• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

U.S. Politics

Page 40 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 18, 2009
1,080
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Yep, I see the pattern and that's what worries me. BTW, didn't BO just ask for another 1.2 Trillion additional borrowing?

And now for the rest of the story. See the line at the far right of the graphs? You know the one shooting straight up? This doesn't show an additional $1+ Trillion in the hole for 2011. Any guesses to what this graph will look like a year or two from now?

.... and in that graph, do you see where the debt started going up? 1980? What happened then? Looks like it went up for ~12 years before starting to be paid down again in ~1994. Then sharply climbed again in 2000.

While I acknowledge that US debt has increased considerably under Obama, blaming him solely for this fact is not fair. He inherited a crisis in 2008, and the republicans in congress have blocked increasing taxes on the rich to help pay for the recovery.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cobber said:
.... and in that graph, do you see where the debt started going up? 1980? What happened then? Looks like it went up for ~12 years before starting to be paid down again in ~1994. Then sharply climbed again in 2000.

While I acknowledge that US debt has increased considerably under Obama, blaming him solely for this fact is not fair. He inherited a crisis in 2008, and the republicans in congress have blocked increasing taxes on the rich to help pay for the recovery.
Yes and Reagan inherited Carter, Clinton inherited Reagan (which was very good for his legacy), Bush inherited a recession after Clinton and 9/11... So what?

Uh, for the first 2years of BO's reign the repubs could not stop anything. Zip, zero, nut-in. The mid-terms were November, 2010. Also, Velocity was just quoting some dumb-*** touting Obama's record as a tax-cutter. You guys really need to get on the same page.

Btw, if Obama were to confiscate all of the weath of the "rich", how much of the debt would be retired?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Amsterhammer said:
Obscene. There is no other word to describe what the US 'spends'/ wastes on "defense" - which is a misnomer, since we mainly spend these truly o b s c e n e amounts of money that we don't have on actual offense.

Stupendous 'savings' could be made, but any downsizing of the US military machine would compromise our national security, leave us open to threats of terrorism, crush the collective macho egos of the weapons industry, and make us look like pussies to the rest of the world. :rolleyes:

So therefore, this subject won't ever be seriously considered.
I can only imagine if BO were to fire 80,000 teachers.

Obama to Cut 80,000 Troops from U.S. Army, More than 20,000 from Marine Corps

Be happy, you are getting what you want. Recognize victory.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-cut-80000-troops-us-army-more-20000-marine-corps_616064.html
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cobber said:
You can't quote the Weekly Standard and expect anyone to take you seriously........
Oh dear...

Pentagon officials acknowledged the risks in a strategy that declares that American ground forces will no longer be large enough to conduct prolonged, large-scale counterinsurgency campaigns like those in Iraq and Afghanistan — Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta has said the Army must shrink to 490,000 soldiers over the next decade, from 570,000 — and so said they were prepared to change course if required.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/us/obama-at-pentagon-to-outline-cuts-and-strategic-shifts.html?_r=1

I guess we can't trust the NY Times then. Or Bloomberg.

This is simple. Either 80,000 military will be cut or they won't. Which do you think it is?
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,080
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Oh dear...

Pentagon officials acknowledged the risks in a strategy that declares that American ground forces will no longer be large enough to conduct prolonged, large-scale counterinsurgency campaigns like those in Iraq and Afghanistan — Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta has said the Army must shrink to 490,000 soldiers over the next decade, from 570,000 — and so said they were prepared to change course if required.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/us/obama-at-pentagon-to-outline-cuts-and-strategic-shifts.html?_r=1

I guess we can't trust the NY Times then. Or Bloomberg.

This is simple. Either 80,000 military will be cut or they won't. Which do you think it is?
I'm not disputing that, I just fail to see what your point is..... So Obama is downsizing the military by 80,000 over 10 years. So what? Isn't that a good thing that he will be reducing government spending?

Edit: I guess you were implying that a gradual downsizing of the military personnel by 10% over 10 years negates Amsterhammer's point that the US spends way too much of it's budget on defense (waging war in other parts of the world) rather than spending in on it's own citizens?
 
I'm puzzled too.

Scott - are you saying that you do not favor any cutting of defense (or military) spending? How do you justify the cost? Did you read my recent post explaining how much more we spend than anyone else?

You keep talking about cutting or eliminating the debt (or balancing the budget), and I showed were all the money is. What is your solution?
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,924
0
0
I suspect that Scott thinks that downsizing 80k over 10 years is a pretty substantial cut, and one that 'we' should be happy about.

My view is that this is an insignificant spit in the ocean. Any bets that during this period of 10 years yet another area of conflict will arise, where the US feels obliged to defend its national security, fight global terrorism, and keep the world safe for democracy (count the cliches) - thereby making the intended cuts impossible according to the brass?

Bottom line - the role of world's policeman is 1. not/no longer appreciated by most other countries and 2. is no longer affordable. Stop playing a thankless role that you can't afford.
 
Amsterhammer said:
I suspect that Scott thinks that downsizing 80k over 10 years is a pretty substantial cut, and one that 'we' should be happy about.
Except that makes no sense. Though I'd like to hear it in his own words.

