22 Jul

Debt Ceiling Talks Break Down….Again; Obama – Tax Hikes not “some wild-eyed socialist position”

                                       

Talks broke down on the debt deal…again, and we all know why. The Democrats were upset about the deal Obama was about to make so at the last minute he moved the goal posts and expected the Republicans to cave. Didn’t happen:

[Boehner] said the two sides had agreed on an unspecified amount of revenue to be included in deficit reduction, achieved by broadening the number of Americans who pay taxes and lowering general tax rates. But he said President Obama on Thursday demanded another $400 billion in revenue, which Boehner said “was going to be nothing more than a tax hike on the American people.”

It is clear, however, that Boehner and Cantor were ready to accept up to $800 billion in revenue measures as part of a grand bargain. But when that number jumped, in part because of pressure from Democrats, the talks broke down.

Boehner sent a letter to his Republican colleagues explaining his decision to pull out of talks for a “grand bargain.” Here are some highlights:

“It has become evident that the White House is not serious about ending the spending binge that is destroying jobs and endangering our children’s future,” he wrote, adding, “A deal was never reached, and was never really close.

“The president is emphatic that taxes have to be raised. … The president is emphatic that we cannot make fundamental changes to our entitlement programs,” Boehner wrote.

“For these reasons, I have decided to end discussions with the White House and begin conversations with the leaders in the Senate in an effort to find a path forward.”

Where do you think the Democrats came to the conclusion that the Republicans would cave?

Did Gang of 6 kill the deal? Revenue numbers rose after gang weighed in.

The gang of six didn’t help, that’s for sure. Neither did poor widdle Harry Reid’s hurt feelings. But in the end Obama’s re-election campaign (as if he ever stopped campaigning) is what did all this in:

First, as James Pethokoukis (who beat the establishment media like a drum on this story) suggests, there is little political downside for Pres. Obama in such negotiations, so long as he insists on major, unambiguous tax increases and opposes entitlement reform. If Republicans caved in to such a deal, it would demoralize the GOP base and possibly prompt Tea Party challenges, splitting the vote on the right. Moreover, a deal would help fool the casual, low-information voter that Obama cares about and is addressing the public debt bomb.

Second (and perhaps more significant), failing to reach a “grand bargain” is Pres. Obama’s current campaign strategy. You need not take my word for it. Instead, you can observe what Pres. Obama has done since before the midterm elections.

Consider the general political environment before the midterm election. The right and the Tea Party raised the political temperature on the issue of the public debt bomb. Pres. Obama punted on the issue by forming the Simpson-Bowles commission. After the election, he tossed their recommendations in the trash bin. However, in doing so, Obama created a politcal vacuum, which was filled by the House GOP budget devised by Rep. Paul Ryan. The left needed a response.

Accordingly, Pres. Obama (as he always does) gave a speech (which was not a budget, and has never been made into one). While much of the establishment media spun that speech as an embrace of the Simpson-Bowles recommendations, it was not. Simpson-Bowles sought to clothe its tax increases in the garb of the Tax Reform Act of 1986: lowering tax rates and eliminating deductions. But the Simpson-Bowles recommendations were not revenue-neutral. Even so, they were at least structurally similar to the House GOP budget, which proposed similar tax reform that was revenue-neutral. Any purveyor of Beltway conventional wisdom could see the type of deal to be struck.

However, Obama’s non-budget speech did not adopt the basic structure of the House GOP or his bipartisan commissioners. Rather, Obama proposed raising tax rates and eliminating deductions. Moreover, Obama’s proposed enforcement triggers would exempt more than 90% of government spending from his supposed automatic across-the-board cut. Combined with grossly hypocritical demagogy on entitlements, Obama’s speech was not a forerunner to a serious plan, but an attempt to rerun the Clinton ’95 re-elect playbook.

Anyone harboring any doubt over who is repsonsible for the failure of a “grand bargain” must consider Pres. Obama’s record. He avoided the debt before the election. After the election, he submitted a budget so absurd it got zero votes in a Democrat-controlled Senate. [Indeed, Senate Democrats have yet to submit a budget of any kind.] He has not moved from the positions he staked out in April. His position is not balanced, no matter how much the White House and the establishment media try to spin it as such.

