No need to worry about filibuster because you can't even get your own party to agree. Reason they will not approve a budget is because they don't want to be on the record for their plan. What are they hiding?

I personally think we should have a balanced budget amendment in place to hold both parties accountable. Politicians have a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers on how the money is being spent. We should also put in a very stiff penalty if they miss the deadline. Something like they forfeit their pay and benefits for the whole fiscal year.

So based on your rational if Obama is reelected we should expect him and the Senate not to do anything the next 4 years because it might be filibustered or voted down by the house.

Funny how my responses are blaming both parties, yet you continue to answer every question defending the dems and blaming the reps. Come on man! You are smarter than this and me. Be objective.

Brad

Brad

As I said before, Obama has made some progress on deficit despite Republican obstruction:
- tried to eliminate unpaid for Bush tax cuts, maybe this time?
- Obama Care fixes some of the Medicare Prescription deficit. The CBO says it pushes out the day taxes won't cover expenses by 8 years. Republicans still pushing back hard on, for example, allowing them to negotiate prices with pharmaceatical companies.
- Iraq war "ended" - expenses way reduced and lowering more with time
- Afganistan plan to end in 2014 (Ryan was arguing that we should extend this? But it was a little unclear exactly what he was saying)
- If the economy continues to recover, there will be more taxes

And those 5 items are what caused the deficit so if we fixed them, there would be no deficit.

You don't want to cut the deficit too much too quick because it could hurt the economic recovery.

As you pointed out, if a deficit stimulates the economy, then we should have a good economy now because we have a big deficit. It's complicated.

One thing that bothers me is that some liberals want to spend the Iraq and Afganistan savings on domestic programs, which is totally B.S. because that was never paid for, the savings should go totally to reducing deficit.

I assume you meant to say pay down the debt. Less important. Economic growth will gradually reduce the debt as a percent of the GDP which is what happened after WWII. When the economy improves we can worry about paying off debt some.

The fiscal cliff will probably be resolved after the election. Impossible now, in "the silly season" as Obama calls it.

"Obama has no common sense."

He had enough common sense to get us out of the misbegotten war in Iraq, and also Afghanistan, where we have overstayed our welcome long after achieving our original purpose. He also has enough common sense to keep us out of Syria. So far. Ditto Iran, so far.

I will concede that Ron Paul would never have gotten us into those godforsaken places in the first place, but in truth, he could not govern this country. There would be chaos.

Would you settle for Bono?

"So based on your rational if Obama is reelected we should expect him and the Senate not to do anything the next 4 years because it might be filibustered or voted down by the house."

That is a good point.

Let's say the Republicans will fillibuster anything and the Democrats will compromise.

If the Democrats are in power, nothing will happen.

If the Republicans are in power, things will happen.

So should you vote for Republicans?

Are you rewarding them for their bad behavior?

We have been taken over the last 30 years, progressively worse, by this hysteria that the government should serve the super-rich. Same thing happened in the 1930s. We need to break this hysteria. It needs to be clear that the people have figured this out and won't put up with it any more. Voting for Romney just perpetuates this.

Did you notice that Ryan had a bigger American flag lapel pin?

He must be more patriotic.

"tried to eliminate unpaid for Bush tax cuts, maybe this time?"

I think he voted to continue the cuts.

"If the economy continues to recover, there will be more taxes"

If you call what we have a recovery.

- almost 80% of the S&P 500 are saying they are going to miss earning estimates
- unemployment is unchanged and we are not keeping pace with those entering workforce
- projections for GDP are down .5% over the next 12 months and we are barely growing now
- payroll tax moves back to 6.2% from 4.2% in January which has a significant impact
- Gas prices continue to be an issue
- IMF meeting reiterated the issues in Greece are getting worse. Spain is not improving.
- China is slowing
- Japan has a debt ceiling issue they are dealing with


I don't think we can assume that the economy is going to rebound anytime soon and generate the necessary tax revenue we need. If we don't balance the budget and start some process for paying down the debt over the long term we are in a lot of trouble. Our country is at a critical point and we need a government to lead us through this process with a plan. But....we are going to waste another debate talking about Libya, Bain, Romeny tax returns, fast and furious, etc.

Brad

"He had enough common sense to get us out of the misbegotten war in Iraq, and also Afghanistan, where we have overstayed our welcome long after achieving our original purpose. He also has enough common sense to keep us out of Syria. So far. Ditto Iran, so far."

I'm conservative and can buy that. Didn't need to be their and cost us a fortune. People needed to pay for 9/11, but think we could have addressed without occupying. Afgan was really the bigger problem and should have just left Iraq alone. They kept Iran in check and we could sure use that now.

Braa

"Those 99% made a decision that put them in that situation. Nobody forced them to become pregnant and they made a decision not to take precautions."

