Jerry

I can agree with some of those comments. However when is Obama and Democrats going to address spending cuts? Obama's plan is tax more and spend more. I never hear a plan from him that outlines spending cuts to go along with the tax increases. I think everyone agrees that the plan needs to include tax increases and spending cuts. Some examples what frustrates me:

- Private sector is fine, but we need to increase hiring/building the public sector. Really. That's an increase in spending. State and local gov't had to get their house in order over the past 5 years and that means making decisions on where you spend money
- Medicare and Social Security are off limits. Let's just keep ignoring
- The plan for home owners underwater is to let them right down loan and make bank eat the loss. Why not extend the term of the loan and give them more time to pay. No Obama thinks the business should just eat the loss, which is really passed to those who pay. According to tax law the forgiveness of a debt is taxable income How is this any different
- Student loans. Looking to ease the laws that allow students to go bankrupt and right off loans. Taxpayers will pay for these write-offs because they are making most of the loans. I understand college is expensive and I have a son who starts college Monday. I think we have too many students not viewing college as an investment in their future career, but as a period of enlightment. Wouldn't this be a good time to start teaching young people about the cost and benefit. Doesn't it really make sense to spend 150k on a degree that is going to pay 40k a year. How about making a degree 3 years instead of 4 years. Cut out the extra classes that don't apply to the students major and reduce the cost by 25%.
- Welfare program. Now allowing states the option to eliminate the work requirement. You mentioned Germany early. They have programs that require part time work with reduced benefits. Our system encourages many to not get a job.
- Funding alternative energy programs. Millions of dollars wasted
-HCA. Every projection says increase in spending

You can say the Reps don't want to do anything and I agree, but to say Obama/Demos are wanting to address spending is a joke.

Brad

Deficit as analyzed by CBO and graphed by NY Times:



Starting with the surplus at the end of Clinton (which is arbitrary)

About all of the surplus is cancelled out by reductions in taxes due to economic downturn.

And then most of the deficit is caused by the two wars, the Bush tax cuts, and Medicare prescription part D.

The stimulous that Obama passed were relatively minor and have since expired. The additional programs are even smaller.

If we could just eliminate the two wars, Bush tax cuts, and Medicare Part D, the budget would be balanced.

Obama has "ended" Iraq, although spending continues at reduced level, but that is shrinking.

Obama has a plan to end Afganistan although too slow in my opinion.

Obama Care has reduced the Medicare Part D deficit.

Obama has tried to get rid of the unpaid for Bush Tax cuts that primarily go to the super-wealthy.

I'de say Obama is making some progress on the deficit despite the Republican's attempts to block.

The deficit is not liberal/socialist/communist spending programs - it's a continuation of the policies that the Republicans (including Ryan) put into place and refuse to end.

"Private sector is fine, but we need to increase hiring/building the public sector. Really. That's an increase in spending."

According to Keynes, the government should run a surplus when the economy is good and deficit when the economy is bad. The Republicans ran a deficit when the economy was good - enriching themselves when they have the opportunity. Then when the Democrats are in power they can scream "we're broke" and try to cancel programs that help average people.

Have you seen recent job reports - almost healthy gains in private jobs but major cuts in public jobs. This is the time we should be borrowing and using it to preserve public jobs. This would help the economy, like Germany did.

But, since we ran up such a huge debt during the Bush years, and large deficit on programs we can't get rid of, we have limited ability to borrow to preserve public jobs. We should do some.


"Welfare program. Now allowing states the option to eliminate the work requirement."

I can't believe you fell for that lie. Maybe you're too busy working : )

The Obama people gave exemptions to a couple Republican governors for alternate programs, but the feds will monitor and if the number of welfare people working doesn't increase, they'll withdraw the exemption. It's just the opposite.


"Student loans. Looking to ease the laws that allow students to go bankrupt and right off loans."

When I went to college I got scholarships from the government, I worked, and I borrowed a little money - $3,000 when I graduated which is $6,000 today inflation adjusted. My dad got his paid for by GI Bill.

The government subsidizing education produced a population of trained people that created computers, advances in health, etc. That's a good example of how the government helps private businesses.

It's ridiculous that people come out of college with $50,000 or $100,000 debts.

