Brooklynian » Forum » Brooklyn Politics »

The spending and tax proposals of the Gang of 6

Share this!
 | 
    1. whynot_31
      whynot_31

      Former Lurker
      Joined: Mar '06
      Posts: 16,032

      This coverage focuses on how the recommendations would affect health care.

      Gang Of Six Plan To Cut Deficit By $3.7 T Includes Doc Fix, Gets Boost From Obama
      Jul 19, 2011

      President Barack Obama praised the bipartisan plan, which includes $500B in immediate deficit cuts as well as larger, longer-term entitlement reforms.

      The Washington Post: "President Obama on Tuesday praised a new bipartisan plan emerging in the Senate, calling it 'broadly consistent' with the White House's approach to raising the debt limit and describing it as a 'very significant step.' The plan, drafted by a bipartisan group of senators known as the 'Gang of Six,' has been in the works for months. After struggling to reach consensus and apparently disbanding last week, the group now says it's nearing agreement on a proposal, which could offer an alternative strategy for pushing an increase in the debt limit through Congress before the 8/2 deadline" (Montgomery, 7/19).

      The Hill: "According to an executive summary, the Gang of Six plan would stabilize the debt by 2014. ... It would involve two separate bills, one implementing $500B in immediate deficit cuts and another implementing larger reforms. ... On entitlements, the plan would fully pay for the Medicare 'doc fix' over 10 yrs, allowing doctors to avoid a drastic cut in Medicare payments under the law which is regularly avoided but never paid for. It also contains strong enforcement procedures. One of these would require a 67-vote supermajority in the Senate to circumvent spending caps" (Bolton and Wasson, 7/19).

      Atlanta Jour Constitution: "The plan uses a two-step legislative process:(1)an initial bill that makes immediate cuts; and(2)a process for a second bill to enact comprehensive reform and put our nation on a stable fiscal path. The plan would ... Spend health care dollars more efficiently in order to strengthen Medicare and Medicaid, while maintaining the basic structure of these critical programs ... Fully pays for SGR (the 'doc fix') over 10 yrs." The plan also would repeal The CLASS Act (Dupree, 7/19).

      Inside Health Policy: The plan "would repeal the controversial long-term care insurance program -- or the CLASS ACT -- included in the health care law as part of a $500B 'down payment' on an 'aggressive two-step' legislative process led by committees of jurisdiction to reduce the deficit by a total of $3.7T over 10 yrs. According to a 5 page outline, the plan would require the Finance Committee to permanently reform or replace the physician payment system" (Lotven, 7/19).

      Wall St Journal: "President Barack Obama on Tuesday backed a $3.7T deficit-reduction plan after it gained fresh momentum from a bipartisan group in the Senate. Mr. Obama, speaking at a White House press briefing, praised the deficit-reduction proposal as "a very significant step" and said there's been progress generally in the protracted deficit discussions. He asked congressional leaders to begin crafting a final plan Wednesday. ... Mr. Obama's endorsement of a bipartisan Senate deficit-reduction proposal, however, could isolate conservative House Republicans who have yet to embrace the president's call for a deficit-cutting plan that includes tax-code changes" (Paletta and Favole, 7/19).

      The NYT: The bipartisan group of senators made their push "on Tuesday to win backing for an ambitious deficit-reduction proposal that includes new revenues as well as deep spending cuts. ... The group ... presented its plan to fellow senators as the House prepared to vote on a Republican budget plan. It would make deep spending cuts over time in domestic and military programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, and raise new revenues from closing myriad tax breaks and loopholes, while lowering tax rates across the board" (Calmes and Steinhauer, 7/19).

      LA Times: "The proposal is based on recommendations from the bipartisan deficit commission that Obama commissioned last year, which he had initially been cool to. It includes entitlement reforms -- a major concern of Democrats -- and 'fundamental' tax reform, something that Republicans have been wary of throughout the debt negotiations. What was significant was the support it received, conceptually, from so many Republicans in the Senate – including Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), the third-ranking Republican in the Senate" (Memoli, Nicholas and Mascaro, 7/19).

      Politico: "The House Republican leadership staff is reviewing the Gang of Six proposal, but has several concerns, according to aides. They are unclear how the plan gets to $3.7T in savings, and want to see a more detailed plan, the aides say. From what they’ve seen of the plan, they Medicare and Medicaid proposals need to go further. And they’re already branding the plan as having tax increases" (Raju, 7/19).

      MSNBC: "But Obama says lawmakers are nearing the '11th hour' as an 8/2 deadline to raise the debt ceiling nears" (7/19).

      This is part of Kaiser Health News' Daily Report - a summary of health policy coverage from more than 300 news organizations.

