In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On March 06 2013 05:49 Grumbels wrote: Discussions about the military budget are always so funny, given that the only reasonable thing to do to the budget is to cut it in half (it's a start), but oh well. It's just posturing because the military still commands a great deal of respect and is almost beyond reproach, so they're all fighting over who can give the military more tanks they won't even use.
The reasonable thing to do with the military budget would be to freeze it like they did with all other discretionary spending. Of course, that's just if you want to go after the debt/deficit.
As for this random yelling guy that just came in here blaming Obama and calling the sequester insignificant, the issue is that the cuts are going to happen regardless. Congress screwed up big time, and now Republicans are looking for a way to offset the blame. The sequester cuts are actually quite huge as well. If you take away transfer payments (SS, unemployment, etc.) and medical compensation, that cuts the graph by 50-60%. The things it cuts are government contracts and direct services, which are already fairly barebone from the last 2-4 years of spending freezes and cuts. These are cuts that most directly cause job loss, and don't do much for the overall budget. It was a stupid move in the first place by Congress and had very little to do with the president.
On March 06 2013 05:06 oneofthem wrote: some of these budget outlays were already made ahead of time and altering them would cause some trauma, resulting in layoffs and so forth.
the problem with the republican proposal seems to be an expansion of executive power to make domestic cuts, but not military ones.
I thought the Rep proposal was for power over all cuts and the military fix was a separate bill?
the executive discretion is larger on the domestic side than it is on the military side.
The White House argues that the Toomey-Inhofe bill doesn’t give it quite as much control as its proponents say. For instance, it gives the president the power to move cuts from defense spending over to domestic spending, but not to do the reverse. And within the defense cuts, there are limitations on the president’s authority. It forces him to largely abide by the spending decisions made in the National Defense Authorization Act — a limitation it doesn’t place on the domestic side. It also subjects whatever recommendations the White House does make to a congressional vote of disapproval.
On March 06 2013 05:33 oneofthem wrote: it's what we would usually call a bait. there's no reason why the entire thing can't be scrapped or made less painful in other ways
Like....oh I don't know.....getting rid of tax loopholes only the super rich can enjoy? Nahhhhhhhh
Obama rejected that in favor of hiking tax rates. Now that rates have risen he wants to revisit that well.
Wealthy's Tax Bill Will Hit 30-Year High in 2013
With Washington gridlocked again over whether to raise their taxes, it turns out wealthy families already are paying some of their biggest federal tax bills in decades even as the rest of the population continues to pay at historically low rates.
I don't consider Obama's prioritization of hiking rates too big an error. And I'm less concerned with wealthy families and more so with wealthy things that can be considered people.
On March 06 2013 05:31 rusedeguerre wrote: The point is that the president is rejecting something that would make sequestration less painful. Obviously the Republicans want to give the president more of the responsibility here, but that is a non-issue when we are talking about the president intentionally hurting the American public for political gain.
You could also say that republicans rejected Obama's plan of limiting deductions and entitlement cuts and forced the sequester for political gain.
The real solution is not to throw your arms up in the air and have someone else do the work for you, the solution is to sit down and work it out.
Either way I don't see this passing. I don't see many democrats supporting such a blatant political stunt and I don't see enough republicans being willing to go along with it to even get it past the house. I personally see this as a way for republicans to force Obama to make the cuts they have been trying to get for the last decade or so, and then blame him for it.
On March 06 2013 05:06 oneofthem wrote: some of these budget outlays were already made ahead of time and altering them would cause some trauma, resulting in layoffs and so forth.
the problem with the republican proposal seems to be an expansion of executive power to make domestic cuts, but not military ones.
