The Politics Thread - please direct all related posts here..

[HarthorneWingo]

As is the quiet, when asking Obama what are the details in his plan to cut entitlements.

Obama agreed, at great peril to his own political career, to a $4 trillion deficit reduction which included cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicade which the republicans rejected solely because it included revenue increases on those making over $1 million dollars. And the republicans walked away from that deal? Even Lindsey Grasham has admitted that the republicans have made a grave mistake in using the debt ceiling as a political tool as it has. You guys are done in 2012. Obama has checkmated you.

[HarthorneWingo]

Mark Cuban is a panelist on Bill Maher tonight. And making a great big a$$ of himself.

[ewingxmanstarks]

Here's the thing GONYK, the rebulicans already passed a budget with entitlement and spending cuts...The democrats didn't even show their plan, even though its the law for congress to pass a budget.

You may not agree with the plans that the republicans have on not raising taxes and cutting, but their plan is in plain sight for you to see.

Obama has talked about cutting, but he hasn't gave any specifics, other than the stupid corporate jet thing.

As much as many people want to see taxes go up on "the rich", a tax raise is NOT a spending cut. Where is the potus on spending cuts?

[ewingxmanstarks]

Wingo, your wrong, he never talked about any details of cuts to SS, or Medicare...

Show me the plan.

Its always popular to talk about spending cuts to entitlments in gereral term, but to talk specifics, ala Paul Ryan, that take political courage.

[GONYK]

Here's the thing GONYK, the rebulicans already passed a budget with entitlement and spending cuts...The democrats didn't even show their plan, even though its the law for congress to pass a budget.

You may not agree with the plans that the republicans have on not raising taxes and cutting, but their plan is in plain sight for you to see.

Obama has talked about cutting, but he hasn't gave any specifics, other than the stupid corporate jet thing.

As much as many people want to see taxes go up on "the rich", a tax raise is NOT a spending cut. Where is the potus on spending cuts?

I understand what you are saying, but that is not how a negotiation works. Obama has put these things on the table for discussion. He would rather not cut those things at all, but he is willing to in order to make a deal. Now it's time to negotiate the plan with the Republicans. Nobody walks into a negotiation and puts all their cards on the table upfront.

[HarthorneWingo]

Wingo, your wrong, he never talked about any details of cuts to SS, or Medicare...

Show me the plan.

Its always popular to talk about spending cuts to entitlments in gereral term, but to talk specifics, ala Paul Ryan, that take political courage.

That's because you guys walked out of the room without calling Obama on his pledge. Canter f'd up. Even Boehner had to apologize for him. C'mon man.

[ewingxmanstarks]

Well, here's the thing, its not a type of situation where his ideas should be held hostage, because its his job to have an entire budget to work with.

He is the one who said, if America really wants to get serious about its debt problem, our politicians have to do the unpopular thing, and initiate entitlement reform, because that's the core of the problem...so if he claims we can't have a serious discussion about deficit reduction without talking about entitlement reform, I conclude he's not serious about reducing our debt.

As far as politically, I agree with Wingo that Obama is kicking ass.

[HarthorneWingo]

Well, here's the thing, its not a type of situation where his ideas should be held hostage, because its his job to have an entire budget to work with.

He is the one who said, if America really wants to get serious about its debt problem, our politicians have to do the unpopular thing, and initiate entitlement reform, because that's the core of the problem...so if he claims we can't have a serious discussion about deficit reduction without talking about entitlement reform, I conclude he's not serious about reducing our debt.

As far as politically, I agree with Wingo that Obama is kicking ass.

Obama put together a plan to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion. It included pain for both parties. Progressives were up in arms over the cuts Obama was pledging to make as part of the package. Boehner initially approved the package, because it was fair. But the T-bagger republicans took the rest of the party hostage by walking out because tax increases ON THOSE MAKING OVER $1 M, along eliminating tax credits to oil companies, etc., were included in the package. There's no spin around that. Half of the republican party is apologizing for its actions. How can you defend this?

[ewingxmanstarks]

That's simply false...there was no plan ever agreed on by Bohner, and Obama NEVER made his plan public.

2 trillion was mentioned (now its 1.4 btw), and so specifics were ever mention by Obama.

Where is Obama's plan???

[ewingxmanstarks]

He talks about closing corporate loophole, doesn't offer specifics.

He talks about entitlements, doesn't offer specifics.

Never heard him say anything about subsides.

His specifics are ending the Bush tax cuts, and closing a the tax loophole for private jet owners (which would bring us a whooping 100 mil in revenue, considering the deficit is 14.6 trillion)

[ewingxmanstarks]

Today ratio of revenue to GDP is as high as its been since WWII.

