 sj |
||
|
||
BS: The Budget Struggle
|
|
|
Subject: Rasslin' in High Places From: Jim the Bart Date: 28 Feb 01 - 02:31 PM This is a political thread (Surprise!) but I hope it will allow for discussion rather than pointless confrontation. I think the "Bushwacked Threads" have gone over the deep end and don't want to play there anymore. I do think, however, that the dialogue should continue. After watching the new president speak last night, I couldn't help feel very sad. What he presented, if taken at face value, was reasonable. There were, naturally, a few areas of disagreement over priorities,but based strictly on what was said I would be willing to give the man's program a chance. BUT (and it's a big but, indeed), it's impossible to take what is said in the political arena at face value. You are always aware of hidden agendas at work and code words being used. The democrats came back with their predictable counter-arguments and I ended up thoroughly disgusted. It's the same old tired politics, regardless of who sits in the big chair and who gets the last word. They do nothing but trade platitudes, panaceas, and polemics. . . I would like to pose some related questions: Who do you trust in the public office right now? Is there any way to re-establish the trust of the people in its elected representatives, especially those of the opposing political philosphy? What can we use as the basis for re-establishing truly cooperative governance? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Budget Struggle From: katlaughing Date: 28 Feb 01 - 03:50 PM Hard to say who I trust. There are certain politicians I feel some trust in, one of which is Barney Franks from Massachusetts. I wish Mario Cuomo had...oh well, that's an old wish never to come true. Re-establishing trust make take a whole new makeover, ya know? I think it may be difficult to attain w/out lots of new faces in Congress. Barring that, which is probably too much to hope for, I think we need to look at term limits (something I used to oppose, now I don't know) and definitely campaign finance reform. The latter could go a long way in improving the public trust, imo. Not sure on your last question. Right now, it is difficult for me to see that we have any kind of widespread and popular basis for re-establishing cooperative government. So many people are so disgusted, etc. I do think ordinary citizens can use the Internet to their advantage by participating in things such as www.moveon.org, which I have noted before. Good questions, Bartholomew, thanks for getting things back on track, I hope:-) kat
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Budget Struggle From: CarolC Date: 28 Feb 01 - 03:59 PM I like John McCain. I would probably have seriously considered voting for him had he been nominated. Carol |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Budget Struggle From: Jim the Bart Date: 28 Feb 01 - 06:17 PM Why McCain? Just asking, 'cause I really don't know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Budget Struggle From: Ebbie Date: 28 Feb 01 - 06:51 PM I like Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon. I remember when he went into politics, I think around 25 years ago. He was an activist before then. He has a number of themes he's known for- and so far I haven't heard of any corruption around him. He seems to have a lot of good ideas. Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Budget Struggle From: CarolC Date: 28 Feb 01 - 07:41 PM Hi Bartholomew, McCain is very concerned with getting big money out of the political process and he has demonstrated his willingness to back his words up with action. I don't agree with him about many things, but at this point in time, I'm willing to trust him on the matter of cleaning up our election processes. Carol |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Budget Struggle From: John Hardly Date: 28 Feb 01 - 08:40 PM Bart, This is why I shy away from the pol-threads, but keep coming in about once a month like a rubbernecker at an auto accident. I'm way too nice and happy a guy to put myself through this! *BG* These questions are always posed as though both sides have an equal past history of dishonesty. Why, when it is so obvious, does it fail to matter to you when your leaders are so demonstrably dishonest? Why don't you get REALLY PISSED at your guy's obvious dishonesty? Is it because you really believe that they are selectively honest and wouldn't ever lie when it really matters? We are going to go through this budget debate AGAIN and your guys are going to say that Bush wants to CUT the budget (though there will be no cut in any area of gov't spending), and you're going to say, well, you KNOW what they mean--but the whole goddamn arguement was won last time over semantics not reality. Damn, is that ever going to matter? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Budget Struggle From: John Hardly Date: 28 Feb 01 - 10:08 PM I was out of line and pissed. Just ignore me. JH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Budget Struggle From: MAV Date: 28 Feb 01 - 10:16 PM BOO! Dear Bartholomew, "I think the "Bushwacked Threads" have gone over the deep end" Yes, I agree, and if you examine my posts, even I found it extremely hard to remain civil to the posters while enduring the constant barrage of vulgar verbal abuse and personal attacks calling into question everything from my lineage to my IQ. I believe in self-defense but as usual, doing that simply results in more critism. Let's get one thing clear, attacks on members of this forum is name calling, unflattering references to public figures IS NOT!!! Calling Reagan "The Actor" is offensive to me but is not name calling. Calling me "Crap" IS! "I