Lets talk 2012.

[devilsadvoc8]

Is this really a fair statement to make? One side can dig in on a major issue and say "if this is included, we walk" and then we chide any proposal that includes that issue as just wasting time? I can just imagine nothing ever getting done in the future if a block is going to pick an issue and demand that it be solved their way or they won't let anything pass.

This seems like a pretty bipartisian pitch to me, 800 from tax revenues, 580 from spending cuts, 430 from interest saved that gets to 1.8t ignoring the war savings which covers the debt deal plus the jobs program. If you just look at taxes vs cuts and then compare the composition of our government (from a strictly blue v red perspective) this proposal is giving republicans more then their "share" of control. Rather then say "it's meaningless because republicans have forced themselves into an intractable position, maybe the onus should be on them to not make claims that give them no room to negotiate.

I think it's a good starting point, this is the basic framework that needs to be there with some room to push things around to get votes. If this isn't bipartisian, what is? I'd like to hear what other people would consider bipartisian.

Yes I think it is a fair statement. Both sides have labeled issues as lines in the sand (Obama said he will veto any bill with certain criteria as one example). So, if you indicate how critical this legislation is and then include one of the other side's "no go" topics, I do indeed think you are inviting conflict for political purposes instead of compromise.

The 580 from spending cuts is not really spending cuts. I have read that this isn't a reduction in spending but rather a reduction in rates paid to 3rd parties- essentially using their muscle as a quasi monopoly to have suppliers of healthcare products & services to reduce costs. Reducing the providers income is the same as a tax, not a spending cut. See this quote:

"Administration officials said 90 percent of the $248 billion in 10-year Medicare cuts would be squeezed from service providers."

That's from Time at this link Time Mag

My issue is very little true spending cuts if at all. Our government is an extremely inefficient spender. Lets cut that waste back. I see a couple posts later you stated something along the lines of spending reductions will reduce GDP. Can you explain that?

[squishyx]

Yes I think it is a fair statement. Both sides have labeled issues as lines in the sand (Obama said he will veto any bill with certain criteria as one example). So, if you indicate how critical this legislation is and then include one of the other side's "no go" topics, I do indeed think you are inviting conflict for political purposes instead of compromise.

I think Obama has said that he won't cut medicaid or medicare unless their are tax increases, while the rhetoric is similar it's not the same. Republicans are claiming an entire issue is off the table under any circumstance, Obama is saying he is willing to compromise if the price is right. I'll agree that both sides should not be entrenching themselves in holes they can't get out of.

The 580 from spending cuts is not really spending cuts. I have read that this isn't a reduction in spending but rather a reduction in rates paid to 3rd parties- essentially using their muscle as a quasi monopoly to have suppliers of healthcare products & services to reduce costs. Reducing the providers income is the same as a tax, not a spending cut. See this quote:

"Administration officials said 90 percent of the $248 billion in 10-year Medicare cuts would be squeezed from service providers."

That's from Time at this link Time Mag

I don't understand how a reduction is spending is different then a cut in spending. While this sounds like an unpopular option (and idk if it's true or something I support) it seems like it translate to the fed gov't spending less money, no?

My issue is very little true spending cuts if at all. Our government is an extremely inefficient spender. Lets cut that waste back. I see a couple posts later you stated something along the lines of spending reductions will reduce GDP. Can you explain that?

I'm all for cutting waste but that alone just inst enough.

Jerrydevil was suggesting 5:1 cut v tax ratio, which basically meant getting spending from 24% down to about 16% of GDP which correlates to about a 30-40% over spending cut. The country would absolutely flat line if we tried to do this even over a protracted period of say 10 years. Assuming across the board cuts The fed gov't lose ~3million jobs, probably an equivalent number of state jobs nation wide would be lost as state aid gets cut and they are forced to cut back, seniors would get pinched, welfare rates would soar. It would be disastrous to GDP to cut that much spending, at least over the short to medium term and that's assuming you did even cuts across the board, their is no way republicans would let the defense budget be slashed that much.

Reducing spending by 1-3% of GDP over 10 years is doable, you can compensate the economic loss with GDP growth or tax increases, but trying to cut down 8-9% is too much.

