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: 16,073

      What if the democrats allowed huge cuts to entailments to occur, yet successfully made the public believe that they could not fight the cuts?

      The democrats could then unify everyone affected by the cuts to have taxes and spending implemented.

      This would work if the public missed the programs enough, and "democracy" was the basis of such decisions being implemented.

      ....but I suspect that one or both is not true. The democrats have much work to do in the new economy. Everyone expects that the standard of living of everyone must fall, and the democrats are left pleading: Don't cut programs for the poor.

      Sorry, their standard of living can fall further. This nation can and will tolerate third world conditions within it's borders.

      If the Democrats don't want that to happen, they need to do something beside whine. They need power.

      Without power, they must compromise.

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

      above average
      Joined: Jun '11
      Posts: 503

      As painful as it may be, the left may need to give in to the cuts, and hope that the public misses the programs ...and later forces their reinstatement through taxes, and the election of more democrats.

      Sadly, once things get cut, I don't see them getting reinstated. It will be like repealing the tax breaks all over again. People will pretend it was never that way ever and that if it was it sucked.

      I also have very little faith in "The People" being able to actually demand something like that from their political leaders.

    3. tateinbk
      tateinbk

      above average
      Joined: Jun '11
      Posts: 503

      On a lighter note:

      http://www.theonion.com/articles/emergency-team-of-8thgrade-civics-teachers-dispatc,21023/?utm_source=recentnews

      I found that sad and funny because it's true. They do need a bunch of civics teachers to remind them what their jobs are and how the government is supposed to work. In fact, I blame a lot of this on the country's education system.

      Clearly schools need to concentrate more on teaching the constitution, how the government works, and a Whole Hell of a Lot of time spent on economics.

    4. whynot_31
      whynot_31

      Former Lurker
      Joined: Mar '06
      Posts: 16,073

      exactly.

      This isn't a democracy, and the democrats are presently in the position of defending programs that may (or may not) have popular support.

      ...not a good situation to be in.

      While I know they don't want any cuts, that isn't a real world option. I think they'd be better off trying to tax once people realize what $ 1T in cuts looks like, and it seems like they may end up in that situation one way or another.

      I think they should prepare for the worst, rather than deny that it is really happening.

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

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

      i hope they merge both sides ideas.

      republicans want that balance part of the bill, let them have it
      democrats could cut defence and pull back all the troops in return.

      democrats want to some new taxes on the rich

      republicans should let them have that
      republicans would want to go give the ceiling incremental checks to make sure there would be cuts done.

      negotiation sigh is lacking on both sides. give and take.

      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).
    6. tateinbk
      tateinbk

      above average
      Joined: Jun '11
      Posts: 503

      i don't know if negotiation is lacking on both sides, the democrats have given up the wish to repeal the Bush tax cuts early. They have also started cutting programs they would otherwise never have touched.

      The republicans would never vote for a bill that included taxes going up, which is how they view getting rid of the tax cuts. The balance budget amendment isn't all that realistic overall and impossible to do given the short time frame. Adding amendments to the constitution takes time, a lot more than a day.

      The republicans want increments so that it will show up as an issue again just before the 2012 elections so it can be a talking point, especially in debates. If the debt ceiling and budget is hot on everyone's mind then they can talk only about that one issue and don't need an official opinion on a variety of topics.

    7. whynot_31
      whynot_31

      Former Lurker
      Joined: Mar '06
      Posts: 16,073

      I agree, those seem to be the tactics of each of the parties.

      Even if we had more time, I think I would be opposed to a BBA. I believe government has a role in stimulating the economy in recessions, and agree with a lot of the teachings of Keynes.

      My critique of the ARRA was that:

      A. It was implemented in such a way that communities didn't know what role the money played in preserving the jobs of teachers, police, etc. Why thank Obama for something you have always had?

      B. It assumed this is a recession, and not a New Normal.

      C. It did not invest enough in infrastructure, and instead maintained the current skill set of the country.

      If we don't change course, I see the our standards of living really falling over the next 20 years. I resent having to pay for the mistakes of current and passed presidents and legislatures, but think we can (and should) implement austerity measures.

      It amazes me that not many people view this as a austerity debate. Throughout the world austerity has been implemented despite the cries of the old/pensioners/poor/etc.

      I don't know why people believe the US is somehow immune fro
      the larger economy. I don't know how they think wecan maintain our poor/old/etc better than other first world countries.

      Yes, we have a lot of rich people, but we don't seem to have the ability to get more from them.....
      Taxing the rich more is such a hard task, that we may need to focus on cutting spending.

