Or, people unprepared to be parents maybe shouldn't have children.

Crazy, right?

http://www.epi.org/blog/paul-ryan-budget...cost-jobs/

Quote:Paul Ryan’s latest budget doesn’t just fail to address job creation, it aggressively slows job growth. Against a current policy baseline, the budget cuts discretionary programs by about $120 billion over the next two years and mandatory programs by $284 billion, sucking demand out of the economy when it most needs it and leading to job loss. Using a standard macroeconomic model that is consistent with that used by private- and public-sector forecasters, the shock to aggregate demand from near-term spending cuts would result in roughly 1.3 million jobs lost in 2013 and 2.8 million jobs lost in 2014, or 4.1 million jobs through 2014.

(08-15-2012 12:53 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Or, people unprepared to be parents maybe shouldn't have children.

Crazy, right?

Who's going to stop them? You?

What about those children already here?

(08-15-2012 12:54 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(08-15-2012 12:53 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Or, people unprepared to be parents maybe shouldn't have children.

Crazy, right?

Who's going to stop them? You?

What about those children already alive?

No, but the government doesn't have to be anyone's baby daddy, either.

How about a little, wait for it, personal responsibility?

When people are born, live their entire lives, and die on the public dime, that's a problem. I don't know how to fix it, but at least I'm willing to acknowledge it's a problem.

I'm all for helping the helpless. The worthless can rot.

What about people who had a steady income when they had children, but lost their job and need food stamps?

If the alternative is telling them to go find food in the woods, the government should be the baby daddy.

(08-15-2012 12:59 PM)Max Power Wrote:  What about people who had a steady income when they had children, but lost their job and need food stamps?

You have described a temporary situation.

Now, describe a scenario where multi-generational dependence on the government is acceptable.

(08-15-2012 11:16 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(08-15-2012 10:37 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Max, when you say he cut the military budget, is that entirely true? I seem to remember that he only slowed it's growth under what the projected growth actually was going to be...so not truly cutting it.

If you want to get technical, yes. But if the GOP argues that, then Obama isn't "cutting $700 billion from Medicare" because he's just slowing its rate of growth. Can't have it both ways.

The 700BN is taken from Medicare to initially fund Obamacare along with money from every working person in the country, paying into the program for 4 years without benefit of using the program. This to give the illusion of being "deficit neutral". Another lie as it is now costing 3bn instead of 1bn. As Obama said he would not sign the OCare bill if it was not deficit neutral. It was an out and out lie swallowed hook line and sinker by Maxipad, commietom and thousands of low information people.

(08-15-2012 11:47 AM)Max Power Wrote:  1. And I'm responding to your comment. I'm saying you're being selective about your outrage.

No you're not. You're saying I'm not in any position to know what a "slave" would think of Biden's comment.

Quote:2. I'm ignoring it because it's irrelevant to my point. Millions of beneficiaries facing cuts are descendants of slaves. That not everyone fits the mold isn't a rebuttal to that point at all.

That they are descendants of slaves is similarly immaterial to the comment.... Unless you are Joe Biden and want to make a racially charged comment. It MIGHT be SLIGHTLY different if the vast majority of those impacted WERE descendants of slaves... but they aren't.

I suspect I can find threads where you argued that minorities and their homes weren't really part of the sub-prime problem, so by "unshackling wall street", assuming the problem happens again, minorities aren't going to be hurt, by YOUR sides contention.

Quote:3. What a joke. Yes, Republicans know how to grow the economy. That's why we were losing 800k jobs/month and contracting GDP at negative 9% when Bush left office.

I'm not "Republicans". I find it interesting that you can't respond to comments like mine without pulling out your "Bush" card. Nothing in my comments praised Bush or even downgraded Obama's policies. I "attacked" people like you for failing to engage in intelligent discussions towards actual solutions. And you responded with this?

Quote:I've never said we should just raise taxes on the rich alone, and I've never said we need to balance the budget completely; so long as we slow the rate of debt growth under the rate of GDP growth we're gaining with debt-as-a-percentage of GDP. I've said we can make cuts to defense. I've also said we need to get the economy growing near its productive capacity before we make spending cuts and raise taxes.