The revenue problem is a fictitious liberal creation.

It plain to see that we have a spending problem, not a tax problem.

[HarthorneWingo]

Today ratio of revenue to GDP is as high as its been since WWII.

The revenue problem is a fictitious liberal creation.

It plain to see that we have a spending problem, not a tax problem.

When the top income tax rate was 90%?

When a huge conglomerate like GE doesn't pay ANY taxes - ZERO - there's a problem.

Here's a little bit of reading for ya:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... _countries

One way to measure the overall tax burden is by looking at it as a percentage of the overall economy in terms of GDP. The Tax Policy Center wrote: "U.S. taxes are low relative to those in other developed countries. In 2006 U.S. taxes at all levels of government claimed 28 percent of GDP, compared with an average of 36 percent of GDP for the 30 member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)."[24] Economist Simon Johnson wrote in 2010: "The U.S. government doesn’t take in much tax revenue -- at least 10 percentage points of GDP less than comparable developed economies -- and it also doesn’t spend much except on the military, Social Security and Medicare."[25] A comparison of taxation on individuals amongst OECD countries shows that the U.S. tax burden is just slightly below the average tax for middle income earners.[26]

In comparing corporate taxes, the Congressional Budget Office found in 2005 that the top statutory tax rate was the third highest among OECD countries behind Japan and Germany. However, the U.S. ranked 27th lowest of 30 OECD countries in its collection of corporate taxes relative to GDP, at 1.8% vs. the average 2.5%.[27] Bruce Bartlett wrote in May 2011: "...one almost never hears that total revenues are at their lowest level in two or three generations as a share of G.D.P. or that corporate tax revenues as a share of G.D.P. are the lowest among all major countries. One hears only that the statutory corporate tax rate in the United States is high compared with other countries, which is true but not necessarily relevant. The economic importance of statutory tax rates is blown far out of proportion by Republicans looking for ways to make taxes look high when they are quite low."

[ewingxmanstarks]

^lol, you think loopholes are bad now, when the income tax rate was 90%, people barley paid any taxes, because there was a billion more loopholes.

Fact is when comparing revenue to GDP, we've never been taxed, as much as we are today.

[ewingxmanstarks]

The GE example you bought up, is a perfect reason why we should eliminate corporate loopholes, and lower corporate taxes, that way the government doesn't pick winners and losers.

America has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world...you want to raise taxes on corporations in this market?

Its not fair that, because GE is a friend of this administration, that they pay no taxes.

[HarthorneWingo]

^lol, you think loopholes are bad now, when the income tax rate was 90%, people barley paid any taxes, because there was a billion more loopholes.

Fact is when comparing revenue to GDP, we've never been taxed, as much as we are today.

You completely ignored the facts I cited in my post. How convenient. How do you compare our situation to Germany's? Germany taxes their corporations and has a sound regulatory system. And Germany's killing it. Look at it's % of taxes to GDP.

[ewingxmanstarks]

I'm at the beach, couldn't read your link, but I will give an appropriate response, in due time.


Any Obama 2 trillion in magical spending cuts.

[ewingxmanstarks]

The problem with what you cited, is that the data is comparing the U.S. To europe, and not the U.S. to our own history.

Germany is not a model for us to follow...Within the next 10 years Brazil, China, and India are expected to surpass Germany, while America will still be the largest economy in the world.

The problem with the corporate tax structure in the U.S. Is loopholes for many corporations, and subsidies. If we start to wein our selves of, we will have more competition, and jobs that actually produce things. Lower the corporate tax rates, get rid of corporate well fare, and de-regulation the competition would breed success.

Right now there are too many companies in business to get a check from the Government....Its not fair to the tax payer, its like an unaccounted government job.

Private sector jobs are the best, because tax payers don't have to pay for them, and they provide the government with revenue, any spending the government does to create a job, whether in the private sector or public sector costs the tax payer money.

There are rare times when government spending is the solution, like the Great depression, but today with our records budgets borrowing more would put our grand kids in an impossible situation, and taxing more will cause the contraction in the economy.

BTW during FDR the government spent massive amounts, and we benefited by receiving public parks. National monuments, bridges, landmarks....Barrack Obama signed the second largest bill this countries ever produced, and we have nothing to show for it. What happened to all the shovel ready projects? Am I really supposed to trust him when he says he wants to spend more on infrastructure.