Right now we don't have enough trained people. We should go back to what worked. Anyone that has the ability and is willing to do the work should get a college education (or other advanced training) without a huge debt.


Ryan (and Gingrich) sound so reasonable and scholarly - except what they voted for was just the opposite. I don't believe them.

We have been deficit spending for the last 12 years, so why isn't the economy booming? You say Obama's deficit spending is good for the economy, but Bush's was bad. Why would deficit spending in a down economy have a different impact than in a thriving economy? Common sense.

"Have you seen recent job reports - almost healthy gains in private jobs but major cuts in public jobs. This is the time we should be borrowing and using it to preserve public jobs. "

The job reports shows we are barely keeping up with new people entering the workforce. Unemployment actually went up last month. You can spin it any way you want but people are not going back to work.

Why is it time to borrow money and hire public jobs. See that is the mentality of the public sector. They don't hire people because a job needs to get done, they hire to just put people on the payroll. The federal govt should learn a less from the states and get their house in order.

How much more would you like the taxpayers to subsidize education? You have to cut the cost of education and not look to the govt to subsidize. Where is that money going to come from? Spend, spend, spend.

Read an article about a HR director for a large company in PA. He was furious that his son just graduated from a private school with large student loan and couldn't find a job. Complaining that something has to done about this job market. Then said his son got a degree in the "classics". Seriously. How about get a degree in something that will lead to a job. College education is an investment in a career. We are starving for engineers, scientist, technology, etc. I would hire 3 or 4 more people tomorrow if I could find the right people. I use all the online services for posting jobs and get very few responses.

Brad.

Enjoyed the conversation but I'm bowing out.

Jerry you keep posting that misleading chart. I've explained it's problems before.

The growth of the federal government and those on the net benefit, has reached the point that it probably doesn't matter which party is in office anymore. The Federal gov't has assumed roles that were never intended, pulls money from the producers, and splits it as IT sees fit. Its list of accomplishments is on the short side, and if efficiency is introduced, becomes almost non-existent. A true conservative that runs on reversing this trend is probably not electable.

The parasite will eventually kill the host. When we reach the tipping point, which is where I believe we are headed, it can't be said that the history books weren't full of examples of other failed democracies. Those, still voting for a party that believes in more government, leaves me scratching my head. We will get what we deserve.

Fred, I agree that it will make little real difference which party is elected, which is why I'm not particularly interested in party politics (which is what I call 'promises' made to attract votes, which can't not realistically be kept).

However, I think the whole idea of a true democracy is also a pipe-dream. Whenever you allow politics to be largely influenced by wealthy private influences, if is not a true democracy IMHO. The wealthiest few have a much greater say in how the country is run, and that is unfair and inequitable, and clearly not democratic. America has been in this state of un-democracy since its inception.

Although many Republicans and Libertarians will disagree, the UN sets out many things guidelines for what it considers basic human rights. Most notably:

"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

There is also the right to work:

"The State Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right to work, which includes the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts, and will take appropriate steps to safeguard this right. (2) The steps to be taken by a State party to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include technical and vocational guidance and training programmes, policies and techniques to achieve steady economic, social and cultural development and full and productive employment under conditions safeguarding fundamental political and economic freedoms to the individual."

Providing this level of what is considered basic human living standards requires governments to intervene. It is considered fair and equitable to most (the majority, which is what democracy should be all about). It requires those that are better off to be humane and help those that are less fortunate. I don't see American politics and society to be anywhere close to this yet, but I don't see how it can get there either due to the entrenched power of the haves, versus the have-nots. What I see in America is a gross inequity between the wealthy few and the multitude of many who are truly struggling. This is not sustainable from a social perspective.

Do any of you REALLY believe what politicians promise? Whether it be for less government, or more efficient government, or whatever? Do any of you really believe that one person can make those promises on behalf of an entire nation the size of America? Do you really think that Romney can do a better job than Obama (or vice-versa)?

I don't understand all the screaming on the part of the GOP about spending money. During the Bush administration, the Republicans spent money like mad - two unpaid-for wars comes immediately to mind. They increased the size of government more than any other administration.