      For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.
    2. cool the kid
      Cool The Kid

      We out this mother effer
      Joined: Jan '07
      Posts: 1,385

      Marginally lower tax rates from top to bottom while getting rid of stupid behavioral deductions is awesome. I wonder if they will get rid of the mortgage interest deduction w/housing being in such a delicate position. Esp on the brink of possible rate hikes.

      The only real way to tackle Medicare is to tackle healthcare in general... streamlining it all through a well-oiled single payer machine. As much of a problem as it is, I don't know enough to say whether cuts can be made to it while keeping it functional... I imagine no though.

      I am not sure if SS adds to the deficit but it needs to be changed to. Phase the entitlement age up to correlate w/today's life expectancy rates, but don't pull the rug out from people who are close to retiring (like my dad).

      Scale back military operations.

      Cut the obvious bloat in gov't.

      Combine welfare programs w/low end gov't jobs to create a public works program. Lord knows we have some projects to tackle.

      All that alone is worth a good 4-5 trilli over the next 10 years at least if they commit fully. But we will see.

      [
      Mamacita said:
      I <3 CTK
    3. whynot_31
      whynot_31

      Former Lurker
      Joined: Mar '06
      Posts: 16,032

      I fear the intelligent proposal will be butchered by the process.

      "There are two things you don't want to watch being made: laws and sausage."

      For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.
    4. Simply Telling Others to Come Up With All the Details Isn’t Actually a “Plan”

      from Firedoglake by Jon Walker

      The media has being talking about the Gang of Six’s new 3.7 trillion deficit-reduction “plan.” The problem is, having looked at the details that they have put forward, it isn’t even a plan. It’s more just a vague outline.

      Besides a few terrible specific points — like cutting Social Security — almost all of the Gang of Six’s so-called “deficit reductions” come from simply saying the relevant Senate committees should come come up with an idea of how to achieve set amounts of deficit reductions in the future.

      The Armed Service Committee is told to find $80 billion in savings, Homeland Security is told find $65 billion, the Commerce Committee $11 billion, while health care must take a $400-$500 billion hit.

      You can’t claim you have a plan to fix a problem when your “plan” is just telling other people will come up with an actual plan in the future.

      A “plan” entails laying out specifically what policies you all agree to change. Saying you told someone else to work out basically every important detail at a later time isn’t a plan. It’s grandstanding. It is just another form of the magic asterisk trick we have used in the past so politicians can pretend they have reached an agreement on a really big numbers without actually doing anything.

      Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org
    5. whynot_31
      whynot_31

      Former Lurker
      Joined: Mar '06
      Posts: 16,032

      Let me guess:

      -Those who identify with being on the left think that there aren't enough tax increases and there are too many cuts to entitlement programs. They think defense should be cut more.

      -Those on the right think there are too many tax increases and not enough cuts to entitlement programs. They think defense should be cut less.

      ...And then they wonder why people are willing to give the Tea Party a serious look.

      For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.
    6. whynot_31
      whynot_31

      Former Lurker
      Joined: Mar '06
      Posts: 16,032

      P.S. If you want to cut the defense budget, some folks with came up with a really good plan in 2005.

      http://www.brac.gov/

      Unfortunately, it was never enacted because the senators and members of congress wanted federal funds to continue to flow to their districts. ...and we continue to have expensive bases that serve no purpose.

      For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.
    7. You continue to differentiate between the tea party and the Republican party.

      The distinction is lost on me.

      The reason we're having the debt ceiling crisis is almost solely b/c of Tea Part Republicans led by Eric Cantor.

      Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org
    8. whynot_31
      whynot_31

      Former Lurker
      Joined: Mar '06
      Posts: 16,032

      The reason we're having the debt ceiling crisis is almost solely b/c of Tea Part Republicans led by Eric Cantor.

      And here I thought a version of the debt ceiling was passed years ago, back in 1917, before Eric Cantor was born.

      I had based my knowledge on a report entitled, The Debt Limit: History and Recent Increases and written for Congress.

      For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.
    9. cool the kid
      Cool The Kid

      We out this mother effer
      Joined: Jan '07
      Posts: 1,385

      Boygabriel said:
      You continue to differentiate between the tea party and the Republican party.

      The distinction is lost on me.

      The reason we're having the debt ceiling crisis is almost solely b/c of Tea Part Republicans led by Eric Cantor.

      Lol. That report says otherwise. But why bother with the truth, when we can blame problems we all bear some culpability for on someone else? The idea that the left is so virtuous and well-intentioned doesn't jive with reality... they're no less political or destructive to the country; you just overlook their flaws because you agree w/their definitions of "progress". Cmon man.

      [
      Mamacita said:
      I <3 CTK
    10. I'm confused.

