Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Overall it's the same old story; Dems looking weak and conceding their base and the Reps seeing this weakness and conceding nothing and in fact continually moving the goalpost to the right.
But I thought that tonight Obama looked reasonable and gave a good speech, quoting Reagan and saying Boehner had been reasonable, if highjacked by the Rep radicals. Boehner (in addition to looking particularly orange tonight) seemed to only play to his hardcore base, blaming all things evil on Obama.
Both bases will be happy tonight and the disinterested middle will likely stay disinterested unless and until the sh!t hits the fan.
As a Dem I personally love seeing the Reps torn between the "Frankenstein" they created in the Tea Party, who see no reason to even be concerned about raising the debt limit (See Michelle Bachman's numerous quotes), and their corporate sponsors who stand to lose lots of money if it's not raised.
I have to believe that the Reps will follow their master's and raise the debt limit, especially since they and their corporate court continue to skew election influence towards those with money. But, since I'm fairly well insulated from the harmful effects, it might be interesting to see what happens if they don't raise it. That would suck for most people though so I hope they do.
Last Edit: Jul 25, 2011 23:40:34 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top
^^Well, that's good to know. I figured my congresswoman had just shut down all lines of communication. She often avoids places where she knows she will be confronted (like no town hall meetings in this county) and disappears when she knows bad news is coming.
We're all a mess of paradoxes. Believing in things we know can't be true. We walk around carrying feelings too complicated and contradictory to express. But when it all becomes too big, and words aren't enough to help get it all out, there's always music.
Post by LoveLuckLaughter on Jul 26, 2011 8:58:40 GMT -5
WOW! So after making that post and trying to get on Boehner's site again, and then writing to Tim Ryan, I went on Youtube so I could check out this Skrillex dude some more and make an informed vote on the poll, and this was the ad that preceded the video I chose...
We're all a mess of paradoxes. Believing in things we know can't be true. We walk around carrying feelings too complicated and contradictory to express. But when it all becomes too big, and words aren't enough to help get it all out, there's always music.
^^ Very slanted (but possibly effective) video. "To borrow less, you have to spend less" is just a slogan and ignores simple math. (Yes, I know math is not Republicans strong suit)
Revenue - spending = Surplus or more apropo Spending - Revenue = necessary borrowing
So, contrary to the videos assumption, to borrow less one can just as effectively increase revenue. But why not do both? (unless of course you signed a shortsighted pledge to NEVER raise revenue. But who would be silly enough to do that?) ;D
From personal experience I can say when I was deep in debt, I had to get a 2nd job as well as control my spending. Why only address one variable of a 2 variable equation? Address both and maybe call it a "balanced approach" or something like that?
Last Edit: Jul 26, 2011 11:52:58 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top
I just don't understand how it's so obvious to me that the Republicans are trying everything they can to sabotage the economy and not allow Obama to get a political "win" yet it's not apparent to everyone.
I hate polls because they can get whatever answer they want based on the phrasing of the question. And 90% of the time the public is misinformed or just plain stupid and doesn't understand what is going on. They want the gov't to spend less, but they also want them to stimulate the economy. It just boggles my mind.
^^ Very slanted (but possibly effective) video. "To borrow less, you have to spend less" is just a slogan and ignores simple math. (Yes, I know math is not Republicans strong suit)
Revenue - spending = Surplus or more apropo Spending - Revenue = necessary borrowing
So, contrary to the videos assumption, to borrow less one can just as effectively increase revenue. But why not do both? (unless of course you signed a shortsighted pledge to NEVER raise revenue. But who would be silly enough to do that?) ;D
From personal experience I can say when I was deep in debt, I had to get a 2nd job as well as control my spending. Why only address one variable of a 2 variable equation? Address both and maybe call it a "balanced approach" or something like that?
Personally I think hugely cutting government spending in a terrible economy is a great way to assure continued economic non-recovery. Aggressive government stimulus would be the best way to grow the economy, create jobs, and as a result help to create an environment where the deficit can seriously be dealt with.
Obviously that is not going to happen so yeah repeal the Bush tax cuts, cut the corporate tax loopholes that Obama has gone on about, means test for Social Security and Medicare, and I'm not sure what but throw something to the Republicans to cut without hampering economic growth.
I just don't understand how it's so obvious to me that the Republicans are trying everything they can to sabotage the economy and not allow Obama to get a political "win" yet it's not apparent to everyone.
I hate polls because they can get whatever answer they want based on the phrasing of the question. And 90% of the time the public is misinformed or just plain stupid and doesn't understand what is going on. They want the gov't to spend less, but they also want them to stimulate the economy. It just boggles my mind.
