Political Roundtable Quasar of Mayhem part III

[pancakes3]

i'm confused as to what exactly the many different conversations here are trying to say.

-Lincoln's Republican party is the direct ancestor of the current Dems (strong fed gov, protect the impoverished, etc).
-The US IS spending too much and cuts must be made - foreign garrisoning, medicare, medicaid, social security, etc.
-If the world is up in arms over Bill Cosby's occasional "real talk" they would lose their minds over Douglass or gasp - DuBois.
-Solyndra vs Haliburton!?
-The Tax code is too big to change. Impossible.
-Go hang out with people outside your comfort zone to what end? If every american would just focus entirely on bettering themselves and providing for their own family, there would be virtually no need for social welfare.

[Zonkerbl]

That convoluted tax system is riddled with tax breaks for rich people. Democrats didn't put them there. And yeah, how can you, with a straight face, put NPR on a list of things that, if cut, will end our budgetary woes? Really? That's in the top three?

Yes, they most certainly did. Democrats and Republicans are equally responsible for the rampant corruption in the tax code.

How can you say that with a straight face Nate? What have the Dems been fighting with the Republicans over for the last year and a half? Tax cuts for the rich passed by Republicans!

If you want to talk about the overall complexity of the tax system, yeah. There's all sorts of stupid stuff Democrats put in there -- tax breaks for energy efficiency, small business startup breaks, stuff like that. But the loopholes the oil companies and other big companies take advantage of so they don't have to pay taxes, that was put in there by Republicans at the suggestion of their big corporation lobbyist buddies. Democrats didn't put those there.

I love how Republicans are all, "Oh, you want to cut out a loophole for oil companies?!?!?! OH NO YOU DI'NT!!!!!" and then their solution is to raise taxes on poor people. Because, you know, it only counts as an increase in taxes if you're rich.

[fishercob]

LOL @ Rick Perry last night....

[montestewart]

LOL @ Rick Perry last night....

I never want to watch debates, but my wife decided she wanted to watch last night, because she hadn't really been following it and wanted to familiarize herself with the contenders. The first time Huntsman spoke, she asked who he was, so I gave her a short summary of him, and then offered a brief blurb about each as they appeared. Here approximately was Perry's blurb: "Handsome, governor of Texas, kind of reminds you of Bush, doesn't he? Has a tendancy to melt down on stage."

Personally, I didn't think it was that bad, but I didn't have the bar set very high. Regardless, many thanks, Mr. Perry, for making me appear smart in front of my wife (who's not setting the bar too high either).

[popper]

George Bush was a terrible President. I criticized him incessantly. The Iraq war was a terrible mistake and a tragic loss of life and resources. Repubs that went along with Pres. Bush's policies deserve a lot of blame. The prescription drug plan was another mistake (because it wasn't paid for) although it seems to be working well. His stewardship of the SEC leading up to the financial meltdown was disgraceful.

I have no problem criticizing the party I usually support. What I don't understand is why those on the other side won't publicly criticize their leaders. How about starting out by admitting that Pres. Clinton, Dodd, Frank, etc. were one of the the driving forces behind the housing bubble / collapse. It has been well documented by even the liberal press.

If you won't at least assign partial blame to the aforementioned politicians then choose another area where you think Dems are leading the country in the wrong direction. For instance, do you really believe that Pres. Obama has handled the economy well over the past 3 years? Was the trillion dollar stimulus plan money well spent? I'm just looking for some intellectually honesty from those of you that support the Dems.

[montestewart]

I don't really support Democrats too much, so this probably won't help, but

How about starting out by admitting that Pres. Clinton, Dodd, Frank, etc. were one of the the driving forces behind the housing bubble / collapse.

Done. Government legislators and regulators had a major hand in the collapse. Banks, loan repackagers, and lobbying money led the charge.

do you really believe that Pres. Obama has handled the economy well over the past 3 years?

No, though I don't assume McCain or anyone else would have done better.

Was the trillion dollar stimulus plan money well spent?

My favorite is the cash for clunkers program.

