on its ability to wage war.

I'll stipulate to all the problems you associate with carrying a debt, but if we didn't have an entitlement problem on the horizon, I don't agree that the current debt or the incremental debt due to the war would be a major problem (i.e. a bankruptcy problem). I'm not exactly sure what the numbers are, but I believe the debt service portion of our budget is something like 15% of the total. Given that we are operating at a deficit, that makes it maybe 20% of our revenues. That's not good, but if you don't keep building the debt through deficit spending, it's not a major problem. It's a tighten your belt problem, not a declare bankruptcy problem. It only becomes a bankruptcy problem if there's no way to control the deficit spending (and if you don't expect growth out of your economy) which would mean that the portion of your budget dedicated to servicing the interest is destined to keep increasing. That's where the entitlement problem comes in.

[patteeu]

This is the kind of thing that really upsets me about our government. Im not saying its one party's fault because it isnt. It is the kind of thing that has me wanting change very badly. I do appreciate you taking the time to discuss things.

I'm afraid you won't get the kind of change you really want from the democrats, but, as you point out, the Republicans haven't done a good job either.

I'll try to be more friendly when I judge you (and everyone else around here) in the future. :p

[Silock]

Those are all just campaign promises. Can't bank on those. However, I'd be willing to bet that he spends money and raises taxes before he does anything else (overall) when he gets stonewalled by Congress.

[Hydrae]

The entitlements aren't savings accounts, they are redistributive ponzi schemes. We've already broken the promises made in some ways and we are headed toward a major set of broken promises in the future because the schemes as they're currently structured are unsupportable (unless we do something like dramatically increase our birthrate and/or our immigration rate to keep them going, neither of which are going to happen).

No, I'm not saying that we steal from seniors to ease the pain of war, I'm saying that the war isn't the big fiscal problem that we face. It's like buying a car when you're already in debt up to your ears for a house and you know that there's a baloon payment coming due on your mortgage in a few years that you aren't going to be able to meet. Sure the car is a large expense that represents a significant portion of your annual income, but it's that balloon payment that you know you can't afford and that you've been ignoring that is the real problem coming down the pike.


I think most people would say you shouldn't buy the car then. Or at least a cheaper model. :p

[patteeu]

I think most people would say you shouldn't buy the car then. Or at least a cheaper model. :p

Sure. But when comparing the magnitudes, the car isn't the root of the problem. Absent the mortgage, the car is no problem at all. Absent the car, you've still got a problem.

[Ugly Duck]

Republicans are the only ones you can trust with the taxpayers' money

They don't use our money.... they use the next generation's money. Print it up, fly it to Iraq & shovel it out of the back of pickup trucks in Baghdad. Billions & billions not accounted for.

[HonestChieffan]

This reads like a manifesto to rape and pillage all those "rich folk" and have a great leveling of financial holdings. Karl Marx must be grinning.

A roll back of the cap gain tax....gut the stock market and penalize people for saving and investing.

A roll back to taxing dividends at reg tax levels...further hammering the retired and fixed income folks who will pay through the nose.

Helath Care. If you buy this proposal you are nuts. No possible way we can have such a program and have it work. Its all nuts. They left out in this crap his plan to limit Pharma profits. Ohhh boy....lets start setting the limits on corporations profits.

Obama is a worse choice than Hitlary.

[Baby Lee]

As a lifelong Republican, I didnt realize I needed to establish my Republicanism to you before I decided to vote for the best candidate IMO, whom happens to be Democratic.
If you do understand why we are in Iraq then you are one of the few.
This happens to be a hot topic on most of the political talk shows both left and right wing. We were given many reason why we should invade Iraq, most of which changed as they were found to be untrue. We are now stuck in a quagmire, much like the Vietnam war. There is no way to win.
For the record, I was for invading and now feel duped like most of the country.
Skepticism is not a bad trait, apply it to your own leaders and see what you find.

BTW, I mentioned in some other threads that I have been a long time republican, I did not in this one until you brought it up.
FYP

[Chiefmanwillcatch]

Employer Contribution = TAXES on all businesses.