No, it just sounds like you're buying into the whole left vs right BS. The world isn't going to end on Aug. 2nd regardless of what happens. Both sides are just playing politics and if you think otherwise then you're being fooled.
It's only "obvious" to you because you take a side in our political circus. Liberate your mind and you will see it's all a game.
^^ Very slanted (but possibly effective) video. "To borrow less, you have to spend less" is just a slogan and ignores simple math. (Yes, I know math is not Republicans strong suit)
Revenue - spending = Surplus or more apropo Spending - Revenue = necessary borrowing
So, contrary to the videos assumption, to borrow less one can just as effectively increase revenue. But why not do both? (unless of course you signed a shortsighted pledge to NEVER raise revenue. But who would be silly enough to do that?) ;D
From personal experience I can say when I was deep in debt, I had to get a 2nd job as well as control my spending. Why only address one variable of a 2 variable equation? Address both and maybe call it a "balanced approach" or something like that?
Personally I think hugely cutting government spending in a terrible economy is a great way to assure continued economic non-recovery. Aggressive government stimulus would be the best way to grow the economy, create jobs, and as a result help to create an environment where the deficit can seriously be dealt with.
Obviously that is not going to happen so yeah repeal the Bush tax cuts, cut the corporate tax loopholes that Obama has gone on about, means test for Social Security and Medicare, and I'm not sure what but throw something to the Republicans to cut without hampering economic growth.
I agree that additional stimulus spending would be well worth the cost. Cuts to excessive defense spending (much of which is approved by the military but hurts individual politicians at home) are badly needed cuts. As are subsidies to profitable industries like oil and ethanol. And means testing SS and Medicare should help passify some Reps (but it won't.)
And according to the CBO, additional revenue measures like returning all tax rates to the Clinton era tax rates would raise $2.8 trillion over 10 years! That's more in deficit reduction than either the Dems or Reps plans.
Simple things could be done but this is all politics and both sides think they can win. Even if the people lose.
Isn't the true test to presidents success determined by if he can get congress behind him. Without the president being able to that nothing will ever get done no matter the person or party. It's not like it can't be done. Clinton did it with a republican congress. Coming into office Obama's main strength IMO was his leadership, but I havnt seen any evidence of that lately. Take this default situation we are in now. Both sides want 2 different things but ask yourself will either solve the debt problem? I am no economic expert by any means but I think the answer is no. Both parties are catering to their base with ideological rhetoric with no results in order to secure votes. In times of crisis like the economic crisis we are in now, both parties should set aside politics and come up with the right solution. Obama can't seem to lead congress in that direction. I was not a Bush fan at all but I would like to say it is time to look at these problems as Obama's problems and not Bush problems that he got stuck with. It is 2011 and can anyone say that the economy is back on track since 2008, no. Obama supporter or not, everyone should agree that Obama promised things in his campaign he hasn't and couldn't deliver on. What will he promise you in 2012 that he can't deliver on? Obama has been a disappointment so far IMO and I don't see anyone on the right running for president that I would be comfortable voting for. What to do, what to do?
I am writing in regards to the debt ceiling and related fiscal matters being discussed in Congress. I feel that a balanced approach consisting of both spending cuts and revenue generation is in order. Spending cuts will only zero things out, and I feel that our debt will not be able to be repaid without further generating additional revenue.
I feel that our current politicians are tainted by the campaign money that they receive from billionaires and/or corporations. As a result of this, many in Washington have advocated for tax cuts and loopholes for wealthy elites which did not deliver the job creation they promised. Because there is no correlation between favors for the wealthy and promised job creation, these loopholes and tax breaks should first and foremost receive increased scrutiny from our leaders. To do otherwise would be a failure.
I feel that Congress during Rep. Petri's tenure has presided over American decline over the past three decades. I feel that Rep. Petri is among those elected officials who have failed their constituents.
I speak as a 30 year old UW-Madison graduate, currently underemployed in the field of pizza delivery, forced to return to my parents' house as a direct result of the policy positions of our current leadership. I am but one of the legion of unemployed and underemployed who have been failed by the Republican economic agenda which has dominated politics in my lifetime. So long as my situation remains this way, I intend to invest as much of my time and effort as possible to remove from office those who have failed us.
The major issue of the most recent election was jobs, jobs, jobs. Republicans campaigned on it, but they are not acting on it. You are failing the innocent many to earn the campaign donations of the privileged few. We refuse to be sold out like this.
What do I want? I want numerous and prominent prosecutions of those on Wall Street and within the banking system who were the true cause of our economic crisis. They bear the majority of the blame for causing the crisis, yet have shouldered none of the responsibility for fixing it. I want defense spending to be included within the cuts. The United States spends obscene amounts of money, often on unnecessary wars entered into under false pretenses, and not all reductions in defense spending will compromise our security. I want Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to be as protected as reasonably possible within the spending cuts. I want to see Big Oil lose tax breaks and loopholes, given that these companies are making record profits while consumers feel the pinch and their reckless regard for proper procedures as evidenced by the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico. I want our politicians to do what is best for their constituents, not for their campaign donors. I want our elected officials to admit when their ways have inflicted harmful results on the American people, and to admit that when they have caused the problem they should not be trusted with the solution. I feel Rep. Petri falls into this category.
I have written pretty much every current elected Republican who represents me over the course of this year, and my comments have by and large been gone unacknowledged by nearly all of them. I would be surprised to learn that Rep. Petri has bothered to listen to my concerns. In the end, this is the major problem plaguing American politics.
^^CPK, I agree that Obama has been somewhat of a disappointment but this is due the complete lack of compromise by Republicans and there hopes that people will think like you describe. Your argument just encourages all parties to not compromise.
Bush got things through Congress because Dems were willing to compromise for the good of the country (and also because Bush encouraged an atmosphere of fear which did not allow for reasonable debate.)
Obama cannot get things done because Republicans have filibustered everything, filibustering more than any congress in history and blocking over 700 House bills in 2 years. They now refuse to even allow votes on a record number of Presidential appointments. They are willing to destroy the country if necessary to defeat Obama (their openly stated PRIMARY objective) and hope people think it is Obama's fault.
By your reasoning (and the Reps), every opposition Party should block everything to win the next election. Of course then the other Party will do likewise and we can watch our nation stagnate into oblivion.
Obama should definitely stand stronger and use the bully pulpit to expose the opposition for what they are but he has not created this situation and if anything has worked too hard to compromise in hopes of getting things done. Giving in has just encouraged Republicans to continue their obstructionism.
The American experiment was based of the idea that compromise for the common good. We have lately become a country of people fed absolutes and told compromise is weakness. Democracy is doomed in such an environment.
BTW, I do not mean to sound harsh just to point out the flaw in your reasoning. This medium can just make enthusiasm sound abrasive.
I think you may have misunderstood me. I agree with what you just said. My point was that Obama can't seem to get congress to put aside their political differences, that goes for both parties. He is the leader of our country and he can't seem to lead Washington. You can blame the reps for blocking I guess but what about the 2 years he had with a democratic congress. You compared my reasoning with reps? Not sure how you came to that conclusion. Both parties are ideological and give on nothing. My political views are very centered. I have voted for dems and reps. Like you said Obama should use the bully pulpit. But both sides are more worried about votes than results.
I think you may have misunderstood me. I agree with what you just said. My point was that Obama can't seem to get congress to put aside their political differences, that goes for both parties. He is the leader of our country and he can't seem to lead Washington. You can blame the reps for blocking I guess but what about the 2 years he had with a democratic congress. You compared my reasoning with reps? Not sure how you came to that conclusion. Both parties are ideological and give on nothing. My political views are very centered. I have voted for dems and reps. Like you said Obama should use the bully pulpit. But both sides are more worried about votes than results.
Sorry if I misunderstood but I hold little blame for Obama and the Dems for the current stalemate on just about everything (unless it is as enablers of the Reps bad behavior.) My opinion is that they give in too much!
The gave up the public option on healthcare before the discussion started. They gave the Reps $1.6B in cuts they asked for to raise the debt ceiling (then the Reps changed it to $4B and then said that would not be enough if they were not the "right" cuts.) They said they would consider Social Security and Medicare cuts (blasphemy for their base.) They gave in on any real changes to Wall Street reform. They gave in on Bush tax cuts for the rich. And they stand aside and allow Reps to de-fund enforcement of EPA and new financial regs so they cannot be instituted.
This is only what I can think of off the top of my head but I think unless and until the Dems stand firm on something/anything, the Reps will think/know that by being obstructionists they can get at least 90% of whatever they want. Or at least make what they don't want meaningless.
One of them is trying to save our credit rating, the other one knows it will do him good if interest rates are high in a election year.
