Sen. Mitch McConnell has said openly and repeatedly that his number one priority is to make President Obama a one term president. I give him credit for his honesty. I believe he shares this priority with nearly all the GOP. It is not surprising, really, but the implications are frightening. In order to guarantee the President fails you need the country to fail. Is it any wonder then why we are bickering over raising the debt ceiling (that everyone seems to agree needs to be done) rather than getting people back to work. They don't really intend to get people back to work. In fact, the worse the economy gets, the better chance they have of taking the office in 2012. Apparently failure is not only an option for them it is required. I have no doubt they would intentionally let our national credit rating slip to achieve this goal. The process may have already started and could be irreversible.
I've said before that the GOP is holding this country hostage to get their way. But it didn't start with the debt ceiling debate or even last December when they threatened to shut down the government. It actually started directly after the last presidential election. We will continue to be held hostage until they have gotten their way and the country fails. We must not let them doom this country to failure. I want this country to recover and thrive - not because I'm a Democrat but because I'm an American. A grand economic recovery might indeed get President Obama re-elected. Does that mean we, as Americans lose? No - it means we win and win big.
We can't trust any decision by the GOP to be the right decision for the country if the goal is failure. Any politician who's primary goal is the failure of America should be fired immediately.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
Yesterday:
"This is getting boring...we are agreeing too much.
Say something crazy."
Today:
Ahhh....that's more like it. Thank you....all is right with the world.
And we have the fourth estate giving the smallest minority the most air time ever.
Why is that?
Lisa
"Why is that?"
Simple. Thanks to the internet, cable news, and talk radio, the days of Liberal media monopoly and censorship are over, and the other side of the debate is finally getting a fair hearing.
In a fair fight, conservative ideas usually prevail.
"..the smallest minority"?
I guess you slept through the election last November.
Lisa:
"I say, Tax the rich..."
Thomas Sowell, today at National Review Online:
"Despite the widespread notion that raising tax rates automatically means collecting more revenue for the government, history says otherwise. As far back as the 1920s, Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon pointed out that the government received a very similar amount of revenue from high-income earners at low tax rates as it did at tax rates several times as high.
How was that possible? Because high tax rates drive investors into tax shelters, such as tax-exempt bonds. Today, as a result of globalization and electronic transfers of money, “the rich” are even less likely to stand still and be sheared like sheep, when they can easily send their money overseas, to places where tax rates are lower.
Money sent overseas creates jobs overseas — and American workers cannot transfer themselves overseas to get those jobs as readily as investors can send their money there.
All the overheated political rhetoric about needing to tax “millionaires and billionaires” is not about bringing in more revenue to the government. It is about bringing in more votes for politicians who stir up class warfare with rhetoric."
Read the whole thing at:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/272972/boehner-s-plan-will-do-thomas-sowell
Andre, why defend the millionaires? They've had tax breaks of gigantic proportions for almost a decade and how many jobs were created in this country?
Or, Are you one? If not, you certainly have a lot of time on your hands between 8-5 CA time? Are you wasting your employer's money surfing the web and posting comments while you're at work? What is your occupation anyway? Or are you unemployed and bored? No need to answer. Just curious.
Here's a link for your reading pleasure. http://www.followthemoney.org/database/topcontributor.phtml?u=1457
Off to the dentist. So long.
Lisa
"...why defend the millionaires?"
Not trying to defend the millionaires in particular, so much as trying to defend this country from the depredations and destructive policies of the "socialist left" ( a category which, unfortunately, also includes, for all practical purposes, a good portion of Washington Republicans).
Call it penance for past sins, if you like (it's a thankless job, but someone has to do it).
Seriously though, my point was that we are facing huge and historic economic problems based on an unprecedented and out of control explosion of entitlement spending, and taxing the rich is not a serious response to the problem. Forget taxing the rich: even if we seized 100% of their wealth and applied it all to the National Debt, it would not even slow down the train wreck we are heading for.
As President Obama himself said earlier this month, “If you look at the numbers, then Medicare in particular will run out of money and we will not be able to sustain that program no matter how much taxes go up.”
Just think about this for a moment
(I mentioned this yesterday to Dennis): the Federal Government currently spends about $100,000 per second, and of that total they have to borrow around 40-45 per cent of it.
That's $40,000 per second that they are basically stealing from our children and grandchildren (since they are the ones that will inherit that debt).
Doesn't that strike you as even slightly outrageous (if not insane)?
Yes,you are right, I probably DO spend too much time engaged on the internet!
In my defense, I would just like to say that while in this regard I am certainly a man of my time, at least when I am away from the PC I am not one of those countless people I see everywhere nowadays who seem unable to go anywhere without an ipod or iphone CONSTANTLY in front of their face, no matter where they are. I don't play video games, I don't watch television (don't even own one!).
