US politics

[Jaime L]

You can just as easily flip it around. What is more important to liberals - the deficit or spending more on programs that you like? And from my experience, you want to have your cake and eat it too. We'll take lower deficits and more spending, and we'll finance it via higher taxes.

Agreed, but an entire movement hasn't emerged on the Left claiming they're fed up with deficits.

[Shryke]

Call me jaded, but I doubt that a retirement decision from a Supreme Court judge is really being made over one presidential speech. I have a hard time believing that Kennedy said to himself, "You know, I was all ready to retire in 2011 and let a Democrat name my successor but, by god, that speech has gotten my goat!" I suspect that Kennedy will hang on as long as his health and happiness allow, with the usual eye towards the president who would nominate his replacement...as all justices do.

While we are on the topic, however, I think it is possible that Obama may well replace a third and even a fourth justice should he win two terms. Ginsberg is in her late seventies and not well, and Breyer is 71 and not getting any younger. Kennedy and Scalia are both around 74 and although they will no doubt hang on as long as they can...well, six years is a long time when you are over 70.**

**Note that I am not rooting for anyone to die.

I am.

[Ser Reptitious]

FLOW,

Gas prices go up and down all the time. 2 summers ago, it was at 4.50, and today, they're under $3.00. Under your logic, anyone who refers to a change from $2.65 to $2.75 as an "increase" would be an idiot. Because after all, they were higher than that 2 years ago.

I don't think this comparison works, since gas prices aren't really ever fixed but rather fluctuate all the time.

But it's a pointless argument that doesn't change the reality either way.

Oh I totally agree, but in politics the sound and the fury often surpass substance. The Republicans want to call this a "tax increase" at all costs because it sounds a lot worse than "letting a tax cut expire which was always (officially at least) intended to be temporary".

But yeah, the outcome is the same either way. Personally I don't mind paying higher taxes in exchange for better services and to ensure that the less fortunate are looked after, so the fury of "TAX INCREASE!!!" is lost on me! :dunno:

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

As far as I know the only talk about more spending is the discussion about more stimulus.

One of the great misunderstandings about the fist stimulus is that people seem to want to suggest that it is the reason that we have the deficit that we do. It's only a small piece of the deficit and another stimulus would also be only a small piece. Niall Ferguson was making the point the other day on GPS that this could still be dangerous because the point where everything collapses sometimes comes very suddenly. This is a fair point, but Krugman is also correct that in the grand scheme of things, a little more stimulus is not going to significantly increase the size of our deficit.

Krugman's logic eats itself, I think. If the stimulus is large enough to get us out of this, then it's large enough to hurt us to trigger bad results as well.

But FLOW, even in the absence of a pledge that this would be a one-time tax increase we would still have a huge deficit and we can only cut things so much.

You could cut things a lot.

We already have high spending because no one will cut anything, so I just can't get too worried about "increasing taxes will eventually result in higher spending." Is the deficit a huge problem or not? If it is, we have to attack it and attack it soon and this will absolutely require tax increases.

So on the one hand, Krugman's stimulus. On the other hand, tax increases. Isn't there a bit of fiscal tension there? We can afford government taxing you more heavily to pay for a stimulus, but we can't afford letting you keep that money.

That's what bothers me. People are red-faced about the deficit and possible tax increases. While it's true that they're both related to gov't spending it is also true that one represents a perfectly logical way to deal with the other.

I understand that point. I just think we're at a more significant crossroads than most people realize, and that dramatic action to cut spending is needed. And I am completely unconvinced the Administration believe that at all. You don't ram through a new entitlement program if you believe the deficit poses a serious threat.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Agreed, but an entire movement hasn't emerged on the Left claiming they're fed up with deficits.

I've said this before, but I think there is a real problem with ascribing general labels as a way of assigning views, and then pointing to seeming inconsistencies or contradictions. Political coalitions are not static. There are some conservatives who have consistently opposed both spending increases and tax increases. There are other people, more "moderate" who are less consistent. They can sometimes be swayed by shiny new programs, and sometimes will overlook a generic opposition to higher taxes as long as those taxes are targeted against "the rich". They're sometimes swing votes. And there is every permutation running left and right from that point.

So when you're looking at a sign held by some guy at a Tea Party, and saying that's not consistent with how a certain Republican member of Congress voted, well, so what? You've got Democrats who voted for the war in 2003, still can't figure out the way to shut down Gitmo, etc. Political inconsistency within political parties is nothing new.

[awesome possum]

I keep looking for evidence of a principled opposition. Ok, if you don't want taxes to go up, what spending specifically do you wish to see cut?

