Watching the Democrats - it's Fun and Macabre!

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Adak

The spending cut i would believe from the Democrats, is the bill they pass in Congress, and give to the President to be signed into law - and the President signs it. That's the Democrats' spending cuts that I'll believe.

See the Budget Control Act of 2011 signed by President Obama and voted for by 95 Democrats in the House and by 45 Democrats in the Senate. That's a majority of Democrats in Congress.

These are the default budget cuts required by law, and the only way they won't occur is if Congress agrees to do something else. We're talking about up to $1.2 Trillion in cuts through 2021. Brought to you by the Democrats (and Republicans.)

How does this simple fact fit in your delusional worldview? Is it like a square peg trying to fit into a round hole?

"NOT ONE PENNY"

[Adak]

Originally Posted by glatt

See the Budget Control Act of 2011 signed by President Obama and voted for by 95 Democrats in the House and by 45 Democrats in the Senate. That's a majority of Democrats in Congress.

These are the default budget cuts required by law, and the only way they won't occur is if Congress agrees to do something else. We're talking about up to $1.2 Trillion in cuts through 2021. Brought to you by the Democrats (and Republicans.)

How does this simple fact fit in your delusional worldview? Is it like a square peg trying to fit into a round hole?

"NOT ONE PENNY"

Ha! What fun!

These are cuts, which if they are activated, will be cuts in PROJECTED and /or FUTURE spending. NOTHING HAS BEEN CUT FROM CURRENT SPENDING YET!

NOT ONE PENNEY!

These are the sad facts - always a trial for liberals to look at, but give it a try.



Do you see any reduction in our National Debt projections?

NO.


Do you notice any reduction in our National Deficit projections? Yes. That means we'll have higher tax revenues - and if it happens, it won't just be on the rich. They don't have THAT much money.

True, it MIGHT be reduced, but all it seems we'll have right now, is a slower growth to our National Debt.

And despite all the hot air and hand waving going on in Washington, (where Today, the Speaker of the House said there was no progress in the negotiations with the White House, because the White House has never negotiated on any issue, so far.)

I hope this fiscal cliff actually works, when and if we get to that point.

Politicians LOVE to spend our money. It buys them votes, by attracting donors to their campaigns, when they do it. Not just the Democrats, either. EVERY politician wants to be re-elected several times, and they need to curry favor to get their campaign coffers $stu$$ed$ to overflowing.

It's not THEIR money, why NOT use it to help themselves get re-elected?

"You want a new bridge to nowhere?"
"Sure, here's a few million for ya!"

"You want a new airport?" "Absolutely! We'll call it an anti terrorist auxiliary civil defense resource!"

Lovely!

I am writing about ACTUAL cuts in CURRENT spending, not something projected, like Wimpy's repayment on his hamburgers, "Next Tuesday".

And right now, there has been $0.00 dollars cut in actual spending.

NOT ONE PENNEY!

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by Adak

And despite all the hot air and hand waving going on in Washington, (where Today, the Speaker of the House said there was no progress in the negotiations with the White House, because the White House has never negotiated on any issue, so far.

sure, except that's the exact opposite of reality. On every major issue so far, the left has compromised much further than the right.

Oh, wait, i forgot, they aren't ~real conservatives~ like you so they don't count.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Ibby

sure, except that's the exact opposite of reality. On every major issue so far, the left has compromised much further than the right.

Oh, wait, i forgot, they aren't ~real conservatives~ like you so they don't count.

I would like you to name a few big items that the left has compromised on more than the conservatives:

Counterpoint:

1) Cut the spending. I don't mean as a percent above the current spending (which they are calling now "the baseline"). I'm talking about cutting ACTUAL current spending.

2) Obama care

3) military strength (we now have less than half the number of ships we had in the peak 1980's), for one example.

4) Gun ownership and/or right to carry.

5) Federal tax code littered with exclusions, exemptions, and both intentional and unintentional loopholes.

6) Trade treaties that force our businesses to go overseas to use cheap, almost slave labor, in order to stay competitive.