      The reason the debt ceiling isn't being raised right now, as it was 5 times under Bush, and 21 times in however many decades, is b/c Eric Cantor and the Tea Party Republicans are holding the country hostage.

      Forcing the nation to default is just about the most irresponsible way I can think of to force "reform".

      It's like walking up to a drug addict and saying, "get off drugs or I'll shoot you in the head."

      In other words, it's all extremism and no actual effort and work.

      Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org
    11. whynot_31
      whynot_31

      Former Lurker
      Joined: Mar '06
      Posts: 16,032

      I've gotta agree with CTK on this one.

      ...although I'm not a fan of grandstanding, there are times in life when it is the only way to get things done.

      This might be one of those times.

      If the result of the present grandstanding by the Tea Party is that:

      1. They create an environment in which the proposals of the Gang of 6 get implemented

      2. They then raise the debt ceiling like everyone knows has to happen anyway.

      3. They have a beer to celebrate.

      4. They get the media and public's credit for making the Democrats and the Republicans do actual work.

      I'm all for it.

      One can give credit when credit is due, while being suspicious of the folks doing the work.

      For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.
    12. armchair_warrior
      armchair_warrior

      retsop cixelsyd
      Joined: Dec '05
      Posts: 7,946

      at the end of the day when i see it I'll believe it typical politicians loves talking but no actions :p.

      Fight white guilt and injustice by smoking tax free guilt free Reservation Smokes or go gamble in a Native Casino.
      I like to stick it to The Man, The Man happens to be Liberal in NYC(power Structure).
    13. Well, I disagree that the Party of 6's ideas are good. So yeah, if that's your goal, then, um sure.

      But I don't think playing with the debt ceiling is a reasonable way to do business.

      I think it's lazy extremism in lieu of actual structural changes.

      I stand by my metaphor.

      You're not actually doing the hard part of getting a drug addict to quit drugs, you're merely making them think they're about to die.

      That's not leadership. That's not achievement.

      It's once again reducing our political system to the lowest common denominator.

      It's taking us another level down towards dysfunction.

      It's the Tea Party Republicans imposing their pathological aversion to taxes and sacrifice from wealthy/corporate interests, and placing the burden largely on the poor, working and middle classes.

      And the only way they can get their way is by threatening literally global financial Armageddon.

      Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org
    14. whynot_31
      whynot_31

      Former Lurker
      Joined: Mar '06
      Posts: 16,032

      Business as usual has gotten us to where we are today.

      Change is scary, but not changing is worse.

      For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.
    15. whynot_31
      whynot_31

      Former Lurker
      Joined: Mar '06
      Posts: 16,032

      armchair_warrior said:
      at the end of the day when i see it I'll believe it typical politicians loves talking but no actions :p.

      AW-
      I agree.

      The legislature and executive branches might just repeal the Gang of 6's austerity measures at a later date.

      ...but this is the first real hope of fiscal reform we are seeing in quite sometime. In the past, the debt limit was raised over and over with much less debate, and with seemingly zero, actual long term reform.

      For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.
    16. whynot_31 said:
      Business as usual has gotten us to where we are today.

      Change is scary, but not changing is worse.

      It seems you're valuing any change at all, regardless of consequences or strategy, over anything else.

      Seems flawed to me.

      Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org
    17. whynot_31
      whynot_31

      Former Lurker
      Joined: Mar '06
      Posts: 16,032

      BG » You're not actually doing the hard part of getting a drug addict to quit drugs, you're merely making them think they're about to die.

      The idea that we should wait for an addict our country to be almost dead before trying to help it, help itself, is inhumane. Many addicts die before they "hit bottom" and realize they need help. As a result, we mandate them to treatment. The majority of the people in recovery were mandated to treatment....

      Addicts can (and do) recover if they are provided with an accurate picture of how their actions affect themselves and others. This is Step 1. After that we work on steps 2 - 12.

      1
      We admitted that we were powerless over our addiction, that our lives had become unmanageable.

      2
      We came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity. (the Gang of 6?)

      3
      We made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God the public as we understood Him may very well lose our jobs to fiscally responsible people.

      4
      We made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves. (yes, it is unfair to pass an unmanageable debt to future generations)

      5
      We admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.

      6
      We were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character. (how about just this one defect? Let's not be greedy)

      7
      We humbly asked Him the Gang of 6 and the public to remove our shortcomings. (again)

      8
      We made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all. There's no need to grovel and make lists, just stop doing it.

      9
      We made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others. (just stop borrowing. I'm a nice guy, you can just continue to pay interest on the old debt. You don't have to work on the principal)

      10
      We continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it. (that would be awesome!)

      11
      We sought through prayer and meditation democracy to improve our conscious contact with God the public as we understood Him them, praying only for knowledge of His their will for us and the power to carry that out.

