Supercommittee Dem and Repubs to safety net: Drop Dead?

boygabriel

By making incremental cuts to social programs, they have concluded that is better than ending up like Greece or Italy.

What a miserably misleading way to present our options.

Nice one.

whynot_31

If you can't raise taxes, you have to cut spending.

booklaw

We have a choice: we can raise taxes, we can cut spending, or we can do a combination of the two. It's time for the Democrats to become as obstinate as the Republicans and to say, "there will be no spending cuts until after a tax increase.". Then the Republicans will be voted into power and the Dems can refuse to participate in democracy, just as the Republicans have done.

After the Revolution, when all lobbyists are castrated and killed, perhaps we can return to a working democracy.

whynot_31

I expect to live in a "working democracy" in which the most powerful votes are cast by dead presidents.

An exception will be made for Benjamin Franklin.

whynot_31

The leading website that tracks campaign and lobbying money in politics:

http://www.followthemoney.org/index.phtml

We’re thankful for new support from Public Welfare Foundation, Open Society Institute, and Rockefeller Family Fund for a project to document and report on independent expenditures in state elections before and after the groundbreaking US Supreme Court decision: Citizens United v. FEC.

boygabriel

whynot_31 said:

If you can't raise taxes, you have to cut spending.

There are many other factors. There's a major one you're completely ignoring.

Hint: I already highlighted it in this post.

whynot_31

Boygabriel said:

There are many other factors. There's a major one you're completely ignoring.

Hint: I already highlighted it in this post.

While you work on yours, government will hopefully work on mine.

P.S. Assuming the supercommittee makes no progress on getting the debt under control, that Follow the Money website will continue to serve as great guide on where to invest.

boygabriel

It's hard to take you seriously if health care reform isn't at the top of your list for getting debt under control.

whynot_31

It is hard to take anyone seriously who believes that health care be reformed in this country in light of the fact that:

a. Most people state they want reform, but then state they do not what ever reform anyone proposes.

b. The influence of the health care industry over our political processes.

.

.

I have two pieces of advice:

1. Forget about even the idea of health care form.

2. Stay very healthy.

boygabriel

whynot_31 said:

a. Most people state they want reform, but then state they do not what ever reform anyone proposes.

Actually when polled on specific proposals, most Americans support many aspects of Obamacare, or even more far reaching reforms.

b. The influence of the health care industry over our political processes.

I didn't predict anything will happen. I just said the super committee is a joke. If they really cared about debt, they'd show leadership and reform health care.

But they don't. They're tools of corporate money. Like most elected officials.

whynot_31

You want a committee that is only supposed to exist for a few months to attempt to tackle health care reform?

...so far, the committee has not even managed to agree on what spending to cut.

It is looking more and more likely that our debt will receive a lower rating, because we can't get our acts together to cut spending AND/OR raise taxes.

Hopefully, it would be nice if such a downgrade spurned our government into functioning, but I am not optimistic.

The only winners may be those who are able to hold US debt....

boygabriel

I want CONGRESS to tackle health care reform.

This committee was a stacked deck of predetermined cuts and legislative failure.

Good work everyone.

whynot_31

Congress had lots of time to avoid the creation of a Supercommittee, and has been talking about Health Reform since before Clinton was in office. I don't know why you feel they can (or will) do anything now.

...don't worry, the Supercommittee seems to be no more effective than Congress and the Senate. We seem likely to get no spending cuts and no tax increases, just a lower bond rating.

Only those who are wealthy enough to hold our debt will win.

It will take the US a while to realize that it is no longer in charge and has to make hard choices. So far, it has only decided the worst option: Choose not to decide.

boygabriel

Good work Congress.

whynot_31

whynot_31 said:

shhhh.

People think everyone in Washington is corrupt except their candidate.

...it works wonders.

Jeffery- I'll try to remember to add the fourth G next time.

I would also accept, "People think everyone in Washington is corrupt incompetent except their candidate."

boygabriel

Are you talking to me? B/c I'm pretty sure you have no idea how I feel about my 3 congressional representatives.

But your continued assumptions are amusing.

whynot_31

Actually, I was talking about the general electorate and it's propensity to believe that somehow their representatives are not part of the problem; every other district's is.