If the Republicans had caved it would have split the party even more then it is, if the Republicans didn’t cave then he and the liberals would continue trying to demonize the right. Either way it’s about what’s best for Obama and yes, President Obama, your Socialist ideals.

Not the country.

The man is a born campaigner, not a leader…

About Curt

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 20 years.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Baracks Broken Promises, Congress, Conservatism, Economy, Harry Reid, John Boehner, Obamanomics, Politics, Socialism, Taxes. Bookmark the permalink. Friday, July 22nd, 2011 at 6:40 pm
| 1,078 views

37 Responses to Debt Ceiling Talks Break Down….Again; Obama – Tax Hikes not “some wild-eyed socialist position”

  1. Nan G says: 1

    Frankly, if the fallback position is to cede power to Obama so he can raise the debt ceiling three times without any promise of spending cuts, Obama would be a fool to sign on for anything less than that.

    ReplyReply
  2. Hedy says: 2

    I watched them both make their speeches and as always Obama blames everyone but himself. Why can’t he act like a leader instead of scaring everyone about no funds. Why is it up to the Republicans to make a plan the dems had 2 years control of both houses why didn’t they do something?

    ReplyReply
  3. uncarvedblock123 says: 3

    He’s right, ya know. Redistribution of wealth is not some wild-eyed socialist thing. In fact, it’s the run-of-the-mill socialist thing.

    ReplyReply
  4. Ivan says: 4

    Please note: The Republicans have **some** backbone only because of the radicals in the Tea Party (Me), not because of the moderates in the Republican Party (Aye).

    ReplyReply
  5. anticsrocks says: 5

    @Ivan: You think that you are a Tea Party member???? Wow, that’s a stretch.

    ReplyReply
  6. Disenchanted says: 6

    I am sick and tired of paying extra to illegals, those who can work but won’t, those women who think their uterus is a slot machine, doctors who pad their bills to take advantage of Medicaid and medicare and those who believe welfare is not a temporary help but a way of life.

    Barry, Barack, Steve or whatever your name is who is NOT eligible to be in the WH because your father was not a US citizen. FU. NO MORE TAXES. CUT THE SPENDING YOU FLIPPING IDIOT

    I feel much better now. That has been kept inside for a while.

    ReplyReply
  7. tarpon says: 7

    Obama – Tax Hikes not “some wild-eyed socialist communist position”

    ReplyReply
  8. THE SOOTHSAYER says: 8

    Obama very lugubrious and despondent this evening. Nothing but ruination before us, and all because those damned Republicans will tender no “compromise,” and sit still while the Democrat-Unionists are gravitating into high taxation control economy socialism. But is any compromise or pacification desirable until we have ascertained whether we have or have not a government? Is not our first business now to see that the law of the land is executed? Would not “concession” now be an admission that what we have called the “Republican GOP Congress” is and has been all along a mere sham, scarecrow, and practical nullity, unable to assert its own existence as against a seditious minority?

    Extract from the diary of George Templeton Strong, january 26, 1861.

    ReplyReply
  9. John Cooper says: 9

    A friend who is a glutton for punishment and watched the 11AM meeting at the white house told me that Boehner was sipping tea the entire time. Was he sending a message there? God, I hope so.

    ReplyReply
  10. Nan G says: 10

    A much more appropriate photo from today is here.
    The entire meeting lasted less than one hour.

    Maybe these are the reasons for Obama’s sour puss:
    All July….
    No golf
    No fundraisers
    One canceled vacation
    Church once
    Nine meetings on debt ceiling
    Three press conferences
    Twelve interviews
    Four briefing room Q&A w/the press

    ReplyReply
  11. anticsrocks says: 11

    @Nan G: Agreed Nan. He is actually having to, GASP! – WORK! Oh noes!!!

    That would account for his sour mood!

    LOL

    ReplyReply
  12. John Cooper says: 12

    As I expected, Boehner has preemptively caved and adopted the Pelosi Plan. From The Hill: Boehner’s office: Two-vote process ‘inevitable’ on debt limit. So just like the dems did to Reagan, Boehner will agree to raise the debt limit now and get spending cuts later. The spending cuts will never materialize, and Obama will have won. They don’t call the Republicans The Stupid Party for nothing.

    House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is pushing Congress to resort to a two-vote approach to raise the debt-ceiling and prevent a government default.

    It is not “physically possible” to get everything done before the Treasury Department’s August 2 deadline for raising the debt ceiling, Boehner said on Fox News Sunday. “There is going to be a two stage process.”

    “I don’t want to get anywhere close to [default],” he said. “This is about what’s doable at the eleventh hour.”

    Boehner is such a pu$$y …

    ReplyReply
  13. Aye says: 13

    @John Cooper:

    The reports I’m reading indicate that the two stage proposal would be for a smaller increase in the debt ceiling coupled with a corresponding amount of immediate cuts as well a plan for longer term cuts.

    Basically, they’re splitting the original idea in two.

    What you’re saying may indeed be happening but I’m not reading anything yet that shows our side caving.

    ReplyReply
  14. Larry says: 14

    Dont you all get it?!?!?! the Republican party is playing chicken with the US economy in order to take back the White House, I can’t be mad to some extent becasue I am a chess player and I respect a good game but on the other side of things by keeping the economy in a frozen state the are not allowing the recovery that would get Americans back to work again, and that is wrong. Think im wrong look at what all the financial experts are saying, “none of them know where the jobs are because all of the numbers say that the economy should be moving ahead and health” but it’s not? Since Ted kennedy died the dems lost the house majority and since then the Rep party as been putting a hold on just about everything including the return of a healthy econ. These law makers make you all believe that people on welfare or the lazy people as one of you called them are the ones that are sucking up all the money but how is that possible when 95% of 300 million people control 5% of the wealth i this country and 5% control 95% of the weatlh? its all a song and dance to keep you all from looking at the truth, dont let the lies blind you, dont let race blind you, let the truth be what guides. i really dont care for Reps or Dems, i think the whole system is flawed, one thing ive always wanted is to serve you have to take a vow of poverty, like monks do, that would elimante the people who are doing this for greed from the ones who want to serve so that they can help their fellow man . im dreamin….

    ReplyReply
  15. Aye says: 15

    @Larry:

    Wow. That’s a whole lotta Dim talking points in such a small space.

    Let’s dissect it a bit:

    the Republican party is playing chicken with the US economy

    The Republicans are the only ones who have presented any sort of concrete plan or legislation to deal with the US economy. They’ve done it repeatedly and the Dims have summarily voted down each one of those pieces of legislation.

    …on the other side of things by keeping the economy in a frozen state the are not allowing the recovery that would get Americans back to work again, and that is wrong.

    How, precisely, are the Republicans “keeping the economy in a frozen state the are not allowing the recovery that would get Americans back to work again”?

    …look at what all the financial experts are saying, “none of them know where the jobs are because all of the numbers say that the economy should be moving ahead and health” but it’s not?

    Which “financial experts” are saying that?

    Since Ted kennedy died the dems lost the house majority

    Ted Kennedy was not in the House of Representatives.

    …since then the Rep party as been putting a hold on just about everything including the return of a healthy econ.

    What, precisely, has the Republican party “put on hold” that would have allowed the return of a healthy economy?

    Beginning in mid-January 2009 and running through early February of 2010 the Dims held control of the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate (with a super-majority in that chamber). What, precisely, did the Republican party “put on hold ” during that period that would have “allowed the return of a healthy economy”? Why was there no recovery of the economy during that time period?

    The Dimocrat Party, via their spokeswoman, has taken ownership of the economy. Why are you blaming others for the failures that the Dims have accepted ownership of?

    These law makers make you all believe that people on welfare or the lazy people as one of you called them are the ones that are sucking up all the money but how is that possible when 95% of 300 million people control 5% of the wealth i this country and 5% control 95% of the weatlh?