do think, however, that the dialogue should continue" Did you mean complete with opposing viewpoints, or just the left side? "BUT (and it's a big but, indeed), it's impossible to take what is said in the political arena at face value. You are always aware of hidden agendas at work and code words being used" You're just shell shocked from eight years of lying by the clintons and algor. If W said it, you can take it to the bank. He's doing what he said he would do during his campaign. There is no hidden agenda. There may be some things in there that enrage the left, but it isn't hidden. "They do nothing but trade platitudes, panaceas, and polemics. . ." Nice alliteration, I liked that but it's hard to tell. When was the last Republican Federal Government, do you know? "I would like to pose some related questions: Who do you trust in the public office right now? Is there any way to re-establish the trust of the people in its elected representatives, especially those of the opposing political philosphy? What can we use as the basis for re-establishing truly cooperative governance?" Let me give you an unbiased answer. Before Bush's speech, the pundits were saying he couldn't rise to the occasion. The Gallup poll taken after the speech shows a whopping 92% of people approved of the speech, and 84% think Bush is leading the nation in the right direction. A CBS News poll found that 88% approved of the speech. Bill Clinton never had anything like that after any speech, and for there to be a 92% approval of the speech there has to be a lot of Democratic support for Bush's agenda - and it's because of this one-on-one connection. The rank and file voters have accepted President Bush as a straight talking honest leader. He has let the clintons make themselves look bad (which even liberal pundits concede) He has kept a civil tone immune to criticism.
Truly continuing dialogue, mav out |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Budget Struggle From: Jim the Bart Date: 28 Feb 01 - 10:34 PM No harm, no foul, John. I'm glad you jumped in. Why don't I get pissed at dishonesty in a politician? For the same reason that I don't expect advertising to be 100% frank about the product. What a politician does when he addresses large groups is try to sell himself and his agenda. Honesty is ineffective when trying to present solutions to problems that are very complex to large groups. The most honest comment I ever heard from a politician was Jimmie Carter's statement about our national malaise. But his honesty was his undoing. Reagan's great success was not in his integrity, it was in his ability as an actor. He convinced us that things were getting better and changed our attitude. His policies would have amounted to nothing without that. I don't think Bush is lieing; I do think he has presented such an over simplified version of the truth that his words are meaningless. How is it that he can do all of that stuff, pay down the deficit and give us money back? If he could come up with this magic plan, why didn't the Republicans in Congress present something like it over the past eight years? According to reports I have heard and read, Bush made the same promises about the Texas budget and ended up with record deficits when his projections were wrong? Is this accurate? Is this what we can expect? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Budget Struggle From: CarolC Date: 28 Feb 01 - 11:33 PM Damn... I thought this one was going to be a mellow and easygoing exchange of thoughts and ideas about who we trust in politics right now. Silly me... Carol |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Budget Struggle From: katlaughing Date: 28 Feb 01 - 11:58 PM It's not as if Bush ahd anything to do with his budget proposal:
By Glenn Kessler and Dana Milbank,br> Washington Post Staff Writers The budget blueprint issued by the White House yesterday was developed like many other things in the young Bush administration: by a small group of powerful advisers, supervised by Vice President Cheney, and with little hands-on involvement of the president. The group, called a "budget review board," consisted of Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill, Office of Management and Budget Director Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., economic adviser Lawrence B. Lindsey, Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. and Cheney, who served as chairman. The review board, generally meeting in Card's office or in the Roosevelt Room, first set a target for how much the budget should grow next year, according to participants -- a 4 percent increase. It then decided on funding for the various Cabinet agencies, based on the agencies' bargaining with OMB. The board then held a meeting a week ago Tuesday to act as an "appellate court," as Daniels put it, for agencies that objected to their budget allocation from OMB. Bush advisers stress that the board members kept President Bush informed of their decisions and were operating within the guidelines he had given them. In that sense, the budget-setting process, arguably the most important matter that will be undertaken during Bush's first year in office, confirms earlier impressions of his leadership style. He sets broad parameters and goals, hires capable lieutenants, and gives them wide latitude and authority, say those who know him. The Bush White House's budget process represents a radical departure from the system used in the Clinton White House, in which President Bill Clinton, at least early in his administration, involved himself in almost every line of the budget and allowed a more freewheeling process. The review board structure also underscores another truism about the Bush administration: White House aides' dominance over domestic Cabinet agencies. The board heard objections from Cabinet agencies and then decided whether OMB's judgment was correct. "This court does not print its opinions, but my score was pretty good," Daniels said. Cabinet secretaries had the right to appeal to the president himself, but the OMB director said none did. One probable reason for the lack of appeals to Bush was the firepower of the board's members -- particularly of Cheney, who played a role similar to the one President Clinton did over the last eight years. "If the agency felt the vice president, the treasury secretary, the chief of staff and the assistant to the president for economic policy were not making an appropriate decision, they could appeal to the president," Lindsey said. "I'm not aware of any that did." Lindsey said he did not recall the board meeting with the president. Bush had a photo opportunity with the review board last Friday. In Clinton's first year, 1993, he participated in about 15 Roosevelt Room meetings that lasted up to two hours each with more than a dozen aides and Cabinet members, a former administration official said. That year was unusual because of the need for budget cuts to reduce the deficit. In later years, Clinton reduced his involvement to a half-dozen one-hour meetings with his top economic advisers. Cabinet secretaries appealed frequently to the president, and Clinton sometimes overruled his advisers. Clinton was often criticized for being too involved in minutiae. But Gene Sperling, who was Clinton's economic adviser, said it was crucial to have the president personally involved. "The budget is such a defining manifestation of a president's ultimate priorities that it should ultimately be decided by the president himself and not delegated," Sperling said. "In the long run, Cabinet members accept adverse decisions better if they felt the president heard their side." Bush advisers countered that Bush's arrangement allows for a more orderly process. "The president laid a very clear path and vision of the federal government's priorities, and when you give clear guidelines and markers, things fall into place quite nicely," said one senior adviser. "There's a better use of the president's time" than immersing himself in each budget line, the adviser said. The process had the benefit of insulating Bush from petty staff and interagency squabbles. Lindsey said the system was in place "in part to protect the president." Even within the White House, many Bush advisers did not know much about the functioning of the budget review board. Its members met and debated without extensive reliance on subordinates. They described it as a way to resolve disputes and shape policy that emerged from the "passback" process, OMB jargon for the negotiating that takes place between the White House and the Cabinet departments. The budget review board was recommended during the transition by John Cogan, a Stanford University professor. Cogan, who had been at OMB during President Ronald Reagan's administration, said a similar review board consisted of James A. Baker III, Edwin A. Meese and David L. Stockman in the Reagan years.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Budget Struggle From: Jim the Bart Date: 01 Mar 01 - 10:30 AM Mav - A one-sided dialogue (if there is such a thing) would be boring indeed. Like talking to yourself. Carol C. - I don't mind if it gets heated. People should get riled up about stuff that they consider important. My main objection to what was happening in the other thread was that it had cycled back on itself; I kept tripping over dead horses with "beat me" signs all over them. Kat - nice article. Identifying a policy with a president has never meant that he "made it up" (other than Reagan and Star Wars), rather that he advocated it. Personally, I like the Bush management style. I would rather have an economist forming monetary policy than a politician. Too much eye to compromise, too early in the process, can create a policy that is too watered-down from the start; too little gives us policy that is DOA, like Hillary's Health Care program Bush's job is to set the direction and sell the final product. He'd better be comfortable with it, and with those that formulated it, because he will take the heat. I read last year that the federal budget document is so huge that no one individual has read the whole thing at the time it is voted on. There is a lot of boiler plate and minuteae (sp). I don't expect GWB to know the policy line item by line item; I would have expected that fom Al Gore. At this point in time I don't know how closely GWB's actions follow his talk. I don't have the faith in him that Mav obviously does, nor anything on which to base that faith. His record in private and public life is spotty at best. And remember his blood lines; it was Bush Sr. who gave us "no new taxes" and pardons for the Iran/Contra gang. I look forward to your comments - from both sides of the spectrum and all points in between. Bart |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Budget Struggle From: Jim the Bart Date: 01 Mar 01 - 10:56 AM One short (hopefully) example of why I question GWB's words vs. deeds: The Defense Budget. He said something along the lines that strategic requirements would determine budgetary, rather than the opposite. This is as it should be. At the same time, he is adamant about Star Wars-style missile defenses. To me, and to a lot of guys a lot smarter than me, this makes no sense. I see the missile defense issue as pointless for two reasons. 