Stupid. Need to create market forces in the med community where it doesn't exist.

[BucEyedPea]

The last time we had a balanced budget was under democratic leadership. I would expect a modern Republican to equate a balanced budget with communism.

But that was under a divided govt...a real one.

Republicans have shown absolutely no restraint in spending and yet you say this is what you seek.
You're right! Much of it spent on killing too....the party of life!

We currently have a divided government and it hasnt slowed this administration down a bit.

Because it's not really divided. Liberal hawks are running the Bush administration. Bush administration is like LBJ administration....'er....well he's outspent even him, domestically. Republican or Democrat don't tell us all we need to know.

[BucEyedPea]

Shouldn't this thread be merged with the "What is communism thread?"

No doubt, Obama is likeable, but his platform is definitely Marxist. No matter how much in denial some are about what this is.

[BigRedChief]

This reads like a manifesto to rape and pillage all those "rich folk" and have a great leveling of financial holdings. Karl Marx must be grinning.

A roll back of the cap gain tax....gut the stock market and penalize people for saving and investing.

A roll back to taxing dividends at reg tax levels...further hammering the retired and fixed income folks who will pay through the nose.

Helath Care. If you buy this proposal you are nuts. No possible way we can have such a program and have it work. Its all nuts. They left out in this crap his plan to limit Pharma profits. Ohhh boy....lets start setting the limits on corporations profits.

Obama is a worse choice than Hitlary.
Basically undoing the tax breaks for the rich that Bush handed out for 8 years does not = Karl Marx

[Cochise]

He can't campaign on raising taxes. That's never worked before and it never will.

Even Bill Clinton had to pretend he wasn't going to raise taxes and then flip on it when he got into office.

[BigRedChief]

He can't campaign on raising taxes. That's never worked before and it never will.

Even Bill Clinton had to pretend he wasn't going to raise taxes and then flip on it when he got into office.
As did Bush Sr.

[BucEyedPea]

He can't campaign on raising taxes. That's never worked before and it never will.
Well, I'd say this would be all the GOP would have to call out on him as well as using the "L" word. But they've lost this option, imo, due to their own behavior. It'll never work. The ONLY GOP candidate that can play this card currently and be believed is Ron Paul. He's actually the party's only hope of winning the national election. But they insist on dramatizing their own death-wish.

Even Bill Clinton had to pretend he wasn't going to raise taxes and then flip on it when he got into office.

Bush Sr did the same and lost later. Don't forget the promises of a "humble foreign policy" by Jr too. Tee Hee!

[banyon]

He can't campaign on raising taxes. That's never worked before and it never will.

Even Bill Clinton had to pretend he wasn't going to raise taxes and then flip on it when he got into office.

What did he flip on?http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4482670&postcount=23

[Ugly Duck]

I love it.

Democrats: Please give Republicans holy hell over their fiscal irresponsibility throughout this entire election cycle. Please, they need it.

The Republican way:

Those who are wealthy enough to make their living sitting around the pool waiting for their dividend checks to roll in pay a max of 15% on their capital gain income.

The middle class folks pay a max of 30+% after working their asses off day & night.

Its bass ackwards.

[patteeu]

The Republican way:

Those who are wealthy enough to make their living sitting around the pool waiting for their dividend checks to roll in pay a max of 15% on their capital gain income.

The middle class folks pay a max of 30+% after working their asses off day & night.

Its bass ackwards.

Two guys, who both work the same job and earn the same paychecks over the course of their lives, live different lifestyles. One of them spends every cent he earns on wine, women and song and at the end of his life he relies on Uncle Sam to finance his retirement. The other lives frugally, saves his money, and finances his own retirement. The first guy lived higher on the hog while the second guy paid more total taxes. *That's* bass ackwards.

[chiefforlife]

Two guys, who both work the same job and earn the same paychecks over the course of their lives, live different lifestyles. One of them spends every cent he earns on wine, women and song and at the end of his life he relies on Uncle Sam to finance his retirement. The other lives frugally, saves his money, and finances his own retirement. The first guy lived higher on the hog while the second guy paid more total taxes. *That's* bass ackwards.