7) Paying Egypt 400 Million dollars per year in "Foreign Aid", for bribe money. Lots of other countries get this kind of aid, as well.

8) Bring our sons and daughters home from most (not all), of these overseas military bases.

We don't need to protect Japan any more - they should take over their own defense. Same with South Korea - they have a HUGE economy, and a very effective military (if rather small imo). We need to be watching the DMZ between N and S Korea for 62 years, like we need another hole in our heads.

We don't need to protect West Germany anymore. The East Germans have promised not to attack!

Overall, the only thing the Conservatives got in the last two presidents' terms has been the Bush tax cuts - and if there is ONE single new bill that benefits more working Americans than a broad reduction in income tax, I don't know what it would be.

That's a winner for everyone, if it applies to everyone.

[Ibby]

[quote=Adak;842744]

Originally Posted by Adak

1) Cut the spending. I don't mean as a percent above the current spending (which they are calling now "the baseline"). I'm talking about cutting ACTUAL current spending.

Your definition of "actual current spending" makes no broader political sense (as has already been pointed out to you IN THIS THREAD) and so i shall ignore it.

Originally Posted by Adak

2) Obama care

The left wanted single payer. Then they wanted exchanges. Then they got a plan that the Heritage Foundation invented. Oops. They ended up where the right was ten years ago, and the right moved right! yum yum, taste that compromise.
(you can't say that because one side wanted "something" and the other wanted "nothing", and "something" happened, that side one didn't compromise at all!)

Originally Posted by Adak

3) military strength (we now have less than half the number of ships we had in the peak 1980's), for one example.

Remind me who we're at war with? Russia? no, wait, China? No, uh, NK? well, yes, technically, but not a shooting war anymore, and its not like we need a Cold War fleet to deal with them. The left would cut things further, and ends up compromising with republican hawks to keep it inflated.

Originally Posted by Adak

4) Gun ownership and/or right to carry.

Obama has done absolutely nothing to change the guns laws from when he was elected into office, except to allow concealed carry in federally-maintained parks. OH GOSH LOOK AT THAT GUNHATER!

Originally Posted by Adak

5) Federal tax code littered with exclusions, exemptions, and both intentional and unintentional loopholes.

The left would be happy to close all the loopholes, if it meant we could lower taxes on the middle class/poor to make up for taking THEIR deductions away! it's the right's dogmatic insistence that CORPORATE and WEALTHY loopholes and deductions stay, or that the WEALTHY deserve to pay less, that is stopping comprehensive reform. The left has been compromising for years! (see, continuing the bush cuts for the wealthy, even though they didn't want to and bernie sanders filibustered it, to save the tax cuts for the poor and the middle-class)

Originally Posted by Adak

6) Trade treaties that force our businesses to go overseas to use cheap, almost slave labor, in order to stay competitive.

You and I are at a fundamental disagreement about what level of corporate regulation is GOOD for business. I would slam any company who wanted to sell goods or services in the US with HUGE fines if they use exploitative labor tactics, which would then encourage economic growth here at home, as companies who kept jobs here would be no more profitable than ones who use cheap labor. That's a fairly common left-wing idea. It's the right who isn't letting regulatory tightening, and is in fact still asking for less regulation. The right is generally further from the status quo than the left when it comes to how much regulation is necessary.

Originally Posted by Adak

7) Paying Egypt 400 Million dollars per year in "Foreign Aid", for bribe money. Lots of other countries get this kind of aid, as well.

What should replace money in our diplomacy? That 1980s Cold-War navy you want? no thanks.

Originally Posted by Adak

8) Bring our sons and daughters home from most (not all), of these overseas military bases.

and, you know, uh, the WARS. that the right generally still doesn't want to give up on.

Wait, so, we should put more money into our military, strengthen it, but bring back most of the people out there being our military? That seems like a total contradiction to me. I want to see our military MORE active around the world, liaising with local militaries and having staging areas spread out across our allied nations, while spending less on a standing army at home. That, to me, seems to be the value of our military, in this day and age - diplomacy and cooperation with our friends, both close ones and more tenuous ones.