      I wish people would give me money when they don't have to, and there were no strings attached.

      But I've reached the conclusion that until I get more power, I have to live within my means. It sucks.

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

      above average
      Joined: Jun '11
      Posts: 503

      Do you think the goal of all this posturing and the insistence of the balanced budget amendment on behalf of the Republicans is to force Obama to use the 14th Amendment? The Republicans will then be able to raise holy hell in declaring he did something that was not allowed and use it as a major bargaining chip to try and get Obama defeated in 2012?

      I'm starting to think that maybe the Republicans might end up forcing us to default, simply because they are so riled and argumentative. They seem to have lost all perspective. I think if Obama is faced with letting the country default or using the 14th Amendment he will do the latter. The Republican party may be counting on this.

    9. tateinbk
      tateinbk

      above average
      Joined: Jun '11
      Posts: 503

      As a side note, I am rather vigorously against a balanced budget amendment. Again, I blame it on education or lack thereof. How can people really believe that macroeconomics is the same thing as microeconomics?

    10. whynot_31
      whynot_31

      Former Lurker
      Joined: Mar '06
      Posts: 16,073

      http://www.cnn.com/

      Obama: We have a deal

      Congress must still weigh in

      President Barack Obama and congressional leaders reached agreement Sunday on a legislative package that would extend the federal debt ceiling. The proposed deal still requires congressional approval.

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

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

      Its such a weak deal though. Really the worst of all outcomes.

      And I don't think anyone is banking on their standard of living to fall. I mean it's nice to talk about, and would solve a lot of our problems, but it would be hard to go back psychologically.

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

      Former Lurker
      Joined: Mar '06
      Posts: 16,073

      I'm only optimistic that this plan will slow the increase in our debt.

      It doesn't seem as if it has the potential to reduce our debt, or even keep our debt at the same level.

      If it contains the elements being talked about in the press, I think it is a better plan than what government was planned to do; Simply increase the debt without any attempt to get taxes and spending back into balance.

      I doesn't come as a surprise to me that Democrats were not able to get additional taxes implemented; the republicans are betting that these spending cuts can happen without any real rebellion from their recipients.

      whynot_31 said:
      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.
    13. whynot_31
      whynot_31

      Former Lurker
      Joined: Mar '06
      Posts: 16,073

      A compilation of coverage from a news service:

      Debt Deal Reached - Will It Fly?

      By LINDA GITTLEMAN Gratiot Managing Editor and The Associated Press August 1, 2011

      Racing the clock to avoid a government default, President Barack Obama and Republican congressional leaders reached historic agreement Sunday night on a compromise to permit vital U.S. borrowing by the Treasury in exchange for more than $2 trillion in long-term spending cuts.

      Officials said Speaker John Boehner telephoned Obama at mid-evening to say the agreement had been struck.
      No votes were expected in either house of Congress until today at the earliest, to give rank and file lawmakers to review the package..

      It appears that Social Security and Medicare will survive. That's what mid-Michigan seniors are expecting, and that's likely what they're going to get.

      "They are concerned, but they think it will be resolved once legislators stop acting like children," said Jo Jones, director of Ithaca Senior center.
      Without legislation raising the federal debt limit in place by Tuesday, the Treasury will not be able to pay all its bills,
      The federal debt limit would rise in two stages by at least $2.2 trillion, enough to tide the Treasury over until after the 2012 elections.

      Big cuts in government spending would be phased in over a decade. Thousands of programs — the Park Service, Internal Revenue Service and Labor Department accounts among them — could be trimmed to levels last seen years ago.
      No Social Security or Medicare benefits would be cut, but the programs could be scoured for other savings. Taxes would be unlikely to rise.

      If the compromise doesn't get through both the House and Senate and signed by the president, the government will have to pick and choose which bills to pay and which obligations to honor. Interest payments due to Wall Street are likely to be paid first, followed by Social Security checks - due to go out on Wednesday.

      ….The first step would take place immediately, raising the debt limit by nearly $1 trillion and cutting spending by a slightly larger amount over a decade.

      That would be followed by creation of a new congressional committee that would have until the end of November to recommend $1.8 trillion or more in deficit cuts, targeting benefit programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, or overhauling the tax code. Those deficit cuts would allow a second increase in the debt limit, which would be needed by early next year.