While I wont disagree, thats not fair to the second person. I dont think its fair to say that Uncle Sam financed his retirement(the first person).
Uncle Sam has been taking money out of both mens paychecks their whole lives, their employers have matched that money. Uncle Sam has gained interest off of all that money for 40+ years. Upon retirement, both men are simply going to receive their OWN money back.
If anything both men have helped finance Uncle Sam...

[patteeu]

While I wont disagree, thats not fair to the second person. I dont think its fair to say that Uncle Sam financed his retirement(the first person).
Uncle Sam has been taking money out of both mens paychecks their whole lives, their employers have matched that money. Uncle Sam has gained interest off of all that money for 40+ years. Upon retirement, both men are simply going to receive their OWN money back.
If anything both men have helped finance Uncle Sam...

You don't get your OWN money back from social security. It's a pay as you go ponzi scheme. You get the money that is being taxed from younger workers. If your point is that "Uncle Sam" (meaning our society as a collective) has some kind of obligation to live up to it's side of the social security bargain, then I agree. However, that is beside the point of my post which is about the double taxation of savings, not about social security.

[chiefforlife]

You don't get your OWN money back from social security. It's a pay as you go ponzi scheme. You get the money that is being taxed from younger workers. If your point is that "Uncle Sam" (meaning our society as a collective) has some kind of obligation to live up to it's side of the social security bargain, then I agree. However, that is beside the point of my post which is about the double taxation of savings, not about social security.

I agree with your point. Sorry if I took it in another direction, its just that social security is a sensitive issue for me.
I just dont think its fair to say Uncle Sam is financing someones retirement when its mandatory to pay into your "retirement" account your whole life. It is matched by your employer and there should be no way there isnt any money in there when you retire. Unless the money has been used by the Govt. for something else, which I believe was not supposed to happen.

I believe you when you say it has become a ponzi scheme but Im sure it wasnt set up that way in the beginning. Am I wrong?

[banyon]

I agree with your point. Sorry if I took it in another direction, its just that social security is a sensitive issue for me.
I just dont think its fair to say Uncle Sam is financing someones retirement when its mandatory to pay into your "retirement" account your whole life. It is matched by your employer and there should be no way there isnt any money in there when you retire. Unless the money has been used by the Govt. for something else, which I believe was not supposed to happen.

I believe you when you say it has become a ponzi scheme but Im sure it wasnt set up that way in the beginning. Am I wrong?

Don't believe him when he says it is a ponzi scheme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme).

I think he is thinking of a pyramid scheme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_scheme), which is a little closer to the mark.

And yes, when the pyramid stops growing, we will need to adjust. But as Obama points out, the solution is very simple.

[patteeu]

I agree with your point. Sorry if I took it in another direction, its just that social security is a sensitive issue for me.
I just dont think its fair to say Uncle Sam is financing someones retirement when its mandatory to pay into your "retirement" account your whole life. It is matched by your employer and there should be no way there isnt any money in there when you retire. Unless the money has been used by the Govt. for something else, which I believe was not supposed to happen.

I believe you when you say it has become a ponzi scheme but Im sure it wasnt set up that way in the beginning. Am I wrong?

Don't believe him when he says it is a ponzi scheme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme).

I think he is thinking of a pyramid scheme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_scheme), which is a little closer to the mark.

And yes, when the pyramid stops growing, we will need to adjust. But as Obama points out, the solution is very simple.


I stand corrected about pyramid vs. ponzi.

Yes it was established as a pyramid scheme, presumably with the idea that our population would perpetually grow or that the failure of growth would be so far in the future that the designers just didn't care. Unfortunately, we're there now (or will be in a decade or two).

And I disagree with banyon about how simple it is to solve the problem. Obama's solution is a fundmental change in the agreement where high earners would make much larger contributions without any corresponding benefit at payout. In other words, Obama's plan is to turn SS into even more of a welfare program (redistributing wealth from the high earner to the low earner) than it already is.