    Sources please.

    ReplyReply
  16. MsLucky says: 16

    Here are Obama’s narcissistic thoughts on the debt limit in 2006, when he voted against increasing the ceiling:

    The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

    In 2007 and in 2008, when the Senate voted to increase the limit by $850 billion and $800 billion respectively, Obama did not bother to vote. (And yes, I’m sure that’s because of Bush — I mean everything so far that is wrong with our country is because of Bush and it is still because of Bush that our country is in the mess that it is today!!) Either way it’s about what’s best for the narcissistic Obama and yes, President Obama, your Socialist ideals. The only thing I do agree with Obama’s statement is that, yes America does deserve better not just in 2006, but, from the moment Obama took the oath and was sworn into office – America DESERVES better than you President Obama!!

    ReplyReply
  17. knowing truth says: 17

    The Republicans and the tea partiers are holding the economy hostage, and it is related to the tax cuts for the rich. If you recall, when President Obama tried to extend the unemployment insurance for people out of work, through no fault of their own, the Republicans also held that hostage, and said that they would not vote to extend unemployment unless the President agreed to contintue the taxs cuts for the rich. And the President knowing that these families would be without any income or means to pay their bills or buy food, had no other choice but to agree. Now, we are in the same position, however; now it’s the world economy that’s going to be hurt. Once Americas’ credit rating goes down, the rest of the worlds economy will follow, and the dollar will fall like a hot rock, and the value of the dollar won’t be worth the dust under our shoes. More jobs will be lost, if there be any left at all. Prices will go threw the roof and find a soup line if you can. However; there is a silver lining in this tragic event, and that is that we will all be in the same boat. Even the tea partiers. Justice is sweet. I know you will not post this; you being a conservative blog.

    ReplyReply
  18. THE SOOTHSAYER says: 18

    This is the third duck; if it walks like a duck (TARP), talks like a duck (ObamaMedicine) good chance it’s a duck. (SeniorScare). O’BasketCase thrives on gangland brinkmanship because that is the turbulent violent “Community Organizer” southside of Chicago. If vulnerable people starve because of Obama it is because of Obama.

    No conservative is holding O’BoingBoing back, please note never to preceed his name with”President” unless certain he is presidential. He remains a Grade-C who surrounds himself with Grade-D’s just to convince the gullible he’s an A. Name one member of his staff worthy of running a dry cleaner, that guy rigged to be Treasury can’t even balance his own checkbook. There exists vast resistence to the O’BoyToy because there is nothing there – there.

    ReplyReply
  19. anticsrocks says: 19

    @knowing truth: Wrong.

    The GOP tried to get the Democrats and Obama to PAY for the extension of unemployment benefits.

    Are you against paying for what you want?