1. It won't work. The military's testing can't get it to work. Many experts think it will never work. 2. ICBM's are no longer the primary threat to our security. Terrorism, both domestic and international, is a much more critical concern. Bush is Ivy League educated; he and/or his top aides have to be aware of the cost/ROI (return on investment) problems with this type of defense system. If it truly doesn't make sense strategically, why push it when the money can be spent on other defense needs? Could it be the same old military/industrial complex influence that Ike warned us about rearing its ugly head? Or has the new president been sold a bill of goods? "Yeah, it sounds like a good idea. Don't want bombs hitting American Cities. O.K. I'm for it!" Either way, it doesn't bode well. Bart |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Budget Struggle From: Skeptic Date: 01 Mar 01 - 07:31 PM Bartholomew, I would rather have an economist forming monetary policy than a politician And I would prefer almost any politician over almost any economist. It's one of the reasons I vote. If we wanted economists to run things, then lets have an oligarchy and put them in charge. What's ultimately being "run" is a small percentage of the overall budget (remember all those entitlements and debt payments eat up huge chunks of the dollars). Budget policy should reflect the political agenda of the party in power. It's what the competing platforms are all about. What W's team sound's like is the the standard financial management team found in a lot of big businesses. Heavy of accounting expertise. AKA, letting the bean counters run the business. Highly profitable. Except we're talking about a government, not a business. Bush's job is to set the direction and sell the final product. He'd better be comfortable with it, and with those that formulated it, because he will take the heat. Or not. If he has lost of "experts" creating the budget, he can use the ultimate defense and blame them. You're right that he is responsible. And while an attention to minutiae is self-defeating, I would hope for more hands on involvement. Setting general goals and leaving policy decisions up to unelected "lieutenants", no matter how able, is dangerous. His style: He sets broad parameters and goals, hires capable lieutenants, and gives them wide latitude and authority. Is a very sound business model. And may work well in business. Or in Texas, where the governor's powers are circumscribed. While I agree that the government has to be more business-like, that's a far cry from saying it should be run like a business. The American public deserves more attention from the man the majority of us didn't vote for. I also think, all the smoke an mirrors aside, his tax cut proposal is premature. The nation has enjoyed the benefits of deficit spending for 16 years. It's time to pay the piper. Maxing out your credit cards and then making the minimum payment, counting on the raises you're going to get in five or seven years from now to do some serious pay-down, strikes me as foolish. Of course, by the time we know, one way or another, there'll be someone else in the White House to blame. Regards John
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Budget Struggle From: Greg F. Date: 01 Mar 01 - 08:42 PM What this is is Refried Reaganomics. Didn't work then, Wont work now. Another viewpointHERE Best, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Budget Struggle From: Jim the Bart Date: 02 Mar 01 - 12:03 AM Nice article Greg. It helps when someone verbalizes what has been a vague uneasiness. Skeptic - Thanks for chiming in. The question of how much a government should function like a business is a good one. I worked for the Postal Service when it was transformed and saw first hand how priorities get screwed with when you try to run a service agency on a profit basis. In most well-run businesses there is some one (1) person who is ultimately responsible. There may be a board to report to, but operational direction and budgetary decisions rest in very few hands. Obviously, our country "don't work that way". Bush and his budget people know that what he presented won't be what gets passed. I think people in that position count on that. So they cut things like flood insurance, knowing someone will insist that it be put back. Later, when the deficits start to show up, fingers can be pointed. It's a sad process. I'm not sure if I agree about your concern about lieutenants who formulate policy. It happens in the private sector, too. That doesn't mean that the "man in charge" should be disengaged or serve as a rubber stamp leader. I personally believe that this may end up as Bush's undoing. How far out in front a leader should be is another major question and concern when dealing with a bureaucracy as large as the Federal government. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Budget Struggle From: katlaughing Date: 02 Mar 01 - 01:14 AM Good points, Skeptic/John. Greg, thanks for that dose of Molly...just love her style! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Budget Struggle From: Skeptic Date: 02 Mar 01 - 07:21 AM Greg, In politics Lieutenants pose several problems depending on who they are: 1) They weren't around when the voting was going on. 2) They don't ever have to answer, directly for their actions, either of commission or omission. 3) They have a bad habit (whether public or private) of deciding what the boss needs to know. And what he doesn't need to know. Their loyalty to the voters is secondary. 