US Politics XXX

[lokisnow]

two more things that wouldn't have come to pass if Gore had been elected. Hydraulic Fracturing (currently causing a permanent or centuries long poisoning of most of America's water table) would never have been allowed. And Mountain Top Removal would never have been allowed. Texas would not have grown as much because the war profiteering companies based there wouldn't have received trillions of government stimulus over the last ten years. Etc etc. :-p

http://plainblogaboutpolitics.blogspot.com/2011/06/silly-liberals-and-their-so-called.html

The AMAZING thing about trickle Down Economics is that it is actually Time-Traveling policy, the policies of tomorrow caused the economy of yesterday, observe:

A History of Supply Side Economics

Jonathan Chait is sadly misinformed about economic history and taxation levels over the last thirty years.

He writes that conservatives opposed tax hikes in 1982 and claimed they would derail recovery; that conservatives opposed Bill Clinton's tax hikes in 1993 and claimed they would tank the economy; and supported George W. Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, claiming that they would spur economic growth -- but that each time, the opposite happened.

This is obviously wrong.

Bill Clinton's tax hikes in 1993 pretty clearly caused the 2001 recession, and despite the heroic efforts of Republicans, the hangover from those tax hikes moderated the otherwise exceptional growth rates of the Bush years. I mean, the Bush years between recession and even bigger recession. Which we'll get to later.

So why did the economy grow so fast in the 1990s? No question about that -- it grew because of the Reagan tax cuts of 1981. Now, granted, those tax cuts couldn't prevent a recession in 1990-1991, which was caused by Clinton's tax increases in 1993, but the effects of the Reagan tax cuts kicked back in again around 1994 and resulted in several years of excellent growth.

Now, what about that 1982 tax increase? That's easy: if we never speak about it, then it didn't really happen, and it can't really affect economic growth. Indeed, Chait risks contributing to the current economic tough times by mentioning it now, and potentially risking the economic confidence about taxes that is the only reason employers ever hire anyone.

If you've understood everything so far, it should be pretty easy to deduce why the economy fell into another recession in late 2007. George W. Bush was term-limited, and the odds were high that Barack Obama would soon be president and usher in an era of unprecedented tax increases. Faced with that inevitability, no wonder the economy collapsed! The Obama tax increases were devastating, and businesses in 2007 were helpless in their wake, rippling backwards through time.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Well the Paul/Frank cannabis bill was shot down before it even got to a committee. By pure coincidence, the committee chair who shot it down received $54,000 from lawyers, $48,000 from pharmaceutical companies, $46,000 from insurance companies, and $30,000 from alcohol companies.

[awesome possum]

It's like government and big business are really just all part of the same machinery that runs the country.

Once upon a time, maybe. Now government is just a large cog in the gears of big business. Multibillion dollar corporations own this country and each and every one of us, whether we like it or not.

[Shryke]

My point is, on the issues that really matter. Issues that people die for by the millions, the questions don't even get asked, regardless of which party you are talking about. George W. Bush bullshitted this country into 2 wars and no one who counts in government raised a finger to stop him. Barack Obama has done the same and everyone is silent.

And, as I said, do you think Gore would have done that in his place? Most people would say "Fuck no".

But you just ignored that because it doesn't fit in with your point. It's apparently unimportant which wars get started, only who gets to decide which wars get started.

If the Fed announced tomorrow QE3 and that they were dumping $2 trillion on the markets Ron Paul would pitch a fit and no one else would say a word.

A few others might too. But then, Ron Paul throwing a fit is meaningless for a reason. The man is a nut. I know he pushes your buttons cause he hates the drug war, but he also hates alot of other shit. Including the fact that America just isn't as Christian as the Found Fathers intended it to be.

Or, you know, sane monitary policy.

[Crazydog7]

It was obvious before the election that the GOP and Democrats had dramatically different opinions on the budget and on how to address the deficit. It also was obvious that the debt ceiling would have to be raised significantly early in 2011.

Despite all this, the Democrats deliberately chose not to address those issues and to defer them until 2011, solely because they didn't want to bear the political responsibility for those necessary decisions. And now, we're at an impasse because neither side is willing to compromise on their honestly held beliefs.

It's a game of chicken set up deliberately by the Democrats in 2010.

Don't worry Democrats are so spineless they couldn't win a game of chicken if the lives of their children depended on it. I am always amazed at the Right's ability to talk up relatively minor differences in policy as a huge massive thing. We need to do the two things we know could solve our fiscal problems cut spending and raise taxes. However it is a catch 22 situation because as long as politics continues to be controlled by people with money all we are ever going to get is polite lip service to our deeply held values every few years.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

And, as I said, do you think Gore would have done that in his place? Most people would say "Fuck no".

But you just ignored that because it doesn't fit in with your point. It's apparently unimportant which wars get started, only who gets to decide which wars get started.

Wrong. Perhaps Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq. But, in his tenure as vice president he oversaw the deaths of 600,000 Iraqi children through embargo which is just a different manner of war. And it's still beside the point. Whether one would have or wouldn't have doesn't negate the point that he could. Neither party will address the question that I posed earlier. Who should get to decide if we go to war? Why we go to war?

A few others might too. But then, Ron Paul throwing a fit is meaningless for a reason. The man is a nut. I know he pushes your buttons cause he hates the drug war, but he also hates alot of other shit. Including the fact that America just isn't as Christian as the Found Fathers intended it to be.

