|
|
On August 15 2012 06:58 BallinWitStalin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 06:27 coverpunch wrote:On August 15 2012 05:32 kwizach wrote:On August 15 2012 05:00 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 04:47 kwizach wrote:On August 15 2012 04:34 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 04:22 kwizach wrote:On August 15 2012 04:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 03:55 kwizach wrote:On August 15 2012 03:21 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Have you actually looked at Obama's budget proposal? It's a couple hundred pages, most of which is just filler and not something that would appear in legislation. Sessions and Mulvaney merely distilled the actual hard numbers from it and offered it as the bill. Don't blame them for Obama's trash.
EDIT: Because I know reading comprehension is often low in this thread, let me make the bottom line explicitly clear: the reason why the republican bills have no "details" as Tapper writes in the blog is because Obama's budget has no details. Again, not true. The very difference between the Obama budget and the two republican bills is precisely that those two bills removed the details of the Obama budget (for example, whose tax breaks are ended, which programs are cut, etc.). It's close enough. The bottom line numbers are all in there. Again, no democrat bothered to fill out the details or even offer an alternative. If anyone liked the budget, they would have taken it up and turned it into the 2000-page behemoth that we're all used to seeing. No, it's precisely not "close enough" since the details that make it a Democratic/Obama budget instead of a Republican budget are not in it. If the democrats actually bothered to offer a real budget, I'd agree with you. Whether or not the Democrats offered "a real budget" is completely irrelevant in the context of this argument, which is about whether or not the republicans bills were Obama's budget. You argued that they were, it was shown that they weren't, and now instead of acknowledging that you were wrong you're trying to sidetrack the discussion. I think it's pretty clear that I've admitted that the budget that the republicans offered does not have all of the details that Obama's proposal have. Do you want me to get on my knees and offer you roses as well? Again, the budget offered by the republicans is close enough -- and I stand by that. I still believe that the 414-0 and 99-0 votes are significant because no democrat offered a fully-fleshed out version of Obama's budget. Circling back to the original point where all this came up, this means that no one should take Obama's budget seriously -- because no legislator is. I also stand by that point. No, it is not "close enough". Again, many of the details that are essential to making it a Democratic/Obama budget were removed by the republicans who made the bills. It's not a question of "a few details missing", it's a question of so many details missing that the budget proposal could be turned around to do exactly the opposite of the Obama budget. For example, an essential component of Obama's budget was the ending of tax breaks for millionaires. Since the republican bill does not mention this, the revenue objective could instead be achieved by raising taxes on the middle class, something Obama clearly said he opposed. Likewise, regarding the programs that could be cut to achieve savings, the wasteful programs Obama spoke about are not in the republican bill, meaning programs that are considered important to the Democrats and Obama could be targeted. The list goes on - the republican bills are certainly not "close enough" copies of Obama's budget. And once again, what the Democrats have or haven't offered IS IRRELEVANT to the question of whether or not the republican bills were close to Obama's budget. Gotta jump in on this. The Republican presentation of Obama's budget onto the floor wasn't a serious bill and it got no support from Democrats for that reason. But at the same time, there is a message there that this isn't entirely the fault of Republicans, that Obama's budget efforts haven't been serious either but rather equal attempts to paint the GOP as purely obstructionist. Democrats won't move from certain places and just spike the ball when negotiations get stiff. Look, if they don't agree with a principle, they're not going to vote for it. That's the whole essence of having a vote. But that's also why we have political compromises, something Obama has not been willing to do since facing a Republican House. You can argue that Republicans just gobble up concessions and ask for more, but the other side of the story is that Obama simply won't budge and he's only throwing out token concessions. I think it's worth pointing out that Congress wasn't that much more productive in the first half of his administration when there were Democratic majorities. As for slow appointments (a common complaint), Obama has a pass rate about the same as Bush and Clinton but he's nominated fewer judges and officials. For whatever reason, he's been a lot slower and more selective about his nominations. I haven't really been following this too closely, but I gotta take exception to this. While I am Canadian, I was sort of listening to the debate about the healthcare bill in the U.S. I actually felt that Obama compromised too far. He removed the public option after a large outcry from the Republicans and various right-wing factions, and that's a HUGE compromise (I actually feel it gutted the bill). The removal of the public option was not just "token". It meaningfully changed the potential impact of the bill, and seemed like it was done largely as an attempt to generate compromise.
The public option was removed because the super-majority in the senate was lost when Kennedy got sick and couldn't vote. It passed the house but the same bill wasn't passed in the senate, so it had to go into reconciliation. The new bill passed with Snow and one other Republican voting for it if I remember (after Brown was elected when Kennedy died), where it then went to the house and passed. They only got the token republicans they needed for the super majority vote, and didn't give up anything. Saying he compromised on anything is laughable. It's like saying getting to eat shit is better than eating nothing at all.
edit: I'll also add with the huge losses to democrats in 2010, it is impossible to say Obama didn't compromise enough if his party was slaughtered 2 years after taking majorities, when they were voted out specifically because of how shitty the healthcare bill was.
|
On August 15 2012 06:11 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 06:04 RCMDVA wrote:On August 15 2012 05:58 Mohdoo wrote:
How is that playing the race card? He didn't make a single mention of race. Is being in chains a black thing? It wasn't even a black crowd. Its not a black term and its not a black crowd. How could that possibly be playing the race card? Which group of people were in chains to start with... so they could be put "back" into them? It wasn't white folk. Do you live anywhere near Danville? ** and CBS news headline calls it an African-American audience. He was clearly referring to the American public being in chains under the big banks controlling everything and getting away with robbery. You think he went from talking about banks to talking about slavery? Good lord. Biden has had his share of gaffes, but that would be so utterly stupid that I don't think any politician is capable of it. I think you're trying too hard to spin this.
Biden is playing off the sentiment found in, for example, the recent Russell Simmons quote: "they will destroy our people".
Of course there is the surface meaning (banks--which gives him the cover of "innocence"), but the use of the word "chains" is an undeniable reference to slavery. You could use any number of metaphors or expressions for what abuses banks might perpetrate. Putting people in "chains" is not one of them.
|
On August 15 2012 07:29 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 06:27 coverpunch wrote:On August 15 2012 05:32 kwizach wrote:On August 15 2012 05:00 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 04:47 kwizach wrote:On August 15 2012 04:34 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 04:22 kwizach wrote:On August 15 2012 04:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 03:55 kwizach wrote:On August 15 2012 03:21 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Have you actually looked at Obama's budget proposal? It's a couple hundred pages, most of which is just filler and not something that would appear in legislation. Sessions and Mulvaney merely distilled the actual hard numbers from it and offered it as the bill. Don't blame them for Obama's trash.