Ready for Austerity? It might come not as a result of voluntary spending cuts, but because the debt begins eat away more and more of our budget.

boygabriel

Oh, see, because you and I were having a back and forth, then you responded with a non sequitur, unless you were directing it at me.

Congress is a bunch of spineless, corporate puppets, and most of the super committee is the creme de la creme of this amazing group.

at least John Kerry refused to take political donations while he served.

whynot_31

It's like design by committee: Independently the individual ideas might work, but when combine with everyone elses', we hate the end result.

Let's now discuss whether the problem is too much democracy, or not enough.

That way we won't get caught up in the coming pro vs anti austerity hysteria.

boygabriel

Let's now discuss whether the problem is too much democracy, or not enough.

Wrong question.

whynot_31

OK, let's agree to not talk about what is the right amount of democracy.

Can we at least get excited over austerity? ....some in the Nursing home industry are saying the medicaid cuts are going to force patients into the streets.

I wonder if they are driven by their own interests, and not those of the patients....

boygabriel

No, you brought up that line of questioning, don't abandon it after one post like you do with everything else.

The problem with congress is NOT whether there's too much or too little democracy.

whynot_31

You said Democracy was the wrong question, so I moved on.

What is the problem with Congress?

...After explaining the Congress problem, will you let me know whether I can get excited over austerity?

A lot of people seem to think the problem is that Congress can't live within its means, because they are unable to make people give them more money and because they are unable to control spending.

boygabriel

whynot_31 said:

You said Democracy was the wrong question, so I moved on.

What is the problem with Congress?

Also:

Pay to Play, among about 1,000 other things.

...After explaining the Congress problem, will you let me know whether I can get excited over austerity?

You can do whatever you want, but your habit of non-sequitur responses when I respond to a specific point you make is a poor silencing technique.

A lot of people seem to think the problem is that Congress can't live within its means, because they are unable to make people give them more money and because they are unable to control spending.

And a lot of people think medicare isn't administered by the government, or that they're not beneficiaries of government programs, meanwhile, they love their mortgage deductions.

Americans are probably the least informed electorate in the developed world.

There's an entire political party who talks about nothing but entitlement reform, as if that's all there is to our budget issues. And that's precisely the way wealthy people want it.

See?

whynot_31

yea, Karl Marx and C. Wright Mills have good points.

But is there a government in the world that isn't run by the rich?

If we were rich, wouldn't we be buying government to forward our self interests?

...isn't the US "rich", isn't that how we conduct ourselves worldwide?

boygabriel

But is there a government in the world that isn't run by the rich?

All oligarchies are not equal. Not even close.

So you'd probably do well to stop having so much faith in the ability of our democracy to reflect the will of the people or reflect what politicians actually think is best for the country.

If we were rich, wouldn't we be buying government to forward our self interests?

You're showing your own values, but don't speak for society. There are a large number of wealthy people who want to be taxed at fairer (higher) rates.

..isn't the US "rich", isn't that how we conduct ourselves worldwide?

Is this some kind of justification for our status quo? B/c it actually proves my point.

whynot_31

I have no illusion that we live in a democracy.

...I am among those who would like to be taxed at a higher rate, because I believe it is in my self interest. I believe that people like me lack the power to have such policies implemented.

boygabriel

whynot_31 said:

I have no illusion that we live in a democracy.

Oh please, in this thread alone you've referred to politicians doing what they think is right for this country.

...I am among those who would like to be taxed at a higher rate, because I believe it is in my self interest. I believe that people like me lack the power to have such policies implemented.

Much better. Speak for yourself, not for society.

whynot_31

Politicians are no different than anyone else: They do what is ultimately best for them.

If they perceive the ballot box as being powerful, they will speak populist rhetoric. If they don't, they will pass policies that reward donors, or their own bank accounts, or whatever.

This isn't rocket science. Those who support the safety net need to be powerful, and few people perceive them as such.

A lot needs to change before a lot changes.

boygabriel

Agree.

So to recap with my 2nd post in this thread:

A bunch of rich white men want to cut benefits to poorer people?

I find this completely shocking.