      12
      Having had a spiritual awakening as a result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to addicts, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

      Don't get stuck on Step 0: denial.

      ...doing this isn't "optional" for our country's well-being. I see no reason why we should have to sit by and simply watch without trying to intervene.

      [please send my apologies to the late Bill W]

      For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.
    18. So criticizing holding the national economy hostage is being in denial?

      No.

      You act like the Tea Party Republican hostage-taking is our only option for reform.

      That's a joke.

      In a shocking turn of events, the Gang of Six's plan involves tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, combined with social service cuts.

      Stop me if you've heard that one before.

      Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org
    19. whynot_31
      whynot_31

      Former Lurker
      Joined: Mar '06
      Posts: 16,032

      Thinking this country does not have a spending problem = denial

      Stating that those who believe our debt should not grow anymore must hate social service programs or the poor = denial

      Thinking simply by taxing the rich we can overcome our present deficits = denial

      Thinking we can continue to borrow without it having short and long term consequences = denial

      Making excuses for continuing to spend too much money, despite not having the ability to get more money = denial

      We don't have the ability to tax the rich and corporations. I know, it is sad. Like you, I wish it were different. ...Get over it.

      "I'm not broke because I spend too much money, I'm broke because I didn't get that well paying job because I am x, y, z and they are a, b, c."

      is the same BS as

      "the US isn't broke because we spend too much money, the US is broke because we can't compete with China and our rich people and corporations put up a fight when we try to take their money because they don't see what they will get out of it."

      Newsflash: No one rich uncle is going to die and give us money that we don't have to pay back. Until we figure out a way to get more money (i.e. tax corporations or the rich), we need spend less.

      For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.
    20. whynot_31 said:
      Thinking this country does not have a spending problem = denial

      Actually whether we have a spending problem or a taxing problem (or what I believe: BOTH) is a highly debatable point.

      Stating that those who believe our debt should not grow anymore must hate social service programs or the poor = denial

      People who's first and only choice(s) are always to cut taxes and social programs do, in fact, probably hate social programs. And if you don't like the word hate, insert whichever one makes you feel better.

      Thinking simply by taxing the rich we can overcome our present deficits = denial

      Never argued that, but thanks.

      Thinking we can continue to borrow without it having short and long term consequences = denial

      I've actually stated the exact opposite, thanks again.

      We don't have the ability to tax the rich and corporations. I know, it is sad. Like you, I wish it were different. ...Get over it.

      Recent polling shows that a majority of Americans actually support raising taxes (or cutting loopholes) for the rich & corporations, rather than cutting services, which is generally what The Tea Party Republicans and likeminded people (the Gang of Six, Obama) always default to.

      The public will is there. Is the leadership there? And by leadership, I mean more than threatening to destroy the American economy, the current strategy favored by The Tea Party Republicans

      "I'm not broke because I spend too much money, I'm broke because I didn't get that well paying job because I am x, y, z and they are a, b, c."

      is the same BS as

      "the US isn't broke because we spend too much money, the US is broke because we can't compete with China and our rich people and corporations put up a fight when we try to take their money because they don't see what they will get out of it."

      Your assumptions about globalization and the rich's aversions to taxes are well known, and also questionable.

      Warren Buffet wants to be taxed more. Mark Zuckerberg wants to pay more taxes.

      New Jersey raised taxes on the rich and guess what? There wasn't wealthy flight from NJ.

      In fact, look at this:

      Cantor’s wealthy backers: raise our taxes

      There's no question American faces debt questions.

      What is highly questionable is what the correct approach is, who should sacrifice what, and perhaps most importantly, who has already been sacrificing (the poor & middle class) and who has not (the rich & corporations).

      Pragmatism isn't proof that you're right.
      Neither is centrism.

      Argue that we shouldn't or can't raise taxes. But don't argue it's the only possible solution. It's narrow-minded.

      Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org
    21. tateinbk
      tateinbk

      above average
      Joined: Jun '11
      Posts: 498

      Well said Boygabriel. I for one will not think positively of hostage takers.

      Of course there needs to be more accountability, close the loop holes, make sure.... (gaggggggggg, vomit. All the buzzwords made me nauseous there.)

      Newsflash: No one rich uncle is going to die and give us money that we don't have to pay back. Until we figure out a way to get more money (i.e. tax corporations or the rich), we need spend less.

      Yes, please, let's tax corporations and the rich. Will it solve everything? Heck no. But I would be more willing to sacrifice if they are too. That said, I don't think corporations getting taxed is as much a sacrifice as it is making it all a wee bit more fair.

      There are people out there that genuinely believe it would be a good idea if we defaulted on our loans. This scares the bejeebus out of me. On top of that, so many of the people I've seen insisting we should default are staunch believers in going back to the original constitution. To these people I say look at the 14th Amendment section 4.