That was kinda fun. NEXT! bring 'em on.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Ibby

Your definition of "actual current spending" makes no broader political sense (as has already been pointed out to you IN THIS THREAD) and so i shall ignore it.

Yes, the left ALWAYS has an excuse for not cutting spending - 'tis too hot, 'tis too cold, 'tis the wrong season to cut spending, You can't cut spending now, because we <enter excuse here>.

The left wanted single payer. Then they wanted exchanges. Then they got a plan that the Heritage Foundation invented. Oops. They ended up where the right was ten years ago, and the right moved right! yum yum, taste that compromise.

The conservatives are not against a nationalized health care service, IF they run a pilot in a region, and show it can work as well as they claim it will.

You can't just take over some odd 20% of the nations economy (the health care system), with something as full of nonsense as Obama care.

I loved Nancy Pelosi (former Speaker of the House)'s comments on it: "You don't need to read it - vote on it first, and we'll finish writing it, later".

What kind of horse shit thinking is that?

Remind me who we're at war with? Russia? no, wait, China? No, uh, NK? well, yes, technically, but not a shooting war anymore, ...

Well, let's see:

1) North Korea - has nukes, developing ICBM's, and a crackpot of a dictator. Need I say more?

2) We are providing security for every tanker (almost) that travels through the Straits of Hormuz, because the Iranians have attacked several of them with high speed gunboats.

3) We are still in Afghanistan - another year or two for that.

4) Still guarding Japan, which is in a heated argument with China, over ownership of some islands between the two.

5) Assad in Syria has chemical weapons, and is moving them around. At some point, he's likely to use them, since he is slowly losing the civil war.

Guess who will have to step in, if a slaughter is (hopefully), to be avoided?

6) If Iran goes ahead with developing nuclear weapons, or closes the Straits of Hormuz, we will immediately be at war, since nearly 38% of the world's oil passes through those Straits.

Yes, we need to keep our military strong, clearly. The UK, for instance, doesn't even have a single full size air craft carrier, for 2013.

Obama has done absolutely nothing to change the guns laws from when he was elected into office, except to allow concealed carry in federally-maintained parks. OH GOSH LOOK AT THAT GUNHATER!

He tried - the calls to the Senate and House switchboards were so numerous, he had to stop.

The left would be happy to close all the loopholes, if it meant we could lower taxes on the middle class/poor to make up for taking THEIR deductions away! it's the right's dogmatic insistence that CORPORATE and WEALTHY loopholes and deductions stay, or that the WEALTHY deserve to pay less, that is stopping comprehensive reform. The left has been compromising for years! (see, continuing the bush cuts for the wealthy, even though they didn't want to and bernie sanders filibustered it, to save the tax cuts for the poor and the middle-class)

The Republicans have to plead "guilty" on this one. They want to favor their constituents with tax exemptions, etc., just as much as Democrats want to favor theirs. Conservatives just want low taxes, and a relatively flat tax rate.

You and I are at a fundamental disagreement about what level of corporate regulation is GOOD for business. I would slam any company who wanted to sell goods or services in the US with HUGE fines if they use exploitative labor tactics, which would then encourage economic growth here at home, as companies who kept jobs here would be no more profitable than ones who use cheap labor. That's a fairly common left-wing idea. It's the right who isn't letting regulatory tightening, and is in fact still asking for less regulation. The right is generally further from the status quo than the left when it comes to how much regulation is necessary.

You can't slam a business for responding to a new law or treaty, that demands they act, or risk going bankrupt. It's our politicians we should be furious at, not our businessmen. They didn't WANT to have to move to China, they were forced into it, by economic realities which our signed treaties forced down their throats.

Oh, China doesn't call their workers "virtual slaves", NO, NO! The workers there have been committing suicide at the Foxconn (Intel motherboards) plant, because they really LIKE their jobs.

