Thank You President Obama!!!

[Track Collector]

Originally Posted by soupan

Now stop being naive and think that democrats haven't come to the table with their ideas of how to move forward, because they have.

Help me out here.

With regard to the current fiscal cliff situation, and other than raising taxes on the very wealthy (which we know adds very little to the amounts needed to attack our high debt problem), what are some of these other ideas that the Democrats are proposing?

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

How much did it cost?

I wish we could get an answer for that, but unfortunately nobody knows what the final cost will be in dollars and cents. We still have veterans of that war who need medical and financial help. Some will need it for the rest of their lives. We know how many brave soldiers were killed and how many were injured physically, but mental injuries are still appearing. Then there are children of those who serve over there, some lost a parent, others have parents who can not even toss a football with their kids. It will be decades before we know what the cost will be in just money. We are still taking care of WWII vets, so we don't even have a final tally that war yet. We will never know what cost will be in changed lives.
My dad served WWII and was able to work for about 10 years after the war, then his war injuries started to flare up and he became disabled until he died about 10 years below his life expectancy. How many of these Iraq war vets will there be like him? Some many questions and so few answers when it comes to the cost to America for the Iraq war.

[Tom]

My resume would startle you and your right wing girlfriends.

I bet it would!

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Track Collector

Help me out here.

With regard to the current fiscal cliff situation, and other than raising taxes on the very wealthy (which we know adds very little to the amounts needed to attack our high debt problem), what are some of these other ideas that the Democrats are proposing?

They have a comprehensive plan....

1. Tax the rich.
2. Tax them again.
3. Tax them again.
4. Blame Bush.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

How much did it (The Iraq War) cost?

According to this:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...75S25320110629
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost between $3.7 and $4.4 trillion. Or almost half the increase in the National debt since that time. All for nothing.

[rastajenk]

Not for nothing. By the way, what would be cost of doing nothing 10 years ago? It could dwarf your Reuters estimates.

[Tom]

All for nothing?
The why do we still have troops over there?

mostie is saying Obama, in the face of fiscal disaster, is spending money for nothing overseas.

[rwryley]

Just some thoughts on the so-called "fiscal cliff" debate.

It seems too many adopt positions that reflect who that "like" and who they "dislike" rather than what would really amount to sound economic policy. My conservative friends seem to still cling to the notion that all social welfare or social safety net spending is a waste and thus should be the first target for spending cuts. Seems based more on the idea that they simply consider most of the beneficiaries spongers on society. A myth that can be easily disproved.

Be that as it may, one form of "safety net" spending that can be cut immediately is to give the government the ability to negotiate Medicare and Medicaid drug costs. The Veterans administration already does this. But, since the GOP (and many Dems too) have been bought off by "big pharma," this hasn't happened. Would be a huge money saver.

Democrats have proposed cuts in defense spending. Republicans supported a budget that includes no cuts, but increased defense spending even on projects the Dept of Defense doesn't even want. That seems far from "fiscally responsible."

The far-right seems committed to preserving the Bush tax cut for the top 2% along with everyone else. The only rationale I've heard is two things. First, it really won't generate that much revenue by eliminating it, and second, it will deter the so-called "job creators" (the GOP's clever name for this group) from creating new jobs. Given the lackluster job-growth under Bush (particularly when compared to the Clinton era stats) it seems pretty clear the cuts for the top 2% didn't stimulate much growth.

Frankly, I have yet to meet a business person who sits back and says "gosh if taxes go down 2% the first thing I'm gonna do is create more jobs." That's a fantasy. Businesses expand because they see more customers with money willing to buy what they sell, not because Uncle Sam let them pay a couple points less in taxes. Spending that tax break on expansion without some sane reason to expect that your less wealthy customers are ready to spend more in a nonsense.

The other argument - that going back to Clinton-era taxes won't generate enough or dent the deficit that much, is absurd. It amounts to "well, if it doesn't solve the whole problem, let's not do it at all." That's just stupid.

Consider the following. During the Bush years the US fought two wars and put the cost of both on a credit card. The so-called "fiscal conservatives" - for the first time in US History - borrowed the total cost of both wars and never raised taxes to cover the cost one cent.

In fact, they never even included the cost of the war on their federal budget calculations. The deficit caused by "war spending" never showed up in federal budget calculations until Obama included it in budget numbers as it should have been all along. Then, of course, the right blamed Obama for the exploding deficit.

On top of this no one really talks about the long term costs of providing health care to veterans injured in those wars. It's a huge number. Not exactly "social" spending on slackers.

During the Bush years a huge tax cut was adopted without any offset in spending. During the Bush years an expensive prescription drug plan was added to Medicare without a plan to recover the cost. More "vote buying" deficit spending supported by Bush and most of his "fiscal conservative" pals along with some vote hungry Democrats.

Think about it. Cost of two wars, lost revenue from Bush tax cut, new prescription drug plan all exploded - and continue to increase federal deficit and debt. And now the GOP followers get bent out of shape because some want to restore taxes on the top 2% to what they thrived under during the Clinton years. These are not what one might call positions based on principles.

I recommend the following as one possible solution to this mess. Probably one both parties would reject, but one that just might work. Washington is not known for thinking outside the box.

The People's Budget

[hcap]

Makes sense to me

[Tom]

It would.
We are not living in the Clinton years.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Tom

It would.
We are not living in the Clinton years.

We will be

[hcap]

Unless according to the idiots at Drudge...........

