Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So in a move that the majority of Americans are pleased with, President Obama came to an agreement with Republicans on how to pass unemployment benefits, and the tax cuts.

Associated Press story, so I'm not gonna provide a link, but anyone whose paying any attention to the news knows where to find the story.

Characteristically though, the Congressional Democrats can't stand to be bipartisan and they fight this thing tooth and nail. Some are attacking this agreement as hard as possible, while others are taking this chance to just load pork onto it, probably hoping to get Republicans to want to shut it down that way.

Now, I want to present this to the people who call the Republicans the "Party of No." Obamacare for example. The Republicans tried to come to the able the entire affair. They presented numerous amendments that would make the bill more agreeable to their consituents, as well as being inline with a lot of what Obama wanted to see in the bill as well. The Democrats stonewalled all of them.

This last Congress was anything but Bipartisan like they promised to be. Their idea of Bipartisanship was demanding that the Republicans do everything that they said, while getting no say themselves. And I find it funny that Republicans get castigated for voting against measures that they had ZERO say in. Would you sit there and vote yes after being told to shut up and color?

What makes it even better is that the first major bill after the election, Republicans act in a bipartisan manner, give the Dems what they want, and the Dems still fight it. The Republicans were never the Party of No. It has been the Democrats the entire time. No to the Republicans.

Vote for candidate to senate/congress, watch as they just go join their side and wage an ongoing miniature war. Both are at fault for being... fools. Also unfortunately the president has now defaulted to "That guy we can blame for anything" in the past years.

I'd rather have a Despotic Totalitarian Collectivist Imperialistic Utilitarianist Society ruled by Theocratic Hereditary Oligarchies watching over Meritocratic Councils than this supposed "democracy"

djones520 wrote:
What makes it even better is that the first major bill after the election, Republicans act in a bipartisan manner, give the Dems what they want, and the Dems still fight it. The Republicans were never the Party of No. It has been the Democrats the entire time. No to the Republicans.

Yeah, great political analysis. Only one party was 'irrationally' intractable, because one vote panned out in a certain way. It could never be that both were complicit in the grandstanding nonsense.

Or god forbid people think Obama got one wrong. Remember when the right claimed we thought he was a god. turns out we can disagree with him and not follow blindly (see Bush years).

Under this agreement taxes will GO UP for people making under 50k.

Under this agreement everything will be heaped onto the debt we claim to be worried about.

I call out republicans when I think they do something wrong. I'll call out Obama when I think he does something wrong. It's called fair and balanced but I guess Fox news messed up that term.

Are you joking? Obama is the king of kings, the almighty son of the holy father descended from the heavens riding on the back of the mighty Narwhal. His very words bring comfort to the homeless, clothes to the needy and jobs to the downtrodden. With a world ending cry, he splits the very earth in twain and casts all non-believers and dissenters down from their fortresses of ingratitude. He is Teddy Roosevelt born again, to lead the great nation that is America to victory over it's enemies, to smash all that would hold the wants of the few above the needs of the many.

He has the un-aging youth of John F. Kennedy, the vision of Lyndon B. Johnson, the laser eyes of Andrew Jackson and wields a mighty pen forged from the wheelchair of, the most beneficent and merciful, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

All hail Obama, may his reign be bountiful and unending.

What's mental about all of this, is that now that Obama is FINALLY looking to compromise, it's on something I wish he wouldn't.

We need to decrease costs and increase revenues. It's as simple as that. I don't understand why the Repubs worship trickle down so much. Now, I'm not saying that it DOESN'T work, but at this point in time, when we are constantly running a deficit, I feel pretty confident that it makes sense to increase the progressivity of our taxation a bit.