When the opposition to tax cuts expiring is those on the right attacking the language being used merely as an attempt to control the debate, you know there is no "principled" opposition.

I've said this before, but I think there is a real problem with ascribing general labels as a way of assigning views, and then pointing to seeming inconsistencies or contradictions.

That's very noble and all, but let's rewind time to one hour and twenty-seven minutes earlier:

Depends. Liberals always want to talk just about the deficit, as if no amount of spending is bad as long as they can extort enough tax revenue to finance it. Conservatives care about both, and don't think you should have to choose.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I've said this before, but I think there is a real problem with ascribing general labels as a way of assigning views, and then pointing to seeming inconsistencies or contradictions. Political coalitions are not static. There are some conservatives who have consistently opposed both spending increases and tax increases. There are other people, more "moderate" who are less consistent. They can sometimes be swayed by shiny new programs, and sometimes will overlook a generic opposition to higher taxes as long as those taxes are targeted against "the rich". They're sometimes swing votes. And there is every permutation running left and right from that point.

So when you're looking at a sign held by some guy at a Tea Party, and saying that's not consistent with how a certain Republican member of Congress voted, well, so what? You've got Democrats who voted for the war in 2003, still can't figure out the way to shut down Gitmo, etc. Political inconsistency within political parties is nothing new.

Eh, I guess we're all just teabaggers anyway, so I'll just drop it.

[Swordfish]

I totally disagree, unless it's the straw that broke the camel's back, which is what Ferguson is saying it could be. Krugman's point is that a stimulus would only be a small % of our total deficit. He is saying this is not a short term problem unless the new stimulus suddenly sends investors (who largely consider the US the safest investment) running. I think it's highly unlikely that it would.

In theory, absolutely. In practice, much more difficult. But if the deficit is such a threat, why not put together some sensible combination of both? Is it because tax increases are never acceptable under any circumstances even in the face of a large deficit?

I never specified that tax increases were in order to give stimulus. One of the main reasons to raise taxes is because of the huge deficit, which is why I continue to see this huge disconnect on the part of teabaggers and their kind. They hate the deficit almost as much as they hate one of the best and most obvious ways to deal with it.

Couldn't possibly disagree more.

Tax increases are useless without controlling spending.

It comes back to the quote I was mocking earlier. You have a congressman saying, in essence:

'It makes no sense to extend these cuts until we have a long term deficit strategy in place.'

Shouldn't our congressman instead be saying:

'It makes no sense to expire these tax cuts until we have along term deficit plan in place'?

Because giving them more money to spend and hoping they control their spending is sort of like giving drugs to a junkie and hoping they get clean.

We should absolutely be holding them accountable for long term deficit control BEFORE we agree to give up more of our income.

The federal government is the ONLY entity i can think of that can get away with that kind of upside down thinking.

And a large part of that is due to our obsession with partisan bickering.

[BloodRider]

You took the words right out of my mouth.

I keep looking for evidence of a principled opposition. Ok, if you don't want taxes to go up, what spending specifically do you wish to see cut?

Moreover, which is the greater issue to Conservatives - The deficit or that your taxes might go up? If the Tea Party was formed due to outrage over the deficit, I'm sympathetic (though less so of the majority in that group who believe taxes have already gone up under Obama when they've actually gone down.) But I just keep seeing generalities tossed around about the evils of big government and socialism without very little practical to reduce the deficit. Seems like a desire to go from one extreme (Higher taxes and higher spending) to another (lower taxes and lower spending) without anyone actually tackling the issue at hand. If you're against deficits show me how. Because you might disagree with letting those tax cuts expire but at least it's one principled means to reducing the deficit which everyone on the Right claims they're for.

Exactly. Republicans are hollow. They have nothing to offer other than piss & vinegar, and cliches that are shown to be unworkable and morally bankrupt.

Do I think the sun shines out of Obama's ass? Hell no. But by God he has some ideas based in what seems to be a rational thought process, and they seems to be working pretty well, with some room for improvement. Why would I ever change that for a bunch of whiny losers who can't even decide what the fuck they want, let alone be internally consistent.

Every recent example of a Republican administration we had has cut taxes and run up the deficit - save one who the Republicans promptly ate. And every time it has resulted in the consolidation of wealth in the already very wealthy. I have direct evidence that the Republicans system does not work. I also have direct evidence of a Democrat moving towards eliminating the deficit. And Obama is politically more in the middle than Clinton.

So this is why you guys do not have a leg to stand on. You can say "its gonna be different this time" till you are blue in the face, but I am not gonna fall for it anymore - a least not until I see Republicans really striving to make a difference in the deficit.

Quite simply they are a bunch of fucking liars when they claim to care about the deficit.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Jamie,

I said, last thread, cut NASA. I'll add the sexy new fighter Aircraft and other big ticket military projects to the pile. What will you cut from entitlements?

[TrackerNeil]

The feds can come and talk to me about raising taxes when they get the rest of their budgetary ducks in a row and not before.

I note you've built your exit strategy right into this statement. No matter how much rowing-of-the-ducks the feds do, you can always claim there's more fat to cut and more waste to resolve, and that you couldn't possibly consider a tax increase before the fat-cuts and the waste-resolutions are complete. I'm uncertain exactly when you'd consider the time ripe to talk about tax increases.

[Shryke]

Krugman's logic eats itself, I think. If the stimulus is large enough to get us out of this, then it's large enough to hurt us to trigger bad results as well.

Why? Seriously, you are gonna need to logically connect these statements because this idea does not hold as of now.

The stimulus can both be large enough to help and a small enough effect on the deficit to not really matter. The US is STILL considered a very very very safe investment. You guys can borrow money at a very low percentage.

So on the one hand, Krugman's stimulus. On the other hand, tax increases. Isn't there a bit of fiscal tension there? We can afford government taxing you more heavily to pay for a stimulus, but we can't afford letting you keep that money.

Where's this "fiscal tension"?

A large part of the deficit is these tax cuts. In a recession, the rich, who are the largest recipients of these tax cuts, are likely to save this money, which is the exact opposite of what you want to happen.

Raise taxes on the well off so that the stimulus causes a smaller deficit. There's a distinct LACK of fiscal tension here.

[Jaime L]

I've said this before, but I think there is a real problem with ascribing general labels as a way of assigning views, and then pointing to seeming inconsistencies or contradictions. Political coalitions are not static. There are some conservatives who have consistently opposed both spending increases and tax increases. There are other people, more "moderate" who are less consistent. They can sometimes be swayed by shiny new programs, and sometimes will overlook a generic opposition to higher taxes as long as those taxes are targeted against "the rich". They're sometimes swing votes. And there is every permutation running left and right from that point.

So when you're looking at a sign held by some guy at a Tea Party, and saying that's not consistent with how a certain Republican member of Congress voted, well, so what? You've got Democrats who voted for the war in 2003, still can't figure out the way to shut down Gitmo, etc. Political inconsistency within political parties is nothing new.

FLOW, increasingly the posts you make in response to my critiques or questions for the Tea Party are such that we can't classify it any one way. That it is too diverse to paint with a broad brush. But it's a major political movement in this country that has already unseated two very conservative Republican incumbents. There are certain generalities we make can make about what the group wants both in their statements and in their actions. To ignore the rule to focus on exceptions means we can never understand anything.

Of all the words written about The Tea Party I'm still not clear on exactly what ideas have originated from the movement to bridge the growing gap. All I hear is extend the tax cuts and make sure there's no bailouts or buying car companies or stimuli going forward. But all these low hanging fruit represent either ignorance or political calculation as to why the huge deficits we have today exist. Think it's become clear that if we do nothing by 2035 the entire government budget will entirely be used to only pay interest on the debt we have. This is a structural problem that needs to be addressed and yet the largest movement in the country that seems to recognize this fact seems to be insanely focused on pennies in the cushions or one time events. It seems like they're as focused scoring political points as the politicians they seek to overthrow and the pundits they exalt. To me it's the very definition of pennywise, pound foolish. But I'm willing to believe my perception of the movement is skewed. Would love to see some facts to the otherwise.

Jamie,

I said, last thread, cut NASA. I'll add the sexy new fighter Aircraft and other big ticket military projects to the pile. What will you cut from entitlements?

I remember that from last thread. It's a start but I really don't believe cutting NASA makes a material impact on the budget deficit.

As I said in last thread there's no reason we should be outspending China's Military 7 to 1. So I'm with you on that front - Large cuts there. I'd also raise the age for Social Security...no reason people should still be getting it at 65 when we're living longer and we have a smaller worker pool. Social Security wasn't built for our current life expectancies, everyone knows this, let's just make the needed changes. I'd also look into what fat exists in Medicare - some hard decisions need to be made here without hyperbolic talk of "death panels". All of these are basically the third rail of politics due to the demographic of voters I'd be targeting plus the lobbyist and representative armada that only cares about keeping the military spending going but we're foolish to focus on small potatoes like the stimulus or buying GM when neither are the substantial reason why government revenue is 2/3rd Government expenses. In 2010 the government spent 3.55 trillion...the three programs I would make cuts to account for 1.7 trillion of that budget or about half of the entire thing. Outside of Medicaid, no other Government department or expenditure is even 1/6th of the big 3 expenditures.See the figures here. If our politics weren't so dysfunctional these would be the areas that we would focus on. Instead we've made them sacred cows, above reproach.