4) They tend to be experts in specific fields. As such, their decisions are often constrained to their field of expertise. In business, the cry was "the bean counters are in control". In politics, people find that all the advisory boards and staff filter (consciously or unconsciously) the ideas that flow upward. Some ideas never get debated because the unknown "they" decided not to pursue it because (a) Ins impractical (b) the Boss wouldn't like it (c) we've never done it that way before.... and so on. W seems to be in the old fashioned Chairmen of the Board mode. "I've hired good people, now let them do their job." Except that is the logic of business, not politics. Do you run the country like a business in a businesslike manner? More and more (and not just W), our politicians seem to be working very hard to further the tendency toward oligarchy. Rather than basing the power elite on money, birth or such, it's based on "experts" who foster the myth that their specialized knowledge is needed to make these complex decisions. W is doing it with his budget, with the underlying assumption that an expert must be right because he's an expert. That tautology is dangerous, and not just because it's W. Regards John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Budget Struggle From: Skeptic Date: 02 Mar 01 - 07:24 AM Oops, Addressed my last to the wrong person. It should have been in reply to Bart. To Greg I add thanks for the link. Refreried Reagonomics and it hasn't improved with age. Regards John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Budget Struggle From: Jim the Bart Date: 02 Mar 01 - 01:27 PM Part of my problem is that I do not really believe in pure democracy. I don't think ideas become good simply because you can convince a majority of one that it is so. Democracy tends to work in general over long periods of time. The chance that it will work for specifics at this time are dubious. I'm not against oligarchies. I had a professor in a Political Science class who had us study the Swiss government as an example of a modern state that worked very well, and it was an elected oligarchy. They are not self-appointed and need to be responsible to their constituents and to the overall polity to remain part of the governing board. Although an individual may be replaced, there is continuity because the real decision making must be done through consensus of the governing board. We elect a man "to lead" based on his ability to convince us of his policies. We then see those policies diluted and re-shaped by the Congress. Four (or eight) years later we bring in a new guy who will either tear down or build up the policies of the guy he replaced. How can real progress be made when we so consistantly reverse direction? Convince me that - other than being contrary to our democratic predelictions - oligarchy is not the way to go. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Budget Struggle From: Skeptic Date: 02 Mar 01 - 02:07 PM Bartholomew, Part of my problem is that I do not really believe in pure democracy Democracy is a means to an end, not the end itself. First define what you believe are worthwhile values goals for you, for other individuals and then for the group. I don't think ideas become good simply because you can convince a majority of one that it is so. Democracy tends to work in general over long periods of time. The chance that it will work for specifics at this time are dubious. Which takes precedence, the individual or the group? (And by precedent I mean relative, not absolute). If you favor maximizing individuals self actualization, moral autonomy, self expression and so on, what system best accomplishes that. Again, I think you are elevating democracy and making it a moral value, rather than looking at it as a method of achieving other ends. Oligarchies preserve the relations of power and favor the group over the individual. I don't favor rampant individualism but feel that the function of government should be to try to maximize each individual. The best way I can see to do that is a democracy that pushes the decision making to the lowest levels. I'm not against oligarchies. I had a professor in a Political Science class who had us study the Swiss government as an example of a modern state that worked very well, and it was an elected oligarchy In what sense does it work well. While Switzerland has one of the lowest murder rate sin the World (.2 per 1000) , it has a relatively high rate of violent crime (25 per 1000 I seem to recall), for example. First define "worked very well" and work back to what that says about your values. Is it streamlines and efficient? That would imply some level of enforced conformity. Federal Express is very streamlined and efficient. As long as you use their boxes and letter packs and follow their rules. They are not self-appointed and need to be responsible to their constituents and to the overall polity to remain part of the governing board. Although an individual may be replaced, there is continuity because the real decision making must be done through consensus of the governing board. And the needs, as identified by the governing board, become paramount. And often self justifying. Why is the continuity a good thing? How is the danger of stagnation addressed structurally? Is power actually vested in the permanent (unelected) staff? How can real progress be made when we so consistantly reverse direction? Define progress. Is retarding the government in it's attempts to curtail individual rights progress? Is promoting the free expression of artistic ideas progress. Granted, an oligarchy can do these things. A democracy has to do them. Convince me that - other than being contrary to our democratic predelictions - oligarchy is not the way to go Again, it depends on what your core values are. It has nothing to do with democratic predilections. Both democracy and oligarchy are methods to accomplish things. I think the way to begin to answer your question is to explore what basic values you (and others) hold in common. Simplistically, take the