EDIT: Because I know reading comprehension is often low in this thread, let me make the bottom line explicitly clear: the reason why the republican bills have no "details" as Tapper writes in the blog is because Obama's budget has no details. Again, not true. The very difference between the Obama budget and the two republican bills is precisely that those two bills removed the details of the Obama budget (for example, whose tax breaks are ended, which programs are cut, etc.). It's close enough. The bottom line numbers are all in there. Again, no democrat bothered to fill out the details or even offer an alternative. If anyone liked the budget, they would have taken it up and turned it into the 2000-page behemoth that we're all used to seeing. No, it's precisely not "close enough" since the details that make it a Democratic/Obama budget instead of a Republican budget are not in it. If the democrats actually bothered to offer a real budget, I'd agree with you. Whether or not the Democrats offered "a real budget" is completely irrelevant in the context of this argument, which is about whether or not the republicans bills were Obama's budget. You argued that they were, it was shown that they weren't, and now instead of acknowledging that you were wrong you're trying to sidetrack the discussion. I think it's pretty clear that I've admitted that the budget that the republicans offered does not have all of the details that Obama's proposal have. Do you want me to get on my knees and offer you roses as well? Again, the budget offered by the republicans is close enough -- and I stand by that. I still believe that the 414-0 and 99-0 votes are significant because no democrat offered a fully-fleshed out version of Obama's budget. Circling back to the original point where all this came up, this means that no one should take Obama's budget seriously -- because no legislator is. I also stand by that point. No, it is not "close enough". Again, many of the details that are essential to making it a Democratic/Obama budget were removed by the republicans who made the bills. It's not a question of "a few details missing", it's a question of so many details missing that the budget proposal could be turned around to do exactly the opposite of the Obama budget. For example, an essential component of Obama's budget was the ending of tax breaks for millionaires. Since the republican bill does not mention this, the revenue objective could instead be achieved by raising taxes on the middle class, something Obama clearly said he opposed. Likewise, regarding the programs that could be cut to achieve savings, the wasteful programs Obama spoke about are not in the republican bill, meaning programs that are considered important to the Democrats and Obama could be targeted. The list goes on - the republican bills are certainly not "close enough" copies of Obama's budget. And once again, what the Democrats have or haven't offered IS IRRELEVANT to the question of whether or not the republican bills were close to Obama's budget. Gotta jump in on this. The Republican presentation of Obama's budget onto the floor wasn't a serious bill and it got no support from Democrats for that reason. But at the same time, there is a message there that this isn't entirely the fault of Republicans, that Obama's budget efforts haven't been serious either but rather equal attempts to paint the GOP as purely obstructionist. Democrats won't move from certain places and just spike the ball when negotiations get stiff. Look, if they don't agree with a principle, they're not going to vote for it. That's the whole essence of having a vote. But that's also why we have political compromises, something Obama has not been willing to do since facing a Republican House. You can argue that Republicans just gobble up concessions and ask for more, but the other side of the story is that Obama simply won't budge and he's only throwing out token concessions. I think it's worth pointing out that Congress wasn't that much more productive in the first half of his administration when there were Democratic majorities. As for slow appointments (a common complaint), Obama has a pass rate about the same as Bush and Clinton but he's nominated fewer judges and officials. For whatever reason, he's been a lot slower and more selective about his nominations. Here is the Obama budget proposal. It needed to go through committee to make it a legal document, but it's rather fleshed out. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/budget.pdfAs for the charge that Obama hasn't actually gone to the table with real compromise, you have to look at what the Republicans have done in response. We have plans coming from people like Ryan and Romney, that state the primary objective of lowering the deficit, but, in reality, slash taxes enourmously and the government even more. It's pretty obvious that slashing taxes isn't the best way to lower the deficit, which hints it's just a sideshow for them. So, when Obama comes out targeting the deficit in a budget or spending proposal it gets shot down despite showing a real effort to hit deficit goals. It's like the Democrats are trying to legislate with xDaunt here. They make gains, carry the ball 10 yds, then the Republicans come back and say, "lol, but we're playing hockey!" As for the first 2 years of Congress, he had the majority in both houses, but Republican opposition was in such unison that it was impossible to get any of their support on legislation. I knew I saved this for a reason. http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/08/things-wrong-with-hassett-hubbard-mankiw-and-taylor-the-romney-program-for-economic-recovery-growth-and-jobs.htmlShow nested quote +There were at least seven Democratic senators in 2009-2010—Baucus, Landrieu, Lincoln, Bayh, Nelson, Pryor, Spector, Webb—who were “professionally bipartisan” in that they would not vote for cloture in any but the most extraordinary circumstances without Republicans voting by their side. Unless the Democrats could peel off a Collins, a Snowe, or a Voinovich, they had not a filibuster-proof working majority of 60 but rather a filibuster-vulnerable working majority of 53.
Yeah, but this Delong post is kind of my point (btw, he handed me my diploma at Berkeley and gave me the double-shoulder pat). Like I said, Republicans don't have to vote for anything they don't believe in and the problem with defeating filibusters here lies with Democrats, not Republicans. You can't blame the GOP because there are seven Democrats who cross the line and vote with them.
It's worth pointing out that many of the critics of Republicans using the filibuster (including Delong) were among its biggest supporters when Democrats were using it against President Bush. If Romney were to win and Republicans take a small majority in the Senate, you'll a hilarious reversal as suddenly Democrats remember the virtues of the filibuster and Republicans start whining about it.
|
On August 15 2012 07:29 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 06:27 coverpunch wrote:On August 15 2012 05:32 kwizach wrote:On August 15 2012 05:00 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 04:47 kwizach wrote:On August 15 2012 04:34 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 04:22 kwizach wrote:On August 15 2012 04:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 03:55 kwizach wrote:On August 15 2012 03:21 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Have you actually looked at Obama's budget proposal? It's a couple hundred pages, most of which is just filler and not something that would appear in legislation. Sessions and Mulvaney merely distilled the actual hard numbers from it and offered it as the bill. Don't blame them for Obama's trash.
EDIT: Because I know reading comprehension is often low in this thread, let me make the bottom line explicitly clear: the reason why the republican bills have no "details" as Tapper writes in the blog is because Obama's budget has no details. Again, not true. The very difference between the Obama budget and the two republican bills is precisely that those two bills removed the details of the Obama budget (for example, whose tax breaks are ended, which programs are cut, etc.). It's close enough. The bottom line numbers are all in there. Again, no democrat bothered to fill out the details or even offer an alternative. If anyone liked the budget, they would have taken it up and turned it into the 2000-page behemoth that we're all used to seeing. No, it's precisely not "close enough" since the details that make it a Democratic/Obama budget instead of a Republican budget are not in it. If the democrats actually bothered to offer a real budget, I'd agree with you. Whether or not the Democrats offered "a real budget" is completely irrelevant in the context of this argument, which is about whether or not the republicans bills were Obama's budget. You argued that they were, it was shown that they weren't, and now instead of acknowledging that you were wrong you're trying to sidetrack the discussion. I think it's pretty clear that I've admitted that the budget that the republicans offered does not have all of the details that Obama's proposal have. Do you want me to get on my knees and offer you roses as well? Again, the budget offered by the republicans is close enough -- and I stand by that. I still believe that the 414-0 and 99-0 votes are significant because no democrat offered a fully-fleshed out version of Obama's budget. Circling back to the original point where all this came up, this means that no one should take Obama's budget seriously -- because no legislator is. I also stand by that point. No, it is not "close enough". Again, many of the details that are essential to making it a Democratic/Obama budget were removed by the republicans who made the bills. It's not a question of "a few details missing", it's a question of so many details missing that the budget proposal could be turned around to do exactly the opposite of the Obama budget. For example, an essential component of Obama's budget was the ending of tax breaks for millionaires. Since the republican bill does not mention this, the revenue objective could instead be achieved by raising taxes on the middle class, something Obama clearly said he opposed. Likewise, regarding the programs that could be cut to achieve savings, the wasteful programs Obama spoke about are not in the republican bill, meaning programs that are considered important to the Democrats and Obama could be targeted. The list goes on - the republican bills are certainly not "close enough" copies of Obama's budget. And once again, what the Democrats have or haven't offered IS IRRELEVANT to the question of whether or not the republican bills were close to Obama's budget. Gotta jump in on this. The Republican presentation of Obama's budget onto the floor wasn't a serious bill and it got no support from Democrats for that reason. But at the same time, there is a message there that this isn't entirely the fault of Republicans, that Obama's budget efforts haven't been serious either but rather equal attempts to paint the GOP as purely obstructionist. Democrats won't move from certain places and just spike the ball when negotiations get stiff. Look, if they don't agree with a principle, they're not going to vote for it. That's the whole essence of having a vote. But that's also why we have political compromises, something Obama has not been willing to do since facing a Republican House. You can argue that Republicans just gobble up concessions and ask for more, but the other side of the story is that Obama simply won't budge and he's only throwing out token concessions. I think it's worth pointing out that Congress wasn't that much more productive in the first half of his administration when there were Democratic majorities. As for slow appointments (a common complaint), Obama has a pass rate about the same as Bush and Clinton but he's nominated fewer judges and officials. For whatever reason, he's been a lot slower and more selective about his nominations. Here is the Obama budget proposal. It needed to go through committee to make it a legal document, but it's rather fleshed out. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/budget.pdfAs for the charge that Obama hasn't actually gone to the table with real compromise, you have to look at what the Republicans have done in response. We have plans coming from people like Ryan and Romney, that state the primary objective of lowering the deficit, but, in reality, slash taxes enourmously and the government even more. It's pretty obvious that slashing taxes isn't the best way to lower the deficit, which hints it's just a sideshow for them. So, when Obama comes out targeting the deficit in a budget or spending proposal it gets shot down despite showing a real effort to hit deficit goals. It's like the Democrats are trying to legislate with xDaunt here. They make gains, carry the ball 10 yds, then the Republicans come back and say, "lol, but we're playing hockey!" As for the first 2 years of Congress, he had the majority in both houses, but Republican opposition was in such unison that it was impossible to get any of their support on legislation. I knew I saved this for a reason. http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/08/things-wrong-with-hassett-hubbard-mankiw-and-taylor-the-romney-program-for-economic-recovery-growth-and-jobs.htmlShow nested quote +There were at least seven Democratic senators in 2009-2010—Baucus, Landrieu, Lincoln, Bayh, Nelson, Pryor, Spector, Webb—who were “professionally bipartisan” in that they would not vote for cloture in any but the most extraordinary circumstances without Republicans voting by their side. Unless the Democrats could peel off a Collins, a Snowe, or a Voinovich, they had not a filibuster-proof working majority of 60 but rather a filibuster-vulnerable working majority of 53.