    ReplyReply
  20. anticsrocks says: 20

    @Larry: I think you left your tin foil hat by the door on your way out…

    ReplyReply
  21. Larry says: 21

    @Aye: To my good friends Aye and anticsrocks,
    I am going to fill in the holes of my argument a little more by touching on the sections Aye believes is lacking. (My apologies to any debate students; I just don’t feel like adhering to proper debate guidelines)
    From Aye: The Republicans are the only ones who have presented any sort of concrete plan or legislation to deal with the US economy. They’ve done it repeatedly and the Dims have summarily voted down each
    From aye: how precisely, are the Republicans keeping the economy in a frozen state?
    My reply: the House Republican proposal that was voted on last Friday was described by Majority Leader Harry Reid as, “The worst piece of legislation ever to hit the Senate floor”. The initial legislation that was sent through was junk, it was meant to be smoke and mirrors so that the Republican Party could turn to the public and say that they were trying and the Democrats/President were not. After that bill was killed and the Republicans/Democrats actually begun to work on a deal together this is what happened:
    From the CONSERVATIVE, Washington post, (In the end, as it was in the beginning, Boehner was the guy with the commitment problem. As much as he may have wanted to make things work, he has a commitment problem because he cannot get enough of his caucus to commit to tax increase. So Boehner bolted — and, as bolters often do, offered the usual unconvincing set of excuses for behaving badly. In a letter to his caucus, the runaway speaker explained he had to quit the talks because “it became evident that the White House is simply not serious about ending the spending binge.”
    This is demonstrably untrue. The White House had agreed to cut discretionary spending by more than $1 trillion over the next decade, plus $200 billion in cuts in mandatory spending programs outside the health-care context. On health-care spending, the White House agreed to $360 billion in cuts, and the possibilities laid out included raising the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 67 and additional means-testing of benefits. It agreed to changing the inflation index in a way that would have reduced benefits for seniors. In term of spending cuts, the two sides were, at most, $59 billion apart — a pittance in context and when spread over 10 years.
    Conclusion: you see Aye that is playing chicken with the economy, dancing on a fine line between the nation’s economy crashing vs. using the situation to try and make the President look bad going into an election year. When I said frozen, what do you think is happening in the markets? Down by 200 points due to this issue alone, that means no jobs, no money, no credit.
    1. From me: How, precisely, are the Republicans “keeping the economy in a frozen state the are not allowing the recovery that would get Americans back to work again”?
    1. From aye: Which “financial experts” are saying that?
    2. FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:
    3. It’s unlikely there were all that many champagne corks popping across the country when we learned this week that the recession officially ended more than a year ago.
    4. And maybe that’s because it doesn’t feel like the recession has ended…not at all.
    5. A new Gallup Poll shows that 88 percent of those surveyed say now is a “bad time” to find a quality job.
    6. That number is as high as it was one year ago… and higher than it was at this time in 2008, when the recession was under way. Only 55 percent felt this way in 2007, before the recession started.
    7. The bottom line is Americans are waiting for the jobs to come back. It may be a very long wait, and, in fact, a lot of the lost jobs will never come back.
    8. The national unemployment rate is 9.6 percent, and there are no signs it’s going to improve significantly for a while. Since the recession started – more than seven million jobs have been lost. Almost two and a half million homes have been repossessed.
    9. But the National Bureau of Economic Research says the recession, which began in December of 2007, ended in June of 2009. This makes the 18-month long recession the longest and deepest downturn since the Great Depression.
    10. Add in weak economic data in the past few months and concerns about a possible double dip recession are growing.
    11. According to CNNMoney.com, a group of top economists say there’s a 25 percent risk of a double dip recession in the next year. That’s up from a 15 percent chance just six months ago
    Aye there was a comment from another person saying that this entire situation is the Democrats fault since they had a Super majority. That is why I added that part about Ted Kennedy, I know that he was a senator but I just used a common reference of “Senate House” when I was referring to him since the United States Congress per the Separation of powers is one under the Legislative branch. I should have clarified myself earlier so my apologies for guessing everyone understood what I meant.
    Last of all:
    1. From myself
    2. These law makers make you all believe that people on welfare or the lazy people as one of you called them are the ones that are sucking up all the money but how is that possible when 95% of 300 million people control 5% of the wealth i this country and 5% control 95% of the wealth?
    From Aye: sources please
    From myself: there are many documented sources that say the same thing about the distribution of wealth in this country but I just will give you the first one that came up in a Google search.
    The link below is for Professor G. William Domhoff, Sociology Dept., University of California at Santa Cruz, it’s a lengthy article and his information is a little broader in perspective them mine but he does state, “the control of income-assets in the United States is owned by 10% of the population” .
    http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

    Anticsrock, I left that Tin foil hat by the door for you…

    ReplyReply
  22. anticsrocks says: 22

    @Larry: On my way to work, I will read and answer your post #21 tonight.

    ReplyReply
  23. anticsrocks says: 23

    @Larry: You said, in response to the idea that that the Dems/WH are not serious about controlling spending:

    This is demonstrably untrue. The White House had agreed to cut discretionary spending by more than $1 trillion over the next decade, plus $200 billion in cuts in mandatory spending programs outside the health-care context.

    $1 trillion dollars in cuts over 10 years is only $100 billion dollars a year. When you are running deficits that are $1.6 trillion dollars a year on average, then that is nothing. These are not serious spending cuts. The White House is not interested in cutting spending one iota.