I think it gets a little more complicated than that when you start looking at things from ground level, Brad, especially in the case of teenagers, drug addicts, etc. I am not a big fan of abortion either, but when I look at the poor prospects of a child born to a mother who does not want him/her, often not much more than a child herself or chemically dependent, and often without a husband or partner to help provide for the child, I think it may be the lesser of two evils in many cases. The media are full of accounts of abused children who might better never been brought into the world than be doomed to a life of living hell which will ultimately turn many to a life of crime or leave them a burden on society.

"Guess I'm wrong because I believe people should be responsible for their actions. The trend is this country is surely not for people to be responsible."

Here we agree. Mostly. I guess my main issue with you is that your seem ready to impose your beliefs on others, which I most certainly am not ready to do. I think Joe Biden summed it up pretty well, and he is a devout Catholic. Let God, if you believe in one, make those decisions.


"BTW, regardless of my religious beliefs I think it's wrong. As a father of 3 children I have a hard time with the thought of aborting a child. Why does the child not have any rights?"

There is a lot fo disagreement over exactly when an embryo becomes a child, even among experts and theologians.

"I respect your decision and your attack on those with a differing view."

I am not attacking those with differing views, merely expressing my disagreement with their views.

"Voting for Romney just perpetuates this."

But voting against him thinking this doesn't also perpetuate the issue is wrong. However not re-electing sends a message over time.

Brad

"So let me understand. You don't care that he paid 20% over 20 years. You would like to see by year: 40%, 30%, 0%, 15%, 50%, 0%, etc. This way you could say in 4 of those 20 years he paid 0% and 2 years he paid less than 15% and then just ignore all the years he paid the higher taxes. Kinda like my example with Reid when he focused on capital gain and ignored the capital loss. Tom you digging a deeper hole."

I will not be sure that is even the case until he releases his tax returns. However, even if he did, that is not my point, as I thought I made clear in a previous post. I am interested in seeing how he went about minimizing his taxes, to the point where his effective rate is less than many Americans earning an infinitesmal fraction of what he brings in, year after after year, and I think the American public would be interested as well. It almost certainly involves exploiting loopholes and special provisions that are only useful for the very rich. Remember, this is the guy that wants to be in a position to have a great influence on tax policy for the next 8 years, at a time when we are facing ruinous deficits that cannot possibly be eliminated by cuts alone. How is he likely to shape that policy? I think his tax returns might offer us some clarity in that regard.

"Kinda like my example with Reid when he focused on capital gain and ignored the capital loss. Tom you digging a deeper hole."

What I am saying bears no resemblance to Reid's lame argument. As for the hole, be careful where you step.

"Why doesn't Obama go after "carried interest" at 15%? Oh I forgot his big supporter Soros benefits greatly from this."

Soros isn't running for office. Besides, what does he have to do with the discussion? As for Obama and carried interest, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Does it show up in his tax returns?

"I am not a big fan of abortion either, but when I look at the poor prospects of a child born to a mother who does not want him/her, often not much more than a child herself or chemically dependent, and often without a husband or partner to help provide for the child, I think it may be the lesser of two evils in many cases"

What we never see are the stats breaking these down. Just because you have the child doesn't mean you have to keep it. Seems strange to me that we have so many people going overseas to adopt and why is it so difficult and expense to adopt in the US.

I certainly don't think it is an easy issue, but the conversation seems to always be around the extreme ends. Like all politics.

And when I say I don't like abortion and would like a better solution, I get labeled as a hater for women's rights, religious fanatic, etc.

Isn't it funny how at the being of our conversation on this topic it appeared that we were at different ends of the spectrum. However after a little conversation it is evident we are on the same page with just a few difference. That's probably the case with 90% of americans, but the 5% on but sides speak too loud and prohibit any resolution.

Brad

Tom,

Let's agree to disagree on tax returns. Important to you and not to me. I outlined what is more important to me.

"Soros isn't running for office. Besides, what does he have to do with the discussion? As for Obama and carried interest, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Does it show up in his tax returns?"

George Soros is a very big supporter of Obama and is a billionaire hedge fund guy. Since carried interest is typically treated as a capital gain as opposed to ordinary income, he benefits greatly from lower capital gain taxes. Obama has also spent time with Wall Street in fund raisers, etc. Safe to say that these guys will influence Obama and his position. Look for a special loophole for hedge fund guys when they change the tax law. Always amazed at how the media never highlights Obama's relationship with the super rich.

Brad

" Obama can't present a budget in 4 years that shows any evidence of controlling our spending problem. His own party doesn't support his budget."

He tried to present a budget balanced between tax increases and cuts in spending. The Republicans told him not to bother because it was dead on arrival.


"Neither party is increased in solving the problem"

I think it is clear the Democrats are far more interested than the Republicans, who have steadfastly refused to even consider tax increases as PART of the solution, whereas the Democrats have indicated a willingness to compromise.