The problem is that democrats never put real spending cuts on the table (other than offering to gut the military). Democrats have repeatedly only offered "promises" to cut spending for years in exchange for getting republicans to go along with their legislation. Republicans have finally gotten smart and are insisting that the spending cuts be put directly in the legislation that is at issue.
|
On August 15 2012 08:11 SnK-Arcbound wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 06:58 BallinWitStalin wrote:On August 15 2012 06:27 coverpunch wrote:On August 15 2012 05:32 kwizach wrote:On August 15 2012 05:00 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 04:47 kwizach wrote:On August 15 2012 04:34 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 04:22 kwizach wrote:On August 15 2012 04:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 03:55 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Again, not true. The very difference between the Obama budget and the two republican bills is precisely that those two bills removed the details of the Obama budget (for example, whose tax breaks are ended, which programs are cut, etc.). It's close enough. The bottom line numbers are all in there. Again, no democrat bothered to fill out the details or even offer an alternative. If anyone liked the budget, they would have taken it up and turned it into the 2000-page behemoth that we're all used to seeing. No, it's precisely not "close enough" since the details that make it a Democratic/Obama budget instead of a Republican budget are not in it. If the democrats actually bothered to offer a real budget, I'd agree with you. Whether or not the Democrats offered "a real budget" is completely irrelevant in the context of this argument, which is about whether or not the republicans bills were Obama's budget. You argued that they were, it was shown that they weren't, and now instead of acknowledging that you were wrong you're trying to sidetrack the discussion. I think it's pretty clear that I've admitted that the budget that the republicans offered does not have all of the details that Obama's proposal have. Do you want me to get on my knees and offer you roses as well? Again, the budget offered by the republicans is close enough -- and I stand by that. I still believe that the 414-0 and 99-0 votes are significant because no democrat offered a fully-fleshed out version of Obama's budget. Circling back to the original point where all this came up, this means that no one should take Obama's budget seriously -- because no legislator is. I also stand by that point. No, it is not "close enough". Again, many of the details that are essential to making it a Democratic/Obama budget were removed by the republicans who made the bills. It's not a question of "a few details missing", it's a question of so many details missing that the budget proposal could be turned around to do exactly the opposite of the Obama budget. For example, an essential component of Obama's budget was the ending of tax breaks for millionaires. Since the republican bill does not mention this, the revenue objective could instead be achieved by raising taxes on the middle class, something Obama clearly said he opposed. Likewise, regarding the programs that could be cut to achieve savings, the wasteful programs Obama spoke about are not in the republican bill, meaning programs that are considered important to the Democrats and Obama could be targeted. The list goes on - the republican bills are certainly not "close enough" copies of Obama's budget. And once again, what the Democrats have or haven't offered IS IRRELEVANT to the question of whether or not the republican bills were close to Obama's budget. Gotta jump in on this. The Republican presentation of Obama's budget onto the floor wasn't a serious bill and it got no support from Democrats for that reason. But at the same time, there is a message there that this isn't entirely the fault of Republicans, that Obama's budget efforts haven't been serious either but rather equal attempts to paint the GOP as purely obstructionist. Democrats won't move from certain places and just spike the ball when negotiations get stiff. Look, if they don't agree with a principle, they're not going to vote for it. That's the whole essence of having a vote. But that's also why we have political compromises, something Obama has not been willing to do since facing a Republican House. You can argue that Republicans just gobble up concessions and ask for more, but the other side of the story is that Obama simply won't budge and he's only throwing out token concessions. I think it's worth pointing out that Congress wasn't that much more productive in the first half of his administration when there were Democratic majorities. As for slow appointments (a common complaint), Obama has a pass rate about the same as Bush and Clinton but he's nominated fewer judges and officials. For whatever reason, he's been a lot slower and more selective about his nominations. I haven't really been following this too closely, but I gotta take exception to this. While I am Canadian, I was sort of listening to the debate about the healthcare bill in the U.S. I actually felt that Obama compromised too far. He removed the public option after a large outcry from the Republicans and various right-wing factions, and that's a HUGE compromise (I actually feel it gutted the bill). The removal of the public option was not just "token". It meaningfully changed the potential impact of the bill, and seemed like it was done largely as an attempt to generate compromise. The public option was removed because the super-majority in the senate was lost when Kennedy got sick and couldn't vote. It passed the house but the same bill wasn't passed in the senate, so it had to go into reconciliation. The new bill passed with Snow and one other Republican voting for it if I remember (after Brown was elected when Kennedy died), where it then went to the house and passed. They only got the token republicans they needed for the super majority vote, and didn't give up anything. Saying he compromised on anything is laughable. It's like saying getting to eat shit is better than eating nothing at all.
Wrong. The public option got left off the table in the very beginning. When they came to the negotiating table in the first place, Obama basically put forth the healthcare reform package the Republicans offered in the 1990s, as a starting point. This was an INCREDIBLY concessionary tone. The House attempted to put the public option back in when it was clear the Republicans were going to stonewall any healthcare legislation, regardless of getting what they asked for. Obama stuck to the original plan, because there were Democrat Senators that were never going to "ram" legislation through without bipartisan support. Snowe eventually caved (I think with another Senator, not Brown) and voted for the bill.
|
I do want to point out that there's going to be political fireworks when you talk about some of these sensitive issues like balancing the deficit. Republicans say "We want to cut entitlements" and Democrats say "We refuse to cut entitlements." It's hard to find a middle ground or a compromise there.
But if a Republican majority passes a budget that cuts entitlements, then Democrats do everything they can to stop the bill, you can't really be surprised, can you?