      If the committee failed to reach its $1.8 trillion target, or Congress failed to approve its recommendations by the end of 2011, lawmakers would then have to vote on a proposed constitutional balanced-budget amendment.
      If that failed to pass, automatic spending cuts totaling $1.2 trillion would automatically take effect, and the debt limit would rise by an identical amount.

      Social Security, Medicaid and food stamps would be exempt from the automatic cuts, but payments to doctors, nursing homes and other Medicare providers could be trimmed, as could subsidies to insurance companies that offer an alternative to government-run Medicare.

      ----------------

      Highlights Of Budget And Debt Limit Pact

      By The Associated Press, August 1, 2011

      President Barack Obama and top congressional leaders have reached an agreement on a plan to pair an increase in the nation's $14.3 trillion borrowing limit with spending cuts and to create a special committee to recommend bigger savings for a vote later this year. The plan would:

      · Immediately increase the debt limit by $400 billion, with Obama permitted to order another $500 billion increase this fall unless both House and Senate override him by veto-proof margins; a third installment of between $1.2 trillion and $1.5 trillion would be made available after enactment of matching levels of additional spending cuts recommended by a special joint committee of lawmakers. The full $1.5 trillion could also be available if Congress adopts and sends to the states for ratification a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

      · Cut more than $900 billion over 10 years from the day-to-day operating budgets of Cabinet agencies. Caps spending passed by Congress for agency budgets at $1.043 trillion in 2012, $7 billion below 2011 levels.

      · Create a 12-person, House-Senate committee evenly divided between the political parties, and charged with producing up to $1.5 trillion more in deficit cuts over 10 years. If a majority of the committee agrees on a plan, it would receive a vote in both the House and the Senate. If the panel deadlocks or fails to produce at least $1.2 trillion in additional cuts, or if Congress fails to enact its recommendations, the White House budget office would impose across-the-board spending cuts across much of the federal budget, including the Pentagon, domestic agency budgets and farm subsidies. Many federal benefits programs, however, would not be covered by this, including Social Security, Medicaid, veterans' benefits, and federal retirement benefits.

      · Require both House and Senate to vote on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

      · Establish "program integrity" initiatives aimed at stemming abuses in benefits programs like Social Security.

      · Increase funding for Pell Grants for low-income college students by $17 billion over 2012-13, financed by curbs in student loan subsidies.

      -------------------

      States Fear Cuts Under A Compromise To Avert Debt Default

      BY Susan Haigh And Dinesh Ramde Associated Press August 1, 2011

      HARTFORD, Conn. -- The cost of the compromise needed to raise the federal debt ceiling likely will inflict more fiscal pain on states still struggling to recover from the recession and the end of federal stimulus spending.

      Although the details of the spending cuts to states remain unclear, lawmakers from both parties have discussed the need to cut or impose caps on so-called discretionary spending over the next decade.

      That could mean wide-ranging cuts in federal aid to states, affecting everything from the Head Start school readiness program, Meals on Wheels and worker-training initiatives to funding for transit agencies and education grants that serve disabled children.

      There also is concern among governors, state lawmakers and state agency heads that Congress will make deep reductions or changes in federal aid for health services for needy people, most notably through Medicaid. That could shift more of the costs onto states already having trouble balancing their budgets.

      "We have the potential for disaster should there be a major realignment in federal funding that results in a cost shift to states," said Nevada state Sen. Sheila Leslie, a Democrat from Reno who recently discussed the issue with Obama administration officials in Washington. "In short, we are teetering on the edge right now, and a cost shift could send us over the cliff."

      Michigan and other states already have closed nearly $480 billion in budget gaps since the beginning of the recession, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

      State officials across the country are worried about the austerity steps demanded by fiscal conservatives in exchange for raising the nation's debt ceiling, said Brian Sigritz, director of state fiscal studies at the National Association of State Budget Officers. He said the association expects states to be affected by cuts, if not immediately, then in the next year or two.

      Although the legislation being considered does not cut entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, it calls for creating a special congressional committee to find additional savings. That next step likely would lead to specific recommendations to trim spending on entitlement programs.

      Darrell Steinberg, president pro tem of the California Senate, said he is concerned about such cuts, especially if they reduce payments to the states for Medicaid, which provide health care for poor and disabled people. The state's version is known as Medi-Cal and covers 7.5 million people.

      But not all state officials are dismayed by the possibility of broad-based cuts in federal aid.

      Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell said he believes substantial funding cuts would have less of an impact on his state than allowing the federal government to stay on its current course of mounting debt.