I didn't say you did. Obama and company certainly have. "The rich" really don't care what YOU think should be done, unless you are actually Obama. He said he Won't raise taxes one dime on those making less than 250k... and now he wonders why they aren't investing in long-term projects.

Quote:On what basis are you arguing that all of Ryan's cuts to food stamps and Medicaid are "duplicative" and just targeting "waste"?

I've made no such argument. I'm not Ryan, and he isn't VP, and even if he were, CONGRESS must pass the bill. I believe there is waste and duplication that can be cut out. Rather than start by suggesting that we raise revenue by raising rates, which arguably HURTS some portion of the population, I suggest we start by suggesting that we cut waste... which arguably hurts nobody... and EXPAND the size of the pie, which arguably benefits everyone. That certainly won't get us all the way to where we need to be, but it SHOULD be something that the left AND the right can agree on.

Quote:So we can't raise capital gains because even the mention of it will cause the rich to buy stocks and hold them until we lower the rates? What if we don't lower the rates, and they need the liquidity? They'll just keep the money in stocks and bypass better opportunities because they hate paying that extra 2-3% on capital gains? So we should just never raise capital gains rates because the rich will act like petulent children and never liquidate their capital? I don't think so. They'll liquidate when it benefits them to liquidate.

No... what a comical response. We SHOULDN"T raise capital gains because it DISCOURAGES investment in the US and ENCOURAGES investment elsewhere. Outsourcing/Offshoring. The holding period is relatively short as compared to investing in plant and equipment. Banks will loan them enough against their positions to float them for that long. They don't NEED the liquidity... UNLESS there is a new opportunity to make MORE money. You act like a typical consumer of goods, rather than an investor. These people claim virtually NO income (hence their rate). Liquidity is NOT a problem. If you take it from 15 to 20, which is what I basically suggested for your opinion, there will be SOME movement away from the US and towards other countries. Not because they are children, but because tax rates is part of their equation for determining where to allocate capital. I would generally agree that it wouldn't hurt much... but I'm trying to help the economy, and not "not hurt it much". As to liquidating capital... there are much easier ways they are already using... like putting it in a trust. You don't pay taxes for (potentially) generations. At THAT point, they generally don't care what the tax rate is because the tax free compounding MORE than made up for whatever rate you want to impose. No, this isn't ALL or perhaps even a MAJORITY of their money. But as you won't see the revenue in your lifetime, why would you ENCOURAGE them to do MORE of it?

Quote:Can you point to a study on your hypothetical flat 20% rate raising effective rates on the rich? You'd be raising capital gains by 5%, which I have no problem with, but reducing earned income rates by 16%. It might indeed raise their effective rates. But you'd be eliminating many deductions that help the poor and middle class, so I'm not sold that it would be "a tax cut for those making less than 500k." On the whole it would probably raise more revenue, but regressively.

What? You don't think your side is intelligent enough to avoid being ramrodded?? It's not a study. It's a simple question. If I raise their effective rate to 20% from what is currently less than that, that is more money, ANY way you look at it, despite being a cut in the top income rate. As far as the poor are concerned... I just completely exempted them from all taxes up to 50k. I've eliminated NOTHING in terms of exemptions and deductions or credits but their tax burden. between 50 and 500k... I lowered their effective rate as well. I am simply about effective rates... which includes all of these credits and deductions. I took your argument out of the conversation when I said "effective". If someone loses a credit but pays the same tax, then their effective rate goes up.

Your response shows what I suspected, and that is that you are more concerned with appearances than with reality. I give you a simple reality, and you can't imagine that it could be done exactly as I described.

Quote:It's time to wake up and realize that all these tax cuts the rich have been getting for the last 40 years have to be reversed. They had their fun and look where it got us. SOMEONE HAS TO PAY FOR THIS! You can't keep saying "deficit is high, better cut spending by 90%" and ignore the fact that on the other side of the ledger, the Republicans have been giving away the money that would cut that deficit in tax breaks. You cannot just keep gutting spending to pay for Mitt Romney's dancing horse or car elevator. Those tax breaks are direct negatives on the deficit. They DO NOT stimulate the economy because they don't f---ing spend the money. They do not put that money back into the economy.