Nobody likes wars, but what are you going to do when Assad starts using nerve gas on the rebels, from aircraft sprayers (like Chemical Ali did in Iraq)?

What are you going to do when Iran stops all the oil going through the Straits, as they have threatened, and attacks our fleet in the Gulf of Persia? I don't believe running away and hiding is a viable option.

Wait, so, we should put more money into our military, strengthen it, but bring back most of the people out there being our military? That seems like a total contradiction to me. ...

I don't want to increase funds to the military, but I do want to stop any cuts to it, and use our funds better - and we can't do that with our personnel spread out all over the globe, guarding nations that have long ago been able to guard themselves. That's very expensive, year after year. Very hard on the military families, as well. My nephew was an officer in the Army - and was overseas or in the field, nearly all the time. Bosnia, Iraq, year long training in Germany, year long deployment in South Korea, long field training, exercises, etc. After 10 years of that, his marriage was in the toilet. He got out, but it was too late to save his marriage.

I haven't documented all of my assertions in this thread, because I believe the most basic one, is self-evident.

We have sharply increased our spending, and we can't continue to do that, without running the risk of a total fiscal crisis. Which would be much worse than the fiscal "cliff", btw.

We CAN and we SHOULD cut our current spending, back to the levels of the Clinton years, and perhaps, increase our tax revenues, as well - and not just on the rich.

Problem is, the Democrats won't hear of cutting our current spending, and only want to even TALK about cutting our projected spending, by a small percentage.

That won't do the job. It still continues to run up our National Debt, and continually diminish the value of every US dollar, everywhere. This seems like easy to understand, common sense to me.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by Adak

The conservatives are not against a nationalized health care service, IF they run a pilot in a region, and show it can work as well as they claim it will.

You can't just take over some odd 20% of the nations economy (the health care system), with something as full of nonsense as Obama care.

Get back to me when Vermont has its single-payer going and kicking ass. Though I could easily point to all the other countries already doing it and performing minor miracles with it. I lived in Taiwan, dude. I've seen it. I've been an "uninsured" person in a single-payer system, and the reinbursement requests to Tricare were often not even worth sending in because out-of-pocket care was so cheap even off the single-payer system.

Originally Posted by Adak

Well, let's see:

1) North Korea - has nukes, developing ICBM's, and a crackpot of a dictator. Need I say more?

2) We are providing security for every tanker (almost) that travels through the Straits of Hormuz, because the Iranians have attacked several of them with high speed gunboats.

3) We are still in Afghanistan - another year or two for that.

4) Still guarding Japan, which is in a heated argument with China, over ownership of some islands between the two.

5) Assad in Syria has chemical weapons, and is moving them around. At some point, he's likely to use them, since he is slowly losing the civil war.

Guess who will have to step in, if a slaughter is (hopefully), to be avoided?

6) If Iran goes ahead with developing nuclear weapons, or closes the Straits of Hormuz, we will immediately be at war, since nearly 38% of the world's oil passes through those Straits.

Yes, we need to keep our military strong, clearly. The UK, for instance, doesn't even have a single full size air craft carrier, for 2013.

I think we can deal with most of these problems without a ridiculous buildup of troops to a cold-war level. I think American political support has nearly the power of American military support. We would be much better off finding diplomatic solutions to these, and I believe we will, and in fact would EASILY solve the problems if we didnt have such belligerently neocolonial motivations.

Originally Posted by Adak

He tried - the calls to the Senate and House switchboards were so numerous, he had to stop.

I call bullshit. Show me one statement from Obama, or Obama-endorsed bill, that would have limited gun right. Just one.

Originally Posted by Adak

The Republicans have to plead "guilty" on this one. They want to favor their constituents with tax exemptions, etc., just as much as Democrats want to favor theirs. Conservatives just want low taxes, and a relatively flat tax rate.

I guess if I can call "liberal" something near - or slightly-left-of - Bernie Sanders, and democrats mostly centrists/moderates, you're allowed to say the same thing about the mainstream Republican party.