My electronic addiction is limited to a relatively few venues.
No, not bored, the very opposite! I am passionately interested (and concerned!) about all of these topics ( on balance, I spend more time on philosophy,theology,history sites then I do on purely political sites).
Still, that pile of books on my desk grows taller and taller, and my bike hangs from the ceiling far too long unused...
Oh, and yes, this is on my own dime. The vast majority of the work I am currently engaged is on a volunteer and unpaid basis (though I won't be able to keep that up indefinitely).
Lisa,
I took a quick look at the link you provided.
I'm afraid that I just don't understand your seeming obsession with the Koch brothers and what they choose to do with their own money.
I am aware that George Soros also gives away millions of dollars every year to politicians and groups whose ideas he agrees with, but I don't loose a moment of sleep worrying about it. Why should I?
A bad idea is a bad idea and no amount of George Soros's fortune is going to convince me otherwise if the fundamental argument just isn't there.
I say God Bless them all! Let them spend as much as they want and give away as much as they want however the see fit to do. We live in a big enough and diverse enough information and media culture that none of them have a monopoly on the flow and control of information, and as long as they don't have that, I see no reason to unduly concerned about what free people choose to do with their own money.
PS: Didn't you recently describe yourself as a "libertarian"?
Andre pointed out an interesting fact. No matter what we do - ultra rich people will find some way to cheat the system so they don't have to pay their fair share of taxes (tax shelters, off shore accounts etc.) Cheats.
I keep hearing this argument that even if rich people gave us all their money it wouldn't solve the debt problem. True. But it sure would help! Having them pay their fair share along with spending cuts will indeed solve the problem. We can't not tax the rich just because that wouldn't completely solve the issue. That's silly.
Lastly, Andre keeps saying he would like to see more billionaires. What I would like to see is more families who can afford food, shelter, clothing and medical treatment and maybe have at least $1000 in a savings account. Decide with your vote Republican = another Billionaire. Democrat = millions of thousandaires.
"..even if rich people gave us all their money it wouldn't solve the debt problem. True."
Thank you for finally admitting that Conservatives are right about that (see, you didn't burst into flames, or suddenly grow a pair of horns out of your head).
"We can't not tax the rich just because that wouldn't completely solve the issue. That's silly."
Yes, that would be silly, but happily, that's NOT the reason we shouldn't over-tax the rich.
If you don't mind, I'd like to move all of our ongoing thread conversations to this single location (I'm having trouble keeping track of them all).
" Please keep in mind that President Bush ordered the financial bailout of the banks."
Yes, but you also need to keep in mind that the Tea Party movement began in the later years of the Bush Administration, precisely as a reaction against exactly those type of big-Government, anti-Conservative tendencies within the Bush Administration.
(I realize that level of nuance doesn't fit easily into the Left-wing cookie cutter, cartoon version of the world, but I'm sorry, facts are what they are...with all the messy complexity that entails.)
The fact that I can enthusiastically defend Bush where he upheld Conservative values and principles, puts me under no obligation to defend him when he ignored or abandoned those very same principles.
"..when SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE shows that the climate this century is changing at a rate far more rapid than history has indicated it has in the past, then reasonable people take notice."
Yes, but that is exactly the question being debated, isn't it? What does the scientific evidence show and what does it not show?
Apart from the fact that there IS uncontested scientific evidence that shows past examples of rapid heating and cooling (long before human civilization existed at all, let alone modern industrial civilization); and apart from the fact that ice core samples show periods with much higher atmospheric CO2 levels AND simultaneous far cooler global temperatures than today, that is not what the current Anthropogenic Global Warming theory is based on.
It is based primarily on the results of controversial and unproven computer modelling. Computer modelling that often directly contradicts real world empirical evidence.
This short video interview with renowned physicist Freeman Dyson explains the problem much more concisely and intelligently than I could ever hope to:
http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Is-The-End-Near-For-Anthropogenic-Global-Warming
Teaser:
Four years ago noted theoretical physicist and mathematician Freeman Dyson warned about the heavy reliance on computer modeling to predict the proposed future harmful effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere...Dyson advocated using new and very sophisticated instruments to more precisely measure carbon dioxide levels – because flawed input could result in flawed output....In a report published three days ago in the scientific journal, Remote Sensing, it appears that Dyson’s warning is being vindicated."
Yes Andre - I do mind if you consolidate current threads. I want this blog to be a historical reference that a person can read through in the future and not be confused. Please note that it is possible to end a discussion at any time - even if you are not the one that gets the last word.