[dobrojim]

LOL @ Rick Perry last night....

he is quite an impressive guy

[DCZards]

Popper, the chief criticism I have with Obama’s leadership is this “leading from behind” stuff that has often made him look and sound less than presidential. (That approach has changed of late and the president’s poll numbers are improving somewhat as a result.)

I wish the president had pushed harder for the public option in the healthcare bill and I also think he made a big mistake by agreeing to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Ending those tax cuts would have at least put a dent in the federal budget deficit.

Most of the criticism leveled at Obama has been related to the 2009 stimulus package. Truth is the stimulus package worked about as well as it could and, at the very least, prevented the country—and many states and individuals—from slipping into an even deeper recession. The other truth is that, even as the first stimulus was being debated, a lot of very smart people were saying the nation would need a second (maybe bigger) stimulus plan.

The largest share of the $787 billion (it wasn’t a trillion) stimulus went to provide a variety of tax cuts for individuals and businesses and the second largest chunk went to help state and local governments with Medicaid costs. Money from the stimulus was also used for extended unemployment insurance, health insurance for the unemployed, housing assistance and supplemental Social Security payments. Around $45 billion was spent on education programs, Pell grants, job training and scientific research.

These were all smart and humane investments…at least from the viewpoint of most liberals and progressives. It would have taken an act of God to totally reverse the economic trend/mess that Obama inherited…and I believe most Americans recognize that.

But, as they say, the buck stops with the president…and we’ll see next November how much voters blame Obama for our awful economy, his healthcare reform plan and various international crises.

[TGW]

DCZards...that was really well stated. I agree with everything you just said. Obama faltering on the tax cuts for the upper 1%, and the Public Option fail...those 2 things really effin bothered me.

And yes, the stimulus wasn't big enough.

[hands11]

George Bush was a terrible President. I criticized him incessantly. The Iraq war was a terrible mistake and a tragic loss of life and resources. Repubs that went along with Pres. Bush's policies deserve a lot of blame. The prescription drug plan was another mistake (because it wasn't paid for) although it seems to be working well. His stewardship of the SEC leading up to the financial meltdown was disgraceful.

I have no problem criticizing the party I usually support. What I don't understand is why those on the other side won't publicly criticize their leaders. How about starting out by admitting that Pres. Clinton, Dodd, Frank, etc. were one of the the driving forces behind the housing bubble / collapse. It has been well documented by even the liberal press.

If you won't at least assign partial blame to the aforementioned politicians then choose another area where you think Dems are leading the country in the wrong direction. For instance, do you really believe that Pres. Obama has handled the economy well over the past 3 years? Was the trillion dollar stimulus plan money well spent? I'm just looking for some intellectually honesty from those of you that support the Dems.

I agree also with the pts DC made.

Add, it wasnt just Bush who wanted those policies. It was the entire party.

Blaming housing on the Dems is beyond silly. Home ownership was promoted by both parties for 25 years. What allowed it to boom beyond any normal boom was Wall Street banking, bundling of loans and private takeover of the deeds. That is what Bo Biden is suing over.

Yes, I think Obama has done well with the economic disaster he inherited and he would do even better if the R would do anything to help. As for the stimulus. I just covered that in detail so not sure why you are still confused about that. It worked excellently and it would have worked better if the whole wasn't twice the size the CBO thought it was at the time.

What could the Dems have done better. They could have voiced the thing we are going through more strongly in the past. The Dems had been to accommodating when the other side wasn't. They didnt play enough hard ball. They didnt match the marketing machine that was the Republican party. As for Obama. I don't really blame him for anything that I haven't seen from any other president. He needed more experience at being president. Not being a governor first sets every president that isnt a little behind. But Obama has learned and is more assertive now. So for me it would be the Dems not calling the Rep out harder in the past and not waking up this sleeping giant years ago. Example, they wanted another vote before we went into Iraq but they didn't call for the people to march over it because they had been so beaten up by the R in he past for being weak on defense, that they didn't feel like they could survive it politically. They didn't push the polls. Republican do that way better then Dems. Even when they are dead wrong. They do it with force.