[banyon]

I stand corrected about pyramid vs. ponzi.

Yes it was established as a pyramid scheme, presumably with the idea that our population would perpetually grow or that the failure of growth would be so far in the future that the designers just didn't care. Unfortunately, we're there now (or will be in a decade or two).

And I disagree with banyon about how simple it is to solve the problem. Obama's solution is a fundmental change in the agreement where high earners would make much larger contributions without any corresponding benefit at payout. In other words, Obama's plan is to turn SS into even more of a welfare program (redistributing wealth from the high earner to the low earner) than it already is.

As you know, that's fine by me, since high wage earners have been disproportionately gaining from our system for quite some time now.

[patteeu]

As you know, that's fine by me, since high wage earners have been disproportionately gaining from our system for quite some time now.

I understand. I'm just working off of the assumption that since cfl has been talking about SS like it's a contract between the citizens and their government that he won't think it's such a great thing to change the terms in mid-stream. I have to believe that a lifelong Republican isn't fully immersed in the soak-the-rich traditions of the dem party yet.

[banyon]

I understand. I'm just working off of the assumption that since cfl has been talking about SS like it's a contract between the citizens and their government that he won't think it's such a great thing to change the terms in mid-stream. I have to believe that a lifelong Republican isn't fully immersed in the soak-the-rich traditions of the dem party yet.


I know, you're hoping he's still immersed enough in the Republican "keep-the-pendulum swung all the way to one side" position. :p

[chiefforlife]

I understand. I'm just working off of the assumption that since cfl has been talking about SS like it's a contract between the citizens and their government that he won't think it's such a great thing to change the terms in mid-stream. I have to believe that a lifelong Republican isn't fully immersed in the soak-the-rich traditions of the dem party yet.


I DEFINATELY BELIEVE IN THE FACT THAT "ITS A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE GOVT. AND ME". They are taking a nice chunk out of my check every payday, matched by my employer, with the promise that they will pay it back when I'm old.
Thats not Income or property tax or sales tax its retirement tax!

[Boyceofsummer]

that we are headed for a recession and money will be tight. The truth is we will be forced to make some painful decisions down the road. To hear all the candidates every thing is turning up roses.



Election cycle. :banghead:

[patteeu]

I DEFINATELY BELIEVE IN THE FACT THAT "ITS A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE GOVT. AND ME". They are taking a nice chunk out of my check every payday, matched by my employer, with the promise that they will pay it back when I'm old.
Thats not Income or property tax or sales tax its retirement tax!

Watch out for Obama and the rest of the democrats then.

[pikesome]

I DEFINATELY BELIEVE IN THE FACT THAT "ITS A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE GOVT. AND ME". They are taking a nice chunk out of my check every payday, matched by my employer, with the promise that they will pay it back when I'm old.
Thats not Income or property tax or sales tax its retirement tax!

On paper it looks like it's matched by your employer but it's your money still. I worked for a small business and when ever pay came up the amounts paid for HC, SS and unemployment always got mentioned. Not that I blame them, how much I cost them is far more important, to them, than how much lands in my bank account.

[chiefforlife]

On paper it looks like it's matched by your employer but it's your money still. I worked for a small business and when ever pay came up the amounts paid for HC, SS and unemployment always got mentioned. Not that I blame them, how much I cost them is far more important, to them, than how much lands in my bank account.


Thats not true, I own a small business and believe me, I have to match the social security withholdings from my employees checks. It goes into your SSA account, you wont see it on your check.

[patteeu]

Thats not true, I own a small business and believe me, I have to match the social security withholdings from my employees checks. It goes into your SSA account, you wont see it on your check.

If SS were repealed, you'd have to compete for labor with other small businesses who would pass their tax savings on to their employees as additional salary. The cost of labor is the cost of labor to the employer.

[BucEyedPea]

Thats not true, I own a small business and believe me, I have to match the social security withholdings from my employees checks. It goes into your SSA account, you wont see it on your check.
I handle that by not making enough money and taking tons of write offs. Screw 'em!