Political Roundtable - Part VI

[popper]

My wish list for new legislation.

Change tax code to a flat, fair or VAT while reducing the IRS to skeletal crew levels

Reform and lower corporate tax rates in a revenue neutral way

Reform entitlements and extend their longevity

Eliminate several cabinet level depts (unrealistic in current environment)

Develop a 5-10 year glide path to achieve a balanced budget

[dobrojim]

I won't complain when Democrats do it. The Constitution was designed this way. Radical changes in policy are supposed to be slow and deliberative.

And LOL about Zonker's outrage. He's more upset with legislative "gamesmanship" (something that has been going on for 200 years) than he is with Obama blatantly and unconstitutionally picking and choosing which laws he intends to enforce.

AFAIK, the Constitution only says each of the 2 houses can make their own rules
on how things will work.

No matter which party is in charge, I would prefer a system in the Senate that
would have a sort of sliding scale. When a bill is first proposed, have cloture = 60 votes.
But have that incrementally diminish to a majority over some reasonable amount of
time. The way it works now is completely anti-democratic in that it only takes
40 senators which could potentially be representing a small minority of the population
(given the also anti-democratic nature of 2 Sens from each state regardless of size)
to block the clear will of the majority. There are already enough safeguards in place
to protect from the 'tyrany of the majority' without supermajorities being required
to get anything through one house of Congress. Majorities need to be able to get
things done in order to actually be accountable.

[Zonkerbl]

I won't complain when Democrats do it. The Constitution was designed this way. Radical changes in policy are supposed to be slow and deliberative.

And LOL about Zonker's outrage. He's more upset with legislative "gamesmanship" (something that has been going on for 200 years) than he is with Obama blatantly and unconstitutionally picking and choosing which laws he intends to enforce.

I can play this game Nate. You are basically endorsing the Republicans' blatant lies and hypocrisy, because you know their policies can't be supported by the truth.

[Dat2U]

I was absolutely giddy with the election results yesterday and I'm a rock solid democrat who's grown sick & tired of my weak-kneed party, the millions of stupid Americans that don't vote and the core group of lower class whites that vote against their own best interests because of their own racial & social insecurities. It's gotta get worse before it gets better and yesterday was a small first step. I look forward to republicans having full control while running this country into the ground again (not unlike 2004), maybe this time around it will be bad enough to truly create the environment where there's political upheaval and either a 3rd party becomes a legitimate option or one or both of the current parties implodes... or even better, the general public finally wakes up out of it's stupor and demands changes in Washington by protest & threats of violence.

Maybe I'm crazy for wanting this but history tells us, the only way to truly see political change is to overthrow the current government. And frankly I think that needs to happen here.

Hasn't the country already been run into the ground Dat? How much deeper can we possibly run it?

$17 trillion debt that will burden future generations for years to come
$400 billion annual deficit that if reversed and balanced, would throw the country back into recession
$3 trillion printed by the Fed to mask the truly awful condition of the economy
Tens of millions on food stamps, disability, welfare, etc.
Any economic gains over the past six years have gone exclusively to the 1% while incomes for the 99% decline

I could go on but it's too depressing to catalog it any further.

And Popper - this was done by both parties. debt, deficit, Fed, etc.

Unless the Rs somehow wake up and govern and not be singularly obstructionist - Dat probably has is right. It will just be more of the same, probably sinking us to a point where a recovery from previous policies will be catastrophic.

And Dat, careful what you wish for - remember what happened in Germany - it could get really, really bad.

I am personally hoping that Obama wants to protect his legacy and reaches out the Rs to get something meaningful done.

The whole legacy question is one that can't be answered for years so I always wonder why pols & media try to frame a politicians record as soon as he's getting ready to leave office. Heck we can all argue GWB's legacy but the fact is we really won't know until our future generations can look back on history and see the fruits of his policy decisions.

And dckingsfan, IMO it does have to get really bad. It's unfortunate, but it's fact of politics. You don't fundamentally change how the government operates by having all sides sit down and simply hammering out a deal.

[Dat2U]

I really don't see how one can root for financial collapse. Just read the stories about those in the countries that have gone through a financial crash to understand why you don't want that.