As to "fighting terrorism" with US defense being a rationalization for zero cuts, this is an astounding thought. As Andrew Bacevich (a former US Colonel and PhD who has taught at West Point) has pointed out, the enemy combatants in nearly all such instances have progressed faster and more efficiently with IED's and at times social activity (the "hearts and minds") than the billions of dollars that the US throws at solving the problem. Link here.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Alpe d'Huez said:
I'm puzzled too.

Scott - are you saying that you do not favor any cutting of defense (or military) spending? How do you justify the cost? Did you read my recent post explaining how much more we spend than anyone else?

You keep talking about cutting or eliminating the debt (or balancing the budget), and I showed were all the money is. What is your solution?
No, we should cut defense. We should index Medicare/Medicaid to CPI. We should actually GROW this economy... increasing revenues far more than any tax increase.

Perhaps I am alone in finding the cutting of 80,000 government jobs being celebrated on the left as dripping with irony. Replace "military" with "service worker" and I can imagine the narrative would be different. I guess if the military men and women were represented by the SEIU and giving millions in campaign contributions everything would be different.

I really am for smaller govt. But the lack of mourning for the govt jobs lost I found striking. That's all.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I am a little surprised nobody has commented on this;


Congress logs most futile legislative year on record

an analysis by The Washington Times of the scope of such activities as time spent in debate, number of conference reports produced and votes taken on the House and Senate floors found that Congress set a record for legislative futility by accomplishing less in 2011 than any other year in history.
The Senate’s record was weakest by a huge margin, according to the futility index, and the House had its 10th-worst session on record.

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/15/congress-logs-most-futile-legislative-year-on-reco/?page=all


This sort of flies in the face on the "it's all the republicans fault" mantra.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,924
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Perhaps I am alone in finding the cutting of 80,000 government jobs being celebrated on the left as dripping with irony. Replace "military" with "service worker" and I can imagine the narrative would be different. I guess if the military men and women were represented by the SEIU and giving millions in campaign contributions everything would be different.

I really am for smaller govt. But the lack of mourning for the govt jobs lost I found striking. That's all.
Perhaps I am alone in never in my entire life having thought of the military profession as a "government job"?:confused:

But I don't think so. I wonder how much military personnel would have to be cut to 'save' as much as not ordering, say, another stealth bomber, or another nuclear sub? I'm all in favor of starting defense spending cuts there. Eventually though, if enough US politicians ever have to smell the coffee, yes, the size of personnel also needs to be massively downsized.

I really don't think you'd ever hear anyone of my persuasion arguing for the military as a 'job creator'.:rolleyes:
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,119
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
I can only imagine if BO were to fire 80,000 teachers.

Obama to Cut 80,000 Troops from U.S. Army, More than 20,000 from Marine Corps

Be happy, you are getting what you want. Recognize victory.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-cut-80000-troops-us-army-more-20000-marine-corps_616064.html
To use "teachers" is probably a bad example, given that the total education budget (which consists 36% of Pell Grants I believe) is a grand total of 77-80B dollars (as requested by the President for FY2012, haven't had time to check actual approps).

Check page 93 of the detailed request here [pdf]

Contrast that with a 672B budget for defense (which probably doesn't even include "secret funding" for military and national intel, probably another 80B) and I think it would be hard to argue that it's the federal education budget where the fat is.

Also, aren't teachers paid mostly by states and through local/state taxes? If that's the case, I doubt the federal government is in a position to 'fire 80,000 teachers'.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
No, we should cut defense. We should index Medicare/Medicaid to CPI. We should actually GROW this economy... increasing revenues far more than any tax increase.

Perhaps I am alone in finding the cutting of 80,000 government jobs being celebrated on the left as dripping with irony. Replace "military" with "service worker" and I can imagine the narrative would be different. I guess if the military men and women were represented by the SEIU and giving millions in campaign contributions everything would be different.

I really am for smaller govt. But the lack of mourning for the govt jobs lost I found striking. That's all.
Maybe cutting taxes for the wealthy and deregulating Wall St while increasing spending isn't such good policy after all.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Amsterhammer said:
Perhaps I am alone in never in my entire life having thought of the military profession as a "government job"?:confused:

But I don't think so. I wonder how much military personnel would have to be cut to 'save' as much as not ordering, say, another stealth bomber, or another nuclear sub? I'm all in favor of starting defense spending cuts there. Eventually though, if enough US politicians ever have to smell the coffee, yes, the size of personnel also needs to be massively downsized.

I really don't think you'd ever hear anyone of my persuasion arguing for the military as a 'job creator'.:rolleyes:
Perhaps I am alone in never in my entire life having thought of the military profession as a "government job"?:confused:
That might explain why you don't have a problem with firing 80,000 of them.

I really don't think you'd ever hear anyone of my persuasion arguing for the military as a 'job creator'.:rolleyes:
Yep, I agree with you here. They are just a non-necessary complex of expensive war mongers.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bala Verde said:
To use "teachers" is probably a bad example, given that the total education budget (which consists 36% of Pell Grants I believe) is a grand total of 77-80B dollars (as requested by the President for FY2012, haven't had time to check actual approps).