I thought the Rep proposal was for power over all cuts and the military fix was a separate bill?
the executive discretion is larger on the domestic side than it is on the military side.
from the wopo article
The White House argues that the Toomey-Inhofe bill doesn’t give it quite as much control as its proponents say. For instance, it gives the president the power to move cuts from defense spending over to domestic spending, but not to do the reverse. And within the defense cuts, there are limitations on the president’s authority. It forces him to largely abide by the spending decisions made in the National Defense Authorization Act — a limitation it doesn’t place on the domestic side. It also subjects whatever recommendations the White House does make to a congressional vote of disapproval.
On March 06 2013 05:33 oneofthem wrote: it's what we would usually call a bait. there's no reason why the entire thing can't be scrapped or made less painful in other ways
Like....oh I don't know.....getting rid of tax loopholes only the super rich can enjoy? Nahhhhhhhh
Obama rejected that in favor of hiking tax rates. Now that rates have risen he wants to revisit that well.
With Washington gridlocked again over whether to raise their taxes, it turns out wealthy families already are paying some of their biggest federal tax bills in decades even as the rest of the population continues to pay at historically low rates.
For a second there, I thought this "wealthy being overtaxed" was a serious concern. Then I realized 30 years ago was the beginning of the Reagan era, which can be considered as a good starting point of all the wealth redistribution to the top. I don't necessarily agree with brute force redistribution, but correcting the regressive nature of "capitalism" with a highly progressive tax structure seems like a reasonable cause. I don't think we really have to worry about the well running dry any time in the near future.
On March 06 2013 07:07 aksfjh wrote: I don't think we really have to worry about the well running dry any time in the near future.
by the end of the century there will be a capitalist moon base where all the money will go. it'll be the new switzerland.
and then sam's grandson will be railing against the abuse of power by the "transplanetary finance class"
Not likely. His parents will likely shed his grandfather's ideals, fleeing to a better life that doesn't revolve around starving physically while exercising philosophical prowess. Sam's grandson will likely be one of the financiers of the moon colonies, battling for a 0.5% reduction in tax rates while shipping hundreds of people to the moon ala 1700s slave ship conditions.
Even though I see myself getting further and further from Slavoj Zizek, I would have to agree with his small statement of Chavez
I use to be a pretty big fan of Chavez, but dear God is he a fraudulent socialist. Yes, he is a major improvement to his nation, but his prison system is brutal, his economic system is more state capitalism, and his foreign policy is atrocious, often supporting despots like Gaddafi, Iran, and China.
On March 06 2013 05:06 oneofthem wrote: some of these budget outlays were already made ahead of time and altering them would cause some trauma, resulting in layoffs and so forth.
the problem with the republican proposal seems to be an expansion of executive power to make domestic cuts, but not military ones.
I thought the Rep proposal was for power over all cuts and the military fix was a separate bill?
the executive discretion is larger on the domestic side than it is on the military side.
from the wopo article
The White House argues that the Toomey-Inhofe bill doesn’t give it quite as much control as its proponents say. For instance, it gives the president the power to move cuts from defense spending over to domestic spending, but not to do the reverse. And within the defense cuts, there are limitations on the president’s authority. It forces him to largely abide by the spending decisions made in the National Defense Authorization Act — a limitation it doesn’t place on the domestic side. It also subjects whatever recommendations the White House does make to a congressional vote of disapproval.
it's quite the deviously ingenious move.
A-ha! Thanks, great info!
On March 06 2013 05:55 farvacola wrote:
On March 06 2013 05:33 oneofthem wrote: it's what we would usually call a bait. there's no reason why the entire thing can't be scrapped or made less painful in other ways
Like....oh I don't know.....getting rid of tax loopholes only the super rich can enjoy? Nahhhhhhhh
Obama rejected that in favor of hiking tax rates. Now that rates have risen he wants to revisit that well.
Wealthy's Tax Bill Will Hit 30-Year High in 2013
With Washington gridlocked again over whether to raise their taxes, it turns out wealthy families already are paying some of their biggest federal tax bills in decades even as the rest of the population continues to pay at historically low rates.
