Jump to content
By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans.

f***ing politicians


surf

Recommended Posts

in this case the republicans

 

they've held off a fiscal cliff agreement with the democrats, because any agreement would see the bush era tax cuts extended for middle income families, but not extended for the rich. in republican eyes not extending tax cuts is the same as increasing taxes

 

so they let the country go into turmoil, rather than sign a deal.

 

2 hours after the deadline expires they agree to the exact same deal, because technically the tax cuts have expired and taking the deal means they are cutting taxes

 

it's just maddening hypocrisy, i cant believe they take themselves seriously. if this is on the daily show it will be good

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are classified as being "middle class"

 

Had the "fiscal cliff" come to pass, we would have been $6,000 to $8,000 worse off in 2013.

 

Sadly, this is only a temporary band aid for a couple of months. The politicians need to get their heads out of their asses and do what's right for the nation and not themselves and their buddies.

 

Every time they got close to a deal, the Republicans kept insisting on some other addition from their list of wants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And they wouldn't vote on the aid for Hurricane Sandy.

 

You want to be like that you redneck motherf*ckers? Look at who funds your lifestyle. And your Medicaid. And your Social Security. And all the other safety net items and disaster recovery. The Northest, that's who.

 

I dearly wish we could succeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are classified as being "middle class"

 

Had the "fiscal cliff" come to pass, we would have been $6,000 to $8,000 worse off in 2013.

 

Sadly, this is only a temporary band aid for a couple of months. The politicians need to get their heads out of their asses and do what's right for the nation and not themselves and their buddies.

 

Every time they got close to a deal, the Republicans kept insisting on some other addition from their list of wants.

 

With a 7% budget deficit it sounds sensible to increase revenues (what the democrats want) and cut spending (what the republicans want). It's all about finding the right ratio. Given the current political gridlock there's very little of either and i think it's going to cost in the long run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With a 7% budget deficit it sounds sensible to increase revenues (what the democrats want) and cut spending (what the republicans want). It's all about finding the right ratio. Given the current political gridlock there's very little of either and i think it's going to cost in the long run.

 

 

Whilst the democrats are not free of blame in all this, the attitude of the republicans is so arrogant.

 

They want cuts to programs that help those less able to help themselves and are not willing to get any contributions from those who should be helping.

 

There is something wrong with a system that has people on lower incomes paying a higher percentage of tax than those with millions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst the democrats are not free of blame in all this, the attitude of the republicans is so arrogant.

 

They want cuts to programs that help those less able to help themselves and are not willing to get any contributions from those who should be helping.

 

There is something wrong with a system that has people on lower incomes paying a higher percentage of tax than those with millions.

 

medicare and social security needs to be looked at though. the amount spent on those increases every year and if nothing is changed they're going to become unsustainable

 

totally right about taxes. billionaire romney pays 13% which is half(?) of what average americans pay. average americans also spend more on VAT and other taxes relative to their income as well. it's sweat shop economics

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sometimes staggered the dollar holds up to this, maybe it's that old thing of the person who is owed a million having the problem, particularly when they have the ability to debase the currency, you aint getting it back.

 

I'm not in complete agreement with Jeffrey Sachs on the solutions he sees, but he lays the problem out very well. Nobody in American politics is serious about balancing their budget. Ten years of deliberately running growth era deficits to fund spending that the people were not asked to pay for in taxation thanks to Bush and then Obama, has left the USA in a mess.

 

This political tax settlement means $4Tn added to the national debt over the next 10 years, they still have to agree to raise the debt ceiling again, and then address the spending side within 60 days, with some people seriously pushing for a two year delay on that.

 

 

Jeffrey Sachs HP

 

Everyone is confused about the Fiscal Cliffhanger. Obama is struggling to make a deal to prolong most of the Bush-era tax cuts. The Republicans are holding back. Yet if a deal is reached, the federal government and the long-term purpose of the Democratic Party are both likely to be ruined for years to come. If the deal fails, the Democratic Party can at long last return to what should be its core purpose: using government to promote the public wellbeing.

 

The main point is this. If no deal is reached, the Bush tax cuts end. We would return roughly to the tax schedule of the end of the 1990s, when the macro-economy performed reasonably well and the budget was near balance. Federal government revenues would rise by around 2.5 percent of GDP per year compared with the current tax schedule. According to the CBO, the federal tax system would collect 20-21 percent of GDP in the second half of this decade. This is a bare minimum of what's needed for effective government.

 

The Bush tax cuts were never affordable, not then; not now; not for the "bottom 98 percent" as Obama wants; and certainly not for everybody, including the rich, as the Republicans want.