[Guest]

See - you two actually have productive discussion here.

Why could you not have said "JerryD and I are having a fun spirited debate, but I agree others are being kind of shallow" once you figured out what I had to say -- but instead you give the shallow posters a bye in jumping in and shutting down anyone and anything you deem a threat. "What side are you on then?" It reads as if you need black or white -- a shade of gray is beyond your consideration and needs to be stopped - CALL IT BLACK OR WHITE OR STFU! Sure -- you were just terse not aggressive. It comes off aggressive though. if you're so enlightened is not a pleasant invitation to discuss.

You responded to me just as if you were a member if congress refusing to even start from a position of productivity. You turned yourself into a target all by yourself. Ruined any fruitful message and then in the end regroup and post some disingenuous bullsh!t up there to save face. You Rick Perry'd You didn't have to defend yourself - you were never under attack. No need to excuse your posting - you are what you are. Learn from it -- and that doesn't mean hone your fighting skills -- it means hone your listening skills - curb your need to throw the first punch before you understand where you stand. Discussion is not fight or flight. You are not so far over your head in the brains department. Relex and listen - learn some diplomacy BEFORE the fact. it's sour after you've already jumped all over someone. and stop thinking you're so bloody right. You were not right. I was not attacking you. and you were not just inviting me to a spirited debate. You were looking to pigeon hole for a battle - not to learn sh!t.

man at least admit you learn from conflict - at least find some place of honesty to originate from.

You should love this response -- you'll use it to learn and shape your future decisions - right? or does that not apply here -- just to your blank and white battles? I'm sorry to think the worst of you -- maybe you will think about what I wrote and relax a little - measure your responses - not lead with an uppercut before you know what the f*** is going on. In any event you've successfully made it all about you so that should be nice.

Former wellesley college debate team member? Very impressive.. who knew?

[devilsadvoc8]

I don't understand how a reduction is spending is different then a cut in spending. While this sounds like an unpopular option (and idk if it's true or something I support) it seems like it translate to the fed gov't spending less money, no?

Simple. All this plan is doing is telling a private company that they will get less for their services than they would have before. Simple strong arm tactics that isn't reducing FEDERAL waste/payroll/duplicative/or just plain dumb spending. This is the easy way out and doesn't involve much thought as some bureaucrat will tell BMS or Glaxo that they'll give them x amount less. As a result corporate income will go down hence my comment that it is essentially a tax.

Now a real cut is saying that Agency X has to identify 10% budget cuts of their own choice in the next 6 months. If they don't my opinion is that the management of said agency loses 10% salary until accomplished. Lets get these fat cat big government lifers to cut the fat.

[Devils731]

Interesting link and charts that may or may not help in this conversation...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/

I don't buy into the articles notion that everything should be adjusted for inflation and population growth, but military should be adjusted only for inflation. By that logic, the defense spending now should be about the same as in 1800, adjusted for inflation, since population growth doesn't count, but everything else in the budget does get to adjust for population growth.

If we look at the raw numbers, and don't adjust for anything, then the percentage change for some of the different agencies looks like:

Table 5.3—Percentage Distribution of Budget Authority by Agency: 1976–2016

From 2001-2010

National Defense: 128% growth

International Affairs: 174% growth

Energy: 1,159,500% growth

Natural Resources: 71% growth

Agriculture: 19% decrease

Commerce and Housing: Change from 2001-2009: 4,987% growth Change from 2001-2010: 1,536% decrease. A good example of how manipulating a year could drastically change a percentage.

Education: 124% growth

Health: 114% growth

Medicare: 108% growth

Income Security: 131% growth

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

Total Outlays: 86% growth

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

So I think we can see that by not adjusting military by population growth that chart made it look like it's spending had exploded crazily when compared to other sectors of the gov't, when in reality it's growth was in the general vicinity of most of the other "bad boys" that get brought up.

I'm not saying someone is wrong if they say military spending should be cut as opposed to something else, more a comment on the chart, which I think was based in an unfair assumption to purposefully create an unfair chart.