For a second there, I thought this "wealthy being overtaxed" was a serious concern. Then I realized 30 years ago was the beginning of the Reagan era, which can be considered as a good starting point of all the wealth redistribution to the top. I don't necessarily agree with brute force redistribution, but correcting the regressive nature of "capitalism" with a highly progressive tax structure seems like a reasonable cause. I don't think we really have to worry about the well running dry any time in the near future.
Wealth was redistributed to the top? The new wealth that was created primarily went to the top. That's still a concern, but a different beast altogether.
As for the well running dry, France and the UK haven't been having too much success with their latest top tax brackets. Perhaps we should let the last two tax hikes on the rich take effect and measure the impact before going for round three?
On March 06 2013 07:07 aksfjh wrote: I don't think we really have to worry about the well running dry any time in the near future.
by the end of the century there will be a capitalist moon base where all the money will go. it'll be the new switzerland.
and then sam's grandson will be railing against the abuse of power by the "transplanetary finance class"
Not likely. His parents will likely shed his grandfather's ideals, fleeing to a better life that doesn't revolve around starving physically while exercising philosophical prowess. Sam's grandson will likely be one of the financiers of the moon colonies, battling for a 0.5% reduction in tax rates while shipping hundreds of people to the moon ala 1700s slave ship conditions.
oh dear! I'd better not reproduce. Can't have that.
edit: I'm not saying I think Chavez is a saint or anything. I'd just rather have a fraud who stands up to American imperialism than a fraud who's an American stooge, if we're gonna pick and choose between frauds, which seems like the only option.
On March 06 2013 05:06 oneofthem wrote: some of these budget outlays were already made ahead of time and altering them would cause some trauma, resulting in layoffs and so forth.
the problem with the republican proposal seems to be an expansion of executive power to make domestic cuts, but not military ones.
I thought the Rep proposal was for power over all cuts and the military fix was a separate bill?
the executive discretion is larger on the domestic side than it is on the military side.
from the wopo article
The White House argues that the Toomey-Inhofe bill doesn’t give it quite as much control as its proponents say. For instance, it gives the president the power to move cuts from defense spending over to domestic spending, but not to do the reverse. And within the defense cuts, there are limitations on the president’s authority. It forces him to largely abide by the spending decisions made in the National Defense Authorization Act — a limitation it doesn’t place on the domestic side. It also subjects whatever recommendations the White House does make to a congressional vote of disapproval.
it's quite the deviously ingenious move.
A-ha! Thanks, great info!
On March 06 2013 05:55 farvacola wrote:
On March 06 2013 05:33 oneofthem wrote: it's what we would usually call a bait. there's no reason why the entire thing can't be scrapped or made less painful in other ways
Like....oh I don't know.....getting rid of tax loopholes only the super rich can enjoy? Nahhhhhhhh
Obama rejected that in favor of hiking tax rates. Now that rates have risen he wants to revisit that well.
Wealthy's Tax Bill Will Hit 30-Year High in 2013
With Washington gridlocked again over whether to raise their taxes, it turns out wealthy families already are paying some of their biggest federal tax bills in decades even as the rest of the population continues to pay at historically low rates.
For a second there, I thought this "wealthy being overtaxed" was a serious concern. Then I realized 30 years ago was the beginning of the Reagan era, which can be considered as a good starting point of all the wealth redistribution to the top. I don't necessarily agree with brute force redistribution, but correcting the regressive nature of "capitalism" with a highly progressive tax structure seems like a reasonable cause. I don't think we really have to worry about the well running dry any time in the near future.
Wealth was redistributed to the top? The new wealth that was created primarily went to the top. That's still a concern, but a different beast altogether.
No, it's not. That's the commodity fetish. "material relations between people and social relations between things"
edit: I'm not saying I think Chavez is a saint or anything. I'd just rather have a fraud who stands up to American imperialism than a fraud who's an American stooge, if we're gonna pick and choose between frauds, which seems like the only option.