Stir it up good. Guys Inhale deeply Only a matter of time until you
gents start another revival meeting thread on this "NEW" conspiracy



Hey Fast, don't forget to secure all tin foil beanies, and fill us in on how the Bilderbergers are involved. Remember to orient all beanies north/south to improve reception, and face west while standing on the left leg. There are other curiously anatomical recommendations, but in case any kids are reading this, ..........Oh well.

[Jay Trotter]

Originally Posted by rwryley

Just some thoughts on the so-called "fiscal cliff" debate.

Nice, well thought out post.

[dartman51]

Originally Posted by rwryley

Just some thoughts on the so-called "fiscal cliff" debate.

It seems too many adopt positions that reflect who that "like" and who they "dislike" rather than what would really amount to sound economic policy. My conservative friends seem to still cling to the notion that all social welfare or social safety net spending is a waste and thus should be the first target for spending cuts. Seems based more on the idea that they simply consider most of the beneficiaries spongers on society. A myth that can be easily disproved.

But, since the GOP (and many Dems too) have been bought off by "big pharma," this hasn't happened. Would be a huge money saver.




The People's Budget

Welcome to OFF TOPIC. Nice post, except for the fact that after your first paragraph, you proceed to do exactly what you accuse everyone else of doing. Simply pointing out why you believe the LEFT is right and the RIGHT is wrong. Same old same old. I guess what you mean by SOME DEMS, you mean Obama, since big pharma was against Obamacare until they had a meeting at the WH, then all of a sudden, it was OK.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by rwryley

Just some thoughts on the so-called "fiscal cliff" debate.

It seems too many adopt positions that reflect who that "like" and who they "dislike" rather than what would really amount to sound economic policy. My conservative friends seem to still cling to the notion that all social welfare or social safety net spending is a waste and thus should be the first target for spending cuts. Seems based more on the idea that they simply consider most of the beneficiaries spongers on society. A myth that can be easily disproved.

Be that as it may, one form of "safety net" spending that can be cut immediately is to give the government the ability to negotiate Medicare and Medicaid drug costs. The Veterans administration already does this. But, since the GOP (and many Dems too) have been bought off by "big pharma," this hasn't happened. Would be a huge money saver.

Democrats have proposed cuts in defense spending. Republicans supported a budget that includes no cuts, but increased defense spending even on projects the Dept of Defense doesn't even want. That seems far from "fiscally responsible."

The far-right seems committed to preserving the Bush tax cut for the top 2% along with everyone else. The only rationale I've heard is two things. First, it really won't generate that much revenue by eliminating it, and second, it will deter the so-called "job creators" (the GOP's clever name for this group) from creating new jobs. Given the lackluster job-growth under Bush (particularly when compared to the Clinton era stats) it seems pretty clear the cuts for the top 2% didn't stimulate much growth.

Frankly, I have yet to meet a business person who sits back and says "gosh if taxes go down 2% the first thing I'm gonna do is create more jobs." That's a fantasy. Businesses expand because they see more customers with money willing to buy what they sell, not because Uncle Sam let them pay a couple points less in taxes. Spending that tax break on expansion without some sane reason to expect that your less wealthy customers are ready to spend more in a nonsense.

The other argument - that going back to Clinton-era taxes won't generate enough or dent the deficit that much, is absurd. It amounts to "well, if it doesn't solve the whole problem, let's not do it at all." That's just stupid.

Consider the following. During the Bush years the US fought two wars and put the cost of both on a credit card. The so-called "fiscal conservatives" - for the first time in US History - borrowed the total cost of both wars and never raised taxes to cover the cost one cent.

In fact, they never even included the cost of the war on their federal budget calculations. The deficit caused by "war spending" never showed up in federal budget calculations until Obama included it in budget numbers as it should have been all along. Then, of course, the right blamed Obama for the exploding deficit.

On top of this no one really talks about the long term costs of providing health care to veterans injured in those wars. It's a huge number. Not exactly "social" spending on slackers.

During the Bush years a huge tax cut was adopted without any offset in spending. During the Bush years an expensive prescription drug plan was added to Medicare without a plan to recover the cost. More "vote buying" deficit spending supported by Bush and most of his "fiscal conservative" pals along with some vote hungry Democrats.

Think about it. Cost of two wars, lost revenue from Bush tax cut, new prescription drug plan all exploded - and continue to increase federal deficit and debt. And now the GOP followers get bent out of shape because some want to restore taxes on the top 2% to what they thrived under during the Clinton years. These are not what one might call positions based on principles.

I recommend the following as one possible solution to this mess. Probably one both parties would reject, but one that just might work. Washington is not known for thinking outside the box.

The People's Budget

although this entire post is riddled with nonsense let me just point out the error with the highlighted portion.
did Bush fund the wars through supplemental funding bills and not in his budget? yes

did this cause the cost of the wars to not show up in the deficit? no.
the deficit is calculated based on all actual government spending not simply what was in the budget.

all of the Bush era deficits INCLUDED the costs of the wars.
Obama's very large spike in deficit had nothing to do with putting the cost of the war in the budget. It has everything to do with the stimulus package which was passed in 2009 and every year since Democrats have refused to offer any budget (not exactly responsible or principled) and instead run the government on continuing resolutions which has allowed them to codify the "one time stimulus" into every years spending. that is why every year since the stimulus was passed we have had $1.2 trillion deficits.

Obamas deficit is double or triple Bush's even though the Iraq war is over.
many people run around repeating this silly "war on a credit card" talk and erroneously believe that this somehow hid the cost of the wars. It didn't.
The Sandy relief bill wasn't in any budget either, is that another one we put on the credit card which won't effect the deficit? come on.
Before offering plans the fist step is to understand the problems and know the facts.