[squishyx]

Simple. All this plan is doing is telling a private company that they will get less for their services than they would have before. Simple strong arm tactics that isn't reducing FEDERAL waste/payroll/duplicative/or just plain dumb spending. This is the easy way out and doesn't involve much thought as some bureaucrat will tell BMS or Glaxo that they'll give them x amount less. As a result corporate income will go down hence my comment that it is essentially a tax.

But it's still a cut, maybe just not the way you would prefer. You could extend this logic to any spending cut and say that all it's doing is taxing something else, it depends how vague you want to define "tax". For example, lets say Obama didn't include roughly 300b in state aid in his first stimulus bill; the states then would have been "forced" to cover the difference since that money mainly went to medicaid which they had to pay, isn't this a tax on the states under the same idea?.

Now a real cut is saying that Agency X has to identify 10% budget cuts of their own choice in the next 6 months. If they don't my opinion is that the management of said agency loses 10% salary until accomplished. Lets get these fat cat big government lifers to cut the fat.

I feel like the discretionary agencies had to do this a year ago to the tune of 10%. I don't know if those cuts ever got enacted but discretionary spending was never really a problem. It's entitlements and defense; and to cut 10% from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid or Defense is not a very popular option for anyone. But lets be honest, if you tell an agency to cut 10% it's going to come from salary or benefits they pay out, it's not like they go around buying everyone their own personal laser printers and they can cut back that way.

[Jerrydevil]

"Discretionary spending" is a big problem. Not only is there waste, but there is the hidden costs of all the anti-business regulations written up by Barack Obama's bureaucracy czars. Who needs Congress when the White House can write its own rules?

[Devils Dose]

"Discretionary spending" is a big problem. Not only is there waste, but there is the hidden costs of all the anti-business regulations written up by Barack Obama's bureaucracy czars. Who needs Congress when the White House can write its own rules?

This is a trend that is much older than you or me. Almost nobody ever complains or does anything about it when their side controls the executive branch though.

[Jerrydevil]

This is a trend that is much older than you or me. Almost nobody ever complains or does anything about it when their side controls the executive branch though.

Ain't it the truth! The agencies have been particularly emboldened under Obama. I cover the travel industry for a trade paper, and I have never seen such overbearing rules proposed, particularly against the airline industry and web commerce. Plus, I see at least two or three ticky-tack fines per week for what the Department of Transportation calls "deceptive advertising." Hey, during a recession when tax receipts are down, why not turn the DOT into a revenue center by harrassing businesses?

[Pepperkorn]

SQUISHY! I'm sorry for being an a$$hole...

I hadn't read ANY of your posts. I had you on ignore for some irrational irritation I suffered a while ago and forgot to take you off - so I hadn't read a THING you were writing. My responses do have some merit - I don't take back the content but I was quite heavy-handed. My perspective was not on your conversation at hand - I was posting to other people somewhere in the midpoint of the thread and I felt that since you were aggressively accepting responsibility for my ire I'd hand it to you full force. I hope you found something constructive in there but know that I apologize for butting in and being rude.

---------

As for me on the topic -- I hate policy. I think it's BS. it's amazing that you follow it though. I think every sides policy is nothing but smoke and mirrors and therefore I am pretty much uninformed on any specific talking points these guys have. I can't participate - you called it dude!

Jerry's discussion works for me (again whether I agree or not) because he's very specific about what HE thinks. How things relate to him and his life. That's not bullsh!t and it's not trying to twist and turn to win something. Policy to me is all that twisting and turning and pretty soon your policy isn't meshing with a politicians actual beliefs. The truth gets so lost.

What I like about Obama - that doesn't mean I'm voting for him again - is that his actions actually always bespeak his listening and absorbing the facts and peoples feelings. He's heard Jerry basically and understands the point and stops to see how he can work with that. Well then he's fvcked because it creates a silence... and some idiot teabagger comes in and fills what should be a productive silence with smoke and mirrors WINNER TAKES ALL vitriol and no truth can surface and no solution can be reached.

So there is so much shouting going on - I'm probably looking at the weakest candidates in Obama and Romney. In both I see thought and a calm logic. Both will probably make fools of themselves as someone who cares not for truth or logic shouts them down to WIN!