      To have (mostly Tea Partiers) instructing the masses that if they don't get what they want the debt ceiling can't be raised is hideous hostage taking and incredibly foolish. As someone who worked with a lot of kids and dogs I learned something quickly. Never threaten something you're not willing and able to follow through with.

    22. whynot_31
      whynot_31

      Former Lurker
      Joined: Mar '06
      Posts: 16,032

      The rich are willing to be taxed? Great. Make it happen.

      While the democrats and republicans try to enrich themselves and/or stimulate the economy, the fiscal hawks are stating they don't want the debt to go any higher.

      Want to tax? ok by me.
      Want to cut spending? ok by me.

      Do either, or do both.

      BG » Recent polling shows that a majority of Americans actually support raising taxes (or cutting loopholes) for the rich & corporations, rather than cutting services, which is generally what The Tea Party Republicans and likeminded people (the Gang of Six, Obama) always default to.

      Are those against austerity now going to try to lump the Gang of 6 and Obama in with the Republicans and the Tea Party?

      Do you really expect thoughtful people to be able to see these disparate groups as the same, and not wonder whether they are trying to address a serious issue?

      How long do you think people with fall for the rhetoric?

      I'll admit it: I would like for politicians to continue borrowing, and for us to be able live beyond our means forever.

      I'll admit it: I would like to tax the rich as much as can, and have it solve our problems.

      ....but I know we can't do this. And a large % of the population isn't going to keep letting the legislature incur more and more debt. The government must give us a believable plan on how they will either raise more money, or spend less.

      I am prepared to be called "narrow minded".

      You can even imagine that I identify with the Tea Party (um, no thanks), or genuinely want the US to default on its debts (see conversation about Grandstanding as a last resort above).

      ...In actuality I may be just be a good fiscal manager, who wants this country to be able to meet its obligations in the long term.

      For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.
    23. If defaulting on the debt seems like a good idea to you, I question whether you are a good fiscal manager.

      If you are thinking long-term, I question why you would choose this particular moment in time to institute austerity measures which largely hit the less fortunate and those least able to afford it.

      Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org
    24. whynot_31
      whynot_31

      Former Lurker
      Joined: Mar '06
      Posts: 16,032

      I do not believe anyone will actually go so far as to have our country actually default on our debt, but we may have to force the government to cut spending until we find a way to make more money (i.e. tax).

      I'm open to other ways of forcing the government to do this, but -frankly- don't know of any.

      Persons facing foreclosure on their house would have to make the same tough choices we are facing today.

      Dear America,

      Tough choices must be made.

      Have you heard of Alanon and Nar Anon?

      They provide support for those who love addicts, yet have had enough of their irresponsible behavior. The groups state that their members have an obligation to themselves and the person with the addiction to stop "enabling" the behaviors of the addicted.

      Sincerely yours,
      whynot_31

      Dear BG-
      As you stated above, our government is addicted to spending money, and I think you are ready to admit that it never gets its act together enough to bring in money via taxes.

      I, also, would love to find a way to tax those powerful rich people we all love to hate. However, I must ask : "Is there ever a good time to cut spending?"

      ....are we expected to believe that it will be easier for government to reduce spending and/or increase taxes in the future, when we have even more debt? ...and the rich are (gasp) even more powerful?

      ...or are we supposed to depend on a rich uncle (in this case "growth of the economy") to magically come to our rescue?

      Give our governments repeated history of raising the dept limit, is really reasonable to expect the public to trust them to not do again in the future?

      ...I just want government to have a plan to get "spending and taxes" back in balance, is that wrong?

      Sincerely,
      whynot_31

      For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.
    25. cool the kid
      Cool The Kid

      We out this mother effer
      Joined: Jan '07
      Posts: 1,385

      Boygabriel said:
      It seems you're valuing any change at all, regardless of consequences or strategy, over anything else.

      Seems flawed to me.

      It only seems that way because any change that doesn't fit with your agendas is bad.

      I.e., if entitlements get touched in a way you deem negative, regardless of any other outcome, it's bad. Regardless of the fact that as is we can't afford them.

      Plus the whole point of the Go6 plan isn't to completely block the raising of the debt limit, or hold the nation hostage or w/e. It's ensuring that before we raise it again we commit to reversing our course away from the things that got us in this mess in the first place. I do think the grandstanding is a little ridiculous, but it's no less ridiculous than the idea that we can continue as is. The fiscal crisis >>>>>> entitlements.

      [
      Mamacita said:
      I <3 CTK
    26. whynot_31
      whynot_31

      Former Lurker
      Joined: Mar '06
      Posts: 16,032

      I'd prefer a cut to defense over a cut to entitlements and things like education, but I think we've had that conversation.