Where were all you spending hawks when George W. Bush was bankrupting us and putting us in this ******* mess? Nowhere. Now, you crawl back out so you can put George W. Bush on steroids back into power so he can finish destroying the place. I honestly don't think they have any idea how our economy actually works. Someone has to create demand, and supply cannot create demand itself. If it could, businesses wouldn't be sitting on huge stockpiles of cash. The government has to create that spending in this economy, otherwise no one will. Paul Ryan's plan is going to amount to more unemployment and reduce demand, which is not going to help anything.

Once again, you resort to Bush. Why don't you just waive the white flag? I don't think I was on this board, but I didn't favor his expansion either. Yeah, DAMN that JFK who massively lowered rates for the wealthy. That damn capitalist pig!! /sarcasm

Im an "old school" Republican and believe that the government shouldn't be doing half of what it does. I've ALWAYS believed that. I have no problem with tax deductions for charitable organizations including things like "art". People can vote with their dollars to avoid the less philanthropic (high overhead) charities. My problem comes with the government administering a foundation through involuntary contributions. The government should monitor charities to ensure that they are efficient and actual charities. Do you have a problem with that compromise?

You seem very worried about tax breaks that don't stimulate, but seem to care little about spending that doesn't stimulate. EVen less with tax hikes that retard growth. Take the taxes on the rich to 100% and you STILL can't pay for our current spending. the "Bush" tax cuts on the rich amount to $80byn/yr iirc. That's a drop in the bucket. If 3.6% is $80byn, then 36% (taking us to almost 70%) is (assuming no reaction at all which is stupid) $800byn. That doesn't cover our increased spending, much less pay back any deficit... and would make us globally uncompetitive.

Try and pay attention and stay on topic.

The TOPIC is an expansion of the revenue base from which we are drawing, because nominal changes to our tax rates, like 15-20% on cap gains and the expiring "tax cuts for the rich" don't get us anywhere NEAR where we want to be.

I have espoused methods to increase the size of the economy, and raising effective rates on the wealthy while cutting them for everyone else. I favor cutting waste in ALL programs, including defense and everything else. I favor getting the government out of doing many of the things they do, but overseeing banks is not one of them. I merely draw a distinction between accomplishing social directives and actual regulation. All I asked you to do was agree to avoid hyperbole in your responses... and you can't. You are TRULY the party of "no" and the definition of obstruction.

Have a nice day

(08-15-2012 01:06 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-15-2012 11:47 AM)Max Power Wrote:  1. And I'm responding to your comment. I'm saying you're being selective about your outrage.

No you're not. You're saying I'm not in any position to know what a "slave" would think of Biden's comment.

That too. You believe a slave would be insulted about Biden's "chains" remark Re: Wall Street, but remain silent about pulling the rug from under millions of their descendants re: food, housing and health care. And I'm saying that's patently ridiculous.

Quote:

Quote:2. I'm ignoring it because it's irrelevant to my point. Millions of beneficiaries facing cuts are descendants of slaves. That not everyone fits the mold isn't a rebuttal to that point at all.

That they are descendants of slaves is similarly immaterial to the comment.... Unless you are Joe Biden and want to make a racially charged comment. It MIGHT be SLIGHTLY different if the vast majority of those impacted WERE descendants of slaves... but they aren't.

I suspect I can find threads where you argued that minorities and their homes weren't really part of the sub-prime problem, so by "unshackling wall street", assuming the problem happens again, minorities aren't going to be hurt, by YOUR sides contention.

It's material to YOUR comment for reasons I state above. The descendants of slaves would be disproportionately impacted. You feign outrage on their behalf because Biden says Romney wants to unchain Wall Street and chain the people. I'm feigning disbelief.

That last paragraph has a serious cause and effect problem, and assumptions I don't share. Just because the CRA wasn't a primary cause of the sub prime problem, doesn't mean that repealing it won't hurt minorities. Doing so would hurt them and at the same time do nothing to prevent another sub prime crisis. And again, I'm addressing your comment about slaves being insulted by Biden's comment invoking slavery while discussing Wall Street reform, which has really nothing to do with any of this.

Quote:

Quote:3. What a joke. Yes, Republicans know how to grow the economy. That's why we were losing 800k jobs/month and contracting GDP at negative 9% when Bush left office.