Also, when the financial crash happens, generally more not less radical parties emerge to take up the political space. Do we really need a neo-Nazi party?

Lastly, on a world stage - having no US policeman will be devastating to literally billions of people.

I think that there are some in both the D and R camps that would be good with a meltdown if it fried the other party. And I think that thinking is part of the root of the problem. It isn't a good thing for the American people and it isn't good for world stability.

We should hope & pray that Obama and the Rs can solve some of the real problems together. We shouldn't hope for a vindictive Obama or R legislative branch.

We can hope for a fairytail ending but what are the odds of it actually happening? I would prefer that it not get to this point but the status quo is untenable long term. Eventually the sh*t is going to hit the fan.

[nate33]

I really don't see how one can root for financial collapse. Just read the stories about those in the countries that have gone through a financial crash to understand why you don't want that.

Also, when the financial crash happens, generally more not less radical parties emerge to take up the political space. Do we really need a neo-Nazi party?

Lastly, on a world stage - having no US policeman will be devastating to literally billions of people.

I think that there are some in both the D and R camps that would be good with a meltdown if it fried the other party. And I think that thinking is part of the root of the problem. It isn't a good thing for the American people and it isn't good for world stability.

We should hope & pray that Obama and the Rs can solve some of the real problems together. We shouldn't hope for a vindictive Obama or R legislative branch.

We can hope for a fairytail ending but what are the odds of it actually happening? I would prefer that it not get to this point but the status quo is untenable long term. Eventually the sh*t is going to hit the fan.

As an aside, I think it's humorous that Dat2U advocates more Republicans winning because it will hasten the collapse, whereas a person like myself would assume that the collapse is accelerated when Democrats win. Will we reach a point where everybody intentionally votes for the party they hate in an effort to bring the system down?

[pineappleheadindc]

Quick side note. This thread is popping today. Just the way a political thread should be. Yeah, lots of disagreement, but also lots of give and take from all sides from people (all of you) I respect

And Dat's back, which really makes me happy. Thanks guys for the good morning. Jamming at work the rest of the day, but it's been really good today.

Dat, dude....we missed you a lot.

[popper]

Regarding the filibuster, it is awaiting final repeal as soon as it is politically advantageous for one party or the other to do so. Reid and his D allies made sure of that. Don't believe me, then see what the D below has to say on the matter.

"Therefore, every bill that is “blocked” by filibuster fails only with the tacit agreement of the majority not to change the rule. Thus, the Senate has already been transformed into a simple majority-rule body. Retiring Democrat Carl Levin, one of just three Democrats who voted against Reid’s rules change, said this at the time:

“Let us not kid ourselves. The fact that we changed the rules today just to apply to judges and executive nominations does not mean the same precedent won't be used tomorrow or the next year or the year after to provide for the end of a filibuster on legislation, on bills that are before us, and on amendments.”

http://cnsnews.com/commentary/phil-kerp ... filibuster

[dckingsfan]

And dckingsfan, IMO it does have to get really bad. It's unfortunate, but it's fact of politics. You don't fundamentally change how the government operates by having all sides sit down and simply hammering out a deal.

I think some pretty meaningful work got done with Reagan and the Ds, Bush and the Ds, Clinton and the Rs...

One can only hope that given that both parties have negative approval ratings they will come to the table. Both parties have screwed up big time...

[Zonkerbl]

I think we are at real risk of going through some massive financial trauma that will bring about the economic equivalent of the zombie apocalypse, but it won't be because of our national debt, which is actually fine. It's a big scary number but it's nowhere near the size that brings with it a real fear of default. It's too high, yes.

What worries me is Tea Partiers threatening not to pay our debts out of spite. That will cook the world's economic goose but good.

[Induveca]

I won't complain when Democrats do it. The Constitution was designed this way. Radical changes in policy are supposed to be slow and deliberative.

And LOL about Zonker's outrage. He's more upset with legislative "gamesmanship" (something that has been going on for 200 years) than he is with Obama blatantly and unconstitutionally picking and choosing which laws he intends to enforce.