      For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.
    27. cool the kid
      Cool The Kid

      We out this mother effer
      Joined: Jan '07
      Posts: 1,385

      whynot_31 said:
      I'd prefer a cut to defense over a cut to entitlements and things like education, but I think we've had that conversation.

      I definitely would too, if that were the only choice. But there's no permutation of cuts or tax hikes that doesn't affect everybody + will be enough. Shit even if we do everything we possibly can we are still in for a good decade of pain. So the idea that we can take anything off the table- defense, entitlements, corporate jet deductions- doesn't make sense to me.

      [
      Mamacita said:
      I <3 CTK
    28. vidro3
      vidro3

      running you over with my bike
      Joined: Feb '08
      Posts: 1,493

    29. whynot_31
      whynot_31

      Former Lurker
      Joined: Mar '06
      Posts: 16,032

      Do we have to investigate every allegation of fraud in Daily Kos and Mother Jones before we attempt to balance the books?

      Your right, this was a dumb idea. Let's go back to printing money. Afterall, My favorite word is free.

      Life should never involve sacrifice. Ain't no way I'm taking a job for $8 an hour when that guy makes $100 an hour. Let's bitch about how others are getting rich and we are being exploited and stolen from while we drink all day, play the lottery, and live paycheck to paycheck.

      This is going to be great. Let's party! Screw the next generation.
      There is nothing we can do improve our lives or country in the interim. Lets not do anything because we can't do everything.

      (sarcasm)

      For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.
    30. cool the kid
      Cool The Kid

      We out this mother effer
      Joined: Jan '07
      Posts: 1,385

      This guy, this freaking guy, is a man after my own heart.

      His sentiments on the "stimulus" echo mine.

      http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/return-mass-layoffs-grim-sign-u-workers-190228219.html

      [
      Mamacita said:
      I <3 CTK
    31. ...I just want government to have a plan to get "spending and taxes" back in balance, is that wrong?

      Sincerely,
      whynot_31

      Hey man, you can want whatever you want.

      I want a plan too, but the specifics of the plan matter to me.

      The core of the Gang of Six's plan to "tackle the debt" is to lower taxes and cut social services.

      Stop me if you've heard that one before.

      How someone can care about the debt but also want to cut taxes is beyond me.

      But then again, the truth is that Republicans don't actually care about the debt. They care about paying less taxes and reducing services for "The Other".

      Our national debt and the debt ceiling are just a blunt, bloody tool to achieve their ends.

      They just dress it up in 'concern for the debt' and 'Tea Party ideals' so that they can peddle the same old shit in a new coat of paint.

      This is pure opportunism and I'm not going to give them credit for 'trying something new' or trying to be 'practical'.

      It is neither of those things.

      Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org
    32. Cool The Kid said:
      It only seems that way because any change that doesn't fit with your agendas is bad.

      I.e., if entitlements get touched in a way you deem negative, regardless of any other outcome, it's bad. Regardless of the fact that as is we can't afford them.

      Plus the whole point of the Go6 plan isn't to completely block the raising of the debt limit, or hold the nation hostage or w/e. It's ensuring that before we raise it again we commit to reversing our course away from the things that got us in this mess in the first place. I do think the grandstanding is a little ridiculous, but it's no less ridiculous than the idea that we can continue as is. The fiscal crisis >>>>>> entitlements.

      Yes, I don't like their solution.

      Yes, I think entitlements are always the first thing out of Republicans' mouths, or "centrists" mouths, and it's going to be the first thing out of Obama's mouth when the deal gets announced shortly.

      The Go6's plan raises the debt limit, but as I said above, it's primary tool to deal with the debt is the same old shit:

      lower taxes
      reduce social services

      Nothing about national defense.
      Nothing about health care costs.
      Nothing about the Bush Tax cuts
      Nothing about estate tax or capital gains tax.

      Nothing new, nothing progressive.

      Oh, and in case the Go6 and their hype men in the media haven't noticed, America is out of work, and getting bankrupted by health care and housing costs by the minute.

      But hey, how about those taxes, eh?

      Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org
    33. whynot_31
      whynot_31

      Former Lurker
      Joined: Mar '06
      Posts: 16,032

      I like how the left makes the same speech, whether we are in recession or in a boom.

      For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.
    34. whynot_31
      whynot_31

      Former Lurker
      Joined: Mar '06
      Posts: 16,032

      [+] Embed this video

      For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.
    35. whynot_31 said:
      I like how the left makes the same speech, whether we are in recession or in a boom.

      I like false equivalencies.

      I think "less taxes less social services" is the wrong approach in good times and bad.

      In fact, especially in bad, as it's the less fortunate who need social services when the economy sucks, homes are going under, and unemployment remains steady.

