Senate GOP pledges to block all bills

[BostonPirate]

The budget would have done that without the help of the tax cuts. There's no question about that. The only question would be what the difference in size would have been.

and on that point we have disagreed so much that we havent talked until this thread.

I will leave it at that. I know economics and That is just republican spin to make the mess they made look better.

 

[Supersix]

Tax cuts don't result in budget deficits, overspending does. Tax cuts, given the chance to work, result in more money to the treasury. Today's news media chatter actually confirms this, since they're all bellyaching about unemployment checks ending soon, and all the businesses that will suffer. Does money in the hands of the people spur the economy, or not?

 

[BostonPirate]

Well, considering that part of the reason that they won is to address the issues they want the senate to focus on, I think you'd have a hard time convincing people that its obstructionist.

they won because they scared people and lied to people, and they DIDN'T win the senate OR the presidency.

They have one house of Congress... that is all.

If the american people had wanted the republicans in charge of the senate, then they would have won that body.

But they didnt.

Unless you care to debate what a majority means?

 

[Supersix]

I am actually a hard core conservative when it comes to economics.

I think you need to remember what being conservative really means. What it DOESN'T mean is giving wealthy people money when we have a ballooning debt and deficit.

last I checked fiscal conservatism meant paying your bills.

GIVING wealthy people money?? This is the problem, it's not giving them money, it's letting everyone who works KEEP more of what they EARN, and Uncle Sam learning to cut back.

 

[BostonPirate]

Tax cuts don't result in budget deficits, overspending does. Tax cuts, given the chance to work, result in more money to the treasury. Today's news media chatter actually confirms this, since they're all bellyaching about unemployment checks ending soon, and all the businesses that will suffer. Does money in the hands of the people spur the economy, or not?

that has never worked.

It is a lie.

A tax cut takes revenue out of the coffers of the gov't and you can't ballance the budget without raising taxes.

We are at a 60 year low right now and we cannot afford it. Do you want to personaly give up your social security?

how about we get rid of the military?

just where are we going to get the cash to pay the bills?

cutting spending can't ballance the budget. It just cant. BOTH have to happen.

Cutting taxes does NOT raise revenue or reduce the deficit.

 

[hotatlboi]

Tax cuts don't result in budget deficits, overspending does.

False limitation.

A deficit results when you spend more than you take in. There are two ways to get to that situation, spending too much, or cutting the amount that you take in.

Tax cuts, given the chance to work, result in more money to the treasury.

False generalization.

Only when you have an appropriately sized and targeted tax cut that results in economic growth. If you cut taxes to zero you are obviously going to take in less money. So there is a range of cuts where you will clearly take in less money, and a range where you might possibly obtain more in the long run if the economy grows. Even if you make such a correct cut though, there is no guarantee economic growth is going to happen.

 

[BostonPirate]

GIVING wealthy people money?? This is the problem, it's not giving them money, it's letting everyone who works KEEP more of what they EARN, and Uncle Sam learning to cut back.

You have to pay for what you get, bub.

If you want a millitary and an FBI plus social security and medicare, then you have to pay your way.

That means taking money... its called paying your fucking bills in a timely manner.

 

[BostonPirate]

And once more... this is a party that makes political hay out of touting their hawkish pro military agenda.

yet they are blocking the start treaty ratification, and paying for the men in harms way and the military.

There are american soldiers whose lives these trolls are playing politics with.

 

[Supersix]

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell120110.php3

Interesting article from an economics professor.

 

[Supersix]

that has never worked.

It is a lie.

A tax cut takes revenue out of the coffers of the gov't and you can't ballance the budget without raising taxes.

We are at a 60 year low right now and we cannot afford it. Do you want to personaly give up your social security?

how about we get rid of the military?

just where are we going to get the cash to pay the bills?

cutting spending can't ballance the budget. It just cant. BOTH have to happen.

Cutting taxes does NOT raise revenue or reduce the deficit.