I can play this game Nate. You are basically endorsing the Republicans' blatant lies and hypocrisy, because you know their policies can't be supported by the truth.

For all the screams of partisan evils your voice rings the loudest among them. Change was needed.

Was it the correct change? None of us know but a shakeup of *some sorts* was needed. Nothing was getting done.

[nate33]

The nature of government is to expand its role over time. Whenever a new program is created, it generates a constituency of beneficiaries who will continue to vote in favor of the extension of that program. Overall this favors the party who advocates bigger government and more government programs. Democrats have a huge intrinsic advantage.

The filibuster is one of the very few features of our system that slows the increase of government. Therefore, it is more likely to be used by Republicans than Democrats. I can see why Democrats don't like it.

[nate33]

I think we are at real risk of going through some massive financial trauma that will bring about the economic equivalent of the zombie apocalypse, but it won't be because of our national debt, which is actually fine. It's a big scary number but it's nowhere near the size that brings with it a real fear of default. It's too high, yes.

What worries me is Tea Partiers threatening not to pay our debts out of spite. That will cook the world's economic goose but good.

The national debt is only "fine" if you ignore the unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare. It's completely unsustainable once you account for them. It's even worse once you consider that the GDP in the Debt/GDP ratio is stimulated by the massive, unsustainable deficit spending.

[dckingsfan]

I really don't see how one can root for financial collapse. Just read the stories about those in the countries that have gone through a financial crash to understand why you don't want that.

Also, when the financial crash happens, generally more not less radical parties emerge to take up the political space. Do we really need a neo-Nazi party?

Lastly, on a world stage - having no US policeman will be devastating to literally billions of people.

I think that there are some in both the D and R camps that would be good with a meltdown if it fried the other party. And I think that thinking is part of the root of the problem. It isn't a good thing for the American people and it isn't good for world stability.

We should hope & pray that Obama and the Rs can solve some of the real problems together. We shouldn't hope for a vindictive Obama or R legislative branch.

It's not that I want collapse. It's that collapse is inevitable. The debt is simply insurmountable. The longer we postpone the collapse by printing more money, the worse the collapse will be when it comes.

I think the collapse isn't inevitable - probable, yes. But I do agree - without a quick turnaround - the sooner the collapse comes the better.

It would take just a couple of moves for us to be in better position: reform the tax code (both individual and corporate), reform the entitlement program (changing the COLA and means testing) and balancing the budget.

Pick numbers for targets - receipts at 19%, outlays at 18% until the deficit is gone or something similar.

That wouldn't take care of some of the issues - corporate compliance for example - but it would make things sustainable for the foreseeable future.

[Dat2U]

Quick side note. This thread is popping today. Just the way a political thread should be. Yeah, lots of disagreement, but also lots of give and take from all sides from people (all of you) I respect

And Dat's back, which really makes me happy. Thanks guys for the good morning. Jamming at work the rest of the day, but it's been really good today.

Dat, dude....we missed you a lot.

Thanks bro... I honestly tried to pull myself away but I've known you guys for so many years. There's a bond there that wouldn't allow me to. I love debating you guys and hearing what you have to say, even if I sometimes vehemently disagree.

[Dat2U]

And dckingsfan, IMO it does have to get really bad. It's unfortunate, but it's fact of politics. You don't fundamentally change how the government operates by having all sides sit down and simply hammering out a deal.

I think some pretty meaningful work got done with Reagan and the Ds, Bush and the Ds, Clinton and the Rs...

One can only hope that given that both parties have negative approval ratings they will come to the table. Both parties have screwed up big time...

Sadly I think the era of putting politics and feelings aside and working together on legislation is long gone. We're in age where it's all or nothing and any willingness to compromise is a sign of weakness that gets exploited come election time.

[FAH1223]

As an aside, I think it's humorous that Dat2U advocates more Republicans winning because it will hasten the collapse, whereas a person like myself would assume that the collapse is accelerated when Democrats win. Will we reach a point where everybody intentionally votes for the party they hate in an effort to bring the system down?