[hands11]

Can I just have a moment of fun without pissing to many people off.

Perry would be the perfect representative of that party. Cain running only a foot step behind.
What's really sad is you also have Newt.

As our friend pop recently said. You get what you vote for.

That said, Huntsman sounded great again. To bad no one in the room noticed him.

Tomorrow should be interesting for Cain if the panel of women that say he did what he did gets mics in from of there month. On the heals of the Penn State thing, I am just sickened.

[hands11]

How much longer before the cops really hurt someone at these Occupy events.

Kent State. Will history repeat itself ?

So now you have Harvard joining in on the Occupy movement and the cops are on video beating on some little Asian girl.

Wow, those kids need to get a job.

Hey, I respect policing as a function. It is a tough job. But there is no honer in what they did. Again.

[hands11]

Isn't there another debate coming up like tonight or tomorrow ?

Ah, I found it, but it was only broadcast on CBS for the first hour and the web feed was spotty.

Topic was foreign affairs. To bad this wasn't broadcast better since this is the one topic the President really has more direct control over. Not like these idea of getting ride of the Dept of Energy are anything more then lip service. A president doesn't have the control to do anything like that.

Well, I got this much out of it. America is exceptional. These people love hearing how exceptional they are. Just sad the bar has been set so low yet they still praise under performance. Isn't that one of the things they hate. The whole idea that everyone in a sport or race gets some kind of trophy.

Word of the day for this group. Humility. It is one thing to be exceptional or strive for it. It is another to constantly point to oneself as that even when you don't measure up. If you don't know the different, ask LeBron and Tim Duncan.

[hands11]

Morning Joe went off this morning and this guy is a long time Republican. He said

Cain - joke. He is making it up as he goes along. He is selling books. It's over.
Michelle - joke. She cant do it. Michelle is finally off the radar.
Newt - sounds like he knows what he is talking about but a joke. He is selling books.
Perry - he is a joke. He isn't ready.

So next up. Newt. Which I said would happen. How long will that last. Can't wait to see how Newt blows it once the light is on him again. But Newt was speaker. He knows enough to play the game. But he can't win the conservatives and his history will haunt him. Besides, from what I have heard, he doesn't have to the people in place so he will be the last one to rise and fall before they get the final field.

I still think they will eventually discover Huntsman before this is all said and done.


They are on their way to it getting narrowed to this.

Romney - the bland, technocrat, political insider with a no core
Newt - the brilliant ??, mostly conservative??, policy wonk
Paul - the principled Libertarian
Huntsman - the most viable political candidate and he has foreign policy experience
Rick - they need a pure CC

This is why the real debates will start and entertainment show will end. At least the new group will be able to speak intelligently about issues with Paul and Huntsman getting more air time. Even Rick can fit in that group. Willard and Newt will be all talking point BS. Neither of them stand for anything. Well Newt will fade out of the line up. Once that happens Mitt will start to flip back to the middle more.

I would be interested in hear Paul, Huntsman and Rick debate. That would have substance.

[montestewart]

So next up. Newt. Which I said would happen.

A regular Noostradamus

Huntsman - the most viable political candidate and he has foreign policy experience

You keep saying variations of this. What makes him viable, other than you, clearly a non-conservative, non-Republican, seem to like him above the others? And as far as the "foreign policy experience," he was an ambassador, a largely political position, based on business dealings in Asia. Gingrich has sat on the Council of Foreign Relations and served in other positions and capacities focused on international affairs. He has a Doctorate in European History. I guess that's not foreign policy experience.

I would be interested in hear Paul, Huntsman and Rick debate. That would have substance.

Do I sense a pattern when people try to list three things?

[dobrojim]

A regular Noostradamus

I saw what you did. Subtle and very clever. 9+ points/10.

Huntsman has no chance. He once said something nice about BHO.

Cain is quite a remarkable figure, very Palinesque with his grasp of
a wide range of issues.

[nate33]

That convoluted tax system is riddled with tax breaks for rich people. Democrats didn't put them there. And yeah, how can you, with a straight face, put NPR on a list of things that, if cut, will end our budgetary woes? Really? That's in the top three?