I'm not "Republicans". I find it interesting that you can't respond to comments like mine without pulling out your "Bush" card. Nothing in my comments praised Bush or even downgraded Obama's policies. I "attacked" people like you for failing to engage in intelligent discussions towards actual solutions. And you responded with this?

Sure you're not Republicans. It's funny how many of today's Republicans (many who now like to cal themselves libertarians) disown Bush and his policies and will tell you how they were against them. If they were all being truthful, those would have never passed in the first place and he never would have been reelected. So excuse me for cutting through the BS and calling all right wingers out on policies that they were okay with at the time but retroactively distance themselves from. Some consistent libertarians may get caught in the fish nets but it's worth it to trap the rest who have it coming.

Quote:

Quote:I've never said we should just raise taxes on the rich alone, and I've never said we need to balance the budget completely; so long as we slow the rate of debt growth under the rate of GDP growth we're gaining with debt-as-a-percentage of GDP. I've said we can make cuts to defense. I've also said we need to get the economy growing near its productive capacity before we make spending cuts and raise taxes.

I didn't say you did. Obama and company certainly have. "The rich" really don't care what YOU think should be done, unless you are actually Obama. He said he Won't raise taxes one dime on those making less than 250k... and now he wonders why they aren't investing in long-term projects.

Can you show me where Obama and company said raising taxes on the rich would balance the budget alone?

You'd be crazy to invest in long term projects when you're satisfied with your existing ability to produce output to meet consumer demands. And that's where they're at now. And we can boost demand instantly through government stimulus.

As for taxes, there always is uncertainty over what Washington will do, especially when power is divided between the parties. But since the 2010 elections, with the GOP in control of the House having signed their Norquist pledge, everyone is assured their taxes won't increase for 2 years. But investment hasn't boosted.

From a American Sustainable Business Council survey--

http://asbcouncil.org/sites/default/file...pdf#page=3



Gallup survey--

Quote:

Quote:On what basis are you arguing that all of Ryan's cuts to food stamps and Medicaid are "duplicative" and just targeting "waste"?

I've made no such argument. I'm not Ryan, and he isn't VP, and even if he were, CONGRESS must pass the bill. I believe there is waste and duplication that can be cut out. Rather than start by suggesting that we raise revenue by raising rates, which arguably HURTS some portion of the population, I suggest we start by suggesting that we cut waste... which arguably hurts nobody... and EXPAND the size of the pie, which arguably benefits everyone. That certainly won't get us all the way to where we need to be, but it SHOULD be something that the left AND the right can agree on.

You suggested that the Ryan cuts were to "duplicative" spending, thereby implying that the aid recipients wouldn't be impacted.

Yes we can agree on targeting waste. The IPAB was formed by the ACA to find ways to cut waste. By "expanding the pie" do you mean raising effective tax rates on people 50k-250k? I think that's a bad idea, at least in this economy.

Quote:

Quote:So we can't raise capital gains because even the mention of it will cause the rich to buy stocks and hold them until we lower the rates? What if we don't lower the rates, and they need the liquidity? They'll just keep the money in stocks and bypass better opportunities because they hate paying that extra 2-3% on capital gains? So we should just never raise capital gains rates because the rich will act like petulent children and never liquidate their capital? I don't think so. They'll liquidate when it benefits them to liquidate.

No... what a comical response. We SHOULDN"T raise capital gains because it DISCOURAGES investment in the US and ENCOURAGES investment elsewhere. Outsourcing/Offshoring. The holding period is relatively short as compared to investing in plant and equipment. Banks will loan them enough against their positions to float them for that long. They don't NEED the liquidity... UNLESS there is a new opportunity to make MORE money. You act like a typical consumer of goods, rather than an investor. These people claim virtually NO income (hence their rate). Liquidity is NOT a problem. If you take it from 15 to 20, which is what I basically suggested for your opinion, there will be SOME movement away from the US and towards other countries. Not because they are children, but because tax rates is part of their equation for determining where to allocate capital. I would generally agree that it wouldn't hurt much... but I'm trying to help the economy, and not "not hurt it much". As to liquidating capital... there are much easier ways they are already using... like putting it in a trust. You don't pay taxes for (potentially) generations. At THAT point, they generally don't care what the tax rate is because the tax free compounding MORE than made up for whatever rate you want to impose. No, this isn't ALL or perhaps even a MAJORITY of their money. But as you won't see the revenue in your lifetime, why would you ENCOURAGE them to do MORE of it?