It's going to happen either way. Its slower if Dems are in power. But the Republicans are more blatant with their goals. Implementing neo-liberal policies (which is what hegemons do to poorer countries as we've seen with structural adjustment and austerity... Europe also is suffering with that) on your own country just hastens the collapse. It really is magic how the rich ruling class which legit owns both parties gets both parties use the peasant to vote against his own interest by appealing to wedge politics, like abortion, race, immigration and once they have these poor people on their side, they cleverly include taxes, deregulations, welfare reform into that agenda. In the case of the GOP, they cut taxes and go to war and then want to cut social programs yelling "debt! debt!"

The Dems tote populist lines but they're just as beholden to special interests and corporations... maybe even more than the GOP.


It really is a shid show.

The voters can sense something is messed up, but they don't know what to do about it; that's why every six to eight years into the last two presidencies, they have swung wildly to the other side.

Meanwhile the people that own politicians on both sides keep on winning regardless of which party is in power.

I mean, its no coincidence that the middle class is shrinking. Or that the incomes of the top 1-10% have increased exponentially while the rest of the country has lagged behind.

Policies don't really benefit the average joe. But then again, if we go back to the founding of this nation and the American revolution, we shouldn't be surprised things have turned out the way they have. It's just how it's always been.

The 1940s-1970s is a big anomaly that people like to point out when there was more income equality and the country was industrialized.

[dobrojim]

Regarding the filibuster, it is awaiting final repeal as soon as it is politically advantageous for one party or the other to do so. Reid and his D allies made sure of that. Don't believe me, then see what the D below has to say on the matter.

"Therefore, every bill that is “blocked” by filibuster fails only with the tacit agreement of the majority not to change the rule. Thus, the Senate has already been transformed into a simple majority-rule body. Retiring Democrat Carl Levin, one of just three Democrats who voted against Reid’s rules change, said this at the time:

“Let us not kid ourselves. The fact that we changed the rules today just to apply to judges and executive nominations does not mean the same precedent won't be used tomorrow or the next year or the year after to provide for the end of a filibuster on legislation, on bills that are before us, and on amendments.”

http://cnsnews.com/commentary/phil-kerp ... filibuster

But why should it be this way? Why should it require a super-majority to get
almost anything done?

[dobrojim]

I think we are at real risk of going through some massive financial trauma that will bring about the economic equivalent of the zombie apocalypse, but it won't be because of our national debt, which is actually fine. It's a big scary number but it's nowhere near the size that brings with it a real fear of default. It's too high, yes.

What worries me is Tea Partiers threatening not to pay our debts out of spite. That will cook the world's economic goose but good.

I guess we all have our favorite demons. Mine is the prospect of oligarchy/plutocracy in
govt and the US racing to the bottom economically in terms of having a vibrant, robust
and growing middle class.

Not many pols are raising this issue and fewer are proposing new policies to try to address it.
Power and the wealth that derives from it are becoming increasingly concentrated in fewer
and fewer hands (or minds). That this is happening seems undeniable not to mention unhealthy.

[nate33]

It's going to happen either way. Its slower if Dems are in power. But the Republicans are more blatant with their goals. Implementing neo-liberal policies (which is what hegemons do to poorer countries as we've seen with structural adjustment and austerity... Europe also is suffering with that) on your own country just hastens the collapse. It really is magic how the rich ruling class which legit owns both parties gets both parties use the peasant to vote against his own interest by appealing to wedge politics, like abortion, race, immigration and once they have these poor people on their side, they cleverly include taxes, deregulations, welfare reform into that agenda. In the case of the GOP, they cut taxes and go to war and then want to cut social programs yelling "debt! debt!"

The Dems tote populist lines but they're just as beholden to special interests and corporations... maybe even more than the GOP.

I'm not so sure that the Dem's march to insolvency would go slower. Yes, the Republican Neocons waste trillions on overseas commitments, but I didn't see Democrats take steps to limit those expenditures when they were in power. It's actually my biggest gripe about Obama. While I disagree with nearly all of Obama's policies, I thought the one area where his opposition to the Republicans would be a good thing is that he would avoid foreign entanglements. Unfortunately, he capitulated to the neocons and the rest of the pro-Israel lobby.