I dont think supporting big business is in our short-term best interest anymore. They have shown they off-shore manufacturing -- they are now beginning to off-shore research. Corporate headquarters stay BECAUSE THEY PAY NO TAX! tax them and they leave? WHO GIVES A fvck? a few hundred janitors lose their jobs THAT"S IT! EVERY OTHER JOB IS GONE ALREADY AND THEY PAY NO TAXES! THERE IS NOTHING TO BE GAINED HAVING THEM HERE.... meager meager returns.

What's the right way? I think things will even out - but in the present? We're just shafted - all these policies are just so wrong. No one will compromise right now - national international corporate governmental - because no one knows who will emerge as THE global power. Everyone is frozen seeing what will happen next (aside from people thinking mass inaction = opportunity for those who take action! Whaaahoo!) It's a global mess and it's unavoidable. Whoever gets in office sees that - they're fvcked - so just keep talkin' and hope no one notices

oh well... It will even out in a decade or so I'd wager, regardless of which road we choose.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Pepperkorn

[Guest]

SQUISHY! I'm sorry for being an a$hole...

I hadn't read ANY of your posts. I had you on ignore for some irrational irritation I suffered a while ago and forgot to take you off - so I hadn't read a THING you were writing. My responses do have some merit - I don't take back the content but I was quite heavy-handed. My perspective was not on your conversation at hand - I was posting to other people somewhere in the midpoint of the thread and I felt that since you were aggressively accepting responsibility for my ire I'd hand it to you full force. I hope you found something constructive in there but know that I apologize for butting in and being rude.

---------

As for me on the topic -- I hate policy. I think it's BS. it's amazing that you follow it though. I think every sides policy is nothing but smoke and mirrors and therefore I am pretty much uninformed on any specific talking points these guys have. I can't participate - you called it dude!

Jerry's discussion works for me (again whether I agree or not) because he's very specific about what HE thinks. How things relate to him and his life. That's not bullsh!t and it's not trying to twist and turn to win something. Policy to me is all that twisting and turning and pretty soon your policy isn't meshing with a politicians actual beliefs. The truth gets so lost.

What I like about Obama - that doesn't mean I'm voting for him again - is that his actions actually always bespeak his listening and absorbing the facts and peoples feelings. He's heard Jerry basically and understands the point and stops to see how he can work with that. Well then he's fvcked because it creates a silence... and some idiot teabagger comes in and fills what should be a productive silence with smoke and mirrors WINNER TAKES ALL vitriol and no truth can surface and no solution can be reached.

So there is so much shouting going on - I'm probably looking at the weakest candidates in Obama and Romney. In both I see thought and a calm logic. Both will probably make fools of themselves as someone who cares not for truth or logic shouts them down to WIN!

I dont think supporting big business is in our short-term best interest anymore. They have shown they off-shore manufacturing -- they are now beginning to off-shore research. Corporate headquarters stay BECAUSE THEY PAY NO TAX! tax them and they leave? WHO GIVES A fvck? a few hundred janitors lose their jobs THAT"S IT! EVERY OTHER JOB IS GONE ALREADY AND THEY PAY NO TAXES! THERE IS NOTHING TO BE GAINED HAVING THEM HERE.... meager meager returns.

What's the right way? I think things will even out - but in the present? We're just shafted - all these policies are just so wrong. No one will compromise right now - national international corporate governmental - because no one knows who will emerge as THE global power. Everyone is frozen seeing what will happen next (aside from people thinking mass inaction = opportunity for those who take action! Whaaahoo!) It's a global mess and it's unavoidable. Whoever gets in office sees that - they're fvcked - so just keep talkin' and hope no one notices

oh well... It will even out in a decade or so I'd wager, regardless of which road we choose.

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice".. Free Will, Permanent Waves,1980, Rush

[MantaRay]

Interesting: Even FOX "NEWS" is calling out GOP Candidates on Lies and Distortions.

Fox "news" on GOP Debate

Edited September 23, 2011 by MantaRay

[Pepperkorn]

That's an op-ed piece not news.