Yes, they most certainly did. Democrats and Republicans are equally responsible for the rampant corruption in the tax code.

How can you say that with a straight face Nate? What have the Dems been fighting with the Republicans over for the last year and a half? Tax cuts for the rich passed by Republicans!

If you want to talk about the overall complexity of the tax system, yeah. There's all sorts of stupid stuff Democrats put in there -- tax breaks for energy efficiency, small business startup breaks, stuff like that. But the loopholes the oil companies and other big companies take advantage of so they don't have to pay taxes, that was put in there by Republicans at the suggestion of their big corporation lobbyist buddies. Democrats didn't put those there.

I love how Republicans are all, "Oh, you want to cut out a loophole for oil companies?!?!?! OH NO YOU DI'NT!!!!!" and then their solution is to raise taxes on poor people. Because, you know, it only counts as an increase in taxes if you're rich.

I expect this kind of blind partisanship from certain others on this board, but not from you Zonker.

Do you honestly believe what you just wrote? Do you not realize that Democrats write just as many loopholes for their favored donors as Republicans? Which political party do you think runs the Northeast, where most of the financial companies reside? Which political party infests Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from top to bottom? Which political party runs Goldman Sachs? Citigroup? Which party is behind the revolving door between Goldman Sachs and the U.S. Government, which is the driving force behind the Fed bailouts of the banks? Are you not aware that Obama got about twice the donations from financial companies than McCain?

McCain's top 10 financial donors:
Merrill Lynch $375,895
JPMorgan Chase & Co $343,505
Citigroup Inc $338,202
Morgan Stanley $271,902
Goldman Sachs $240,295
Wachovia Corp $199,663
UBS AG $187,493
Credit Suisse Group $184,153
Bank of America $167,826
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher $160,346

Obama's top 10 financial donors:
Goldman Sachs $1,013,091
JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799
Citigroup Inc $736,771
Sidley Austin LLP $600,298
WilmerHale LLP $550,668
Skadden, Arps et al $543,539
UBS AG $532,674
IBM Corp $532,372
General Electric $529,855
Morgan Stanley $512,232
Latham & Watkins $503,295

And that doesn't even count Obama's Big Education donors. Education is the biggest monopoly racket going these days, and they're mostly tax exempt. Here's how much they gave to Obama in 2008:
University of California $1,648,685
Harvard University $878,164
Stanford University $595,716

I'm not here to defend Republicans, but this notion that the Democrats are somehow clean and the Republicans are dirty is just plain false.

[Zonkerbl]

Ok Nate. Go into the tax code and give me an example of a tax loophole that favors a Democratic favorite. I'm not aware of any specific examples, but I'm sure there are some in there.

I don't have to do this for the Republicans because we've been arguing over the past year and a half about a number of tax loopholes that the Republicans would rather SABOTAGE THE US ECONOMY rather than allow the loopholes to be eliminated.

Democrats are willing to eliminate these loopholes. So what does that tell you?

[nate33]

Republicans are willing to eliminate the loopholes too, but only in conjunction with a tax cut to make a non-loophole-laced corporate tax rate competitive with the rest of the developed world.

And what loopholes do you think the Republicans have put in place to help oil companies? I posted about this a while ago. The idea that there are loopholes for oil companies is a myth. Oil companies get the same depreciation and carry-forward "tax breaks" that every other corporation gets, there's nothing targeted about their tax breaks. Indeed, oil companies actually are restricted from some of the tax breaks that everyone else gets.

[Zonkerbl]

If you really want to make our tax system competitive with the rest of the developed world you should replace the corporate tax with a VAT. Since that shifts the tax burden from shareholders of corporations to consumers, which is a net shift from relatively rich people to relatively poor people, it should also be accompanied by a compensating decrease in income tax rates for the poor (although that won't help the 50% of people who don't pay any income taxes but would end up paying the VAT) and increase in income taxes for the rich. And, by the way, this would get at the Republicans' complaint that 50% of people pay no taxes.