      -----------------

      Congressional Leaders to Pitch Debt-Reduction Compromise to Caucuses

      Published August 01, 2011 | FoxNews.com

      Democratic and Republican leaders in both chambers of Congress will meet with their caucuses Monday for a hard sell of a compromise debt-reduction package that gives President Obama up to a $2.5 trillion hike in the debt limit as long as lawmakers can find an equal or greater amount in spending cuts.

      But even if they can’t come up with solutions, the cuts will be found for them. If a committee set up by the proposal fails to have their recommendations for additional cuts approved by the end of this year, a “trigger” in the plan will automatically enact across-the-board cuts.

      Party leaders are corralling their troops to take a head count of the votes needed to pass the legislation that President Obama said Sunday night will “life the cloud of uncertainty that hangs over our economy” and prevent the nation from potentially defaulting on its financial obligations.

      Hard-right Tea Party-backed Republicans, hard-left progressives and Congressional Black Caucus members have already whipped up a frenzy over the deal. But cooler heads are urging cooperation as financial markets abroad rallied over the news.

      According to the president, the deal means an immediate cut of $1 trillion in government spending over a 10-year period accompanied by a $900 billion increase in the debt ceiling. That will be followed by the creation of the committee to come up with additional cuts worth at least $1.5 trillion. The debt ceiling will be raised by $1.5 trillion if the committee recommendations are approved by the end of the year.

      Each of the GOP and Democratic leaders in the chamber will nominate lawmakers to the 12-member committee to report back in the fall. Tax hikes are not part of the package and a pledge for a Balanced Budget Amendment vote is.

      Obama said everything will be on the table and both parties will find some of the cuts objectionable.

      "Despite what some Republicans have argued, I believe that we have to ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to pay their fair share by giving up tax breaks and special deductions. Despite what some in my own party have argued, I believe that we need to make some modest adjustments to programs like Medicare to ensure that they're still around for future generations. That's why the second part of this agreement is so important," Obama said from the White House briefing room.

      The Senate adjourned Sunday night without a vote on a deal, but Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said that the parties are going to have to give ground and compromise so the country doesn't default.

      "I am relieved to say that leaders from both parties have come together for the sake of our economy to reach a historic, bipartisan compromise that ends this dangerous standoff. The compromise we have agreed to is remarkable not only because of what it does, but because of what it prevents: a first-ever default on the full faith and credit of the United States," Reid said.

      Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell will both present the agreement to their caucuses on Monday morning. House Democrats also set a morning meeting to discuss the details.

      McConnell, R-Ky., said that the framework calls for a "review that will insure significant cuts in Washington spending."

      House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said after the president's speech that she'll see what kind of support her caucus can provide.

      Several objections are expected, including from Republican defense hawks who don't want the military gutted and from the Congressional Black Caucus, which called the deal a "sugar-coated Satan sandwich."

      House Speaker John Boehner told his Republican caucus on a Sunday night conference call that the deal isn't done yet. But Boehner said it does not violate GOP principles.

      "We got 98 percent of what we wanted," he said adding that the framework cuts more spending than it raises the debt limit. It also caps future spending to limits in the growth of government.

      "It would also guarantee the American people the vote they have been denied in both chambers on a balanced budget amendment, while creating, I think, some new incentives for past opponents of a BBA to support it," Boehner said.

      The 12-member committee, composed of six Republicans and six Democrats, three from each party and each chamber, will report the legislation by Nov. 23. The vote, to take place by Dec. 23, would be an up-or-down vote with no amendments allowed.

      The trigger would be enacted for across-the-board cuts if the joint committee doesn't reach at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction. If that happens, Obama would be allowed to request a $1.2 trillion debt increase and Congress would have to disapprove it subject to a presidential veto.

      According to a Power Point presentation presented by Boehner to the caucus, roughly half of the proposal’s automatic cuts would come from defense and half from Medicare.

      While the trigger is supposed to hurt as incentive to get Congress to act, other programs like Social Security, Medicaid, veterans benefits and military pay would be off-limits……

      http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/01/congressional-leaders-to-pitch-debt-reduction-compromise-to-caucuses/#ixzz1TluQtgw3

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

      above average
      Joined: Jun '11
      Posts: 503

      Whynot, can you paraphrase next time and include the links as proof?

      There are a number of people who are still being jack wagons about this and I've had it up to here^^^^.

    15. whynot_31
      whynot_31

      Former Lurker
      Joined: Mar '06
      Posts: 16,073

      When I see them type that, I want to get annoyed at them, but then I tell myself, "everyone must not be able afford one of those fancy keyboards with the page down key".