|
On August 15 2012 08:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 07:29 aksfjh wrote:On August 15 2012 06:27 coverpunch wrote:On August 15 2012 05:32 kwizach wrote:On August 15 2012 05:00 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 04:47 kwizach wrote:On August 15 2012 04:34 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 04:22 kwizach wrote:On August 15 2012 04:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 03:55 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Again, not true. The very difference between the Obama budget and the two republican bills is precisely that those two bills removed the details of the Obama budget (for example, whose tax breaks are ended, which programs are cut, etc.). It's close enough. The bottom line numbers are all in there. Again, no democrat bothered to fill out the details or even offer an alternative. If anyone liked the budget, they would have taken it up and turned it into the 2000-page behemoth that we're all used to seeing. No, it's precisely not "close enough" since the details that make it a Democratic/Obama budget instead of a Republican budget are not in it. If the democrats actually bothered to offer a real budget, I'd agree with you. Whether or not the Democrats offered "a real budget" is completely irrelevant in the context of this argument, which is about whether or not the republicans bills were Obama's budget. You argued that they were, it was shown that they weren't, and now instead of acknowledging that you were wrong you're trying to sidetrack the discussion. I think it's pretty clear that I've admitted that the budget that the republicans offered does not have all of the details that Obama's proposal have. Do you want me to get on my knees and offer you roses as well? Again, the budget offered by the republicans is close enough -- and I stand by that. I still believe that the 414-0 and 99-0 votes are significant because no democrat offered a fully-fleshed out version of Obama's budget. Circling back to the original point where all this came up, this means that no one should take Obama's budget seriously -- because no legislator is. I also stand by that point. No, it is not "close enough". Again, many of the details that are essential to making it a Democratic/Obama budget were removed by the republicans who made the bills. It's not a question of "a few details missing", it's a question of so many details missing that the budget proposal could be turned around to do exactly the opposite of the Obama budget. For example, an essential component of Obama's budget was the ending of tax breaks for millionaires. Since the republican bill does not mention this, the revenue objective could instead be achieved by raising taxes on the middle class, something Obama clearly said he opposed. Likewise, regarding the programs that could be cut to achieve savings, the wasteful programs Obama spoke about are not in the republican bill, meaning programs that are considered important to the Democrats and Obama could be targeted. The list goes on - the republican bills are certainly not "close enough" copies of Obama's budget. And once again, what the Democrats have or haven't offered IS IRRELEVANT to the question of whether or not the republican bills were close to Obama's budget. Gotta jump in on this. The Republican presentation of Obama's budget onto the floor wasn't a serious bill and it got no support from Democrats for that reason. But at the same time, there is a message there that this isn't entirely the fault of Republicans, that Obama's budget efforts haven't been serious either but rather equal attempts to paint the GOP as purely obstructionist. Democrats won't move from certain places and just spike the ball when negotiations get stiff. Look, if they don't agree with a principle, they're not going to vote for it. That's the whole essence of having a vote. But that's also why we have political compromises, something Obama has not been willing to do since facing a Republican House. You can argue that Republicans just gobble up concessions and ask for more, but the other side of the story is that Obama simply won't budge and he's only throwing out token concessions. I think it's worth pointing out that Congress wasn't that much more productive in the first half of his administration when there were Democratic majorities. As for slow appointments (a common complaint), Obama has a pass rate about the same as Bush and Clinton but he's nominated fewer judges and officials. For whatever reason, he's been a lot slower and more selective about his nominations. Here is the Obama budget proposal. It needed to go through committee to make it a legal document, but it's rather fleshed out. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/budget.pdfAs for the charge that Obama hasn't actually gone to the table with real compromise, you have to look at what the Republicans have done in response. We have plans coming from people like Ryan and Romney, that state the primary objective of lowering the deficit, but, in reality, slash taxes enourmously and the government even more. It's pretty obvious that slashing taxes isn't the best way to lower the deficit, which hints it's just a sideshow for them. So, when Obama comes out targeting the deficit in a budget or spending proposal it gets shot down despite showing a real effort to hit deficit goals. It's like the Democrats are trying to legislate with xDaunt here. They make gains, carry the ball 10 yds, then the Republicans come back and say, "lol, but we're playing hockey!" As for the first 2 years of Congress, he had the majority in both houses, but Republican opposition was in such unison that it was impossible to get any of their support on legislation. I knew I saved this for a reason. http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/08/things-wrong-with-hassett-hubbard-mankiw-and-taylor-the-romney-program-for-economic-recovery-growth-and-jobs.htmlThere were at least seven Democratic senators in 2009-2010—Baucus, Landrieu, Lincoln, Bayh, Nelson, Pryor, Spector, Webb—who were “professionally bipartisan” in that they would not vote for cloture in any but the most extraordinary circumstances without Republicans voting by their side. Unless the Democrats could peel off a Collins, a Snowe, or a Voinovich, they had not a filibuster-proof working majority of 60 but rather a filibuster-vulnerable working majority of 53. The problem is that democrats never put real spending cuts on the table (other than offering to gut the military). Democrats have repeatedly only offered "promises" to cut spending for years in exchange for getting republicans to go along with their legislation. Republicans have finally gotten smart and are insisting that the spending cuts be put directly in the legislation that is at issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.png
Seems to me that government size was cut back in the 90s. Maybe not in terms of nominal dollars, but as a percentage of GDP (which is what matters in debt/deficit discussions). Go on, keep touting your bullshit that you found on the Americans for Tax Reform website.
|
On August 15 2012 08:24 coverpunch wrote:
I do want to point out that there's going to be political fireworks when you talk about some of these sensitive issues like balancing the deficit. Republicans say "We want to cut entitlements" and Democrats say "We refuse to cut entitlements." It's hard to find a middle ground or a compromise there.
But if a Republican majority passes a budget that cuts entitlements, then Democrats do everything they can to stop the bill, you can't really be surprised, can you?
The actual conversation looks more like:
"We want to cut entitlements in this deficit reduction package." - Republicans
"We'll think about it... What about some increased revenue as well?" - Democrats
"YOU TAKE THAT BACK! DON'T YOU DARE TALK ABOUT MY MOTHER THAT WAY!" - Republicans
Maybe some hyperbole in there, but, in the proposals I've seen, tax increases have been part of the package with entitlement reform.
|
On August 15 2012 08:42 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 08:17 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 07:29 aksfjh wrote:On August 15 2012 06:27 coverpunch wrote:On August 15 2012 05:32 kwizach wrote:On August 15 2012 05:00 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 04:47 kwizach wrote:On August 15 2012 04:34 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 04:22 kwizach wrote:On August 15 2012 04:08 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
It's close enough. The bottom line numbers are all in there. Again, no democrat bothered to fill out the details or even offer an alternative. If anyone liked the budget, they would have taken it up and turned it into the 2000-page behemoth that we're all used to seeing.
No, it's precisely not "close enough" since the details that make it a Democratic/Obama budget instead of a Republican budget are not in it. If the democrats actually bothered to offer a real budget, I'd agree with you. Whether or not the Democrats offered "a real budget" is completely irrelevant in the context of this argument, which is about whether or not the republicans bills were Obama's budget. You argued that they were, it was shown that they weren't, and now instead of acknowledging that you were wrong you're trying to sidetrack the discussion. I think it's pretty clear that I've admitted that the budget that the republicans offered does not have all of the details that Obama's proposal have. Do you want me to get on my knees and offer you roses as well? Again, the budget offered by the republicans is close enough -- and I stand by that. I still believe that the 414-0 and 99-0 votes are significant because no democrat offered a fully-fleshed out version of Obama's budget. Circling back to the original point where all this came up, this means that no one should take Obama's budget seriously -- because no legislator is. I also stand by that point. No, it is not "close enough". Again, many of the details that are essential to making it a Democratic/Obama budget were removed by the republicans who made the bills. It's not a question of "a few details missing", it's a question of so many details missing that the budget proposal could be turned around to do exactly the opposite of the Obama budget. For example, an essential component of Obama's budget was the ending of tax breaks for millionaires. Since the republican bill does not mention this, the revenue objective could instead be achieved by raising taxes on the middle class, something Obama clearly said he opposed. Likewise, regarding the programs that could be cut to achieve savings, the wasteful programs Obama spoke about are not in the republican bill, meaning programs that are considered important to the Democrats and Obama could be targeted. The list goes on - the republican bills are certainly not "close enough" copies of Obama's budget. And once again, what the Democrats have or haven't offered IS IRRELEVANT to the question of whether or not the republican bills were close to Obama's budget. Gotta jump in on this. The Republican presentation of Obama's budget onto the floor wasn't a serious bill and it got no support from Democrats for that reason. But at the same time, there is a message there that this isn't entirely the fault of Republicans, that Obama's budget efforts haven't been serious either but rather equal attempts to paint the GOP as purely obstructionist. Democrats won't move from certain places and just spike the ball when negotiations get stiff. Look, if they don't agree with a principle, they're not going to vote for it. That's the whole essence of having a vote. But that's also why we have political compromises, something Obama has not been willing to do since facing a Republican House. You can argue that Republicans just gobble up concessions and ask for more, but the other side of the story is that Obama simply won't budge and he's only throwing out token concessions. I think it's worth pointing out that Congress wasn't that much more productive in the first half of his administration when there were Democratic majorities. As for slow appointments (a common complaint), Obama has a pass rate about the same as Bush and Clinton but he's nominated fewer judges and officials. For whatever reason, he's been a lot slower and more selective about his nominations. Here is the Obama budget proposal. It needed to go through committee to make it a legal document, but it's rather fleshed out. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/budget.pdfAs for the charge that Obama hasn't actually gone to the table with real compromise, you have to look at what the Republicans have done in response. We have plans coming from people like Ryan and Romney, that state the primary objective of lowering the deficit, but, in reality, slash taxes enourmously and the government even more. It's pretty obvious that slashing taxes isn't the best way to lower the deficit, which hints it's just a sideshow for them. So, when Obama comes out targeting the deficit in a budget or spending proposal it gets shot down despite showing a real effort to hit deficit goals. It's like the Democrats are trying to legislate with xDaunt here. They make gains, carry the ball 10 yds, then the Republicans come back and say, "lol, but we're playing hockey!" As for the first 2 years of Congress, he had the majority in both houses, but Republican opposition was in such unison that it was impossible to get any of their support on legislation. I knew I saved this for a reason. http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/08/things-wrong-with-hassett-hubbard-mankiw-and-taylor-the-romney-program-for-economic-recovery-growth-and-jobs.htmlThere were at least seven Democratic senators in 2009-2010—Baucus, Landrieu, Lincoln, Bayh, Nelson, Pryor, Spector, Webb—who were “professionally bipartisan” in that they would not vote for cloture in any but the most extraordinary circumstances without Republicans voting by their side. Unless the Democrats could peel off a Collins, a Snowe, or a Voinovich, they had not a filibuster-proof working majority of 60 but rather a filibuster-vulnerable working majority of 53. The problem is that democrats never put real spending cuts on the table (other than offering to gut the military). Democrats have repeatedly only offered "promises" to cut spending for years in exchange for getting republicans to go along with their legislation. Republicans have finally gotten smart and are insisting that the spending cuts be put directly in the legislation that is at issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.pngSeems to me that government size was cut back in the 90s. Maybe not in terms of nominal dollars, but as a percentage of GDP (which is what matters in debt/deficit discussions). Go on, keep touting your bullshit that you found on the Americans for Tax Reform website.