[HarthorneWingo]

You think we live in a bubble? Our financial condition is certainly connected to the global economy ... now, more than ever. Besides, are you against learning from a country, like Germany, which is successfully navigating these economic waters that we're in? Are you against making changes to our revenue and expenditure schemes in order to improve our condition?

Why do you want to go back to policies of the Bush administration which got us into this mess to begin with?

[HarthorneWingo]

That piece of crap Fox "News" is next.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/18/world ... ml?_r=1&hp

British Police Arrest Rebekah Brooks in Phone Hacking
By ALAN COWELL and RAVI SOMAIYA
Published: July 17, 2011

LONDON — The British police on Sunday arrested Rebekah Brooks, the former head of Rupert Murdoch’s media operations in Britain, according to a former associate at News International, the newspaper group at the heart of a phone-hacking scandal convulsing the Murdoch empire, the British political elite and the police.

The development was the latest twist in a series of events that has transformed Mr. Murdoch from a virtually untouchable force in the British media landscape to a mogul fighting for the survival of his power and influence.

Earlier on Sunday, the opposition leader, Ed Miliband, who has taken a lead in assailing Mr. Murdoch’s operations, called for the breakup of News International, the British subsidiary of Mr. Murdoch’s News Corporation. Mr. Miliband called the newspaper group’s influence “dangerous.”

A police statement did not identify Ms. Brooks by name but said a 43-year-old woman had been detained for questioning by officers investigating both the phone-hacking scandal and payments made to corrupt police officers. A News International official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, confirmed that the woman detained was Ms. Brooks.

-more-

[mugzi]

Good to see Wingo acting like Obama- a petulant child in the face of the debt ceiling debate. Funny how he didnt mention his idol storming out of the negotiations like a little brat who didnt get his way. But little do you realize that the country is tired of the profligate spending coming from Washington and the same ire with failed economic policies that voted out the dums in congress will usher in a better president in 2012.


Why Obama is being ignored - His record
Townhall.com ^ | July 17, 2011 | Bob Beauprez


Nothing seems to upset Barack Obama like being ignored. He is the President, after all, and "The One." Yet, as the negotiations on a debt ceiling deal bob-and-weave along in Washington, he grows visibly angrier that he's not getting his own way. This week he reportedly "stormed out" of discussions after Majority Leader Eric Cantor suggested the two sides were still pretty far apart on a solution.

If Obama wants some insight as to why the Republicans don't seem willing to just accept his ideas, he needs to look no further than his own record. As the following two charts demonstrate, the policies implemented by the Democrats on his watch the last couple of years are an abysmal failure, having come up far short of even his own promises.

The first chart is based upon the White House's own report of January 9, 2009, The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan. At the time, President-elect Obama was trying to sell Congress on his Stimulus plan. His economists projected unemployment rates if no action was taken and a much more favorable estimate if the Stimulus were passed and implemented. As we all know, the Democrat majority obliged him.





Added to the White House's projections is a green line showing what actually happened post-Stimulus. As you can see, the unemployment rate immediately exceeded Obama's worst case projections. The current unemployment rate is about 2 percentage points higher than he predicted would be the case with his Stimulus. That translates to more than 2.7 million additional people out of work than he promised under his plan.

In fact, unemployment after his $800 billion Stimulus is higher than he said it would be had the government done nothing at all, which leads to the conclusion that his Stimulus actually made the jobs market worse. The latest report from his Council of Economic Advisors confirms that conclusion by admitting there are now 300,000 fewer jobs "saved-or-created" by the Stimulus than they claimed just six months earlier.

Further, in the January 2009 document, Obama said with his Stimulus that by the end of last year, more than 3.5 million new jobs would have been created with a total workforce of 137.5 million people, having recovered to about the same as the pre-recession workforce size. He missed by 7.3 million. At the end of last year, only 130.2 million Americans had a job, which is why John Boehner keeps asking, "Mr. President, where are the jobs?"

The second chart depicts the nation's debt from 1980 when it could still be counted in billions to the current $14.5 trillion. Yes, America has steadily accumulated more debt over the last three decades, but never at the rate or amount of the last two plus years when $5 trillion was added to the total, a 50 percent increase.





Failure – particularly failure of this magnitude – does not deserve to be rewarded. Why should the GOP, more importantly the rest of America, trust the President whose policies have failed so miserably to now be the architect of the next economic plan?

In January of 2009 the voters gave Barack Obama a chance. He had it, and now we know it didn't work. If nobody is listening to Obama, it is with good reason. He's done a poor job of steering the ship of state, and America needs a new captain in charge. That's the message that was sent by the voters last November, and it will be delivered again in 2012.