 

If a deal is reached along the lines that Obama and the Republicans are now discussing (to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for around 99 percent of the population, say for households below $400,000), then the federal tax system would collect around 18.5 percent of GDP in the second half of the decade, roughly 2.5 percent of GDP less than if the Bush tax cuts expire.

 

Let's be clear. In an ideal world, there are better and more progressive ways to get to 21 percent of GDP in federal tax revenues than by personal income taxes alone. A partial list would include: a wealth tax on large fortunes (e.g. 1 percent on net worth above $5 million); an end to tolerating tax havens like the Cayman Islands; an end to the tax deferral of overseas corporate income; a crackdown on abusive transfer pricing; and a tax on carbon emissions). The problem is that neither the Administration nor the Congress is proposing these measures, and in the meantime, a deal now that extends the Bush tax cuts will be a severe loss of revenues for years to come without any offsetting gains.

 

If the deal is reached, therefore, the Republicans have won: they have locked in a federal tax system that collects so little total federal revenue that government can afford almost nothing aside from the military, interest payments, retirement programs and health care. Say goodbye to the rest: science, technology, education, job training, infrastructure, a functioning justice system, community development, renewable energy, environment, and more.

 

How would we divide up 18.5 percent of GDP while bringing the budget deficit under control? The current mandatory programs are around 13 percent of GDP, and because of population aging will rise to around 13.5 percent of GDP in the second half of this decade. Interest payments will be around 2.5 percent of GDP. Military outlays are currently around 4.5 percent of GDP. The discretionary civilian programs are currently around 3.5 percent of GDP, already a wholly inadequate level.

 

To bring spending down from this point, even to 20.5 percent of GDP (leaving a deficit of 2 percent of GDP), would require very deep cuts somewhere. Suppose that military spending could be cut to 3 percent of GDP, with the military-industrial complex kicking and screaming in objection. That sum plus interest payments of 2.5 percent of GDP would leave around 15 percent of GDP for mandatory programs and civilian discretionary programs. If the mandatory programs were left unchanged, civilian discretionary programs would fall to around 2 percent of GDP, an absurdly low level. Yet if those programs were protected (as they should be), something else would have to give: vital support for the poor, or any hope of getting the deficit under control.

 

In short, something terrible would have to give. Either we'd have to gut life-sustaining programs for the poor (Medicaid, Food Stamps, etc.), or gut civilian government (education, science, environment), or bust the budget with trillions of dollars more in public debt.

 

The point is that prolonging the Bush-era tax cuts, whether it's for everybody (as the Republicans want) or "only" for the bottom 98 percent as Obama wants, or someplace in between, would leave the government without the federal revenues needed for basic services, support for the poor, and public investments for training, education, infrastructure, science, and the environment. So, if a deal is struck, we likely face a decade of shrinking civilian programs, more suffering of the poor, and mounting public debt.

 

That's what is called "successful" deal making in Washington these days.

 

So why is Obama pushing so hard for a deal? There are two purported reasons, with anybody's guess on their relative importance. First, he has continually promised continued tax cuts for 98 percent of households, going all the way back to promises in the 2008 campaign and repeated until today. This promise was probably necessary for his election and reelection given the populist bent of our politics, though it's devastating from a budgetary and economic point of view in the long term. Second, he is worried about the short-term aggregate demand consequences of a sudden rise in tax rates. If it's the latter reason, Obama is ready to squander long-term budgetary needs to avoid a little short-term pain. Either way, the budgetary consequences are terrible.

 

For the sake of our long-term future, I am therefore hoping that the current negotiations fail, and that we end once and for all the unaffordable tax cuts of the Bush era. It is time to awake from the fiscal fantasy that Bush and Cheney pushed on us during 2001-2003 and that both parties have continued until now.

Edited by Rimbeux
Link to comment
Share on other sites

medicare and social security needs to be looked at though. the amount spent on those increases every year and if nothing is changed they're going to become unsustainable

 

totally right about taxes. billionaire romney pays 13% which is half(?) of what average americans pay. average americans also spend more on VAT and other taxes relative to their income as well. it's sweat shop economics

 

 

They could save billions by cutting down on waste and putting an end to all the medicare fraud. They could save billions by stopping tax fraud at the IRS. They will not do these things as it will take time and money to get people in place to end the huge losses. It's much easier to cut services and reduce benefits than actually fix the reall problems.

 

We are more than willing to pay our fair share to get the deficit under control, but only if the load is spread out fairly.

 

The stupid thing is hearing so many people demand more, and better, services. However, they cry foul as soon as a tax increase is proposed to pay for the new services. They do that as all they hear on Tv is a bunch of politicians telling them taxes need not be raised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They could save billions by cutting down on waste and putting an end to all the medicare fraud. They could save billions by stopping tax fraud at the IRS. They will not do these things as it will take time and money to get people in place to end the huge losses. It's much easier to cut services and reduce benefits than actually fix the reall problems.