That's because capital gains from the 90s tech boom boosted tax revenues. Same reason why the US ran a budget surplus. It was accidental. Congress couldn't predict all the money that would be created out of thin air by the dot commers.
|
On August 15 2012 08:47 jdsowa wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 08:42 aksfjh wrote:On August 15 2012 08:17 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 07:29 aksfjh wrote:On August 15 2012 06:27 coverpunch wrote:On August 15 2012 05:32 kwizach wrote:On August 15 2012 05:00 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 04:47 kwizach wrote:On August 15 2012 04:34 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 04:22 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
No, it's precisely not "close enough" since the details that make it a Democratic/Obama budget instead of a Republican budget are not in it. If the democrats actually bothered to offer a real budget, I'd agree with you. Whether or not the Democrats offered "a real budget" is completely irrelevant in the context of this argument, which is about whether or not the republicans bills were Obama's budget. You argued that they were, it was shown that they weren't, and now instead of acknowledging that you were wrong you're trying to sidetrack the discussion. I think it's pretty clear that I've admitted that the budget that the republicans offered does not have all of the details that Obama's proposal have. Do you want me to get on my knees and offer you roses as well? Again, the budget offered by the republicans is close enough -- and I stand by that. I still believe that the 414-0 and 99-0 votes are significant because no democrat offered a fully-fleshed out version of Obama's budget. Circling back to the original point where all this came up, this means that no one should take Obama's budget seriously -- because no legislator is. I also stand by that point. No, it is not "close enough". Again, many of the details that are essential to making it a Democratic/Obama budget were removed by the republicans who made the bills. It's not a question of "a few details missing", it's a question of so many details missing that the budget proposal could be turned around to do exactly the opposite of the Obama budget. For example, an essential component of Obama's budget was the ending of tax breaks for millionaires. Since the republican bill does not mention this, the revenue objective could instead be achieved by raising taxes on the middle class, something Obama clearly said he opposed. Likewise, regarding the programs that could be cut to achieve savings, the wasteful programs Obama spoke about are not in the republican bill, meaning programs that are considered important to the Democrats and Obama could be targeted. The list goes on - the republican bills are certainly not "close enough" copies of Obama's budget. And once again, what the Democrats have or haven't offered IS IRRELEVANT to the question of whether or not the republican bills were close to Obama's budget. Gotta jump in on this. The Republican presentation of Obama's budget onto the floor wasn't a serious bill and it got no support from Democrats for that reason. But at the same time, there is a message there that this isn't entirely the fault of Republicans, that Obama's budget efforts haven't been serious either but rather equal attempts to paint the GOP as purely obstructionist. Democrats won't move from certain places and just spike the ball when negotiations get stiff. Look, if they don't agree with a principle, they're not going to vote for it. That's the whole essence of having a vote. But that's also why we have political compromises, something Obama has not been willing to do since facing a Republican House. You can argue that Republicans just gobble up concessions and ask for more, but the other side of the story is that Obama simply won't budge and he's only throwing out token concessions. I think it's worth pointing out that Congress wasn't that much more productive in the first half of his administration when there were Democratic majorities. As for slow appointments (a common complaint), Obama has a pass rate about the same as Bush and Clinton but he's nominated fewer judges and officials. For whatever reason, he's been a lot slower and more selective about his nominations. Here is the Obama budget proposal. It needed to go through committee to make it a legal document, but it's rather fleshed out. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/budget.pdfAs for the charge that Obama hasn't actually gone to the table with real compromise, you have to look at what the Republicans have done in response. We have plans coming from people like Ryan and Romney, that state the primary objective of lowering the deficit, but, in reality, slash taxes enourmously and the government even more. It's pretty obvious that slashing taxes isn't the best way to lower the deficit, which hints it's just a sideshow for them. So, when Obama comes out targeting the deficit in a budget or spending proposal it gets shot down despite showing a real effort to hit deficit goals. It's like the Democrats are trying to legislate with xDaunt here. They make gains, carry the ball 10 yds, then the Republicans come back and say, "lol, but we're playing hockey!" As for the first 2 years of Congress, he had the majority in both houses, but Republican opposition was in such unison that it was impossible to get any of their support on legislation. I knew I saved this for a reason. http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/08/things-wrong-with-hassett-hubbard-mankiw-and-taylor-the-romney-program-for-economic-recovery-growth-and-jobs.htmlThere were at least seven Democratic senators in 2009-2010—Baucus, Landrieu, Lincoln, Bayh, Nelson, Pryor, Spector, Webb—who were “professionally bipartisan” in that they would not vote for cloture in any but the most extraordinary circumstances without Republicans voting by their side. Unless the Democrats could peel off a Collins, a Snowe, or a Voinovich, they had not a filibuster-proof working majority of 60 but rather a filibuster-vulnerable working majority of 53. The problem is that democrats never put real spending cuts on the table (other than offering to gut the military). Democrats have repeatedly only offered "promises" to cut spending for years in exchange for getting republicans to go along with their legislation. Republicans have finally gotten smart and are insisting that the spending cuts be put directly in the legislation that is at issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.pngSeems to me that government size was cut back in the 90s. Maybe not in terms of nominal dollars, but as a percentage of GDP (which is what matters in debt/deficit discussions). Go on, keep touting your bullshit that you found on the Americans for Tax Reform website. That's because capital gains from the 90s tech boom boosted tax revenues. Same reason why the US ran a budget surplus. It was accidental. Congress couldn't predict all the money that would be created out of thin air by the dot commers.