Everything you say starts from the false premise that ALL current government spending is completely justified and cannot be cut back one cent. I'm sure a team of regular people like us could sift through the thousands of pages of spending bills, and come up with our own reductions and eliminations, if it were our responsibility to do so. The problem is everyone has their own pet programs, the leftist news media will support any new program that sounds well intentioned, and will criticize to no end any cutback, anywhere. Government is not god, it does not "deserve" more of anyone's money, it needs to reduce how much it forcibly takes from it's citizens and how much it pisses away to get itself re-elected. The people created government, not the other way around. Term limits comes to mind again.

 

[BostonPirate]

Sowell is a sweet heart of the conservative political movement, but he is NOT considered an economic conservative, nor are his views considered mainstream OR correct.

 

[BostonPirate]

Everything you say starts from the false premise that ALL current government spending is completely justified and cannot be cut back one cent. I'm sure a team of regular people like us could sift through the thousands of pages of spending bills, and come up with our own reductions and eliminations, if it were our responsibility to do so. The problem is everyone has their own pet programs, the leftist news media will support any new program that sounds well intentioned, and will criticize to no end any cutback, anywhere. Government is not god, it does not "deserve" more of anyone's money, it needs to reduce how much it forcibly takes from it's citizens and how much it pisses away to get itself re-elected. The people created government, not the other way around. Term limits comes to mind again.

bullshit

where did you miss the part where I said we have to do BOTH??????????

BOTH.

That means that things need to get cut and taxes need to be raised. Get it? If you dont do both then you have to get rid of programs entirely, not just cut them.

 

[jackoroe]

And once more... this is a party that makes political hay out of touting their hawkish pro military agenda.

yet they are blocking the start treaty ratification, and paying for the men in harms way and the military.

There are american soldiers whose lives these trolls are playing politics with.

There is no compelling reason for START to be considered in a lame duck session. January is soon enough. That argument is simply a red herring. The treaty needs 67 votes to pass in any event. The tax issue is of paramount concern to the American people as is job creation, which flows from it. Hey, if they don't get it all done, make them stay until they do. It's not all that complicated.

 

[opinterph]

Sowell is a sweet heart of the conservative political movement, but he is NOT considered an economic conservative, nor are his views considered mainstream OR correct.

He makes a good point about how investors move their money around to avoid paying taxes. Similarly, I expect lots of people cash-in on investments (e.g. recognize capital gains) during periods immediately prior to an increase in tax rates. If rates were constant, investment capital might be more-so as well.

 

[jackoroe]

bullshit

where did you miss the part where I said we have to do BOTH??????????

BOTH.

That means that things need to get cut and taxes need to be raised. Get it? If you dont do both then you have to get rid of programs entirely, not just cut them.

Good! Let's do it!

 

[opinterph]

There is no compelling reason for START to be considered in a lame duck session. January is soon enough. That argument is simply a red herring.

The treaty was signed on April 8. I agree that December isn’t much different from January, but why is Kyl (et al) unhappy with the treaty?

 

[hotatlboi]

The treaty was signed on April 8. I agree that December isn’t much different from January, but why is Kyl (et al) unhappy with the treaty?

He said last sunday that it was just another step at reducing all nuclear weapons down to zero which he opposed.

 

[jackoroe]

The treaty was signed on April 8. I agree that December isn’t much different from January, but why is Kyl (et al) unhappy with the treaty?

He apparently doesn't like being rushed. And he contends that the tax issue and funding the government are priorities. There's a certain amount of political posturing there, but it still doesn't give me a compelling reason it needs to be done before the end of the lame duck session.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/28/jon-kyl-start-wont-happen_n_788863.html

 

[opinterph]

He said last sunday that it was just another step at reducing all nuclear weapons down to zero which he opposed.

That concern is disingenuous.

November 17, 2010

Today, the Administration once again demonstrates [commitment to ensure the modernization of our nuclear infrastructure] with the release of its plans to invest more than $85 billion over the next decade to modernize the U.S. nuclear weapons complex that supports our deterrent. This represents a $4.1 billion increase over the next five years relative to the plan provided to Congress in May. This level of funding is unprecedented since the end of the Cold War. [White House]

 

[hotatlboi]

Of course it's disingenuous, and I'd be surprised if that statement was even his real feelings. He's just stalling so that the GOP has more leverage to get more things they want in the negotiations on this when they have more members.