    You said:

    Conclusion: you see Aye that is playing chicken with the economy, dancing on a fine line between the nation’s economy crashing vs. using the situation to try and make the President look bad going into an election year.

    The only person playing chicken with the economy is Obama. His fear mongering and demagoguing of the issue is deplorable. What self respecting person, who KNOWS that federal law mandates that Soc. Sec. payments go out, threatens not to make those payments??

    You said:

    The link below is for Professor G. William Domhoff, Sociology Dept., University of California at Santa Cruz, it’s a lengthy article and his information is a little broader in perspective them mine but he does state, “the control of income-assets in the United States is owned by 10% of the population” .

    The flaw with this professor’s article and, it seems, with the position you are taking on income/wealth distribution in the United States is that there is some finite, fixed amount of money in the economy; that those with wealth got it by taking from those who do not.

    This is a fallacy. Our economy is not made from some fixed number of wealth and everyone has to divvy it up, with the “evil rich” folks hogging the majority of it.

    The economy will expand when we get a person in the White House who stops punishing businesses in this country, loosens predatory regulations and eases the tax burden on said businesses. Now I am not in favor of lower taxes without getting rid of deductions, but that said, lower taxes will stimulate the economy.

    Well, there you go Larry. The rest of what you said in comment #21 was a bit incomprehensible. It is difficult to see if you are saying some of those things, or you are attributing them to others.

    ReplyReply
  24. MataHarley says: 24

    @Larry: From the CONSERVATIVE, Washington post, …snip…

    Sorry… can’t get thru the rest of the two diatribes there. Must pick self off floor and try to exhibit straight cyber face….

    Have to say that anyone who classifies WaPo as “conservative” has to 1: either come from further left to determine that political slant, or 2: is really unfamiliar with the publication’s traditional and historic content. The first option reveals an admitted socialist, sans demonstrable personal reproach. The second characterizes one who is simply too stupid to spend much more than a nanosecond on.

    Good thing I am a fast typist….

    It’s difficult to debate anyone when he/she/it says “…really dont care for Reps or Dems, i think the whole system is flawed..”. Apparently it doth protest too loudly, given it’s twit intelligence/spelling level abilities of communication. The political leaning is quite evident in the utopian quest content that is pleasurable in fantasy, dreams and B quality Hollywood scripts, but unachievable as long as humans walk the planet. Most who have managed to get beyond any campus… not to mention the limited level of social networking communication skills… have figured out that such a utopian dream has failed in every attempt over history.

    Then, of course, there’s the token references to distribution of wealth… conveniently sans the “re” in front of that term. Doth not this commenter believe that wealth had to have belonged to it’s originator at all, by leaving off the “re”? Or does it think that all wealth is shared booty?

    There is a slight modicum of truth hidden in the babble by this new entry at FA, who is is unable to demonstrate perfunctory grammatical skills beyond that of Twitter U. The economy is certainly being held hostage, but it has fingerpointed only the culprits it chooses to for their anti-socialist platforms. It is Congress… both parties… holding the economy hostage for political gain. And until it figures this out, not much use in engaging in babble.

    BTW, please don’t confuse this “Larry” with our regular Larry Weisenthal. To grant this commenter assumptions that it’s close in cerebral abilities with the latter is simply an unconcionable insult to a worthy alternative voice.

    As Aye likes to say… exit questions (hopefully a real exit.. because this one could get boring quickly…) for this drive by political neanderthal:

    1: What is the greatest financial drain(s) driving the debt and deficit?

    2: When did that financial drain(s) originate, and by whom?

    3: Who has held the sway of Congressional power in their hands as a majority for the past nine decades?

    4: How much tax increase will those evil rich have to pay to solve the debt problem? And how many years will it take for the stolen personal financial rewards of a few to reduce the debt?

    If, and when, you figure any of those out, you might come across as a bit more knowledgable. Until then, you’re just a poor O’minion, doing his grassroots cyber army serious embarrassment.

    ReplyReply
  25. MataHarley says: 25

    @anticsrocks, don’t you think you’re using too big of words in your response to it? Not to mention taking serious liberties with it’s math skills. I hear the zipping of air, whizzing past the cyber ears there….

    ReplyReply
  26. anticsrocks says: 26

    @MataHarley: But I typed it extra slow, just in case… :-P

    ReplyReply
  27. TrueTEX says: 27

    @Larry:

    95% of all statistics are made up and 3 out of 2 people have trouble with fractions.

    See…making up crap doesn’t need to take up the whole page. If this offends you, it is because you were caught lying and that is when the truth hurts. Let it go and accept the fact that the “Great Campagner” is a terrrible president(does not deserve to be capitalized).

    ReplyReply
  28. knowing truth says: 28

    @Larry: Thank you Larry, that was plain and simple and to the point. Unlike some, who babble a lot of big words, yet, saying nothing.

    ReplyReply
  29. TrueTEX says: 29

    @knowing truth: Really Larry? Did you think you were fooling anyone by changing your name?

    Plain, simple, to the point….rofl…tell me you mean baseless, rambling, and full of crap(would have said holes, but crap fell through the holes)! The big words anticrocks used can be found in the dictionary (not sure you know what a thesaurus is so I won’t suggest it) and provided substance, showed inteligence and humor. Seriously, thanks for the laugh…

    ReplyReply
  30. Larry says: 30

    @TrueTEX: lol…TrueTEX I didn’t change my name…I have no idea who “knowing truth” is but i thank that person for their comments.

    ReplyReply
  31. Larry says: 31

    @MataHarley: mataharley I will read your comments when i get back from class tonight and responed with BIGGER WORDS…tomorrow:)

    ReplyReply
  32. Larry says: 32

    @MataHarley: p.s. I did glance over some of your comments and it looks like you have a pretty sound mind I look foward to reading it tonight

    ReplyReply
  33. Larry says: 33

    @anticsrocks: i will read over your comments after i get back from class also and i thank you for the response

    ReplyReply
  34. MataHarley says: 34

    @Larry, since you’ll be reading it over later with responses “after classes” (gee… how did I know you were still a student… LOL), let’s add another couple of “exit questions” (H/T to Aye for the phrase)

    5: Does wealth belong to the earner, or collectively to the central government, ripe for “distribution”?

    6: Since you, like another of our regulars here (Greg) are fixated on income distribution… never taking in consideration the risks taken or work done to acquire that income… exactly how much is “too much wealth” anyone is entitled to possess before it’s okay for the central government to seize it and “distribute” it to the less prolific masses? Between the CEO and worker at a company, what is the acceptable ratio of income distribution to you?

    7: What entity gets to decide that ratio of income distribution?

    8: Since you hotlinked to Prof Domhoff’s article which continues his 60s reputation as an elistist class warfare protestor, perhaps you’ll let us know why the central government is entitled to estate earnings that are bequeathed to heirs, outside of their normal income reporting for the IRS? Pray tell, what did the central government do to earn that financial reward?

    Here’s the bit, “Larry”… your political leanings are quite obvious by your choices of words, and what gets your gall. i.e., considering WaPo “conservative” means you are further left than they are.

    Since you don’t like either party, it means you are one of the O’faithful that feel betrayed he isn’t acting as much on the euro-socialist promises as you’d like. Therefore, neither party is acceptable to you… the fiscal conservatives you disdain, or the lib/progs that aren’t progressive enough for your tastes. And the system is flawed because it just isn’t going the way you think it should.

    That you focus on equality in income and wealth indicates you’ve never been the earner, forfeiting your earnings for someone who may not have worked as hard as you.

    Your choice of UC/Santa Cruz’s Domhoff.. one of my own youthful generation.. is also quite revealing. A man who’s made his living on class warfare with his “Who Rules America” series over the decades. A man who mischaracterizes the left and right with the below:

    Rightists tend to be very individually oriented. They tend not to see groups and social classes. They think that success is a matter of individual effort, overlooking the social support that they and everyone else has had in order to advance in life. This individualistic orientation, along with their respect for hierarchy, makes them into natural supporters of the current power structure, whatever their socioeconomic standing.

    On the other hand, according to Tomkins, Leftists are oriented toward human needs and pleasures, not rules, and think that rules are created by people. They are attracted to new experiences and positive feelings. They are for equality and do not like hierarchy; they are egalitarians who are willing to change the rules if they think that is necessary. In addition, they tend to focus on groups and social networks. This group-oriented stance, along with their emphasis on equality, makes them natural allies of the underdogs, whether this means low-income people or people excluded from the dominant society on the basis of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religious preference.

    Ironically, the ones who play the classes are the lib/progs… dutifully separating everyone by gender, race, income, nationality and sexual preferences. And it’s the same lib/progs that tend to make all “the rules” Prof Domhoff says they so disdain, making sure those class separations are somehow “equal” in their eyes.

    His use of the words, “social support” is not via family and community, but via central government handouts. In short, you again reveal yourself to be a person, of some gender, still living in campus land, and naive to the real world of achievement, opportunity and it’s rewards that can only come with time and labor.

    One of the first real things you will learn is that charity cannot be mandated by a central government, and your earnings should be yours to redistribute as you see fit… not the 535 people sitting in a domed building miles away from your personal reality.

    Lastly, your formatting, and careless use of grammar and spelling, indicate you are a child of the social networking era. This also led me to believe you’ve probably never been responsible for supporting yourself, let alone others, and been mandated to give up what you worked for so your neighbor can walk to the mailbox and pick up his government check because he doesn’t want to be insulted by taking a lesser job and be “underemployed”.

    Times are tough for young grads these days, and even tougher for we older ones, a step away from retirement, with jobs disappearing, Congress moving the goal posts of collecting what they stole from us for decades (and spent), and not giving us much of a chance to figure out a way inbetween to survive with tough competition from hungry qualified college grads, embarking into reality.

    But here’s what I wish for you… a rich and prolific career, a central government that doesn’t steal your earnings and quelch your ambitions, and yet you still retain that “I care for everyone” attitude so that you give richly to the charities of your choice – and all without a government mandate to do so.

    ReplyReply
  35. John Cooper says: 35

    Aye writes:

    I’m not reading anything yet that shows our side caving.

    How about now? Reid plan’s savings trump Boehner’s

    ReplyReply
  36. Nan G says: 36

    @John Cooper:

    News broke last night [Tuesday night] that Boehner scrapped his plans to bring his bill to a vote today and is instead waiting until Thursday. The reason is because he doesn’t have the votes and the CBO score wasn’t as good as he expected. ….
    Boehner will be modifying his bill to get more support from the conservative base, which is needed.
    …….
    [T]he White House is opposed to any GOP backed plan. Unfortunately for them, the Democratic party has only put together one bill, which almost mirrors Boehner’s bill, was started just eight days before the August 2 deadline, knowing it won’t pass the House.
    …..
    Obama, told Harry Reid [he would veto Reid's bill] because it was a short-term solution.

    _______________________
    _______________________

    Revised Boehner bill partially scored by CBO.

    House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has released an amended version of his debt-ceiling plan, which the Congressional Budget Office now says cuts the deficit by $917 billion over 10 years — $66 billion more than the bill originally cut.

    Instead of only cutting the deficit by $1 billion in 2012, the cut is now $22 billion.

    The vote is now scheduled for Thursday.

    The Boehner plan has the potential for much deeper deficit savings because it creates a committee that is to propose $1.8 trillion in additional savings by Nov. 23.

    But the CBO did not score that part of the proposal.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/173961-boehner-releases-revised-debt-bill-vote-set-for-thursday

    ReplyReply
  37. John Cooper says: 37

    Nan–

    It’s hard for me to tell whether Boehner is doing all these stupid things to throw off the Democrats, or whether he really intends to stab conservative Americans in the back by not passing any significant spending cuts. I see that All 53 Senate Democrats Sign[ed a] Letter to Boehner Threatening to Default on US Debt. Kinda’ puts the onus on the dems for what happens next.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>