Puterbac News Network and Political Discussion Thread

[AlabamAlum]

Spacer,

11 years ago was a long time. We've had the dot.com/NASDAQ bust, 9/11, two on-going wars with what could be the start of a third, the DJIA bust, Katrina, the housing collapse, the Horizon disaster...Just vastly different times.

Moreover, the last 6 years Clinton was president, the Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate. Gridlock isn't necessarily a bad thing - it does tend to keep things in check. For example, Bush wouldn't have made nearly as many mistakes if he would have had a stronger check from opposition on the Hill from 2003-2007 or so.

[bluetick]

Until we (they) can responsibly manage the money they do have, I will remain cynical that giving them more will help.

Why be cynical? You only have to go back 11 years. In 1993, Clinton raised taxes to a large outcry that it would damage our economy or that he'd just spend it. Didn't happen. He cut the size of government, revamped and limited AFDC and improved significantly the balance sheet. That's the plan to follow.

Heh - seems like only yesterday. A beleaugered White House administration and their supporters crying foul, claiming the GOP Congress was doing everything imaginable to derail progress so as to deny the dem President a second term.

But he did manage to get re-elected, and those last 4 years were pretty darn good in retrospect (notwithstanding one cum-stained black dress).

[Dora]

It was a blue dress.

[Owlman]

LOL. Very convenient. You are against tax increases because you say that there is no evidence that they won't spend it, but then when it is pointed out that only 2 Presidents ago, that it happened you immediately discount it. The reality is the appropriate response to a major economic downturn is a decrease in taxes and a increase in spending. When things are going well, you should increase taxes and decrease spending to decrease that deficit. The only President to do that in the past 45 years was Clinton.

[AlabamAlum]

You are against tax increases because you say that there is no evidence that they won't spend it, but then when it is pointed out that only 2 Presidents ago, that it happened you immediately discount it.

I said I felt that "they" would spend it. "They" is this administration/Congress.

What Clinton did with a R-controlled House and Senate from 1993-1999 doesn't give me confidence as to what this administration will do now. I do not feel that Obama or his administration are as competent as Clinton and his were. Exacerbating this is the fact that Obama has a much tougher job in reducing those numbers with the co-morbidities and associative issues we have in play in 2011.

When things are going well, you should increase taxes and decrease spending to decrease that deficit.

Things are going well?

[Owlman]

republicans were in control of congress in 1995, not 1993 to 1994. And we are out of the recession but still with slow growth. If we are still in an economic downturn, then spending should continue and tax cuts continue. If over, then reverse it. Don't think this administration has had much in choices. The downturn was massive. This means a massive response. The question is what they will do once the economy improves. It seems the President is open to spending cuts and tax increases, not just one or the other. I don't see that if flip flop gets in.

[AlabamAlum]

Correct. Clinton was inaugurated in 1993 to a D-controlled House and Sentate, but that soon changed. R's controlled both the House and Senate in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000.

God knows I wish that the Dems had controlled the House and Senate for a similar span in Bush's unfortunate reign.

Anyway Spacer, it's academic. We will raise taxes, start ObamaCare, continue our wars, whatever. I wish I shared your optimism.

[Owlman]

I'm not optimistic at all. I think there are a significant percentage of Republicans who don't want to raise the debt ceiling at all. I think that this will raise interest rates and throw us back into an even deeper recession.

Even if the debt ceiling is raised, I don't see a real budget deal until after the 2011 election. If a Republican is elected, I don't see much of a true budget deal because they are stuck in the Bush mode, even more defense expenditures, markedly decrease revenue, social welfare for wealthiest, laws to get in everyone's bedroom, even higher umemployment, more jobs shipped overseas.

[GBJs]

I'm not convinced that raising the tax rate to be closer to the mean on that list is necessarli a good thing. Should we work to emulate France, Germany and Lichtenstein's business tax models?

I think we need to first work to get out of wars, and learn how to control spending by saying no. When we take in more, we tend to spend more and end up borrowing more.

If France, Germany, and Lichtenstein had fought wars this century while reducing revenues to record levels and then emerging no worse for the wear...then yeah, we should emulate the heck outta 'em.

As is stands, our problems are fairly unique when compared to the rest of the industrialized world. Dubya inherited arguably the strongest federal balance sheet in postwar history. Record high surpluses, debt was at 30% of GDP and falling ...the country was in great fiscal shape. But rather than follow Clinton's lead, dubya handed out those gigantic tax cuts, with those at the top of the income ladder getting the biggest breaks. Then he fought two endless wars on the other side of the world. And then we had the mortgage/derivitive meltdowm madness.