I mean come on. We have reasonable conservatives on this board....can we not agree that those three items are where we have to focus our attention to start?

[Max the Mostly Mediocre]

What will you cut from entitlements?

Conservatives?

:P

[Swordfish]

@Swordfish

I was not trying to say that my own best policy idea right now is tax increases.

I am simply saying that if you believe that the deficit is such a huge problem then it would seem you would want to employ whatever tools you have at your disposal to combat it. Tax increases would be one of those tools.

But you have to apply ALL the tools. At least in the long term.

Simply raising taxes does nothing to deal with long term deficit problems on it's own.

I remember that from last thread. It's a start but I really don't believe cutting NASA makes a material impact on the budget deficit.

As I said in last thread there's no reason we should be outspending China's Military 7 to 1. So I'm with you on that front - Large cuts there. I'd also raise the age for Social Security...no reason people should still be getting it at 65 when we're living longer and we have a smaller worker pool. Social Security wasn't built for our current life expectancies, everyone knows this, let's just make the needed changes. I'd also look into what fat exists in Medicare - some hard decisions need to be made here without hyperbolic talk of "death panels". All of these are basically the third rail of politics due to the demographic of voters I'd be targeting plus the lobbyist and representative armada that only cares about keeping the military spending going but we're foolish to focus on small potatoes like the stimulus or buying GM when neither are the substantial reason why government revenue is 2/3rd Government expenses. In 2010 the government spent 3.55 trillion...the three programs I would make cuts to account for 1.7 trillion of that budget or about half of the entire thing. Outside of Medicaid, no other Government department or expenditure is even 1/6th of the big 3 expenditures.See the figures here. If our politics weren't so dysfunctional these would be the areas that we would focus on. Instead we've made them sacred cows, above reproach.

I mean come on. We have reasonable conservatives on this board....can we not agree that those three items are where we have to focus our attention to start?

Absolutely no question about it.

Deficit reduction starts and ends with those three programs.

Everything else is 'tweaking' of the budget, and that ain't gonna cut it.

I note you've built your exit strategy right into this statement. No matter how much rowing-of-the-ducks the feds do, you can always claim there's more fat to cut and more waste to resolve, and that you couldn't possibly consider a tax increase before the fat-cuts and the waste-resolutions are complete. I'm uncertain exactly when you'd consider the time ripe to talk about tax increases.

Yeah.... It's like you're inside my head or something.

I don't NEED an exit strategy, because no one is serious about dealing with long term deficit problems.

As I believe I've mentioned.

More than once.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

MtMM,

Conservatives?

:P

Do it. Lets put our money where our mouth is.

I'd also cut all farm subsidies. We subsidize farms to produce more food than we need to keep food prices convienently low and to commoditize food. We also push farms to grown corn, corn, and more corn. It's bad for the environment and dangerous because monoculture sets us up for a nasty situation if we get a bug/virius/or other pest that likes the corn that we grow. At the end of the day the subsidies are mainly to keep commodity corn prices low so agribusiness can process the corn into crappy food that isn't very good for us.

End farm subsidies. It's corporate welfare.

[danro]

End farm subsidies. It's corporate welfare.

As an added bonus ending them would do a whole lot of good for humanity as a whole.

US and EU farm subsidies are absolutely disasterous to many less developed countries.

[Nymeria Sand]

If they were, it seems that Obama is just following through on the GOP's wishes, no?

They were supposed to be temporary. There was a big fight in Congress about making them permanent. I don't remember the details, though.

[Nymeria Sand]

This will be really interesting if Obama wins reelection. If this is really Kennedy's motivation, can he hold out for a 2nd term?

Here's my question to everyone who has a problem with taxes going up (and really, I don't care if they categorized as a tax increase, or tax cuts expiring): Why is this not a good thing? The reason I ask is because virtually everyone who is mad that taxes will increase is also mad that we have a huge deficit. Does anyone on this fucking planet think we can do something about the deficit without taxes going up? Did you see the GOP come to the defense of Medicare like it was the most sacred of sacred cows in all of human history these last few months? If the Republicans will never cut entitlements how in God's name are we going to reduce the deficit without raising taxes?

Hint: Tort reform is not going to do it for you

I agree. There is no responsible way to cut the deficit, if you're not going to reduce spending, without raising taxes. It's just not possible. It would be even better to raise taxes and cut spending.