Except that from an international perspective, I'm right, because America sits so far to the authoritarian-right of northern europe and the developed world in general on most issues. right-wing parties in most of europe are economically about where democrats are, and left-wing parties are to the left.

Nowhere is this more pronounced than scandinavia and iceland - and nowhere is more successful at proving liberal political theory.

Originally Posted by Adak

You can't slam a business for responding to a new law or treaty, that demands they act, or risk going bankrupt. It's our politicians we should be furious at, not our businessmen. They didn't WANT to have to move to China, they were forced into it, by economic realities which our signed treaties forced down their throats.

How were businesses "forced" to outsource? Please give specific examples.

Originally Posted by Adak

Oh, China doesn't call their workers "virtual slaves", NO, NO! The workers there have been committing suicide at the Foxconn (Intel motherboards) plant, because they really LIKE their jobs.

The first round of suicides at Foxconn plants in China were right after the Taiwan-based company raised wages minutely. The local Party boss wanted to stick it to Foxconn, get their factory, and stop their own workers for asking for equally improved wages. The bodies were dead before they hit the ground. PM me if you want to know the authority on which I can say that.

Later suicides were, as far as I know, accurately reported.

Originally Posted by Adak

Nobody likes wars, but what are you going to do when Assad starts using nerve gas on the rebels, from aircraft sprayers (like Chemical Ali did in Iraq)?

What are you going to do when Iran stops all the oil going through the Straits, as they have threatened, and attacks our fleet in the Gulf of Persia? I don't believe running away and hiding is a viable option.

I'm not sure what point you're making here - could you elaborate further? Do you think our existing military is incapable of handing these threats, as unlikely as most analysts believe the odds to be?

Originally Posted by Adak

I don't want to increase funds to the military, but I do want to stop any cuts to it, and use our funds better - and we can't do that with our personnel spread out all over the globe, guarding nations that have long ago been able to guard themselves. That's very expensive, year after year. Very hard on the military families, as well. My nephew was an officer in the Army - and was overseas or in the field, nearly all the time. Bosnia, Iraq, year long training in Germany, year long deployment in South Korea, long field training, exercises, etc. After 10 years of that, his marriage was in the toilet. He got out, but it was too late to save his marriage.

and yet my family is a wonderful success story of an Air Force officer and his wife and two kids moving around America and the Far East, learning about the world, gaining an international perspective, and in my case, becoming a potential new diplomat. Find me one policy without stories of failure. I believe strongly in an international US military liaison/humanitarian capacity, and I'm sorry to those with personal stories of hardship associated with this pro-american, pro-peace policy.

Originally Posted by Adak

I haven't documented all of my assertions in this thread, because I believe the most basic one, is self-evident.

We have sharply increased our spending, and we can't continue to do that, without running the risk of a total fiscal crisis. Which would be much worse than the fiscal "cliff", btw.

We CAN and we SHOULD cut our current spending, back to the levels of the Clinton years, and perhaps, increase our tax revenues, as well - and not just on the rich.

Problem is, the Democrats won't hear of cutting our current spending, and only want to even TALK about cutting our projected spending, by a small percentage.

That won't do the job. It still continues to run up our National Debt, and continually diminish the value of every US dollar, everywhere. This seems like easy to understand, common sense to me.

And this is where we disagree. I believe in Keynesian economics - that spending money, in a down economy, is ultimately stimulative, and that aggressive social safety nets and anti-poverty spending is the easiest way to improve the economy for all Americans. I also understand that as the economic stratification of our society becomes more and more top-heavy, that leaves the economy as a whole sicker and sicker. I think progressive taxes, taking more money from the wealthiest, is the best way to make more wealthy people, and more middle-class people, and fewer poor people.

This is a fundamental theoretical disagreement between us. I'd rather argue specific policies than universal theories - policies illustrate the importance and truth of the theory, but if it's just you saying "CONSERVATISM!" and me saying "KEYNESIANISM AND SOCIALISM!" we'll get nowhere.