The spending and tax proposals of the Gang of 6

Boygabriel said:

I forget, did the far left threaten financial collapse if they didn't get their way?

Did they shut down the government?

Nah. But considering the spread between the growth of the costs of progressive programs and taxes, the end result of the far left's utopia would be the same. You can't rationalize entitlement programs growing at 8% year after year with the economy in a standstill, unless you are OK w/the eventual prospect of the gov't running out of money. And that's not to say the right is not guilty of this with their programs... the point is the "far" left is no less ridiculous or short sighted in their demands.

Oh and I was mistaken. Democrats did shut down the state gov't in Indiana- over collective bargaining rights of state employees (I forget the details). So yes, your party of prgress is no less apt to throw a temper tantrum & throw their constituents' daily concerns to the wind for politics.

Cool The Kid said:

Oh and I was mistaken. Democrats did shut down the state gov't in Indiana- over collective bargaining rights of state employees (I forget the details). So yes, your party of prgress is no less apt to throw a temper tantrum & throw their constituents' daily concerns to the wind for politics.

False equivalencies continue unabated.

Should we count the number of times each party has shut a govt down and compare?

What about number of times each party has shut the federal govt down? Newt Gingrich wants to have a word with you.

I don't dispute your arguments that social programs need to be reined in or restructured. I never have.

Most of the arguments I make actually aren't mutually exclusive to your arguments, I think you just don't like the perspective I come from.

The Republicans are threatening financial collapse b/c it's the only tool they're capable of using.

Part of the reason they can't get shit passed is b/c when it gets down to brass tacks many of the current Republican policy goals are actually completely untenable, unsupported by any reasonable economic theory, or just outright vindictive.

If they cared about the debt they would have supported health care reform.

Not only did the not support it, they're now RE-threatening financial collapse if Obama doesn't repeal what meager improvements he was actually able to get passed.

Obama and the Democrats in power are centrist in every sense of the world. They are willing to compromise over and over and over again. The Republican Party on the other hand is pretty much at the beck and call of its more extreme elements that are more and more divorced from any kind of rational or established philosophy.

The generalized false equivalencies are inaccurate. And it's sad I even bother defending the point, as the Dems are far from effective either. But right today they're a helluva lot more sane.

This debt ceiling "crisis" couldn't make things any plainer w/r/t to how each party gets what it wants, and what it is the party is even going for.

Obama & Dems: compromise

Repubs: lower taxes, cut social services, regardless of justification, debt is irrelevant (see: HC reform)

Well friend, we choose to see what we want to see.

If you see Repubs faithfully negotiating for some practical policy end, I want some of what you are taking.

If you think tax and social services cuts are the answer to our woes, despite attempting that failed policy for the past 30 years, I DEFINITELY want some of what you are taking.

If you see any difference between the Tea Party and the libertarian wing of the Republican party of the last 50 years, then I am truly in awe of your x-ray abilities.

Ah yes, the mythical middle ground.

I've heard rumors that it exists.

It's funny to think that 'centrists' would occupy the midway point between far right (Tea Party) and Obama (dead centrist), as opposed to being towards an actual middle.

The Republicans are led by the far right.

Democrats in office sometimes let progressives sit at the table, but usually not.

Cool The Kid said:

I think that you break things down into one side or the other says a lot about your vantage point. More about that than how things actually are. We actually agree about a lot of stuff BG. But if anyone doesn't share your same fervor about social programs and reverse class warfare, they lean right. And we all know what you think of the right. It's a little childish.

And FWIW, in this thread and some others I've been making a point of assigning responsibility to one side or the other b/c I very deeply (edit: do not agree) with WN's general belief that both sides are equally to blame, or however he would like to phrase it.

Generally speaking I'm not as interested in which party said what. I'm interested in how bad or good the idea itself is.

whynot_31 said:

So, why do think the Gang of 6 proposal sucks?

Other than it cuts too much from entitlements and not enough from defense. Other than it does not contain enough tax increases?

Other than my main objections to its main (old, tired) strategies?

Um...

I'm not sure how much more there is for me to say.

What differentiates you from the blind rhetoric of the left?

I wouldn't know and I don't care. That's for you to label and write off as you see fit.

Boygabriel said:

Generally speaking I'm not as interested in which party said what. I'm interested in how bad or good the idea itself is.

It just so happens that all progressive ideas happen to be good, and all non-progressive ideas happen to be bad, I suppose. It's in vogue for ideological groups to hide behind the guise of neutrality or a vague notion of what is best for the country. In that actually progressives and the Tea Party share a common thread. But the reality is, many of these groups are bent on benefitting some at the expense of others. The prospect of actual fairness & accountability frightens them. You yourself have digitally dry heaved in response to the idea of a flatter tax system. And even in the face of gov't studies examining the habits of the poor you refuse to factor the vast array of variables they have control over into your equation. You've also stated things to the effect of "all Republicans are evil from the middle to the end". So I am not even sure you believe that.

CTK:

Is it really? You didn't dry heave at the sight of the Heritage Foundation report I posted, despite it citing a gov't study?

Yes, I did. I have already read about that "report" and I think it is meritless.

I apologize for not responding more in depth. That was lazy of me.

I have outlined time and time again w/references, etc, what the rich contribute vs the rest of the country. You can believe it "philosophically" as much as you want, but it's simply not true. And even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, you refuse to even consider anything beyond your belief. The only conclusion I can draw is that you have some beef with the rich.

You have argued your side and I have argued mine. But the idea that you've shown that something is "simply not true", beyond any doubt, is a joke.

Believe it or not, I'm familiar with arguments in favor of cutting taxes, or taxing the poor more. Even before I heard them from you.

Arguments exist. Doesn't make them right. Certainly doesn't mean I have to agree with them.

Oh you do, to maintain the appearance of impartiality etc. It's equivalent to the racist white dude throwing out the "hey now I have a black friend!" But it's of no consequence, as you don't deem the actions of the poor as "the" or even "a" major factor in the cycles of poverty. And when it gets brought up, it's written off as completely blaming the poor... 'bootstrapping'. It's a very good talking point mechanism but I see through it.

Um, ok.

The left is granular & textured, the right is represented by whatever singular figure you happen to be angry with at a given moment...

How delightfully boring

What are you talking about?

Are you mad that I equate the Tea Party with mainstream Republicanism?

Because that is a topic I would be HAPPY to discuss for hours.

There are few things I'm more fascinated by right now than what a sham the Tea Party is.

See what I did there? Let's actually debate an argument I made, rather than making assumptions about what I think about the granular nature (?) of the Democratic Party.

Just for future reference: I don't think about the Democratic Party much. Mostly I will defend them against the idea that they're as 'bad' as Republicans, which WN is so fond of. But generally I am not a fan of Democrats, so when you have theories that I'm biased in favor of Dems: your theory is probably wrong.