      I think those in power use crises to force through their agenda.

      In this case, the Tea Party Republicans have masterfully manufactured their own crisis.

      Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org
    36. cool the kid
      Cool The Kid

      We out this mother effer
      Joined: Jan '07
      Posts: 1,385

      BG, your accusations about the right prioritizing tax cuts etc. can be equally hurled at the left for raising taxes.

      The bottom line is, if you're really about progress, and not about class warfare, then I don't see why it's so hard to understand why everyone has to sacrifice. The idea that SS or welfare programs should be completely off the table while everything else you just *happened* to hate anyway need to be slashed reeks of hypocrisy.

      Not to mention, you chastize the Go6 for being vague, but then chastize them for not taking all the programs you hate off the table. If we don't know what the plan is, how do you know the programs you hate won't get touched? Are you formulating your opinions on what you "think" you hear or what you actually know?

      We need to get our heads out of our assess fiscally, and w/entitlements accounting for half of the gov'ts outlays, as well as borrowing paying for half the gov'ts outlays, and entitlement + military programs growing at a much faster clip than revenues, yes, we have to look at everything, even your sacred cow. It's almost like you are OK w/bankrupting the gov't, as long as entitlements are protected in the interim. Makes no sense.

      [
      Mamacita said:
      I <3 CTK
    37. whynot_31
      whynot_31

      Former Lurker
      Joined: Mar '06
      Posts: 16,032

      A lot of the organizations and politicians I respect have some good things to say about the Go6 plan.

      I don't expect those on the far left or right to like it. Thankfully, there are a lot of smart, thoughtful people in government. ....they were just stuck in a pattern and rhetoric before this plan . I hope this plan makes them "Unstick"

      For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.
    38. "class warfare" is a useless label generally wielded by people who are in denial about our wealth disparity, or the effects of unemployment, the housing crisis and the health care crisis, to name a few things.

      In other words, usually the "haves" who don't accept that most of the rest of the country is the "have nots". Or the "haves" who feel that the only difference between them and the "have nots" is work ethic.

      I don't know whether this applies to you. That is up to you. I feel very strongly about our problems w/r/t to social services, taxes, debt, and govt policy. Label it whatever you would like.

      I don't see why it's so hard to understand why everyone has to sacrifice.

      First of all, for 832nd time, I am fine considering many social services cuts. At no point have I advocated a one-way street, and if you read it that way, you're misunderstanding me.

      All I've ever argued is that (1) there are other things that need more attention than social service cuts and (2) everyone's response to the debt or govt spending is always to cut things first. It's tired and wrong.

      More significantly, your position that "we all must sacrifice" seems to imply that everyone's starting point is equal.

      IE. Everyone is getting equal levels of things we can't afford and everyone can equally afford to lose these things.

      If that is not your presumption, I apologize. However the ways in which I disagree with that starting premise should be obvious by now.

      I feel our starting point already heavily favors the wealthy, the super-wealthy, and corporations. So asking everyone to cut equally is far from being egalitarian about things.

      It's actually completely reenforcing the very problematic status quo.

      Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org
    39. Here's a dose of reality about the debt debate, where we can REALLY save money if we actually care about this, and spending that the Dems both support and oppose.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/your-tax-increase-is-my-spending-cut/2011/07/11/gIQAGaHQTI_blog.html?wprss=ezra-klein

      Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org
    40. whynot_31
      whynot_31

      Former Lurker
      Joined: Mar '06
      Posts: 16,032

      So far, I continue to root for the Go6 proposals because they represent a good, balanced list of items, as opposed to the list of items we receive from the polarized sides.

      Those lists often can be titled:

      "Here is a list of programs I hate"

      ...and it is always the same list, in good times and in bad.

      This guy seems to be worth listening to.

      For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.
    41. Balanced between what? It's Washington's solution to everything:

      Cut taxes
      Cut services

      Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org
    42. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/obamas-bad-debt-deal-getting-worse/2011/07/22/gIQAJcDbTI_blog.html?wprss=plum-line

      This deal is great. Obama makes trillions in cuts. Repubs promise to THINK about addressing revenue at an undetermined future date.

      Bipartisanship!

      Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org
    43. whynot_31
      whynot_31

      Former Lurker
      Joined: Mar '06
      Posts: 16,032

      We send people to Washington who we feel will best serve the country. I think the people made a pretty good choice in Obama.

      Is the bleeding heart left going to nominate Dennis Kucinich or Stewart Alexander again in 2012?

      I've heard Robert Burck wants to be the Tea Party Nominee, but he doesn't have much support.

      For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.
    44. Your faith in the righteousness of our political system is commendable.

      Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org
    45. whynot_31
      whynot_31

      Former Lurker
      Joined: Mar '06
      Posts: 16,032

      I don't look to our political system for righteousness, only entertainment.