But even from a pragmatic standpoint, it seems awfully dangerous given on whose side he is on which seems to be the East Asian Capitalists. Yes, American capitalism is awful, but at least it allows you and me to talk about how evil capitalism is. Chavez's history of free speech has been pretty shady, Castro censors like hell, Iran and Libya arrest you, and China sends you to reeducation. You would think that some of these places are puppet nations of America.
On March 06 2013 05:06 oneofthem wrote: some of these budget outlays were already made ahead of time and altering them would cause some trauma, resulting in layoffs and so forth.
the problem with the republican proposal seems to be an expansion of executive power to make domestic cuts, but not military ones.
I thought the Rep proposal was for power over all cuts and the military fix was a separate bill?
the executive discretion is larger on the domestic side than it is on the military side.
from the wopo article
The White House argues that the Toomey-Inhofe bill doesn’t give it quite as much control as its proponents say. For instance, it gives the president the power to move cuts from defense spending over to domestic spending, but not to do the reverse. And within the defense cuts, there are limitations on the president’s authority. It forces him to largely abide by the spending decisions made in the National Defense Authorization Act — a limitation it doesn’t place on the domestic side. It also subjects whatever recommendations the White House does make to a congressional vote of disapproval.
it's quite the deviously ingenious move.
A-ha! Thanks, great info!
On March 06 2013 05:55 farvacola wrote:
On March 06 2013 05:33 oneofthem wrote: it's what we would usually call a bait. there's no reason why the entire thing can't be scrapped or made less painful in other ways
Like....oh I don't know.....getting rid of tax loopholes only the super rich can enjoy? Nahhhhhhhh
Obama rejected that in favor of hiking tax rates. Now that rates have risen he wants to revisit that well.
Wealthy's Tax Bill Will Hit 30-Year High in 2013
With Washington gridlocked again over whether to raise their taxes, it turns out wealthy families already are paying some of their biggest federal tax bills in decades even as the rest of the population continues to pay at historically low rates.
For a second there, I thought this "wealthy being overtaxed" was a serious concern. Then I realized 30 years ago was the beginning of the Reagan era, which can be considered as a good starting point of all the wealth redistribution to the top. I don't necessarily agree with brute force redistribution, but correcting the regressive nature of "capitalism" with a highly progressive tax structure seems like a reasonable cause. I don't think we really have to worry about the well running dry any time in the near future.
Wealth was redistributed to the top? The new wealth that was created primarily went to the top. That's still a concern, but a different beast altogether.
As for the well running dry, France and the UK haven't been having too much success with their latest top tax brackets. Perhaps we should let the last two tax hikes on the rich take effect and measure the impact before going for round three?
Good point about growth. I still see it as a huge problem that should be corrected, and believe tax rates are an effective tool.
The EU austerity measures are hitting on multiple points. Not only are there tax hikes on the rich, but I believe there are also massive cuts to spending as well, which lowers employment and services for low and middle classes. This isn't a well running dry as much as a self induced drought.
That's not to suggest we shouldn't use a "wait and see" approach when it comes to tax rates, and what we've done is probably too much for now. But I've more than established myself as a person who wants us to focus on economic recovery first and foremost, not somebody that wants to solve some imagined fiscal crisis involving debts and deficits. My connection comes in as your first point with growth in that I don't want the economic recovery to be diverted to serve those that have benefited most from the last 30 years of growth.
On March 06 2013 07:45 sam!zdat wrote: i know man. It's hard out here for a pimp, naw mean? At the end of the day, though, I'll take a Chavez over a Pinochet any day.
Donald Trump will speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Maryland next week, the American Conservative Union announced Tuesday.
“Donald Trump is an American patriot and success story with a massive following among small government conservatives,” ACU Chairman Al Cardenas said in a press release. “I look forward to welcoming him back to the CPAC stage next week. Mr. Trump’s previous CPAC appearance was hugely popular among our attendees and we expect it will be even more popular this year.”
EPT