"Bush tax cuts are a dark cloud in January, but you hear neither party address. The large consensus if we roll them all back we are headed for a recession at best."

It the Republicans finally blink and settle for a balanced package of cuts to entitlements, defense, etc, AND tax increases, primarily on those making in excess of $250,000, we will have a chance to avoid that outcome. Wasn't that what Simpson-Bowles was about?

"Defense cuts pending in January. This has a very negative impact on economy and more job losses."

Now that is a truly sad state of affairs. What does it say about us as a nation that our economy depends to such an extent on the manufacture of instruments of death. Ah, yes, now I remember: We account for something like 60% of the international arms trade. Or is it 70%? My memory fails me, or maybe I just don't want to remember.



"Biden saying we are going to increase taxes on the rich by 1 trillion. No mention of a balanced approach"

The Republicans have already rejected the balanced approach. I haven't heard Romney/Ryan mention a balanced approach either, for that matter.

"Neither party wants to develop a comprehensive plan that is needed to address the crisis our country is in."

Simpson-Bowles.

"My friend this is the big picture in my opinion. I don't think:
- Romney's tax returns. Just assume the worse and move on
- Ben Ghazi: mistakes where made. learn from it and move on
- Obama birth certificate: don't care
- Fast and furious: mistakes where made. learn from it and move on"

Thanks for sharing. Pretty reasonable, IMO.

"Both parties are using these non issues to avoid dealing with the bigger issue. Maybe you can defend your party, but they both make me sick and I feel like we have no hope to addressing these issues in future. I think the only hope we have is to have several elections of massive turnover to get the parties attention."

They'll either start addressing the issues soon or both be out of a job as things continue to deteriorate, IMO, and deservedly so. People are slowly starting to wake up and pay attention. Discussions like the one you and I are having are part of that process. Thanks for engaging, Brad.

BTW, I don't have a party. I'm independent again, and back to voting for the lesser of two evils, the story of my entire adult life. :(


Tom

Brad

"Only thing that has changed is that CCCP is not as big a threat as it was. But others have taken up the slack."

According to Romney, Russia is our number one strategic enemy. One more reason to not vote for him.

"So dont play the blame game with the stalemate. At least the Dems had a chance. They just didn't want to do it."

Ever hear of the Filibuster?

"I think it is clear the Democrats are far more interested than the Republicans, who have steadfastly refused to even consider tax increases as PART of the solution, whereas the Democrats have indicated a willingness to compromise."

Tax changes are a part of the solution and think this position is stupid. I would personally focus more on deductions and loopholes. However demos have said entitlements are off limits and that's not possible given their size of the budget and how they are growing.

"Wasn't that what Simpson-Bowles was about?"

Bingo. Obama ignored the report. Reps had a golden opportunity to say yeah I can live with 80% of the recommendations, so let's compromise on the remaining 20%. If either party would have embraced the report the election wouldn't even be close.

"BTW, I don't have a party. I'm independent again, and back to voting for the lesser of two evils, the story of my entire adult life. :("

Same boat. Just disappointing and disheartening that we can't realize we all need to be pulling the oars in the same direction.

enjoyed the conversation.

Brad

Tom

Was there a filibuster? I must have missed it.

"He tried to present a budget balanced between tax increases and cuts in spending. The Republicans told him not to bother because it was dead on arrival."

Bs. Nobody voted for it. Nobody. It was crap. No dem would touch it

"And when I say I don't like abortion and would like a better solution, I get labeled as a hater for women's rights, religious fanatic, etc."

I don't think you're a hater, but, rather, a thoroughly decent man of strong beliefs. I don't agree with you on a number of issues, but I would never label you a hater, and would defend you against anybody who did.

"Isn't it funny how at the being of our conversation on this topic it appeared that we were at different ends of the spectrum. However after a little conversation it is evident we are on the same page with just a few difference. That's probably the case with 90% of americans, but the 5% on but sides speak too loud and prohibit any resolution."

I see the conversation you and I are having, along with those involving Jerry, Michael, et al, as precisely what needs to happen across the land. It is the first step in the process of reducing the polarization that prevents us from developing solutions to pressing problems. If we, the people, can come closer together, we can force our legislators to follow suit. That offers me hope. To me, this is the best thing about CHAFF. We come here from every state in the nation and many other nations. Somewhere in all the bits flying back and forth in cyberspace, there are some answers waiting to be found. AND agreed on.

"Was there a filibuster? I must have missed it."

Easy to do, there were so many.

"Bs. Nobody voted for it. Nobody. It was crap. No dem would touch it"

Still, he tried. Why do you say it was crap?

"Same boat. Just disappointing and disheartening that we can't realize we all need to be pulling the oars in the same direction."

We're going to have to pretty darn soon, or the boat is going down with all hands on deck. It's happened before, and we're not invincible.

"enjoyed the conversation."

Me, too, as always.