There is NOTHING wrong with spending money on the country, so long as that money goes toward intelligent things that improve the lives of EVERYONE (not jsut the effing rich), things like protection of the environment from rampant destruction and pollution from corporations and energy-extraction companies, imposing regulations to curb illegal and destructive money-games on Wall Street that destroy the economy, fixing our crumbling infrastructure, improving education (and that doesn't mean having more charter schools, either; it means improving education that EVERYONE can avail themselves of - i.e., PUBLIC schools - unlike charter schools who can pick and choose which students to allow and turn away whomever they like - that doesn't fit in a democracy), bringing manufacturing and jobs back to America, free health care for all like INTELLIGENT countries have, free college education like INTELLIGENT countries have, improving our social safety net instead telling people, "Tough, if you can't afford to see a doctor! Just die and get out of the way!". I despise Republicans - the new Republicans, the neo-cons and the tea partiers. They are a plague on our democracy.

"Intelligent" countries?
What does that even mean?

""Intelligent" countries?
What does that even mean?"

Welllll, if corporations are people, then probably countries are people, too; and we all know how intelligent people are, now don't we? ;0)

Makes sense to me Tom

Not sure but I think that the "intelligent countries" refers to those countries which are not filled to the brim with easily-distracted, easily-led morons that populate our good ol' God-fearin' 'merica.

Edited by DaveT on 08/20/2012 20:05:18 MDT.

"Not sure but I think that the "intelligent countries" refers to those countries which are not filled to the brim with easily-distracted, easily-led morons that populate our good ol' God-fearin' 'merica."

Hey Dave, do you mean countries with better educated people? Surely a country "filled to the brim with easily-distracted, easily-led morons" can't be due to genetics alone. Then again, if it is merely a lack of education, then surely there are many muslim women who would be the bottom of the moronic pile, but at least they don't tend to be in a position of making or influencing policies...

Kathy, I'm certain that you are a very kind and gracious person. I think your personal avatar communicates that about you. But I was saddened to read the animus in your posting and even see the word "despise". And all of this toward a group of people--many who are your neighbors--that simply have a different opinion than you. They just have a different political strategy in mind in accomplishing many of the same goals that we all share.

"Yesterday, Missouri Rep. Todd Akin, Republican Senate nominee and member of the House Science, Space and Technology committee, said pregnancy from rape was "really rare" because "if it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down." "


"Last year, Ye Grand Protector of All Womenfolk Rep. Akin joined forces with GOP VP candidate Paul Ryan to co-sponsor the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act", which introduced the awesome new term "forcible rape" into our vernacular. Federal funds can only be used to pay for abortion in cases when a woman is raped; the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" sought to chip away at that exception by clarifying that only pregnancies resulting from "forcible rape" would qualify for federally funded abortions. The true meaning of "forcible rape" was never clearly defined, and the term was eventually removed from the bill."

http://jezebel.com/5936160/the-official-guide-to-legitimate-rape

"toward a group of people--many who are your neighbors--that simply have a different opinion than you. They just have a different political strategy in mind in accomplishing many of the same goals that we all share."

I was also surprised by the wording of Kathy's response, cos up until then I was thinking to myself how civilised the discussions and disagreements had been considering the topic. However, now that I think about it, despise might be close to how I feel about the repubs/tea-baggers/neo-cons that I know well, namely the rest of my family. Then again it's family, so maybe it's more natural to despise them. But it IS hard when you sit with them and try to make conversation, only to find there is virtually nothing you can safely talk about without it turning into a slagging match. You can't even talk about the weather! But mostly I think it is easy to despise what we don't understand, and I don't understand much about the American right wing movements. However, I would like to think that nearly half of Americans can't all be horrible people!

Thanks for that David. Good to know there is a difference between legitimate rape and illegitimate rape, and that a woman's body can tell the difference.

Lynn... I find it difficult to discuss or argue with most people on the left because their discourse is based on emotion rather than evidence of facts and history. It seems that you've added a few rights to the list, which is fine, but to hold the UN up as a model is more than laughable. To slang the opposition with derogatory titles, is a little sad. Peace out.

A Government Big Enough to Give You Everything You Want, is Strong Enough to Take Everything You Have.
Ford

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
- H. L. Mencken -

Fred, I find your sexism regarding Lynn to be extremely out of line (not to mention offensive). I am somewhat sympathetic to your ideas, but your attitude and accusations threaten your ability to be heard well.

Edited by GlacierRambler on 08/21/2012 09:41:31 MDT.