Cut the military. The money saved there would pay for Medicare and probably UHC, too.

Oh, wait, we can't do that. It's the biggest business we have in this country.

Legalize marijuana, then regulate and tax the hell out of it. They'd make a fortune.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

I keep looking for evidence of a principled opposition. Ok, if you don't want taxes to go up, what spending specifically do you wish to see cut?

Look for a big fight over that one.

Moreover, which is the greater issue to Conservatives - The deficit or that your taxes might go up? If the Tea Party was formed due to outrage over the deficit, I'm sympathetic (though less so of the majority in that group who believe taxes have already gone up under Obama when they've actually gone down.) But I just keep seeing generalities tossed around about the evils of big government and socialism without very little practical to reduce the deficit.Seems like a desire to go from one extreme (Higher taxes and higher spending) to another (lower taxes and lower spending) without anyone actually tackling the issue at hand. If you're against deficits show me how. Because you might disagree with letting those tax cuts expire but at least it's one principled means to reducing the deficit which everyone on the Right claims they're for.

Because they haven't thought it through. Most of them probably can't even balance their checkbooks, yet they're complaining about the deficit. Maybe they should worry about their personal debt.

They can criticize and bitch and complain, but they have no solutions on the table. They know they're mad as hell, but don't know what to do about it, haven't thought about it, and when presented with reasonable solution will throw a temper tantrum just on principle without sitting down and thinking about it first, especially if the person making the suggestion is a Democrat. They will not listen.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

FLOW, increasingly the posts you make in response to my critiques or questions for the Tea Party are such that we can't classify it any one way. That it is too diverse to paint with a broad brush. But it's a major political movement in this country that has already unseated two very conservative Republican incumbents. There are certain generalities we make can make about what the group wants both in their statements and in their actions. To ignore the rule to focus on exceptions means we can never understand anything.

Labelling is not the same thing as understanding. Why is it important to label the Tea Parties or "conservatives" at all? Isn't it possible for us to discuss issues here based on our own arguments and positions rather than arguing about how we should label people who don't even post here? I mean, it's one thing to label/criticize politicians. But wtf is the point in arguing about how consistent various private individuals who claim to support Tea Parties are with each other?

Of all the words written about The Tea Party I'm still not clear on exactly what ideas have originated from the movement to bridge the growing gap.

As long as you think of it as "The Tea Party", you'll never be clear on that. There is no "Tea Party". There are various local Tea Parties with no centralized authority. It is a decentralized movement like any other, full of internal inconsistencies because the people who participate don't always agree with each other. The only common threads I've been able to discern is a belief that the government is spending way too much money, and an opposition to higher taxes. But with regards to exactly what should be cut, there just isn't unanimity, and I'd bet my ass that you have a lot of folks who go to those things who end up arguing or disagreeing with the guy next to them.

All I hear is extend the tax cuts and make sure there's no bailouts or buying car companies or stimuli going forward. But all these low hanging fruit represent either ignorance or political calculation as to why the huge deficits we have today exist. Think it's become clear that if we do nothing by 2035 the entire government budget will entirely be used to only pay interest on the debt we have. This is a structural problem that needs to be addressed and yet the largest movement in the country that seems to recognize this fact seems to be insanely focused on pennies in the cushions or one time events. It seems like they're as focused scoring political points as the politicians they seek to overthrow and the pundits they exalt. To me it's the very definition of pennywise, pound foolish. But I'm willing to believe my perception of the movement is skewed. Would love to see some facts to the otherwise.

Like any mass movement, what you essentially hear on TV are sound bites or slogans on a sign. If you want to hear something more in depth, maybe go to one of them and see what people are saying outside whatever blurbs the media thinks make the most entertaining story. I haven't been to one of them, so I don't know. But I do know that they last more than 15 seconds, so something else is being said by someone. Of course, what's said at one may not match what's said at another, but at least you'd have something.

I mean come on. We have reasonable conservatives on this board....can we not agree that those three items are where we have to focus our attention to start?

I said this elsewhere, but the eligibility ages for Medicare and SSI need to be raised, the criteria for new drugs/procedures/devices for Medicare and Medicaid need to be tightened, and farm subsidies should be phased out. If you could get that, I'd also support significant cuts to military spending. Freeze all procurement not intended to replace equipment currently in use, and, if necessary, drawn down completely from Iraq or Afghanistan.

Hit that big stuff, and then start zapping all education funds from the feds, including GSL's, end No Child Left Behind, Americorps,

etc., etc., etc.