Or, you know, sane monitary policy.

Again a side issue. I brought up Ron Paul specifically for this point. Only the "nut" would have anything to say. No one meaningful from either party would address the question. What should our monetary policy be? Who gets to decide?

[lokisnow]

So what were the revenue issues that caused the republican walk out?

Reducing and eliminating tax deductions on millionaires and billionaires (should they really be getting big deductions for their third fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh houses (I'm sure John McCain thinks they should)?) which is something Obama put on the table in his state of union address

Eliminating oil subsidies and tax breaks/loopholes

Eliminating tax breaks for corporate jets.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/top-dems-provide-fresh-detail-on-high-income-tax-proposal-that-led-gop-to-abandon-debt-talks.php

I guess the only subsidy we can end are the subsidies to oil company competitors, subsidies for ethanol. :smirk:

[Shryke]

Wrong. Perhaps Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq. But, in his tenure as vice president he oversaw the deaths of 600,000 Iraqi children through embargo which is just a different manner of war. And it's still beside the point. Whether one would have or wouldn't have doesn't negate the point that he could. Neither party will address the question that I posed earlier. Who should get to decide if we go to war? Why we go to war?

Yes, and I was pointing out that whether and where you go to war is just as important. More important in fact, given that many presidents have apparently had the ability to randomly invade countries but haven't bothered.

And really, we're comparing the embargo to the Iraq War now? Especially considering you are again ignoring the fact that which way the 2000 election went pretty much decided whether Iraq got invaded or not. I mean, are you suggesting some sort of similar theory where President Dole wouldn't have embargoed Iraq?

Again a side issue. I brought up Ron Paul specifically for this point. Only the "nut" would have anything to say. No one meaningful from either party would address the question. What should our monetary policy be? Who gets to decide?

Um, you guys decided that ages ago. Your problem here is more that you don't like the answer they decided upon and not that it's not being addressed.

[ThinkerX]

Once upon a time, maybe. Now government is just a large cog in the gears of big business. Multibillion dollar corporations own this country and each and every one of us, whether we like it or not.

I've been saying this here for years now...and have been told this view is wrong for just as long.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Lockesnow, the fact you believe you can deduct mortgage interest on your third, fourth, fifth etc. homes illustrates perfectly why discussing this stuff with you is pointless.

Why not take a class on tax law?

[awesome possum]

I've been saying this here for years now...and have been told this view is wrong for just as long.

I don't know how anyone can truly believe we're not. Even the biggest disbelievers would only have to look at recent SCOTUS rulings to see how hosed We the People truly are.

[IheartTesla]

NY senate about to vote on the gay marriage bill. Lots of bloviating about religious exemptions, which I loathe, but small baby steps. Fingers crossed it passes, baby!

[Commodore]

NY senate about to vote on the gay marriage bill. Lots of bloviating about religious exemptions, which I loathe, but small baby steps. Fingers crossed it passes, baby!

How on Earth have judges not imposed this on the state yet?

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

The amendment has already passed, but not the main bill, which I find backward.

HA! As I was typing this, the main bill passed. So there are those religious exemptions, but the state itself now recognises same-sex marriage, I think.

[IheartTesla]

How on Earth have judges not imposed this on the state yet?

I'll ask at the next meeting of our cabal why we chose to overturn the will of the people rather than use an activist approach.

[Shryke]

"Religious Exemptions" in what way?

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

I'm still trying to read through the amendment myself, but here's the text: http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S5857-2011

The main exemption seems to be this one, the first one:

NOTWITHSTANDING ANY STATE, LOCAL OR

MUNICIPAL LAW, RULE, REGULATION, ORDINANCE, OR OTHER PROVISION OF LAW TO

THE CONTRARY, A RELIGIOUS ENTITY AS DEFINED UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW OR

SECTION TWO OF THE RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS LAW, OR A CORPORATION INCORPO

RATED UNDER THE BENEVOLENT ORDERS LAW OR DESCRIBED IN THE BENEVOLENT

ORDERS LAW BUT FORMED UNDER ANY OTHER LAW OF THIS STATE, OR A

NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION OPERATED, SUPERVISED, OR CONTROLLED BY A

RELIGIOUS CORPORATION, OR ANY EMPLOYEE THEREOF, BEING MANAGED, DIRECTED,

OR SUPERVISED BY OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RELIGIOUS CORPORATION, BENEVO

LENT ORDER, OR A NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION AS DESCRIBED IN THIS SUBDI

VISION, SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE SERVICES, ACCOMMODATIONS,

ADVANTAGES, FACILITIES, GOODS, OR PRIVILEGES FOR THE SOLEMNIZATION OR

CELEBRATION OF A MARRIAGE.

Sorry about the all-caps, but I'm not going to retype it right now.

[Shryke]

So basically the standard "Churches and such don't have to marry Gays if they don't want to" thing?

Pfft, who cares.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

Pretty much, and that any such refusal is not enough to base a lawsuit on, if I'm interpreting it all correctly.

[Ormond]

The amendment has already passed, but not the main bill, which I find backward.

HA! As I was typing this, the main bill passed. So there are those religious exemptions, but the state itself now recognises same-sex marriage, I think.

No, that's not backward, that's the normal way to do things. When you are talking about a legislative body passing a particular piece of legislation, you "perfect" the main motion first by voting on any amendments to the main proposal before you finally vote on the overall question. It really isn't logical to do it the other way.