I'm confused. I thought you were proposing raising capital gains rates (along with earned income) to 20%. Now you seem to be suggesting by implication that we should lower capital gains rates to zero because it discourages investment here. Or are you abandoning your hypo?

Why would there be movement away from US investment if they're taxed the same on worldwide income? The rates would have to get to the point where they leave so they don't have to file US tax returns. Yes they could set up a corporation or trust overseas that would be taxed at the Polish rate, but the minute they want to liquidate and see that money again they will have to pay US rates on it. They might as well set up their trust here in the good old US of A.

I agree it wouldn't hurt much. And it will hurt investment here. But it will generate revenue that we need here, right now, even if it does chase away some capital. Again, I can't support the Paul Ryan approach of lowering capital gains to zero so Mitt Romney doesn't pay any taxes and can buy more car elevators; while the economy is helped slightly the deficit booms and you need to scramble to find ways to cut that hurt the poor and offset the growth you've encouraged.

Quote:

Quote:Can you point to a study on your hypothetical flat 20% rate raising effective rates on the rich? You'd be raising capital gains by 5%, which I have no problem with, but reducing earned income rates by 16%. It might indeed raise their effective rates. But you'd be eliminating many deductions that help the poor and middle class, so I'm not sold that it would be "a tax cut for those making less than 500k." On the whole it would probably raise more revenue, but regressively.

What? You don't think your side is intelligent enough to avoid being ramrodded?? It's not a study. It's a simple question. If I raise their effective rate to 20% from what is currently less than that, that is more money, ANY way you look at it, despite being a cut in the top income rate. As far as the poor are concerned... I just completely exempted them from all taxes up to 50k. I've eliminated NOTHING in terms of exemptions and deductions or credits but their tax burden. between 50 and 500k... I lowered their effective rate as well. I am simply about effective rates... which includes all of these credits and deductions. I took your argument out of the conversation when I said "effective". If someone loses a credit but pays the same tax, then their effective rate goes up.

Your response shows what I suspected, and that is that you are more concerned with appearances than with reality. I give you a simple reality, and you can't imagine that it could be done exactly as I described.

Look, I'm saying I question your assumption that people 50k-500k would be paying a lower effective rate at 20%. I'm saying I question your assumption that a 20% effective rate is higher than what those over $250k are paying now. I'm saying even a zero effective rate for the poor can raise their effective rates if you eliminate for example the refundable child tax credit.

If your assumptions are right though, then yes I might agree.

Quote:

Quote:It's time to wake up and realize that all these tax cuts the rich have been getting for the last 40 years have to be reversed. They had their fun and look where it got us. SOMEONE HAS TO PAY FOR THIS! You can't keep saying "deficit is high, better cut spending by 90%" and ignore the fact that on the other side of the ledger, the Republicans have been giving away the money that would cut that deficit in tax breaks. You cannot just keep gutting spending to pay for Mitt Romney's dancing horse or car elevator. Those tax breaks are direct negatives on the deficit. They DO NOT stimulate the economy because they don't f---ing spend the money. They do not put that money back into the economy.

Where were all you spending hawks when George W. Bush was bankrupting us and putting us in this ******* mess? Nowhere. Now, you crawl back out so you can put George W. Bush on steroids back into power so he can finish destroying the place. I honestly don't think they have any idea how our economy actually works. Someone has to create demand, and supply cannot create demand itself. If it could, businesses wouldn't be sitting on huge stockpiles of cash. The government has to create that spending in this economy, otherwise no one will. Paul Ryan's plan is going to amount to more unemployment and reduce demand, which is not going to help anything.

Once again, you resort to Bush. Why don't you just waive the white flag? I don't think I was on this board, but I didn't favor his expansion either. Yeah, DAMN that JFK who massively lowered rates for the wealthy. That damn capitalist pig!! /sarcasm

Im an "old school" Republican and believe that the government shouldn't be doing half of what it does. I've ALWAYS believed that. I have no problem with tax deductions for charitable organizations including things like "art". People can vote with their dollars to avoid the less philanthropic (high overhead) charities. My problem comes with the government administering a foundation through involuntary contributions. The government should monitor charities to ensure that they are efficient and actual charities. Do you have a problem with that compromise?