I'm just sayin'

It's stupid to call out Romney for distorting the truth saying Obama went on an apology tour. It wasn't presented as a fact.

stick to http://www.factcheck.org/ it's not infallible but it's probably as close as you can get to a fair representation of the facts.

[DevilMinder]

No Christie or Palin now. The republicans couldn't have a weaker showing. Sigh.

[squishyx]

No Christie or Palin now. The republicans couldn't have a weaker showing. Sigh.

Do you really think Palin would win?

[Devils Dose]

No Christie or Palin now. The republicans couldn't have a weaker showing. Sigh.

Things are dull enough that another dark horse candidate may feel encouraged to join in.

Squish is right about Palin though. If you wanted the Republicans to have their best chance to win, you did not want to see her take the nom.

Is Herman Cain gathering some steam?

[ghdi]

Is Herman Cain gathering some steam?

He's falling apart at the seams. He's an odd candidate. He gets a little buzz and then its completely killed in a day or two. He is not a people person at all. And the supposed dark horse candidate doesnt have a lot of time. The end of this month is the deadline to be on a lot of the early primary ballots. Thats why Christie seemed in such a hurry. You need a lot of money right out of the gates because of all signatures and crap you have to get on the ground. Unless someone has a national base already, its not worth it. Palin and Christie both have the sort of backing that coulda pulled it off, but it was still too close for even them. Palin stood no chance at winning the nomination, as shes easily the most divisive figure in that party right now. However, Christie had a very good chance of winning it. Palin needs to work on her overall image, because she's a joke to most people. Christie will be a national figure within 4-8 years. I could totally see Romney ask him to be his running mate and I can totally see Perry taking Palin.

The noms probably going to be Romney (Id bet on him today) and its going to take a long time to get there as its likely various candidates will win different primaries stretching the primary season as far as it went last time. This is a Republican nightmare and what the Democrats want, as it shortens the general election. Obama will most likely beat Romney, as Romney is disliked as McCain was and no one is excited by him. Closer than 08, but not as close as 04. Unless something drastically changes between now and Election Day, Obama is likely going to win.

[Jerrydevil]

Palin needs to work on her overall image, because she's a joke to most people.

I used to think that, but have come to hope that she never changes, even if it means she'll never be a presidential candidate. I think she's been smeared because she's a strong woman who is not a feminist. She's also been smeared because she's not a traditional politician ... she's not a smooth operator like Mitt Romney. And she's a vocal critic of crony capitalism, which earns her disdain from Republican and Democrat politicians who are corporate-owned (most of them).

She is seen as a "joke" mostly because she has been fiercely attacked unfairly in the media, and a lot of people have bought into the hate they read and see on TV. I think it's sad.

[squishyx]

I used to think that, but have come to hope that she never changes, even if it means she'll never be a presidential candidate. I think she's been smeared because she's a strong woman who is not a feminist. She's also been smeared because she's not a traditional politician ... she's not a smooth operator like Mitt Romney. And she's a vocal critic of crony capitalism, which earns her disdain from Republican and Democrat politicians who are corporate-owned (most of them).

She is seen as a "joke" mostly because she has been fiercely attacked unfairly in the media, and a lot of people have bought into the hate they read and see on TV. I think it's sad.

Saying people think she is a joke because of the unfair media attacks is no better then when liberals claim people don't like Obama because he's black. It's a cheap cop out that tries to marginalize legitimate complaints about a person. I think Palin is a complete joke all by herself, based on her comments, actions and ideas. Oh btw for the record Palin IS the main stream media. Anytime she wants she can hop on the most watched cable network and sound off her opinion on something. It's amazing to see her constantly bitch and moan about the very box she stands on.

[Jerrydevil]

Saying people think she is a joke because of the unfair media attacks is no better then when liberals claim people don't like Obama because he's black. It's a cheap cop out that tries to marginalize legitimate complaints about a person. I think Palin is a complete joke all by herself, based on her comments, actions and ideas. Oh btw for the record Palin IS the main stream media. Anytime she wants she can hop on the most watched cable network and sound off her opinion on something. It's amazing to see her constantly bitch and moan about the very box she stands on.