That is true, but Clinton also significantly cut spending while working with congressional republicans.
|
On August 15 2012 06:27 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 05:32 kwizach wrote:On August 15 2012 05:00 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 04:47 kwizach wrote:On August 15 2012 04:34 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 04:22 kwizach wrote:On August 15 2012 04:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 03:55 kwizach wrote:On August 15 2012 03:21 xDaunt wrote:Have you actually looked at Obama's budget proposal? It's a couple hundred pages, most of which is just filler and not something that would appear in legislation. Sessions and Mulvaney merely distilled the actual hard numbers from it and offered it as the bill. Don't blame them for Obama's trash. EDIT: Because I know reading comprehension is often low in this thread, let me make the bottom line explicitly clear: the reason why the republican bills have no "details" as Tapper writes in the blog is because Obama's budget has no details. Again, not true. The very difference between the Obama budget and the two republican bills is precisely that those two bills removed the details of the Obama budget (for example, whose tax breaks are ended, which programs are cut, etc.). It's close enough. The bottom line numbers are all in there. Again, no democrat bothered to fill out the details or even offer an alternative. If anyone liked the budget, they would have taken it up and turned it into the 2000-page behemoth that we're all used to seeing. No, it's precisely not "close enough" since the details that make it a Democratic/Obama budget instead of a Republican budget are not in it. If the democrats actually bothered to offer a real budget, I'd agree with you. Whether or not the Democrats offered "a real budget" is completely irrelevant in the context of this argument, which is about whether or not the republicans bills were Obama's budget. You argued that they were, it was shown that they weren't, and now instead of acknowledging that you were wrong you're trying to sidetrack the discussion. I think it's pretty clear that I've admitted that the budget that the republicans offered does not have all of the details that Obama's proposal have. Do you want me to get on my knees and offer you roses as well? Again, the budget offered by the republicans is close enough -- and I stand by that. I still believe that the 414-0 and 99-0 votes are significant because no democrat offered a fully-fleshed out version of Obama's budget. Circling back to the original point where all this came up, this means that no one should take Obama's budget seriously -- because no legislator is. I also stand by that point. No, it is not "close enough". Again, many of the details that are essential to making it a Democratic/Obama budget were removed by the republicans who made the bills. It's not a question of "a few details missing", it's a question of so many details missing that the budget proposal could be turned around to do exactly the opposite of the Obama budget. For example, an essential component of Obama's budget was the ending of tax breaks for millionaires. Since the republican bill does not mention this, the revenue objective could instead be achieved by raising taxes on the middle class, something Obama clearly said he opposed. Likewise, regarding the programs that could be cut to achieve savings, the wasteful programs Obama spoke about are not in the republican bill, meaning programs that are considered important to the Democrats and Obama could be targeted. The list goes on - the republican bills are certainly not "close enough" copies of Obama's budget. And once again, what the Democrats have or haven't offered IS IRRELEVANT to the question of whether or not the republican bills were close to Obama's budget. Gotta jump in on this. The Republican presentation of Obama's budget onto the floor wasn't a serious bill and it got no support from Democrats for that reason. But at the same time, there is a message there that this isn't entirely the fault of Republicans, that Obama's budget efforts haven't been serious either but rather equal attempts to paint the GOP as purely obstructionist. Democrats won't move from certain places and just spike the ball when negotiations get stiff. Look, if they don't agree with a principle, they're not going to vote for it. That's the whole essence of having a vote. But that's also why we have political compromises, something Obama has not been willing to do since facing a Republican House. You can argue that Republicans just gobble up concessions and ask for more, but the other side of the story is that Obama simply won't budge and he's only throwing out token concessions. I think it's worth pointing out that Congress wasn't that much more productive in the first half of his administration when there were Democratic majorities. As for slow appointments (a common complaint), Obama has a pass rate about the same as Bush and Clinton but he's nominated fewer judges and officials. For whatever reason, he's been a lot slower and more selective about his nominations. Give me a break, all the legislation and "compromise" passed since Obamacare has been completely one-sided, and it ain't Obama's side.
|
On August 15 2012 08:45 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 08:24 coverpunch wrote:
I do want to point out that there's going to be political fireworks when you talk about some of these sensitive issues like balancing the deficit. Republicans say "We want to cut entitlements" and Democrats say "We refuse to cut entitlements." It's hard to find a middle ground or a compromise there.
But if a Republican majority passes a budget that cuts entitlements, then Democrats do everything they can to stop the bill, you can't really be surprised, can you? The actual conversation looks more like: "We want to cut entitlements in this deficit reduction package." - Republicans "We'll think about it... What about some increased revenue as well?" - Democrats "YOU TAKE THAT BACK! DON'T YOU DARE TALK ABOUT MY MOTHER THAT WAY!" - Republicans Maybe some hyperbole in there, but, in the proposals I've seen, tax increases have been part of the package with entitlement reform.
Yeah, this is a vast oversimplification. Take the recent cybersecurity bill for instance. Both sides have a firm belief and there isn't a clear consensus about who's correct on the balance of preserving privacy rights, protecting the country, and keeping the government clean. On an issue like that, we're a lot more willing to concede that it's a complicated issue with many moving parts.
The problem with economic issues is that we have too many pundits who act like the answers are all too simple and we don't acknowledge nearly as much the potential for unforeseen consequences that might be very difficult to reverse.
|
On August 15 2012 08:47 jdsowa wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 08:42 aksfjh wrote:On August 15 2012 08:17 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 07:29 aksfjh wrote:On August 15 2012 06:27 coverpunch wrote:On August 15 2012 05:32 kwizach wrote:On August 15 2012 05:00 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 04:47 kwizach wrote:On August 15 2012 04:34 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 04:22 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
No, it's precisely not "close enough" since the details that make it a Democratic/Obama budget instead of a Republican budget are not in it. If the democrats actually bothered to offer a real budget, I'd agree with you. Whether or not the Democrats offered "a real budget" is completely irrelevant in the context of this argument, which is about whether or not the republicans bills were Obama's budget. You argued that they were, it was shown that they weren't, and now instead of acknowledging that you were wrong you're trying to sidetrack the discussion. I think it's pretty clear that I've admitted that the budget that the republicans offered does not have all of the details that Obama's proposal have. Do you want me to get on my knees and offer you roses as well? Again, the budget offered by the republicans is close enough -- and I stand by that. I still believe that the 414-0 and 99-0 votes are significant because no democrat offered a fully-fleshed out version of Obama's budget. Circling back to the original point where all this came up, this means that no one should take Obama's budget seriously -- because no legislator is. I also stand by that point. No, it is not "close enough". Again, many of the details that are essential to making it a Democratic/Obama budget were removed by the republicans who made the bills. It's not a question of "a few details missing", it's a question of so many details missing that the budget proposal could be turned around to do exactly the opposite of the Obama budget. For example, an essential component of Obama's budget was the ending of tax breaks for millionaires. Since the republican bill does not mention this, the revenue objective could instead be achieved by raising taxes on the middle class, something Obama clearly said he opposed. Likewise, regarding the programs that could be cut to achieve savings, the wasteful programs Obama spoke about are not in the republican bill, meaning programs that are considered important to the Democrats and Obama could be targeted. The list goes on - the republican bills are certainly not "close enough" copies of Obama's budget. And once again, what the Democrats have or haven't offered IS IRRELEVANT to the question of whether or not the republican bills were close to Obama's budget. Gotta jump in on this. The Republican presentation of Obama's budget onto the floor wasn't a serious bill and it got no support from Democrats for that reason. But at the same time, there is a message there that this isn't entirely the fault of Republicans, that Obama's budget efforts haven't been serious either but rather equal attempts to paint the GOP as purely obstructionist. Democrats won't move from certain places and just spike the ball when negotiations get stiff. Look, if they don't agree with a principle, they're not going to vote for it. That's the whole essence of having a vote. But that's also why we have political compromises, something Obama has not been willing to do since facing a Republican House. You can argue that Republicans just gobble up concessions and ask for more, but the other side of the story is that Obama simply won't budge and he's only throwing out token concessions. I think it's worth pointing out that Congress wasn't that much more productive in the first half of his administration when there were Democratic majorities. As for slow appointments (a common complaint), Obama has a pass rate about the same as Bush and Clinton but he's nominated fewer judges and officials. For whatever reason, he's been a lot slower and more selective about his nominations. Here is the Obama budget proposal. It needed to go through committee to make it a legal document, but it's rather fleshed out. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/budget.pdfAs for the charge that Obama hasn't actually gone to the table with real compromise, you have to look at what the Republicans have done in response. We have plans coming from people like Ryan and Romney, that state the primary objective of lowering the deficit, but, in reality, slash taxes enourmously and the government even more. It's pretty obvious that slashing taxes isn't the best way to lower the deficit, which hints it's just a sideshow for them. So, when Obama comes out targeting the deficit in a budget or spending proposal it gets shot down despite showing a real effort to hit deficit goals. It's like the Democrats are trying to legislate with xDaunt here. They make gains, carry the ball 10 yds, then the Republicans come back and say, "lol, but we're playing hockey!" As for the first 2 years of Congress, he had the majority in both houses, but Republican opposition was in such unison that it was impossible to get any of their support on legislation. I knew I saved this for a reason. http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/08/things-wrong-with-hassett-hubbard-mankiw-and-taylor-the-romney-program-for-economic-recovery-growth-and-jobs.htmlThere were at least seven Democratic senators in 2009-2010—Baucus, Landrieu, Lincoln, Bayh, Nelson, Pryor, Spector, Webb—who were “professionally bipartisan” in that they would not vote for cloture in any but the most extraordinary circumstances without Republicans voting by their side. Unless the Democrats could peel off a Collins, a Snowe, or a Voinovich, they had not a filibuster-proof working majority of 60 but rather a filibuster-vulnerable working majority of 53. The problem is that democrats never put real spending cuts on the table (other than offering to gut the military). Democrats have repeatedly only offered "promises" to cut spending for years in exchange for getting republicans to go along with their legislation. Republicans have finally gotten smart and are insisting that the spending cuts be put directly in the legislation that is at issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.pngSeems to me that government size was cut back in the 90s. Maybe not in terms of nominal dollars, but as a percentage of GDP (which is what matters in debt/deficit discussions). Go on, keep touting your bullshit that you found on the Americans for Tax Reform website. That's because capital gains from the 90s tech boom boosted tax revenues. Same reason why the US ran a budget surplus. It was accidental. Congress couldn't predict all the money that would be created out of thin air by the dot commers.