You seem very worried about tax breaks that don't stimulate, but seem to care little about spending that doesn't stimulate. EVen less with tax hikes that retard growth. Take the taxes on the rich to 100% and you STILL can't pay for our current spending. the "Bush" tax cuts on the rich amount to $80byn/yr iirc. That's a drop in the bucket. If 3.6% is $80byn, then 36% (taking us to almost 70%) is (assuming no reaction at all which is stupid) $800byn. That doesn't cover our increased spending, much less pay back any deficit... and would make us globally uncompetitive.

Try and pay attention and stay on topic.

The TOPIC is an expansion of the revenue base from which we are drawing, because nominal changes to our tax rates, like 15-20% on cap gains and the expiring "tax cuts for the rich" don't get us anywhere NEAR where we want to be.

I have espoused methods to increase the size of the economy, and raising effective rates on the wealthy while cutting them for everyone else. I favor cutting waste in ALL programs, including defense and everything else. I favor getting the government out of doing many of the things they do, but overseeing banks is not one of them. I merely draw a distinction between accomplishing social directives and actual regulation. All I asked you to do was agree to avoid hyperbole in your responses... and you can't. You are TRULY the party of "no" and the definition of obstruction.

Have a nice day

The "involuntary contributions"-funded foundation is unfortunately necessary. If it went away tomorrow, and private charity could step in its shoes and provide the same level of aid, I'd support its dismantling.

I'm concerned with growth now, and the debt later. I might even support delaying expiration of the Bush tax cuts on the rich until we're out of this hole, but because the negative economic impact will be minimal I don't have much of a problem. I think just about every tax break stimulates. Some far more than others. I'm open to talking about shifting spending to ways that are more stimulative. But until we see much larger growth and are near our productive capacity, I don't want to try and bridge the deficit gap because it's counterproductive.

We need to oversee banks if we're going to insure deposits.

(08-15-2012 01:01 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-15-2012 12:59 PM)Max Power Wrote:  What about people who had a steady income when they had children, but lost their job and need food stamps?

You have described a temporary situation.

Now, describe a scenario where multi-generational dependence on the government is acceptable.

Bingo.

This is acceptable: softens the blow and promotes individual responsibility...



This does not...

(08-15-2012 01:01 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-15-2012 12:59 PM)Max Power Wrote:  What about people who had a steady income when they had children, but lost their job and need food stamps?

You have described a temporary situation.

Now, describe a scenario where multi-generational dependence on the government is acceptable.

It could be temporary, or it could last years, especially in this economy.

So you want to take food out of childrens' mouths because you find their parents' and grandparents' dependence unacceptable?

The cycle of dependency ultimately has roots in psychology: That is, subconsciously settling into a society "role," feelings of low self-worth, considering one's self as a perpetual victim, developing a dignity-robbing "it is what it is" mindset. These things can't be measured by charts, graphs and numbers. But it's the result of a too-accomodating welfare state. What is that one singular point between temporary help that keeps people motivated vs. entitlements that are so heavy and long term that it saps one of motivation? That, I don't know. But the once you cross a certain threshhold, it becomes that much harder for one to physically and psychologically break out of it.

I'll give some politicians the benefit of the doubt in that they mean well (the cliched "bleeding heart"), but don't understand the long term ramifications of it. Much like a parent who gives their kid candy and toys every time they demand it, because it makes them feel good, but don't recognize the negative long term issues that will result from it.

Still other politicans are fully aware, yet are too enamored with being at the levers of power and controlling things. The poor people in that cycle will always march lockstep to the polls and vote for whoever will continue the gravy train. So the more people locked in, the better.

(08-14-2012 07:19 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 06:58 PM)Max Power Wrote:  You're a disgrace.

I love 21st century white conservatives telling us what 19th century slaves would take as an insult. How about the Ryan plan which would gut food stamps and Medicaid, so their great great grandchildren go hungry and lose health care? I'm sure they're crazy about that! And telling them we need to do this so we can cut taxes for the rich and grow the defense budget? I'm a fairly well off white male and even I feel insulted.