So we're in a huge financial hole...so deep that we have to look at revenue, same as we look to cut spending. Kill any and all Bush tax policies for starters. Re-jigger SS and Medicare/caid. Deep cut the defense budget. Rein in the corporate subsidies and welfare. Let our fiscal rehab be a shared sacrifice all across the board... we've all got skin in the game.

Tick, your almost right...

with those at the top of the income ladder getting the biggest breaks. ...Isn't that the way a percentage works? If person A pays income tax on 75K taxable income and person B pays tax on 25K taxable income, 3% is still 3%.

Deep cut the defense budget. Bulkshit. Our defense budget as a portion of total spending is small compared to what our armed forces provide. I DO believe the money should be spent more wisely. Nothing on the planet can competitively fight with an F-22, but not much on the planet could come close to an F-15 either. Each time the defense budget gets a "deep" cut, its the enlisted who feel the cuts the most, not the programs and defense contractors, or even the officer's corp. Give me a statement besides deep cut and I'll be more likely to agree with you, because the cost of a box of pampers has NOT came down in price like the cost of a television has.

AA, I'll have you know I resemble that drunken sailor comment!!!111 But I must agree with your faith in this administration Vs the Clinton white house. I didn't care too much for Billary, but that administration did accomplish some good things for the average working class person.

[Jungle Rat]

7 years later I still laugh at this place. Your vote still doesn't matter. Keep up the fight though.

[AlabamAlum]

If a Republican is elected, I don't see much of a true budget deal because they are stuck in the Bush mode, even more defense expenditures, markedly decrease revenue, social welfare for wealthiest, laws to get in everyone's bedroom, even higher umemployment, more jobs shipped overseas.

I see precious little difference between either side, and I do believe the R's are going to do what they can to separate themselves from W and Tea Party activists.

Defense spending now isn't going down; and we're still in Iraq, Afghanistan - and are now bombing Somalia, Yemen, and Libia.

I don't see anyone's taxes going down - R or D in the office.

I don't think there is a real danger of individual freedoms taking a bigger hit. Hell, one of the biggest dangers was the Patriot act (which was bipartisan in the Senate when it was signed), and was expected to expire this year. Obama recently extended it for 4 more years.

Unemployment is still at a higher point now than it was at any time during Bush's 8 years.

As far as jobs going overseas, the idea to curtail that (through revocation of tax breaks for companies who sent jobs out) didn't go anywhere that I remember. Obama also extended several of the Bush tax cuts.

[Professor Tiger]

Wow. I was in Toronto for a few days and missed the whole gay marriage debate. I have to rejoin the programming already in progress regarding r's vs D's and taxation and spending.

1. Dem's, when in power, always raise taxes and borrow in order to increase government spending on things they like.

2. R's, when in power, lower taxes and borrow in order to increase government spending on things they like.

3. Starting in the 2010 midterm election, the R's say they are serious about borrowing and spending less. We will see if they are serious.

[sardis]

No, you just wussed out on that argument....

[sardis]

You can't compare today's situation with back in 1994. Debt as a percentage of gdp before Clinton came in was about 65%. He left with it about 58% in 2001. (I don't know where Owlman gets his 30%). Plus Clinton and the R's back then did not have the immediate future issue of medicare, like we do now. We are staring at a much larger abyss. There needs to be a net reduction of governnment because it doesn't matter how much you raise taxes you're still going to be in a hole. I challenge anyone to offer a tax increase that will raise a $1trillion a year because that's what it will take to plug the hole if there are no serious spending cuts. The arguments for some tax increases would carry more weight if the Dems would also have serious spending reductions, but they mention none.

[Toemeesleather]

[Toemeesleather]

'Are we on seven-second tape delay today? I want to characterise how the president behaved,' he remarked, referring to a White House press conference held by Obama.


'I thought he was kind of a dick yesterday,' he added, to gasps from Morning Joe presenters Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski.


MSNBC executives indefinitely suspended Halperin over the remark, which drew an immediate rebuke from the White House.



Poor libs, get suspended for telling the truth.

[AlabamAlum]

Halperin also said "he thinks Obama is kind of a pussy...He has real questions about Obama's toughness, his readiness for the office." He apologized profusely for that one, too."


http://gawker.com/5817138/mark-halperin ... -genitalia

[bluetick]

Sardis - a chart of U.S. public debt% vs gdp - notice how it began a dramatic climb during the first term of Reagan, and peaked at the end of Clintons first term, and the steep decline throughout that 2nd Clinton term (down to near 30%), and then the march upwards beginning in '01

[TheBigMook]

Is their anything sadder than a man with a collection of protest signs?

[bluetick]

Cabbage Patch kids? Debbie Boone album treasury?