I'm not talking about revenue, I'm talking about expenditures. In 1991 we saw a leveling off of government as a percentage of GDP and the beginning of a dropoff in 1992.
|
edit: nvm
On August 15 2012 09:18 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 09:16 1Eris1 wrote:On August 15 2012 09:00 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 15 2012 06:27 coverpunch wrote:On August 15 2012 05:32 kwizach wrote:On August 15 2012 05:00 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 04:47 kwizach wrote:On August 15 2012 04:34 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 04:22 kwizach wrote:On August 15 2012 04:08 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
It's close enough. The bottom line numbers are all in there. Again, no democrat bothered to fill out the details or even offer an alternative. If anyone liked the budget, they would have taken it up and turned it into the 2000-page behemoth that we're all used to seeing.
No, it's precisely not "close enough" since the details that make it a Democratic/Obama budget instead of a Republican budget are not in it. If the democrats actually bothered to offer a real budget, I'd agree with you. Whether or not the Democrats offered "a real budget" is completely irrelevant in the context of this argument, which is about whether or not the republicans bills were Obama's budget. You argued that they were, it was shown that they weren't, and now instead of acknowledging that you were wrong you're trying to sidetrack the discussion. I think it's pretty clear that I've admitted that the budget that the republicans offered does not have all of the details that Obama's proposal have. Do you want me to get on my knees and offer you roses as well? Again, the budget offered by the republicans is close enough -- and I stand by that. I still believe that the 414-0 and 99-0 votes are significant because no democrat offered a fully-fleshed out version of Obama's budget. Circling back to the original point where all this came up, this means that no one should take Obama's budget seriously -- because no legislator is. I also stand by that point. No, it is not "close enough". Again, many of the details that are essential to making it a Democratic/Obama budget were removed by the republicans who made the bills. It's not a question of "a few details missing", it's a question of so many details missing that the budget proposal could be turned around to do exactly the opposite of the Obama budget. For example, an essential component of Obama's budget was the ending of tax breaks for millionaires. Since the republican bill does not mention this, the revenue objective could instead be achieved by raising taxes on the middle class, something Obama clearly said he opposed. Likewise, regarding the programs that could be cut to achieve savings, the wasteful programs Obama spoke about are not in the republican bill, meaning programs that are considered important to the Democrats and Obama could be targeted. The list goes on - the republican bills are certainly not "close enough" copies of Obama's budget. And once again, what the Democrats have or haven't offered IS IRRELEVANT to the question of whether or not the republican bills were close to Obama's budget. Gotta jump in on this. The Republican presentation of Obama's budget onto the floor wasn't a serious bill and it got no support from Democrats for that reason. But at the same time, there is a message there that this isn't entirely the fault of Republicans, that Obama's budget efforts haven't been serious either but rather equal attempts to paint the GOP as purely obstructionist. Democrats won't move from certain places and just spike the ball when negotiations get stiff. Look, if they don't agree with a principle, they're not going to vote for it. That's the whole essence of having a vote. But that's also why we have political compromises, something Obama has not been willing to do since facing a Republican House. You can argue that Republicans just gobble up concessions and ask for more, but the other side of the story is that Obama simply won't budge and he's only throwing out token concessions. I think it's worth pointing out that Congress wasn't that much more productive in the first half of his administration when there were Democratic majorities. As for slow appointments (a common complaint), Obama has a pass rate about the same as Bush and Clinton but he's nominated fewer judges and officials. For whatever reason, he's been a lot slower and more selective about his nominations. Give me a break, all the legislation and "compromise" passed since Obamacare has been completely one-sided, and it ain't Obama's side. If it's been passed since Obamacare wouldn't that imply that either Obama signed it or a large amount of democrats switched aisles to support it? I think he's talking about bills that have made it out of the House of Representatives.
Just realized that -.-
|
On August 15 2012 09:13 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 08:45 aksfjh wrote:On August 15 2012 08:24 coverpunch wrote:
I do want to point out that there's going to be political fireworks when you talk about some of these sensitive issues like balancing the deficit. Republicans say "We want to cut entitlements" and Democrats say "We refuse to cut entitlements." It's hard to find a middle ground or a compromise there.
But if a Republican majority passes a budget that cuts entitlements, then Democrats do everything they can to stop the bill, you can't really be surprised, can you? The actual conversation looks more like: "We want to cut entitlements in this deficit reduction package." - Republicans "We'll think about it... What about some increased revenue as well?" - Democrats "YOU TAKE THAT BACK! DON'T YOU DARE TALK ABOUT MY MOTHER THAT WAY!" - Republicans Maybe some hyperbole in there, but, in the proposals I've seen, tax increases have been part of the package with entitlement reform. Yeah, this is a vast oversimplification. Take the recent cybersecurity bill for instance. Both sides have a firm belief and there isn't a clear consensus about who's correct on the balance of preserving privacy rights, protecting the country, and keeping the government clean. On an issue like that, we're a lot more willing to concede that it's a complicated issue with many moving parts. The problem with economic issues is that we have too many pundits who act like the answers are all too simple and we don't acknowledge nearly as much the potential for unforeseen consequences that might be very difficult to reverse.
I need to do some surfing to confirm this, but I think the bill stalled before the recess with it only making "recommendations" to companies it found to be vulnerable. If I'm not mistaken, that's what the Republicans pushed for at the start of the debate, and they ended up being the ones to block it before recess.