Only those that dismiss the Koch brothers spending habits will bring up Soros who gives his wealth against his own (billionaire's) service to keep himself rich. Soros supports candidates that defend the right to tax the rich at a higher rate than what they are paying now, percentage wise. If he was truly just 'like' the Koch brothers then why would he do that? He's exactly the opposite of the Koch brothers and to use him as an example is poor (unwise) thinking, indeed. LOL. Try again!
Lisa
"..it is possible to end a discussion at any time - even if you are not the one that gets the last word."
(Well, I should probably say it before Lisa or Thohea beat me to the punch line): I'm not sure that IS possible.
"Only those that dismiss the Koch brothers spending habits..."
But that is exactly my point! I neither dismiss their spending habits, nor not dismiss them.
It is none my business what the Koch brothers (or Soros, or anyone else) legally does with their own money.
Nor is is any of yours.
BTW: I can't find the exact quote right now, but I seem to remember that you recently described yourself as a libertarian. Given the content of this conversation, I am lead to suspect that you are misunderstanding what that word means.
Andre: To answer your question, yes, I lean Libertarian but what YOU don't understand is that there are LIBERAL LIBERTARIANS TOO! Here's a link. Maybe if you take the 'test' you too can see where you fall on the scale of your political and social leanings.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test
That's it for this weekend. I have a family wedding and am hosting a few of the attendees. Have a nice weekend! Cheers,
Lisa
I'm sure that there are people who call themselves Libertarian Liberals, but that just means that they are Liberals (so such confused thinking just comes naturally to them).
Calling yourself a Libertarian Liberal is as contradictory as calling yourself an "anti-Semitic Zionist" or a "spiritual atheist".
The belief in an absolutely minimal government is a core tenant of classical Libertarianism. Just because you support the Liberal position on certain social issues does not mean you are a Libertarian. Adolf Hilter was a big supporter of euthanasia and abortion "rights", but that in no way qualified him as a Libertarian.
Unless, of course, you are using the term "Liberal" in the original 19th Century sense of the word, but I'm pretty sure that is not what you mean (the political philosophy of Ronald Reagan could most accurately be described as "Classical Liberalism").
I'm pretty sure you are referring to the contemporary sense of Liberalism ala Teddy Kennedy and Barack Obama, which is,of course, in most key regards the exact opposite of Libertarian.
Let's put it this way: if you think John Stossel is a very reasonable man, you are possibly a Libertarian. If most of what Bernie Sanders says doesn't make you at least slightly nauseous, you are almost certainly NOT a Libertarian.
Perhaps you meant to say "Libertine Liberal"?
Whatever....
Have a wonderful weekend and enjoy your family and the wedding, whatever you are!
I'm pretty sure she knows who she is better than you know who she is. And I'm only speaking for Lisa now because it really bothers me when people say things like gays choose to be Gay - even though we continue to tell them we didn't choose our sexuality. Somehow they always think they know better than those who are actually in the situation. It serves their political or bigoted agenda to cast doubt on those who are actually speaking the truth.
I wasn't questioning whether or not Lisa knew what she believed in.
What I was questioning was whether or not she knew what Libertarians believe in.
" ..it really bothers me when people say things like gays choose to be Gay..."
Yeah, it bothers me too when people are so sloppy with language.
Perhaps some do literally say those words, but isn't it far more likely that what they really mean is something more like "some people with same sex attraction choose to engage in homosexual behavior."?
The first statement is akin to saying that "some chocolate lovers choose to love chocolate", when what they really mean to say is that "some chocolate lovers choose to consume chocolate".
If you narrowly define "being" gay as merely having a sexual interest or attraction to members of your own sex then of course, it's hard to see where "choice" enters into it. Just as I don't "choose" to love chocolate, I just do, someone else doesn't "choose" to be sexually attracted to other men (or women, as the case may be)...I might choose to not to consume chocolate, but if someone told me I should choose NOT to love it, I wouldn't even understand what they were talking about.
Similarly, if you define "being" gay as actively engaging in homosexual sex, then it is perfectly accurate to describe that as something you are choosing to do.
I suppose that if there existed a really effective and scientifically proven surgical procedure or psychological therapy that could really make a gay person straight (or vice versa), then one could reasonably say that one who declined to undergo such a thing was actually "choosing" to be (remain) Gay (or Straight)
I know that some claim that such therapy exists now, but that is highly controversial (to say the least!), but it certainly not far fetched to imagine that one day in the perhaps not too distant future such an option might actually exist. Just think about what a whole can of worms that is going to open!
That could make a really interesting science fiction story...hmmm...
Well you really nailed the whole gay issue Andre - pun intended. People believe that gay means two people of the same gender having sex. That is only a small part of being homosexual.
We eat food because we are alive - we are not alive because we eat food. But they can't be separated. In the same way gay people have homosexual intercourse - but the intercourse does not make them gay. Also straight people engaging in intercourse doesn't make them straight.