Now honestly who thinks which one is which?
all those who want to brush the problem off until after a presidential election, please stand up, please stand up (especially when economy/unemployment are worse, than they are now, four to eight months from now).
now honestly ask yourself this...would the pres rather be getting the debt situation under control, or would he rather be in campaign-mode full-time next year? seems like a pretty simple answer to me
also, let's not forget what impact obamacare (oh, i forget, no one here likes that word), i mean the healthcare bill has already had on the debt, and what it will do to the debt when all of those uninsured are added to the gov't health plan. nobody forget what happens when businesses stop paying benefits because it will be cheaper to pay a fine than to provide health benefits to all it's employees
also, didn't pres obama already start, or will begin, a withdrawal of troops from iraq/afghanistan? that being the case, is it not just a gimmick of harry reid's when he says that part of his cuts include cuts to the wars? the cuts were going to happen no matter what happened with this debt ceiling, so i would say that is just "smoke and mirrors"
i for one am not a fan of the mantra stated by nancy pelosi, "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it"...lol...the lunacy of some
the top 1% of earners in this country foot 40% of the taxes. the top 10% of earners in this country foot 70% of the taxes. please, someone explain to me how they are NOT paying their fair share in taxes. also, i may not be a mathematician, but i'm pretty sure that $1,000,000 does NOT EQUAL $250,000...$250,000 does NOT EQUAL $1,000,000. if anyone knows someone that makes $250,000 per year, and owns a yacht/jet please let me know
^^^Your tax numbers comes straight from income tax figures and, as conservatives always do, ignore all other taxes. I'm only surprised you did not list the "fact" that 30%+ do not pay taxes (income taxes.) You conveniently ignore payroll taxes which are capped at around $100k so the top tier pay less as a percentage of income. Similar for all federal taxes such as excise taxes (ie gas tax, FCC tax, tobacco tax, etc.)
And on the state and local level, the tax burden is skewed towards the poor. In TN the top 5% pay 3% of their income in S/L taxes while the bottom 20% pay and avg of 12-13%.
And how about how many(most?) corporations pay no taxes and even get tax refunds while making billions in profit?
And how about the fact that the inheritance class pay 15% while the middle class pays 28%.
And do you really think things are more likely to get done during an election cycle? When has that EVER happened? Pushing the debt ceiling vote into 2012 makes it a purely political issue and nothing will get done as both sides are FORCED to appeal to their bases.
And what happened to the Republican mantra of "uncertainty" killing businesses ability to hire (Remember the tax issue where this was an overwhelming factor?) How is it that now the uncertainty of are financial system and interest rates brought on by the debt ceiling are no longer a consideration? And why is extending this uncertainty now a plus?
I wish Republicans could keep track of there arguments. I seem to remember an old saying about how telling the truth being easier to remember. Or at least consistency in the mythology would be less confusing.
Why not a simple one sentence vote on this issue, as has been done most years? Then fight the spending/revenue fight on its own merits.
Last Edit: Jul 26, 2011 22:58:49 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top
Been wanting to comment on this debt ceiling issue because everyone is in agreement that this is ridiculous.
The only thing I agree with is the need to raise a debt a ceiling so we don't default. We don't lose the Double AA rating so price of loans don't go, inflation is worsened, and the dollar is devalued.
Boehner's plan is moronic because it doesn't offer any plan to reduce spending. I mean 800 billion deficit reduction in 10 YEARS, really? (our debt is over 10 trillion. I think its 14 trillion. There's no way our spending will be below the reductions) All Republicans offer is just some symbolic Constitutional Amendment to balance the Budget. Which really doesn't mean anything and leads me to a paranoid belief that it would later be skewed to give lobbyists some Constitutional protection over some questionable budget earmarks. That and they want to erase any progressive policy made by FDR.
Reid's plan is dumb because it doesn't really make any change either. Yeah the number of 2.7 trillion over the next decade sounds appealing but that goes with a debt ceiling increase in 2.4 trillion. I'm skeptical that the money will be used to throw money at more programs, instead of trimming fat off our budget. His plan offers no solution on how to deal with the rising costs of Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security (only that they are fighting tooth and nail to make sure NONE of it gets cut by Republicans) The money saved by military withdrawal Reid proposes, that's incredibly risky to depend on because you never know what the future might hold. Plus, it will probably just be a delay tactic until a new administration is in and a new agenda is made.