Bill of Rights. Which system (practically) fosters those ideals best? (Over the long run). Which provides checks and safeguards to make sure those rights persist as a matter of necessity rather than a matter of convenience? Regards John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Budget Struggle From: MAV Date: 02 Mar 01 - 08:50 PM This STUPID article doesn't pass the straight face test. "The man cannot possibly want us to sign off on an enormous tax cut designed to benefit the rich" The "rich" (actually high income earners aka "working people") are carrying most of the load, Molly appears to portray herself as a freeloader. The real "rich" don't earn incomes, they just live off their trust funds, usually invested in tax-free muni bonds. Punishing success is asinine. Why would anyone bother to try? Plus, it's not "an enormous tax cut", they should give back the entire surplus, IT'S NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S MONEY!!! (It's about 1% of the budget) "without telling us what will be cut in return" Who cares what they cut, most social spending is not authorized Constitutionally. "Houston, we have a problem" Yes YOU do, since the biggest beneficiaries of social programs are their democrat DO-NOTHING UNION EMPLOYEES consuming 70 cents of every budget dollar leaving only 30 cents for the intended beneficiaries. ".....the details of the amorphous plan that Bush presented Tuesday night are grim indeed" Yeah ;-) "What the Hell Will They Do To Us Next?" Hopefully defund you. "How Dumb Do They Think We Are?" The real question is; How dumb do the LIBERALS think their constituents are? They seem to be smartening up since 88 to 90% of Americans liked Bush's tax cut proposal. "This tax cut is carefully back-loaded: We won't fully feel its effects until 10 years into the future" It's retro-active, besides, why would you care, you think the MASSIVE clinton tax INCREASE at the beginning of his term was the best thing since sliced bread. Hopefully there will be serial tax slashers committint tax cutting atrocities year after year 'til it gets reasonable again. "To cut job training programs is not only cruel but stupid" What's stupid is trying to train them for anything besides government work. Job training is the duty of private business.(I think otherwise you could call it corporate welfare) It's not the federal government's job. "To cut health and human service programs is to abandon investments in people" It's not the federal government's job. "Bush's budget is irrefutably the work of old Reaganites who do not like government and believe that the best way to deal with it is to starve it to death" They just don't like large FEDERAL government. The states can be a liberal as they want. What's wrong with that? Bush so clearly represents a change of rhetoric without a change of intent that it's almost painful. Ronald Reagan used to go around saying, "Government is not the solution; government is the problem." That is a correct assesmentand the Reagan position is true. "Newt Gingrich thought so little of the institution that he shut it down twice" Another whopper, the Republicans had just talked to the (perjurous) clinton 15 minutes earlier and thought they had a budget deal having shaken hands on it. The lying rapist and now bribe taking clinton had arranged with the government employee unions for a "shutdown" and used it as a huge political publicity stunt. Please don't tell me this is not true or that you never heard of it before. "it is vulgar -- vulgar -- to point out that the rich are going to get ever so much more out of this tax cut than everybody else" In dollar amounts (the high EARNERS pay so much more, their break is bigger) Did she flunk basic math? The RICH probably pay nothing. (trust funds) It's a 1% tax cut! "Quite, quite vulgar to point out that in a society already deeply scarred by the dramatically growing gap between the rich and everyone else" Where the HELL are they? Back in the "rest of the world" the "poor" don't have color tv, cars, air conditioning, free food, housing subsidies, etc. Give me a Bleeping break. "a tax cut that transfers yet more wealth into the hands of the rich while shifting more of the burden of taxation to everyone else is a truly bad idea" Oh brother, It's their "wealth" in the first place! Did you think they would be taking it from the "poor"? There is no transfer of taxation IT'S A SURPLUS!! "However, I believe it is even more vulgar -- in fact, crass, stupid and greedy -- to actually pass such a tax cut" Well of course you do, you're a thieving liberal, it's cutting into the WELFARE DEPENDENCY business. "I believe it is vulgar that this tax cut is proposed by the wealthiest Cabinet in history; seven of them are worth more than $10 million, and 11 of the remaining 12 are worth at least $1 million apiece. (Ag Secretary Ann Veneman is the pauper in the bunch, worth only $680,000, according to `The Guardian' of London.)" SO WHAT? Most of them are self made millionaires, a good example for young would be entrepreneurs. "According to the Census Bureau, 3.7 million Americans suffer from hunger as a result of being unable to buy basic foods. About 9 million households have "uncertain access to food." I find that truly vulgar" So would I, if I thought it were true. They probably got kicked off the gravy train for defrauding the system. I live in a poor state where anyone can get food stamps. I see people (usually real dregs) using them every day. There has been a fall off of usage in my area so much so, that the agency is advertising in the Municipal building to attract food stamp clients. Meanwhile we have a 2 to 3% unemployment rate making the stamps unattractive to most people. If the statistics Ivans quotes were true, who has been in charge for the last eight years and allowed this to happen??? THE DISINGENUOUS DEMOCRATS!!!!!! Sorry Carol. mav out