Like I said, I need to do some research on that to make sure I heard and remember it all correctly.
|
On August 15 2012 09:16 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 09:00 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 15 2012 06:27 coverpunch wrote:On August 15 2012 05:32 kwizach wrote:On August 15 2012 05:00 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 04:47 kwizach wrote:On August 15 2012 04:34 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 04:22 kwizach wrote:On August 15 2012 04:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 03:55 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Again, not true. The very difference between the Obama budget and the two republican bills is precisely that those two bills removed the details of the Obama budget (for example, whose tax breaks are ended, which programs are cut, etc.). It's close enough. The bottom line numbers are all in there. Again, no democrat bothered to fill out the details or even offer an alternative. If anyone liked the budget, they would have taken it up and turned it into the 2000-page behemoth that we're all used to seeing. No, it's precisely not "close enough" since the details that make it a Democratic/Obama budget instead of a Republican budget are not in it. If the democrats actually bothered to offer a real budget, I'd agree with you. Whether or not the Democrats offered "a real budget" is completely irrelevant in the context of this argument, which is about whether or not the republicans bills were Obama's budget. You argued that they were, it was shown that they weren't, and now instead of acknowledging that you were wrong you're trying to sidetrack the discussion. I think it's pretty clear that I've admitted that the budget that the republicans offered does not have all of the details that Obama's proposal have. Do you want me to get on my knees and offer you roses as well? Again, the budget offered by the republicans is close enough -- and I stand by that. I still believe that the 414-0 and 99-0 votes are significant because no democrat offered a fully-fleshed out version of Obama's budget. Circling back to the original point where all this came up, this means that no one should take Obama's budget seriously -- because no legislator is. I also stand by that point. No, it is not "close enough". Again, many of the details that are essential to making it a Democratic/Obama budget were removed by the republicans who made the bills. It's not a question of "a few details missing", it's a question of so many details missing that the budget proposal could be turned around to do exactly the opposite of the Obama budget. For example, an essential component of Obama's budget was the ending of tax breaks for millionaires. Since the republican bill does not mention this, the revenue objective could instead be achieved by raising taxes on the middle class, something Obama clearly said he opposed. Likewise, regarding the programs that could be cut to achieve savings, the wasteful programs Obama spoke about are not in the republican bill, meaning programs that are considered important to the Democrats and Obama could be targeted. The list goes on - the republican bills are certainly not "close enough" copies of Obama's budget. And once again, what the Democrats have or haven't offered IS IRRELEVANT to the question of whether or not the republican bills were close to Obama's budget. Gotta jump in on this. The Republican presentation of Obama's budget onto the floor wasn't a serious bill and it got no support from Democrats for that reason. But at the same time, there is a message there that this isn't entirely the fault of Republicans, that Obama's budget efforts haven't been serious either but rather equal attempts to paint the GOP as purely obstructionist. Democrats won't move from certain places and just spike the ball when negotiations get stiff. Look, if they don't agree with a principle, they're not going to vote for it. That's the whole essence of having a vote. But that's also why we have political compromises, something Obama has not been willing to do since facing a Republican House. You can argue that Republicans just gobble up concessions and ask for more, but the other side of the story is that Obama simply won't budge and he's only throwing out token concessions. I think it's worth pointing out that Congress wasn't that much more productive in the first half of his administration when there were Democratic majorities. As for slow appointments (a common complaint), Obama has a pass rate about the same as Bush and Clinton but he's nominated fewer judges and officials. For whatever reason, he's been a lot slower and more selective about his nominations. Give me a break, all the legislation and "compromise" passed since Obamacare has been completely one-sided, and it ain't Obama's side. If it's been passed since Obamacare wouldn't that imply that either Obama signed it or a large amount of democrats switched aisles to support it?
I think he's talking about bills that have made it out of the House of Representatives.
|
On August 15 2012 08:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2012 07:29 aksfjh wrote:On August 15 2012 06:27 coverpunch wrote:On August 15 2012 05:32 kwizach wrote:On August 15 2012 05:00 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 04:47 kwizach wrote:On August 15 2012 04:34 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 04:22 kwizach wrote:On August 15 2012 04:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 15 2012 03:55 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Again, not true. The very difference between the Obama budget and the two republican bills is precisely that those two bills removed the details of the Obama budget (for example, whose tax breaks are ended, which programs are cut, etc.). It's close enough. The bottom line numbers are all in there. Again, no democrat bothered to fill out the details or even offer an alternative. If anyone liked the budget, they would have taken it up and turned it into the 2000-page behemoth that we're all used to seeing. No, it's precisely not "close enough" since the details that make it a Democratic/Obama budget instead of a Republican budget are not in it. If the democrats actually bothered to offer a real budget, I'd agree with you. Whether or not the Democrats offered "a real budget" is completely irrelevant in the context of this argument, which is about whether or not the republicans bills were Obama's budget. You argued that they were, it was shown that they weren't, and now instead of acknowledging that you were wrong you're trying to sidetrack the discussion. I think it's pretty clear that I've admitted that the budget that the republicans offered does not have all of the details that Obama's proposal have. Do you want me to get on my knees and offer you roses as well? Again, the budget offered by the republicans is close enough -- and I stand by that. I still believe that the 414-0 and 99-0 votes are significant because no democrat offered a fully-fleshed out version of Obama's budget. Circling back to the original point where all this came up, this means that no one should take Obama's budget seriously -- because no legislator is. I also stand by that point. No, it is not "close enough". Again, many of the details that are essential to making it a Democratic/Obama budget were removed by the republicans who made the bills. It's not a question of "a few details missing", it's a question of so many details missing that the budget proposal could be turned around to do exactly the opposite of the Obama budget. For example, an essential component of Obama's budget was the ending of tax breaks for millionaires. Since the republican bill does not mention this, the revenue objective could instead be achieved by raising taxes on the middle class, something Obama clearly said he opposed. Likewise, regarding the programs that could be cut to achieve savings, the wasteful programs Obama spoke about are not in the republican bill, meaning programs that are considered important to the Democrats and Obama could be targeted. The list goes on - the republican bills are certainly not "close enough" copies of Obama's budget. And once again, what the Democrats have or haven't offered IS IRRELEVANT to the question of whether or not the republican bills were close to Obama's budget. Gotta jump in on this. The Republican presentation of Obama's budget onto the floor wasn't a serious bill and it got no support from Democrats for that reason. But at the same time, there is a message there that this isn't entirely the fault of Republicans, that Obama's budget efforts haven't been serious either but rather equal attempts to paint the GOP as purely obstructionist. Democrats won't move from certain places and just spike the ball when negotiations get stiff. Look, if they don't agree with a principle, they're not going to vote for it. That's the whole essence of having a vote. But that's also why we have political compromises, something Obama has not been willing to do since facing a Republican House. You can argue that Republicans just gobble up concessions and ask for more, but the other side of the story is that Obama simply won't budge and he's only throwing out token concessions. I think it's worth pointing out that Congress wasn't that much more productive in the first half of his administration when there were Democratic majorities. As for slow appointments (a common complaint), Obama has a pass rate about the same as Bush and Clinton but he's nominated fewer judges and officials. For whatever reason, he's been a lot slower and more selective about his nominations. Here is the Obama budget proposal. It needed to go through committee to make it a legal document, but it's rather fleshed out. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/budget.pdfAs for the charge that Obama hasn't actually gone to the table with real compromise, you have to look at what the Republicans have done in response. We have plans coming from people like Ryan and Romney, that state the primary objective of lowering the deficit, but, in reality, slash taxes enourmously and the government even more. It's pretty obvious that slashing taxes isn't the best way to lower the deficit, which hints it's just a sideshow for them. So, when Obama comes out targeting the deficit in a budget or spending proposal it gets shot down despite showing a real effort to hit deficit goals. It's like the Democrats are trying to legislate with xDaunt here. They make gains, carry the ball 10 yds, then the Republicans come back and say, "lol, but we're playing hockey!" As for the first 2 years of Congress, he had the majority in both houses, but Republican opposition was in such unison that it was impossible to get any of their support on legislation. I knew I saved this for a reason. http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/08/things-wrong-with-hassett-hubbard-mankiw-and-taylor-the-romney-program-for-economic-recovery-growth-and-jobs.htmlThere were at least seven Democratic senators in 2009-2010—Baucus, Landrieu, Lincoln, Bayh, Nelson, Pryor, Spector, Webb—who were “professionally bipartisan” in that they would not vote for cloture in any but the most extraordinary circumstances without Republicans voting by their side. Unless the Democrats could peel off a Collins, a Snowe, or a Voinovich, they had not a filibuster-proof working majority of 60 but rather a filibuster-vulnerable working majority of 53. The problem is that democrats never put real spending cuts on the table (other than offering to gut the military). Democrats have repeatedly only offered "promises" to cut spending for years in exchange for getting republicans to go along with their legislation. Republicans have finally gotten smart and are insisting that the spending cuts be put directly in the legislation that is at issue.
so cut the damn defense spending.
|
Can't. Military industrial complex too stronk.
|
You could eliminate 100% of defense spending and not cut the deficit in half.
|
I don't think Romney could get elected. The cultural disparity between the rich and the poor in America is really astounding, and hopefully anybody without 2 yachts and 5 houses realizes this and doesn't vote for him. Although ignorance is also prevalent in America, so who knows >.>
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