So what to do with all this. The Gang of Six Plan proposed only ten days ago by three Democrats and three Republicans offers the best deficit reduction plan as soon we raise the debt ceiling. It offers cuts across many political territories such as (social security/Medicare, defense spending, discretionary spending, and education) Conversion of entitlements to a chained CPI sounds good because, according to the Congressional Budget Office, it will reduce inflation and slow spending growth. Something that will be good for awhile, while we try and develop a healthcare system that incorporates both private and public means. Obamacare is not cost affordable, i was looking at what an uninsured person would pay and it would be about 200-250 dollars a month. Might as well go with an HMO.
Plus, it lowers individual tax rates with high income from 35 to 29%. In return, less tax breaks. (Disagree with how that's construed as higher taxes, because Reps are ALWAYS playing that card) Plus, it offers a lower corporate rate in exchange for a reformed way to tax foreign income (hopefully this encourages more companies to create job growth domestically). I like this plan because it answers both parties concerns and shows good compromise for the sake of better management. The plan is not perfect because there are some vagueries involved that could lead to alot of legislative debate. But it lays a good groundwork and plans on saving 4 trillion dollars in the next ten years. Barring any crashes in the market.
I wish I could find the news article that went into detail about the spending cuts proposed in each areas. But if you have questions about the plan. The above link can help, he tries to be totally objective but there are a few editorial ideas he throws in. Nonetheless, it does assist in explaining complicated ideas.
Last Edit: Jul 27, 2011 23:19:10 GMT -5 by Jury - Back to Top
Here's what I think will happen: Unproductive partisan squabbling through August 1st. One-sentence 11th hour bill raising the debt ceiling on August 2nd with no progress made on other fronts.
Here's what I think will happen: Unproductive partisan squabbling through August 1st. One-sentence 11th hour bill raising the debt ceiling on August 2nd with no progress made on other fronts.
Yup, just like how the government nearly shut down. Only this time it won't be government employees who will feel the pinch but seniors.
Here's what I think will happen: Unproductive partisan squabbling through August 1st. One-sentence 11th hour bill raising the debt ceiling on August 2nd with no progress made on other fronts.
Yup, just like how the government nearly shut down. Only this time it won't be government employees who will feel the pinch but seniors.
Just love how shortly after elected, the pres did an interview with Matt lauer. In this interview, he states that the economy will be better in three years, and if not he will be a one term pres. All of a sudden, the story changes to "change we can believe in isn't going to happen tomorrow, it's gonna take a while". The economy is messed up, and employment is well over what Pres Obama promised it would be if we passed his stimulus. I'll paraphrase some words the pres just recently said, "I guess shovel-ready wasn't really shovel-ready". Lord I pray that he is a one-term pres!
I didn't really get any interest of politics until late in GWB's presidency, but what I do know and remember was that Bush didn't blame anyone for anything...he played his cards as they were dealt. All Pres Obama can do is blame Bush, oil companies, natural disasters, and the economical mess that is Europe...which, btw, we are heading towards.
The Iraq war was a bipartisan choice, and yet libs scream at the top of their lungs that it is Bush's war. I wonder if those same people will be calling the downgrade Obama's downgrade :-)
the top 1% of earners in this country foot 40% of the taxes. the top 10% of earners in this country foot 70% of the taxes. please, someone explain to me how they are NOT paying their fair share in taxes.
A married couple with 4 kids that makes 200 million per year and is taxed 35% of their income is going to feel a less of a pinch than one that makes 20k and has 15% of that taxed.
From these two links, you should see that the one major need to help rebound the U.S. economy is to add more tax brackets and tax the hell out of the rich.
If it worked to get us out of the Great Depression, it will help us now.
^^^cry me a river. Since the beginning of time there have been poor and rich. Of course, everyone knows that there are few rich compared to the masses of "poor". The world kept turning even though poor didn't have enough. What is the grand plan...tax all the rich so much to try to make the poor unpoor? Try that and the rich won't buy their expensive houses, yachts, jets, etc. Then what happens to all the work...building of mansions, maintenance and operation of those yachts/jets; fewer poor have jobs.
the USA's poor have it better than the the poor of other countries. Most households have a tv (and most, more than one). Our poor have cars/available transportation. In the event of a life or death situation, no one is refused emergency care (exclude minor things like cold, cough, rash, etc). Our poor have it pretty well compared to the rest of the world's poor.
What does the poor in other countries have to do with what is happening to the poor in America? Are you implying that I am uncaring to the poor in third world countries?
I simply posted that the tax rates and brackets today in America are in need of reform. There were poor people when the stock market crashed in 1929, and there are poor people now. I fail to understand where you got the idea of me posting about how tax increases on the wealthy in the 40s and 50s implies that I have no grasp on the fact that there are poor people in America.