Hey Max.. Obama has done NOTHING to decrease the military. He has not even made it a side issue. He flat out lied to the huge number of people that elected him on THIS issue. He made it a campaign issue that the troops would be home in his first term. Now you sycophants don't even care about this and that men and women are STILL dying in these useless wars. YOU and EVERY Obama supporter have the blood of these troops on YOUR hands. Instead of holding your man's feet to the fire and demanding the troops come home...you choose to ignore this.

In addition...Obama is now seeking to insert the US into Syria and Libya. Just WTF is going on? Have you people now all of a sudden become hawks? The answer is NO. You just could care less about the blood being spilled in the ME....as long as Obama get another term. You all make me sick.

Please don't mention this issue again in this election cycle. You make yourself look like an idiot.

You would rather have pulled out of Iraq immediately? I don't think that would have been prudent. The most prudent thing would have been to not be there at all. We haven't done much in Libya and Syria. I'm sure we have CIA agents in countries all over the world but we can't completely withdraw.

He should have been more vocal about cutting the military but it would never happen if the Republicans have anything to say about it. That's sacrilegious to them. Even if you're talking about cutting bureaucracy instead of tanks.

Never fight a war you don't intend to win. Shrub started two of them, and Obama has continued them both on a "not-to-win" basis. If you're going to go in, take overwhelming force with rules of engagement designed to win quickly and come home. Then, win quickly and come home.

As for defense cuts, last time I checked the Navy had more admirals than ships and the Pentagon had more personnel than it took to win WWII. There is a LOT of fat that can be trimmed off the top--just like every other federal bureaucracy. The other thing we can do is convert a bunch of full-time active duty slots to part-time reserve slots. It costs about $100,000/head to keep someone on active duty, or $25,000/head to keep a reserve slot. In round numbers we have 1.4 million active slots and 800,000 reserve slots. Take the reserves up to 2 million and cut the actives back to 1 million. You save $40 billion in active costs and increase reserve costs by $30 billion, for a net savings of $10 billion with a gain in end-strength of 1 million soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines. And with fewer actives sitting around painting things for the third time this month, you greatly reduce the temptation to send them somewhere. Most of the 400,000 reduction in actives can come from bringing troops home from overseas. That will save another $40 billion or so, once the mob/demob costs have come and gone. Then revise procurement policies so that not everything we buy has to be high-priced cutting-edge stuff.

Owl, how do you justify your comment that Obama has continued the Iraq war?

(08-16-2012 03:08 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(08-15-2012 01:01 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-15-2012 12:59 PM)Max Power Wrote:  What about people who had a steady income when they had children, but lost their job and need food stamps?

You have described a temporary situation.

Now, describe a scenario where multi-generational dependence on the government is acceptable.

It could be temporary, or it could last years, especially in this economy.

So you want to take food out of childrens' mouths because you find their parents' and grandparents' dependence unacceptable?

Well, you dodged the question, but...

Let me type this slowly so that it sinks in.

I do not want children to go hungry.

What I want is for parents to be responsible for the children they bring into the world.

I'll add, as Hambone alluded, Obama has proposed letting the Bush tax cuts for people making over $250k expire (that's 2% of the population) and keeping them in place for everyone else (98% of the population). This would raise $850 billion dollars over a decade. The Republicans won't. f---ng. do. it. That is a huge chunk of money that they refuse to bring in, while they are bitching about PBS or NPR or Planned Parenthood getting some pittance. They would rather throw the whole country in chaos than have 98% of us keep a tax cut without the 2% getting a cut at the same time.

(08-16-2012 03:58 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-16-2012 03:08 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(08-15-2012 01:01 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-15-2012 12:59 PM)Max Power Wrote:  What about people who had a steady income when they had children, but lost their job and need food stamps?

You have described a temporary situation.

Now, describe a scenario where multi-generational dependence on the government is acceptable.

It could be temporary, or it could last years, especially in this economy.

So you want to take food out of childrens' mouths because you find their parents' and grandparents' dependence unacceptable?

Well, you dodged the question, but...

Let me type this slowly so that it sinks in.

I do not want children to go hungry.

What I want is for parents to be responsible for the children they bring into the world.

And you have a naive notion that by making them responsible for the children the bring into the world they will become responsible. Doesn't work that way.