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Budget Struggle From: Skeptic Date: 02 Mar 01 - 09:53 PM Mav, Who cares what they cut, most social spending is not authorized Constitutionally. "Houston, we have a problem" A cry heard frequently. Yet even conservative courts haven't found it unconstitutional. All a matter of how you define the scope and intent of the preamble. It's retro-active, besides, why would you care, you think the MASSIVE clinton tax INCREASE at the beginning of his term was the best thing since sliced bread. What Clinton (or Reagan) did isn't germain One analysis that has to be done is to look at long range effects as both a best and worst case scenario. "I'll worry tomorrow" is what got us in this mess. Announcing a tax cut without first presenting a budget may be good politics. It makes little economic sense. What's stupid is trying to train them for anything besides government work. Job training is the duty of private business.(I think otherwise you could call it corporate welfare) One which they are all too willing to push off on the Federal or State government. Have the tax payers foot the bill and they reap the benefits. Which is truly corporate welfare.and the purpose of Workforce Development Boards. Quoting 2-3% unemployment is to use flawed statistics as the Labor Department stops counting people after a year of being unemployed and doesn't dela with underemployment at all. They just don't like large FEDERAL government. The states can be a liberal as they want. What's wrong with that? Just that W's other efforts aren't aimed in that direction. FB charities are, after all, federally funded. So far, no one has rushed to repeal any of the legislation that mandates State run (and often funded) welfare. Then you get into the problem of regional recessions nad how to deal with that on a State by State basis. In dollar amounts (the high EARNERS pay so much more, their break is bigger) Did she flunk basic math? 21% (or 32%) of the wealth, 43% of the tax benefits. Did you? And remember that what is being reformed is income tax, not payroll tax. There is no transfer of taxation IT'S A SURPLUS!! First, it's a projected surplus based on a number of best case assumptions. And we still have a $6 trillion plus deficit. Directly or indirectly the nation enjoyed the benefits of it, now we should pay the piper. "According to the Census Bureau, 3.7 million Americans suffer from hunger as a result of being unable to buy basic foods. About 9 million households have "uncertain access to food." I find that truly vulgar So would I, if I thought it were true. Why not? What if it is? If the statistics Ivans quotes were true, who has been in charge for the last eight years and allowed this to happen??? THE DISINGENUOUS DEMOCRATS!!!!!! I though we had a Republican Congress? Or is it less logical. Lets see, the deficit wasn't the Republican President Reagan or Bush's fault because the democrats were in control of congress. But the Republicans get credit for the recovery because they were in control of congress. Is sense a basic illogic here. May I assume that if the situation was reversed, the Democratic president would get blamed for the deficit and the Republican President would get credit for the recovery? Regards John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Budget Struggle From: Troll Date: 02 Mar 01 - 10:43 PM Skeptic, It seems to me that if the responsibility rests with Congress, then it is logical that if Congress is to blame when things go wrong, then Congress must also reap the acolades when things go right. Unlike what you said in your last paragraph. Think about it. But get some sleep first. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Budget Struggle From: MAV Date: 02 Mar 01 - 10:51 PM Hey Skeptic, "What Clinton (or Reagan) did isn't germain" My point was in reaction to her whining about the characteristics of the tax cut for working people which she obviously opposes anyway. Since you brought it up, I think it is relevant since both JFK and Reagan knew that unleashing tax money would both stimulate the economy and increase revenue. "Announcing a tax cut without first presenting a budget may be good politics. It makes little economic sense" It does if you plan on reforming a bloated self-serving bureaucracy. The government isn't the economy but it sure can rape it. "One which they are all too willing to push off on the Federal or State government. Have the tax payers foot the bill and they reap the benefits. Which is truly corporate welfare" I'm no fan of it, that's what they make universities and technical colleges for. Grants can be obtained from most industries to students agreeing to work for them after graduating. "Quoting 2-3% unemployment is to use flawed statistics as the Labor Department stops counting people after a year of being unemployed and doesn't dela with underemployment at all" I was referring to my own impoverished state which seems to be doing relatively well at the moment. (2-3% unemployment) " FB charities are, after all, federally funded" They will be and also state and private contribution funded, but a tax cut frees up more money for voluntary gifts. Americans are by comparison very generous when it comes to charitable giving. "21% (or 32%) of the wealth, 43% of the tax benefits Did you?" I did drop out of calculus but that doesn't come into play here. Let's get this straightened out here ok? There are two sets of percentages here and you are either accidentally or deliberately confusing them. (I still think you are a conservative and pulling