      ...which is weird, because I have never seen a computer that can access the internet that does not have that key.

      Life is strange.

      BTW, now that CTK, BG, you and I have picked a boro and a date ....we should probably pick a more exact time and place.

      Should we let people who haven't participated on this thread come?

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

      above average
      Joined: Jun '11
      Posts: 503

      I don't venture into the city in pursuit of drinks all that often anymore so I'm useless in picking a place.

      When I see them type that, I want to get annoyed at them, but then I tell myself everyone must not be able afford one of those fancy keyboards with the page down key.

      Are you talking about my request to paraphrase? While that PgDn key is super expensive, I'll fully admit to being lazy in this case.

    17. whynot_31
      whynot_31

      Former Lurker
      Joined: Mar '06
      Posts: 16,073

      I think everyone wanted to see defense spending get cut. Here is what CNN believes we will get:

      http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/01/news/economy/debt_ceiling_defense_cuts/index.htm?hpt=hp_t2

      CNN article » "If fully implemented, the consequences to our nation's defense infrastructure would be severe," Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said Monday on Twitter. "And these deep cuts would come at a time when threats to our nation are increasing, not declining."

      Meanwhile, just for fun:

      left » "If fully implemented, the consequences to our nation's defense social support infrastructure would be severe," Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham some Democrat said Monday on Twitter. "And these deep cuts would come at a time when threats to our nation's poor are increasing, not declining."

      I love it when the democrats and the republicans seem to genuinely believe what they are stating should take priority.

      For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.
    18. People have their beliefs.

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

      I am generally at a loss to pick pleasant, low-key Manhattan destinations.

      There's a great American microbrew bar near my office but it gets crowded sometimes.

      I'd prefer a place in Midtown or southward towards Brooklyn.

      Anything low key with decent beer is ok with me.

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

      Former Lurker
      Joined: Mar '06
      Posts: 16,073

      I'm near Penn Station, but don't have any favorite places near me.

      We could do the Heartland Brewery place on Union Sq..... or really anywhere.

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

      above average
      Joined: Jun '11
      Posts: 503

      Heartland brewery seems fine, especially if they still have cheese stuffed jalapenos.

      Whynot, you should get the Idea-Having medal here, I know I have nothing constructive to add to this. Did we set a time?

    22. whynot_31
      whynot_31

      Former Lurker
      Joined: Mar '06
      Posts: 16,073

      how about 6:30?

      Mrs. Whynot states that she will be able to join us.

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

      above average
      Joined: Jun '11
      Posts: 503

      Yay. I get to meet more people.

    24. cool the kid
      Cool The Kid

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

      I'm by Penn too, prob not gonna drink too much so anything is fine with me

      What day is this happening?

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

      Former Lurker
      Joined: Mar '06
      Posts: 16,073

      Aug 3rd, Wednesday, 6:30.
      http://www.heartlandbrewery.com/Union_Square.php

      ...We could also do the Noodle place next to the Heartland brewery.

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

      6:30 is good.

      This is tomorrow right?

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

      Former Lurker
      Joined: Mar '06
      Posts: 16,073

      yup

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

      above average
      Joined: Jun '11
      Posts: 503

      Not to get all cloak and dagger here, but is there some way I'm going to be able to identify Mr. and Mrs. Whynot, Cool The Kid, and Boygabriel in real life sitting at a table or bar at the Heartland?

    29. whynot_31
      whynot_31

      Former Lurker
      Joined: Mar '06
      Posts: 16,073

      see your PM

      "what you see in PM, stays in PM."

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

      above average
      Joined: Jun '11
      Posts: 503

      I will burn my screen right after reading the clandestine message.

    31. Where's my PM!?

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

      Former Lurker
      Joined: Mar '06
      Posts: 16,073

      sent just now

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

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

      tateinbk said:
      Not to get all cloak and dagger here, but is there some way I'm going to be able to identify Mr. and Mrs. Whynot, Cool The Kid, and Boygabriel in real life sitting at a table or bar at the Heartland?

      I look like the opposite of a Republican, if that helps.

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

      Former Lurker
      Joined: Mar '06
      Posts: 16,073

      To some he may look the opposite of a republican, but not to all.

      I will state CTK looks nothing like these two republicans (Allen West and Colin Powell).

      CTK is taller and thinner.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_West_%28politician%29
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Powell

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

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

      I'm not gonna be able to hang for long. Maybe just an hour, if that

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

      Former Lurker
      Joined: Mar '06
      Posts: 16,073

      So, over a year has passed, and no deal has been reached. The various sides have just argued. Obama was re-elected.