Being gay or straight shapes our entire lives. It decides who we will interact with in life (outside the bedroom) the goals we have, the talents we have and how we use them. It shapes how we view families and relationships, how we conduct business and on and on.
You will always hear straight people say "I don't mind gay people as long as they don't flaunt it". The flaunting they refer to is our LIVES. We do most social things (outside the bedroom) with our gay friends. Straight people put up pictures of their families on their desk, talk about the baseball game they attended with their best buddy, brag about the number of women they partied with this weekend etc. etc. That is flaunting a straight LIFE. If we mention that we took our partner to the baseball game we are chastised for it.
See the difference? Gay or straight isn't a lifestyle - it's a life.
It should be noted that a gay person who has never had sex with anyone is still gay.
Den:
"No matter what we do - ultra rich people will find some way to cheat the system so they don't have to pay their fair share of taxes (tax shelters, off shore accounts etc.) Cheats."
Andre
Exactly. Laws passed in Washington (or anywhere else) will not change the fundamental realities of human nature.
Intelligent law makers take the facts of human nature into account (as opposed to more idealistic Utopian law makers who think that they can fundamentally rearrange human nature to their liking).
That is why there is a natural upper limit to how much you can realistically tax the rich (where exactly that limit is, is a matter of much heated debate); at a certain point it becomes worth while for the wealthy to engage in all sorts of legal, quasi-legal, and outright illegal strategies to escape taxation. Failing that, they will just stop creating new wealth at all. Would you continue working if the government was going to take 90% of the fruits of your labor? I wouldn't.
Den
"I keep hearing this argument that even if rich people gave us all their money it wouldn't solve the debt problem. True. But it sure would help!
Andre
Of course it wouldn't help, it would only make the situatiom immeasurably worse. The top 1% currently pay around 38% of all Federal Income taxes. Take everything they have from then this year, and quess who is going to be picking up the bill for that 38% next year?
That's right, you and me.
Andre - I had to read that last post several times. Are you really saying that we just need to let crooks be crooks?! Nonsense! We need to be smarter than these crooks and keep them from doing what they do! We have technology available today that can track financial transactions very accurately. And, thanks to the Bush Admin's Patriot Act, we don't even need warrants to do so. Let's track these crooks and MAKE THEM PAY their fair share!
The last argument is also absurd. NO ONE is asking rich people to give us ALL their money. Just their fair share of taxes! So if we can get them to pay their fair share now - they will still be able to pay their fair share next year because they will still be making money!
Why are Tea Party people so simplistic?!!
Wow, what a great idea! Let's go after tax cheats!
That's freakin' brilliant. You absolutely have to write a letter to the IRS and suggest they try that. I mean, now that you have mentioned it, it just seems so obvious, it just makes you wonder why that idea has never occurred to anyone before?
After all, what the hell have all of those IRS employees been doing for all these decades. Sitting around on their butts on our dime, I'll wager. Well that's all going to change now, by golly.
And tracking financial transactions! Of course! Slap my fore-head, why hasn't anyone ever thought of that one before?
That changes everything!
Sorry...you lobbed me such a soft ball on that one, I just couldn't resist.
But seriously, the relative level of tax enforcement is irrelevant to my point that as a general rule people are going to respond to any government mandate based on their own self interest. The higher you raise taxes the more incentive you create for people to find creative ways of avoiding them. That is just a fact.
I am not saying "that we just need to let crooks be crooks", I'm saying that crooks will be crooks, and the more incentive you create for their crooked behavior, the more likely they are to indulge in it.
Additionally, much, perhaps most, tax avoidance occurs through completely legal means.
The more you punish people for creating wealth, the less likely are they to do so. If opening that second cafe or getting another van or two for my carpetcleaning business, is just going to push me into a higher tax bracket, then I might just decide it's not worth all the extra work and aggravation.
The net result is that those jobs that I might have created, never are created, and the income tax that those potential employees might have payed, and all the sales tax their labor would have generated, are never paid.
Everyone loses.
"Additionally, much, perhaps most, tax avoidance occurs through completely legal means."
IE - Loopholes. CLOSE THEM!
You do realize that in the last couple of posts you are defending cheats - right?
I'd argue that if buying a 2nd truck puts you in a higher tax bracket than you would need to grow your business more to compensate. Therefore tax increases grow business.
As usual, you completely miss the point: creating disincentives that discourage business owners from expanding and hiring new employees is not a "loophole".
It's just a stupid, self-defeating tax policy.
It is also one of the main reasons why President Obama has the worst post-recession "recovery" record in American history.
I'll let the readers look over our last several comments and decide who missed the point.
Post a Comment