(08-16-2012 04:08 PM)Max Power Wrote:  That is a huge chunk of money that they refuse to bring in

No, not really, at least not in relation to the size of the problem.

I actually don't disagree that much with your basic thought. I think the republicans should gladly give in on this issue to get something meaningful in return.

Letting the "Bush tax cuts" for the "wealthy" expire won't do much to help the deficit, nor will they really do much to hurt the economy. What we need to close the deficit and help the economy is substantial tax reform, to the extent that the "Bush tax cuts" will be little more than rounding error.

(08-16-2012 03:22 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  The cycle of dependency ultimately has roots in psychology: That is, subconsciously settling into a society "role," feelings of low self-worth, considering one's self as a perpetual victim, developing a dignity-robbing "it is what it is" mindset. These things can't be measured by charts, graphs and numbers. But it's the result of a too-accomodating welfare state. What is that one singular point between temporary help that keeps people motivated vs. entitlements that are so heavy and long term that it saps one of motivation? That, I don't know. But the once you cross a certain threshhold, it becomes that much harder for one to physically and psychologically break out of it.

I'll give some politicians the benefit of the doubt in that they mean well (the cliched "bleeding heart"), but don't understand the long term ramifications of it. Much like a parent who gives their kid candy and toys every time they demand it, because it makes them feel good, but don't recognize the negative long term issues that will result from it.

Still other politicans are fully aware, yet are too enamored with being at the levers of power and controlling things. The poor people in that cycle will always march lockstep to the polls and vote for whoever will continue the gravy train. So the more people locked in, the better.

But we're not talking about luxuries like candy and toys. We're talking about health care to stay alive and food so they don't go hungry.

But forget the poor for a second. Someone explain this to me like I am a six year old--why in the **** do you people keep voting AGAINST your own self interest? Why do Republicans come out and readily admit their tax plan will decrease taxes on the wealthy and increase it on you (okay they'll dodge the last part but policy centers crunch the numbers and come to that conclusion), and you people start slobbering to vote them into office? Explain this to me without using the word "Obama," because as much as you might hate him, his policies are demonstrably far superior to your bottom line than Romney, and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you. If Romney gets into office, and he and Paul Ryan do what they say they are going to do, we are all personally, financially ******. Bye bye mortgage interest deduction! Bye bye child tax credit! Hello middle class tax increase!

If your answer is "we have a problem in this country, and I am willing to pay more to fix it" then why in holy hell do you vote for the party who is going to make you and you alone fix it? The rich people are going to have their "got mine, **** you" party when their taxes decrease and the Republicans eliminate "entitlement" and safety net programs that they will never need or use (Medicare, Social Security, Unemployment, Food Stamps, etc.) because they are rich enough for it not to matter. Romney will get to pay 0.82% in taxes under the Ryan plan, and you are willing to suck it up and pay for his share? The middle class should all pay more to make up for the wealthy paying next to nothing: WHY? That ****** makes $21 million a year (that we know about, not including the **** he is hiding), he should get to pay sub 1% in tax, but someone making $50,000 should pay 25%? Someone who would actually use a tax break to stimulate our economy by creating demand for products, rather than Romney throwing it in his Swiss bank account. Do you really think we can "spending cut" our way out of this? When taxes are the lowest they have ever been? Do you really think we should just gut the programs that people in this country rely upon to survive but keep dumping more and more money into our military? Even when you consider inflation, our military spending is higher than it has ever been. WHY? I don't see any Nazis running around, I don't see any nuclear arms race. And don't bring up terrorists. If we'd stop ******* around with their countries they probably wouldn't hate us so much. I'd be pretty pissed if the Chinese strolled in and installed a dictator of America, so maybe if we stop spending money to do that **** people wouldn't be so willing to kill themselves to slightly hurt us.

And do you truly, honestly think that trickle down economics is going to work? History has shown it never works. It just furthers the wealth gap between the rich and the poor, and once that gap gets far enough apart, people start to do crazy **** like revolt, in ways that makes Occupy Wall Street look like a tea party (protest). History has shown, on the other hand, that when the economy slows and the government steps in to create demand, the market recovers and that recovery directly helps people like you and me by putting money in our pocket who will actually spend it.