      The automatic cuts and spending increases created by the "Gang of 6" are due to go into effect on Jan 1.

      ...The media refers to the package as the Fiscal Cliff

      Now that you are up to speed, do you have any opinions?

      Ready?

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

      above average
      Joined: Jun '11
      Posts: 503

      From my understanding, it would be in the best interest of those (Democrats?) who want the top taxed more. Once everyone's taxes go up Obama and other Dems can very quickly get in and lower the taxes for the middle and lower classes. Then they get people earning over $250,000 to have increased taxes instead of those making over a million like Boehner thought about bringing to vote before he got all nervous about the tea partiers demoting him.

      Neither Boehner or McConnel are going to do diddly because they can't have it on record that the voted to raise taxes, ever, even if they're getting a really good deal. That's what makes going "over the cliff" so genius. Once it's done, what Republican will not vote to enact tax breaks for the lower and middle class?

      Get out your parachutes, this could be fun.

    38. whynot_31
      whynot_31

      Former Lurker
      Joined: Mar '06
      Posts: 16,073

      A part of me wonders whether they won't pull off a last minute compromise so they can look competent, and maintain the country's bond rating.

      However, I am not optimistic about us avoiding the cliff.

      I think we will go over it.

      -If the cuts on on social programs inflict too much pain, the public will have to increase taxes to restore the spending. They will do this by electing Democrats in 2014.

      -If the tax increases are too large, we will end up with a Republican house and Senate in 2014.

      Of course, the increased taxes and decreased spending will stifle the economy. That is the wildcard, because it may snowball into a recession.

      To sum up: I find it a little scary, but certainly not devastating. We are not going to be third world country as a result of these cuts. I think it is good for people to realize that there is a correlation between taxes and government services.

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

      Rex Aeterna
      Joined: Jan '07
      Posts: 496

      The "fiscal cliff" (a fiscal bluff really) was a deal agreed to by the Republicans (and Democrats in Congress) with respect to the debt ceiling and produced this artificial crisis. Republicans bet on Obama losing the election. Since he didn't, they are bound to the devilish pact they made in 2011. Now they must either compromise or else watch taxes rise across the board (and take an enormous political hit). At the moment, they are behaving like spoilt children, stamping their feet and refusing to take a dose of their own medicine.

      your anger is delicious. - dieter
    40. whynot_31
      whynot_31

      Former Lurker
      Joined: Mar '06
      Posts: 16,073

      It seems the Republicans do not perceive the political risks to be insurmountable.

      It is to the benefit of each party (but not the nation) for each to blame the other for not compromising.

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

      Former Lurker
      Joined: Mar '06
      Posts: 16,073

      I'm just letting people know that this is a one time deal.

      The next time we reach the debt limit and have this fiscal cliff drama, I am not going to care as much. So, enjoy this limited amount of excitement from me while it lasts.

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

      Former Lurker
      Joined: Mar '06
      Posts: 16,073

      http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/01/big-lebowski-explains-the-fiscal-cliff.html

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

      Former Lurker
      Joined: Mar '06
      Posts: 16,073

      Soaking the rich?


      http://ibo.nyc.ny.us/cgi-park2/?p=244

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

      Former Lurker
      Joined: Mar '06
      Posts: 16,073

      It is that time again:

      Fiscal drama at the federal level. Have they been cornered into cuts, and/or taxation?

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/25/sequester-cuts_n_2759076.html

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

      above average
      Joined: Jun '11
      Posts: 503

      Blah blah, blabity cuts. BLAh entitlements blablablah. Blah blabit blah.....

      Let me know when it's over and what's been decided.

    46. whynot_31
      whynot_31

      Former Lurker
      Joined: Mar '06
      Posts: 16,073

      Yup.

      I still kinda hope there are some big cuts. That way, people will again understand the relationship between taxation and spending.

      Deficit spending confuses them.

      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 : faithful, pragmaticguy
    most recent : faithful, pragmaticguy, housebroken, tateinbk, dac545, stewart, vick5y, joshb, terekete, sunshine11228, epiclylaterd, god, brooklyntwinkle, naturegurl, dannydih, threecee, brownie, cb123, newguy88, ninja, architecture biscuit, trendpotter, xlizellx, markstern, kbr11238, garth, quantumsilence, opossumqueen, percyone, veets, mishaps, tsarina, turtle95