 

We are more than willing to pay our fair share to get the deficit under control, but only if the load is spread out fairly.

 

The stupid thing is hearing so many people demand more, and better, services. However, they cry foul as soon as a tax increase is proposed to pay for the new services. They do that as all they hear on Tv is a bunch of politicians telling them taxes need not be raised.

 

Regarding your first paragraph, of course you need to get rid of waste and fraud in a manner that costs less than the money saved. It's not realistic to think that's going to be enough, nowhere near. Medicare spending is projected to almost double over the next 10-years due to increased eligibility (baby-boomers retiring). Perhaps it's wise to look at the level of service being offered or looking at patients paying a larger share towards some of the costs.

 

On another note, the American voters have made life hard on themselves by putting the Democrats in the Senate and Republicans in the House. In the past it might have made sense to share the power between the parties, to "keep the other side honest". In the current climate, where both sides - but especially the Republicans - are moving towards the extremes of their party it's almost impossible for the two to negotiate. Any kind of deal where both sides compromise is shot down by the extremes of the party, who will shout about values and take the moral high ground. This has predictably led to a deal that does the bare minimum needed for the short term, but does nothing to fix the longer term problems.

 

Is the split Senate & House due to voter stupidity, or due to make-up of electoral districts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris Christie gives to to the Republican's. I disagree with him on loads, but he hits the nail on the head with what he says here.

 

Conservative parasites in the red states and then they decide to screw us when we need help. I hope it changes for good one day.

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/02/opinion/avlon-christie-sandy-aid/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ny, pennsylvania, massachussetts, etc should apply to rejoin the UK

 

Nah. That won't do.

 

We need New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Ohio, Michigan and Illinois need to merge with New Brunswick, Ontario, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland to form a new country. We're the same kind of people.

 

The rest can go and screw themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah. That won't do.

 

We need New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Ohio, Michigan and Illinois need to merge with New Brunswick, Ontario, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland to form a new country. We're the same kind of people.

 

Welsh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah. That won't do.

 

We need New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Ohio, Michigan and Illinois need to merge with New Brunswick, Ontario, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland to form a new country. We're the same kind of people.

 

The rest can go and screw themselves.

 

 

So you would leave me and JonShar with all the rednecks?

 

Welsh b*****d!! :bleh: :bleh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They could save billions by cutting down on waste and putting an end to all the medicare fraud. They could save billions by stopping tax fraud at the IRS. They will not do these things as it will take time and money to get people in place to end the huge losses. It's much easier to cut services and reduce benefits than actually fix the reall problems.

 

We are more than willing to pay our fair share to get the deficit under control, but only if the load is spread out fairly.

 

The stupid thing is hearing so many people demand more, and better, services. However, they cry foul as soon as a tax increase is proposed to pay for the new services. They do that as all they hear on Tv is a bunch of politicians telling them taxes need not be raised.

 

This is one of my biggest problems with Americans and Government - they all want better schools, they all want better roads, they all want better policing, but they all complain about taxes being too high. Where do they think the money to fix all those things comes from?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of my biggest problems with Americans and Government - they all want better schools, they all want better roads, they all want better policing, but they all complain about taxes being too high. Where do they think the money to fix all those things comes from?!

 

 

same place as all the big game/concert tickets come from. the tree in the back of the yard. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XwUlWpacmEA

 

People in Omaha were screaming for 24 hour snow removal by the city back in 2011. The mayor came out and said that was no problem as long as he added 0.5% to the city sales tax.

 

In 2012, the city had less money in the winter budget, were forced to use contractors and the streets were not cleared promptly. The Mayor was brilliant. Held a press conference, pops in a DVD from 2011 and plays back his statement about taxes for services.

 

People only have to go to the grocery store to see that prices have gone up for everything. How the hell do they expect to get stuff from Governments at the same rate year after year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US federal government is massively inefficient though. The local government department where we are actually provide an amazing amount of services all things considered for the local taxes we pay, but on a federal level there is a massive amount of fat that could be trimmed which would certainly help with making the most of the taxes already being collected.

 

The only options seem to be cut or grow though. There is no "manage" option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US federal government is massively inefficient though. The local government department where we are actually provide an amazing amount of services all things considered for the local taxes we pay, but on a federal level there is a massive amount of fat that could be trimmed which would certainly help with making the most of the taxes already being collected.

 

The only options seem to be cut or grow though. There is no "manage" option.

Except when it comes to funding warfare, either publically or secretly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...