      ...Clinton and Bush came thru for me everyday

      Obama has been somewhat reliable.

      The Naked Cowboy would be excellent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Burck

      For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.
    46. cool the kid
      Cool The Kid

      We out this mother effer
      Joined: Jan '07
      Posts: 1,385

      Boygabriel said:
      All I've ever argued is that (1) there are other things that need more attention than social service cuts and (2) everyone's response to the debt or govt spending is always to cut things first. It's tired and wrong.

      (1) I think we differ here in that I think everything deserves the same amount of attention... or at least attention in proportion to its growth/size in the budget; your reasoning for why social services should be looked at last boils down to your bias for them, where as I see them, for better or worse, as one of many line items on the budget we can't afford... as your reasoning for protection is personal and can really be applied to anything. I.e. some warhawk could make an emotional plea to protect the military. Doesn't really mean anything.

      (2)I'm not sure how else to approach the problem. Plus many people including myself have advocated for tax cuts in the form of the cancellation of tax breaks. There's nothing fair or logical about a tax break for a mortgage, a child, a marriage or a corporate jet.... the gov't has no business in changing our behaviors beyond protecting us from criminals and dangerous threats.

      And the stance that the rich should be penalized more heavily for having more is downright socialist. Unless you want to completely neutralize any kind of income or wealth inequality, ultimately those with more will always be at some advantage beyond those who aren't....

      Where I differ in how I think the wealth gap should be approached lies in our differences in feeligns about "the rich"... I bear no animosity towards them; you feel they should be "punished", just as you feel "all" Republicans are bent on destroying the country regardless of evidence to the contrary. Ultimately, the country will benefit most with everyone moving forward, and the problem we face now is that much of the country has stalled. But I don't think getting everyone else moving has to happen by exacting revenge on the rich.... it will come from policies that make sense and a legitimate environment that enables private businesses to grow (which does NOT mean kickbacks or meaningless tax breaks for the rich). As long as we foster a culture of dependence on gov't entitlement programs we will never get out of this quagmire. People need real jobs and wealth, and there is plenty of evidence to show that entitlement programs & "stimulus" is not the way to get that.

      [
      Mamacita said:
      I <3 CTK
    47. No, I have expansive feelings about wealth and inequality in this country, and where power is held, who benefits from influence, how the system has operated to date, etc.

      If you choose to read it as a blind desire to "punish" the rich that says far more about you than it does about me.

      But either way, you're painfully wrong in summarizing my arguments.

      Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org
    48. Republican Party leadership!

      http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/23/naked-blackmail/

      July 23, 2011, 10:10 AM
      Naked Blackmail

      It turns out that in the final stages of the debt negotiations, Republicans suddenly added a new demand — a trigger that would end up eliminating the individual mandate in health care reform.

      This is telling, in a couple of ways.

      First, the health care mandate has nothing to do with debt and deficits. So this is naked blackmail: the GOP is trying to use the threat of financial catastrophe to impose its policy vision, even in areas that have nothing to do with the issue at hand, a vision that it lacks the votes to enact through normal legislation.

      Second, this is a demand Obama can’t accept, unless he plans on changing his party registration. Health reform doesn’t work without a mandate (remember the primary? Maybe better not to). And if health reform is undermined, Obama will have achieved nothing. So by adding this demand, Republicans were in effect saying no deal — unless, I guess, they believed that Obama is a total pushover.

      Awesome.

      Keep in mind that health care costs are one of the single biggest sources of our national debt. And here are the Republicans: literally threatening financial catastrophe in an effort to undo the minuscule little amount of progress that Democrats were actually able to make to reign in our insane health care costs.

      Republicans, ladies and gentlemen!

      Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org
    49. whynot_31
      whynot_31

      Former Lurker
      Joined: Mar '06
      Posts: 16,032

      The left is no different.

      I still smile as I remember them stating that children and mothers would starve if the welfare system was changed.

      That of, of course, was in 1996. Clinton and a republican congress implemented the reforms despite the panicked left. ....and the world seems to go on.

      The far right (of course) wanted to completely eliminate the safety net.

      Hundreds of thousands of people were pushed off welfare and into work.

      Let's hope that the far left and right will again be ignored.

      For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.

    RSS feed for this topic

     Welcome! Please log in to post, or register a new account!

    Brooklynian » Boards About Stuff! » Brooklyn Politics


    Members Online

    now : bricktop
    most recent : bricktop, naturalstone, brit princess, ben, eastbloc, admin, god, epiclylaterd, landlord, brownie, slopeduder, newguy88, tsarina, xlizellx, terekete, housebroken, amber d., opossumqueen, lox, bropook, ehgee