Check page 93 of the detailed request here [pdf]

Contrast that with a 672B budget for defense (which probably doesn't even include "secret funding" for military and national intel, probably another 80B) and I think it would be hard to argue that it's the federal education budget where the fat is.

Also, aren't teachers paid mostly by states and through local/state taxes? If that's the case, I doubt the federal government is in a position to 'fire 80,000 teachers'.
Teachers was perhaps a bad example but I'm confident you got the point. For your benefit I'll try and be more precise in the future.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,119
0
0
Obama administration warns the left: You will not like our budget

perhaps he has found a way to fire those 80,000 teachers...

He must stick to the $1.047 trillion spending cap he agreed to with GOP leaders, which means he will call for less discretionary spending than he did last year.
In any case, has anyone already don the interactive PEW 'cut the budget' challenge.

http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_report_detail.aspx?id=85899366327

Share your results/report here, so we can actually discuss specifics, instead of 'taxes are bad', or it's all the 'GOP's fault'

Did anyone know what the effect of pricing green house gas emissions would be:

If implemented, this option would raise revenues by
close to $500 billion from 2012 through 2016 and by
$1.2 trillion from 2012 through 2021. (Because it
would reduce the tax base of income and payroll taxes,
the option would lead to reductions in revenue from
those sources. The estimates shown here reflect those
reductions.)

http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/Flash_Library/PCT/Interactives/Budget_Challenge/Assets/documents/2011-CBO-R-35.pdf
Nice haul.

Oh, and if anyone was wondering what would happen to sequestrating the DOD budget... just don't get your hopes up. Too much money at stake, hear the lobbyists and lawmakers speak.

Congress tries to disable automatic spending cuts

“I’m very concerned about the defense cuts in sequestration, but it’s also the cuts to nondefense discretionary [that] are also devastating,” Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) told POLITICO. “Ultimately, I think there’s a very strong feeling that it’s not going to go into effect.
“The Department of Defense just can’t sustain additional cuts beyond what they’ve already taken without seriously jeopardizing … the national security capability,” said Cord Sterling, vice president of legislative affairs for the Aerospace Industries Association
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has said “no one really wants to go there” on the spending cuts and that Obama needs to work with Congress to find a way to avoid them. And a handful of legislative proposals to block the cuts are already circulating in Congress.
Here's his proposal:

McKeon’s measure, which has 25 co-sponsors, would prevent federal agencies from hiring more than one worker for every three who leave until the workforce slims down by 10 percent. As he introduced his bill in December, McKeon said the first round of budget cuts to the Pentagon had already cleared “a lot of waste, fat and even muscle out of the military” and that further reduction “cuts us to the bone.”
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,119
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Teachers was perhaps a bad example but I'm confident you got the point. For your benefit I'll try and be more precise in the future.
I appreciate that. It could actually lift the discussion to a higher level, and perhaps we can all learn from such an exchange of information.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloCity said:
Maybe cutting taxes for the wealthy and deregulating Wall St while increasing spending isn't such good policy after all.
Oh, so only the "wealthy" got a tax cut?

Deregulation is not as much the problem as corruption. Wall st is and was heavily regulated.

Increasing spending? Every Prez since Eisenhower has increased spending no matter what the state of the economy/revenue is/was.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bala Verde said:
I appreciate that. It could actually lift the discussion to a higher level, and perhaps we can all learn from such an exchange of information.
I sincerely doubt it... but I will make every attempt to do my part.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,119
0
0
Savaged by Rick Perry... (!) now this:

Having strongly suggested at Monday night’s debate that he would release his 2011 tax returns in April, Mitt Romney needs to begin inoculating himself against the backlash that will almost inevitably ensue when the public sees how much annual income he has, where it comes from and how little tax he pays on it. He started this process Tuesday morning, when he told reporters in South Carolina that his effective tax rate is about 15 percent.
Mitt Romney’s Taxes
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bala Verde said:
Savaged by Rick Perry... (!) now this:



Mitt Romney’s Taxes

If all this speculation is spot-on, then I just have two questions.

1. Did Romney write the tax code rules?

2. Did Romney break the tax code rules?

If the answer to both questions is "no", then Romney's effective tax rate is not the problem, imo.
 
Of course he didn't, but when he asserts or sides with those who say people in his tax bracket pay too much taxes...

Those quotes from Congress about cutting defense are so typical and shows just how out of touch with reality they are.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,080
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
If all this speculation is spot-on, then I just have two questions.

1. Did Romney write the tax code rules?

2. Did Romney break the tax code rules?

If the answer to both questions is "no", then Romney's effective tax rate is not the problem, imo.
No-one's suggesting he is doing anything illegal (I think). But how's he going to connect with middle class voters when they all realise he is paying a much lower rate of tax than they are?

As far as growing the economy goes.... do you think the best way to improve small business growth is to put more money in the hands of consumers (who would then pass it on to small business) or into the hands of the very wealthy? In the past, credit was not a problem so there was plenty of middle class spending, but now not so much.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts