As a fed, it really doesn’t matter to us. As a former DoD Fed, we’re happy soldiers don’t feel the pinch.
I’m glad to hear Reid is giving it a vote. As a moral issue if nothing else.
I was referring to DADT, cap-and-trade, immigration reform, etc. not as spending issues, but Democratic initiatives that were given up rather quickly in the face of any GOP opposition, even though they were originally GOP-supported.
We’ll see how the parties respond to the new deficit-commission report - that might give us some indication who is serious about it and who isn’t.
I have had bonuses equal to 50% of my salary, my freidns in government probably get closer to 1%
Allow me…
-
Representation by government employee unions more than their private sector counterparts allow them to suck more out of their employers (the taxpayer) than they otherwise would.
-
Even before the current economic troubles, many private companies were getting leaner, cutting costs, merging, downsizing, going bankrupt etc… while federal and state governements and agencies just keep on bloating.
What sacred cows? Like food stamps or something?
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, in which GHWB agreed to raise taxes as part of a bipartisan approach to reducing the deficit, breaking his “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge of 1988.
How many private sector employees got a raise in 2007? Federal employees did.
How many private sector employees got a raise in 2008? Federal employees did.
How many private sector employees got a raise in 2009? Federal employees did.
Regards,
Shodan
Speaking of sacred cows,all 42 GOP Senators just signed a letter saying they would refuse to allow any legislation to even be considered by the Senate until the Bush tax cuts are extended for everyone.
It’s like they’re holding their breath until their faces turn blue.
Put the shoe on the other foot. Let’s say that the Dems were going to get a majority in one of the houses after January. In the mean time, their votes are necessary to get through some legislation to give ‘rich’ people a tax cut, as well as some other things of lesser importance. The Republicans NEED to get this bill through for their own base, and they can’t do it unless the Dems help out.
Would the Dems be holding their breath until they were blue and acting like children to bargain hard and negotiate from strength, knowing that it really doesn’t help them any to pass this legislation, and in fact could potentially hurt them with their base? Or should they simply cave in because it’s something the other party needs to get done before the switch in power?
-XT
I don’t believe that for a second, but I recognize that my only real option is to choose not to try to engage you. I regret having once again risen to your bait.
You don’t see any difficulty with your demanding specifics from those you disagree with, while forcing them to beg any details out of you?
Carry on - I’m done.
Since the Democrats have never done this…
These guys did: Despite spreading recession, US CEOs rake in huge pay raises - World Socialist Web Site
This guy did: http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2009-02-24-suntrust-ceo-pay-raise_N.htm
These guys did: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/18700/20100405/ceos-of-bailed-out-regional-banks-get-raises.htm
Unfortunately, another false statement. See my previous about the continuing budget resolution, made necessary by Obama and the Democratically-controlled Congress’ failure to pass a budget for 2010.
See also what was mentioned previously - Democrats want to hike taxes with no corresponding spending cuts.
Well, if you want to ask a question and then run away from the answer, I can’t see much difficulty.
Democrats in Congress are doing pretty much exactly what I said they would. Whether or not you find it provocative that I point it out is less important to me than you apparently believe it should be.
I suppose the next step in the dance is for the Dems to start with “We won’t let a budget resolution pass and it’s the Republicans fault the government is shutting down” crap. Clinton made that work, at least with the less gifted among the electorate, but Obama is nowhere near the politician Clinton was. Maybe the Dems think it’s worthwhile to pass a tax hike and thus deny the GOP a win, and then hope they can shove the blame for a government shut-down off onto someone else.
Regards,
Shodan
Maybe I am confused but I thought that the whole town hall anti-healthcare reform thing was an epicenter of the tea party. They seemed to be very protective of medicare.
Any evidence that the Tea party is being led by the serious people? They seem to be pretty protective of entitlements, aat least medicare.
You bring up some reasonable options (and while I think educational access is one of the most important elemnts of this country, I am not married to this aprticular method of funding universities, other countries do it cheaper and arguably better) but I would like to point out that one item dawrfs all the other items put together by orders of magnitude, entitlement reform.
The money on the sidelines isn’'t waiting for government action (or inaction), its waiting for the economy to recover. Sure there may be some marginal effect from all these other factors you are talking about but ultimately people don’t hire new employees or invest their money in new projects because the tax rate is safely at 35% instead of potentially being 39.6% or if the capital gains rate is safely at 15% instead of a potentail of being at 20%.
I would entertain some regulatory reform but I considering that deregulation was at least one of the contributing factors of the recent recession, I am wary of any attempt to carve back regulations.
Sure, post a snide reply after you ever-so promptly responded to my direct request for specifics how many pages ago, and backpedalled from your original position of no tax hikes until after ALL cuts have been made.
You may be incapable of recognizing it, but you are not arguing consistently or honestly. I perceive your intent as aimed at antagonizing, rather than informing or persuading.
You would have to grandfather all current mortgages.
Limiting the mortgage deduction to primary residence only as well as limiting the debt cap to “conforming mortgage” limits has been proposed but the real estate lobby kills it every time.
Its not that liberals don’t want tax cuts but teh tax cuts they want are not attractive to republicans.
For example, with the money Bush spent on the Bush tax cuts, we could have reformed AMT so that it is indexed to inflation with a one time increase to true it up (as if it had always been indexed to inflation), gotten rid of the marriage penalty for all tax brackets (it has alaready been eliminated (imperfectly) for the lower tax brackets), gotten rid of all those phaseouts and still have money left over. But these are not the sort fo tax cuts we see from republicans.
Thats if you limit tax increases to simply letting the bush tax cuts expire for the top 2 percent of the population. You want to have an adult conversation, then you can’t rule things out on ideological grounds. Tax increases beyond the top 2% and tax increases beyond what we had under Clinton can’t be “off the table”
It depends on the size and nature of the tax increases. I don’t think we can do it with taxes alone but I don’t think we can do it with spending cuts alone.
Take the CATO institute’s suggestions for example. They point out $500 billion dollars that they would cut (basically the entire government other than the three branches, treasury, state, defense and justice) and leave us with nothing left to cut but military (I think we can agree that any cuts to social security benefits should innure to the social security fund and that any cuts to emdicare should innure to the medicare fund).
So where you you get the other $650 billion dollars to close the budget deficit?
A lot of that will come back as the economy recovers but a lot of it is going to have to come from tax revenue. And thats assuming we gut the entire federal government. We simply can’t get there from here without significant tax increases. Aftert 10 years of undertaxation, I don’t know if we can get back to even without increasing taxes beyond the Clinton era tax structure.
Show me how we get there and tell me if you think we should gut the federal government the way the CATO isntitute suggests.
Someone mentioned a 10% across the board cut. Well the non-military discretionary budget is under 500 billion. Even if we did everything you said and everything the CATO institute said, we need more money to close the gap.
Republicans give up all pretense of fiscal dsicipline when they are in control. They get religion on fiscal responsibility when the Democrata are in control.
Don’t knock it. It work. It works every single time. They hold out waiting for Democrats to cave and Democrats cave every single time.
You think you will ever get all teh Democrats to signa letter that they will not consider extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone? Not a chance. As soon as the Republicans demand something, a handful of Democrats immediately start hemming and hawing and saying, ‘well maybe’
Oh, I agree. But that’s not relevant to my point. Sam apparently thinks the Dems’ failure to let go of their sacred cows is a significant obstacle to accomplishing anything in Congress. I’m pointing out facts that run counter to that notion.