my leg) We'll use your 21%. That number refers to the percent of the total tax burden carried by the top 3% highest paid earners. If they got it ALL back, it wouldn't be 21% it would be 100% (of the 21%) Looked at in another way, if they're getting 43% of the benefit it means they are NOT getting 57% of it (the 21%) "And remember that what is being reformed is income tax, not payroll tax" Right, payroll tax, FICA, another dirty trick pulled on the working man by the Congressional democrats. Calm down, we'll get to that as soon as we can, we can't do everything at once. I hope they can replace all this confusing crap with a national sales tax (2%). That would be fair. "I though we had a Republican Congress? Or is it less logical" We did, but much to my dismay, they sure as hell haven't cut the budget, much less defunded departments. The Department of Health and Human Services and HUD (headed by clinton/algor) were both still there, fully staffed, last time I looked. Those would be the disingenuous democrats I was referring to, who let all those people starve (and who's budget was not cut) "Lets see, the deficit wasn't the Republican President Reagan or Bush's fault because the democrats were in control of congress" Yes, the Congress spent their guts out to the tune of $1.83 for every dollar of revenue increase the Reagan tax cut created. "But the Republicans get credit for the recovery because they were in control of congress" Yes, they passed a massive capital gains tax cut on investments which caused people for sell "stinker" investments and re-invest in new technologies and performing companies, you do remember that don't you? Republicans do those kinds of things no matter where in government they are (unless they're RINOs) "Is sense a basic illogic here" Yes, but you need to see the rest of the story. Good work John, I'm hungry now. Ham and Swiss on rye? mav out
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Budget Struggle From: Troll Date: 02 Mar 01 - 10:51 PM I hopr this comes out so it is readable.
The Congressional Budget Office has just released the figures for 1998. This is the last year for which complete figures are available. Here's your table: Percentiles Ranked by AGI Adjusted Gross Income Threshold on Percentiles Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid Top 1 % $269,496 34.75 %
Every year it's the same story. The Percentage of the income paid by the top income earners increases while the percentage of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of income earners goes down. Every year millions of additional taxpayers all on the low end of the income totem disappear from the tax rolls altogether. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Budget Struggle From: Skeptic Date: 02 Mar 01 - 10:56 PM Troll, And if blame rests with the President, then so must the credit? By which logic, Reagan is to blame for the deficit and Clinton gets credit for the expansion. Or it neither gets credit or blame? Said the spider to the fly..... Regards John
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Budget Struggle From: wdyat12 Date: 02 Mar 01 - 11:39 PM "Let's throw the bum's out! Let's keep the politicians in that are accountable to the people from whence they derive their power." We all seem unhappy with this budget proposal except the rich and powerfull. I beleive that our contaminated two party system, on both sides, has failed us with broken promises and lies. Most of us on Mudcat are Babyboomers and beyond. Tax cuts now to benefit the rich will only impoverish us in our retirement years. I am resolved that I will not be able to retire compfotably when the time comes and I am unable to work anymore. I hope I can still work and I hope I can still have a job "when I'm 64, 74, 84, 94." Chances are the system, as contrived by the ruthless and the greedy today, will fail the majority of us when we really need it tomorrow. Was anybody listening during the election to the real issues brought forth by Ralph Nader? Although the corporate funders of the two-headed monster tried to silence the Green Party platform by not allowing Nader into the debates, Nader was not silenced. We just couldn't hear. wdyat12
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Budget Struggle From: GUEST,Stackly Date: 03 Mar 01 - 08:49 AM Bugger! Some of that MavShite's been smeared on this thread as well. If you lads must play with human (?) excrement, PLEASE watch where you wipe your hands. Cheers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Budget Struggle From: MAV Date: 03 Mar 01 - 12:10 PM Dearest Buddies, "If you lads must play with human (?) excrement, PLEASE watch where you wipe your hands" I suggest you pay attention to Stackley, he seems to be an expert on all matters fecal. Perhaps he's a "Scat" singer too. "you lads" Careful stack, some of these "lads" are "birds". Wouldn't want to urinate them off now would we?
Pip pip, old chap, carry on, cheerio! Splendid! mav out PS the queen sucks |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Budget Struggle From: MAV Date: 04 Mar 01 - 11:15 PM Dear Kat, "There are certain politicians I feel some trust in, one of which is Barney Franks from Massachusetts" Oh, you mean "Hotbottom" (as Howie Carr refers to him) the forgetful PEDOPHILE who didn't remember he was running a boy-brothel in his basement? (censured by the House) You trust him? How about his fellow Massole pervert, the ever drunken Ted Kennedy who between himself and Chris Dodd....had a waitress at a well known DC restaurant? A menage a trois with fries. Don't forget rapist clinton, I assume you trusted him as well. He sure taught men and boys how feminists expect to be treated didn't he? the obvious, mav out |