I think the liberal media has gone above and beyond to smear her. You'd have to be blind not to see it.

As far as you thinking she's a "complete joke all by herself," I obviously disagree. Palin's views on energy policy are spot on. And she's a reformer. She has done it in Alaska. You show me the politician with the guts to fire political appointees with ties to lobbyists. You'll have a lot of trouble coming up with one.

[squishyx]

I think the liberal media has gone above and beyond to smear her. You'd have to be blind not to see it.

As far as you thinking she's a "complete joke all by herself," I obviously disagree. Palin's views on energy policy are spot on. And she's a reformer. She has done it in Alaska. You show me the politician with the guts to fire political appointees with ties to lobbyists. You'll have a lot of trouble coming up with one.

Her state is a great example of her hypocrisy. Oil companies are forced to write checks to residents to the tune of a thousand dollars a year in a government mandated profit sharing scheme divided out to locals. How is that not socialism? how is that not "class warfare" between government and private industry? If Palin had a consistent bone in her body she would have put an end to this practice while she was governor but that wouldn't have been a very popular thing to do now would it?

She's an opportunist, there is no reason for her to have as much clout as she does other then she has the "right" message for the very right wing end of the political spectrum at the right time. Her favorability rating is 27% for, 58% against. The idea that it's just the liberal media causing this is bonkers, it's because her brand of conservatism doesn't resonate with most of the nation.

Obviously me and you have a different view on her and her policies, what I am saying is the country dislikes her because of her, not because of the media. Don't look for a scapegoat, she's unpopular all by herself.

[ghdi]

I think the liberal media has gone above and beyond to smear her. You'd have to be blind not to see it.

As far as you thinking she's a "complete joke all by herself," I obviously disagree. Palin's views on energy policy are spot on. And she's a reformer. She has done it in Alaska. You show me the politician with the guts to fire political appointees with ties to lobbyists. You'll have a lot of trouble coming up with one.

I really dont care about how the media has treated her. The media treats the majority of people like sh!t when they have bad moments and she has had many. Her excuses when she's bumbled simple questions are on tape and plain as day to see. We dont need incessant looping or reminding of it. She also quit her first major gig. Thats all that I need to know about Sarah Palin's political backbone. She can wink and ride around a bus all she wants, her goal now is to cash in, not be this leader that she and her fanatics seem to think she is. She'll always have the fact that she quit because she got too big for Alaska's britches. I also don't believe she has any conviction whatsoever and doesn't even believe half of what she sells. I can't stand Bachmann's politics and think she's as dense as a puddle, but she has some conviction at least.

The only GOP candidates I even consider taking seriously are Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, Buddy Roemer, and Huntsman (in order). And none of them have a chance.

[Jerrydevil]

Her state is a great example of her hypocrisy. Oil companies are forced to write checks to residents to the tune of a thousand dollars a year in a government mandated profit sharing scheme divided out to locals. How is that not socialism?

It's capitalism ... profit-sharing. The theory is that Alaska residents own the resources, and every resident gets a share. And what REALLY makes it capitalism is that the legislature is not allowed to touch this money to use it for another project or to redistribute it.

[squishyx]

It's capitalism ... profit-sharing. The theory is that Alaska residents own the resources, and every resident gets a share. And what REALLY makes it capitalism is that the legislature is not allowed to touch this money to use it for another project or to redistribute it.

This is how you define capitalism? I imagine you are in a minority here. It would be so easy to extend your logic here to justify taxing the rich.

"It's capitalism ... profit sharing. The theory is rich people are only successful because the other 99% buys their products, defends their land, paved their roads, educated their workers so they have a responsibility to to make sure every citizen gets a share".

I personally don't care that Alaskan's get a kickback from oil companies but call it what it is, redistribution of wealth.

[Jerrydevil]

The theory is rich people are only successful because the other 99% buys their products, defends their land, paved their roads, educated their workers so they have a responsibility to to make sure every citizen gets a share."

Yeah, Massachusetts Senate hopeful Elizabeth Warren recently said something like that. The moonbat! Except in her rationale, it's OK to confiscate money from others to give it to the government, so politicians decide how best to use it (waste it).