It's really pretty shocking just how fundamentally STUPID our leadership is, how totally devoid of vision, inspiration or leadership they are. All they can do is sit there and bicker and then finally decide to just take out more loans. It's laughable, except it's not even funny.

avantgarde wrote:Are you joking? Obama is the king of kings, the almighty son of the holy father descended from the heavens riding on the back of the mighty Narwhal. His very words bring comfort to the homeless, clothes to the needy and jobs to the downtrodden. With a world ending cry, he splits the very earth in twain and casts all non-believers and dissenters down from their fortresses of ingratitude. He is Teddy Roosevelt born again, to lead the great nation that is America to victory over it's enemies, to smash all that would hold the wants of the few above the needs of the many.

He has the un-aging youth of John F. Kennedy, the vision of Lyndon B. Johnson, the laser eyes of Andrew Jackson and wields a mighty pen forged from the wheelchair of, the most beneficent and merciful, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

All hail Obama, may his reign be bountiful and unending.

He also has a thundershield and rides a wolf.

The problem with the American system is it's two party. If party A has a plan to cure world hunger, restore world peace and cure cancer which will work as long as the other side agrees, they wont , because its THEIR idea not OURs so MUST be wrong.

The whole binary system is another form of control.

Phryxis wrote:
We need to decrease costs and increase revenues. It's as simple as that. I don't understand why the Repubs worship trickle down so much.

Campaign contributions and popular branding.

Phryxis wrote:
Now, I'm not saying that it DOESN'T work,

You should, because it doesn't.

Phryxis wrote:
It's really pretty shocking just how fundamentally STUPID our leadership is, how totally devoid of vision, inspiration or leadership they are. All they can do is sit there and bicker and then finally decide to just take out more loans. It's laughable, except it's not even funny.

Nah, they're not stupid, they're really quite bright. Its the electorate that is dumb, and easily bilked by boilerplate. The mob, and all that.

dogma wrote:
Nah, they're not stupid, they're really quite bright. Its the electorate that is dumb, and easily bilked by boilerplate. The mob, and all that.

It's reasons like that this was one of the biggest shifts in government this country has ever seen. The electorate is sick of being told their "dumb".

djones520 wrote:
It's reasons like that this was one of the biggest shifts in government this country has ever seen. The electorate is sick of being told their "dumb".

What shift? You mean that time the GOP took seats from the Dems?

Yeah, that's never happened before.

Either way, the electorate is dumb, it sort of comes with the territory defined by anti-intellectualism. Instead of being upset by the accurate criticism, perhaps the mob should educate itself?

sexiest_hero wrote:Under this agreement taxes will GO UP for people making under 50k.

Care to explain your reasoning on that? Under this agreement, taxes stay at 25% or lower for people making less then 80k. The cuts expire, people making less then 80k pay through the nose. People making 30k go from paying 15% to 28%. That almost DOUBLES the taxes that people just above the poverty line pay. People making less then 8k a year go from 10% to 15%. You think they can afford a 50% increase in taxes?

I make just about 50k a year. Had the cuts expired, I would have been paying $2,700 extra a year. Nothing that is really going to help me out. Certainly nothing that is going to help the economy in general out.

So I fail to see your reasoning about how this "hurts" the poor.

Phryxis wrote:It's really pretty shocking just how fundamentally STUPID our leadership is, how totally devoid of vision, inspiration or leadership they are.

It's one of those things, people call the electorate stupid, people call the politicians stupid, but neither are. They're all smart enough, smart as they are anywhere else in the world, it's just the game that makes everyone stupid.

Look at the OP. Now, I've not seen anything out of politics that makes me think djones520 is a dumb guy, he holds down a technical job so I'd expect he's certainly bright enough to form a smart opinion on politics. Yet he wrote that complete load of nonsense.

Now, I hope djones520 doesn't take this the wrong way, but there's plenty of people smarter than him, smarter than me, smarter than you and likely smarter than anyone on this forum who write even more complete nonsense. Because choosing to become part of one side or the other doesn't have anything to do with being smart, but everything to do with wanting to be part of a cause. The politicians have no choice but to play to the true believers on their side - because they need those people to keep their political machines working, to do the hard slog of door knocking and standing at rallies with signs. You need all that to look legitimate.

Nor is it practical to make considered arguments in the current media format, when everything is driven by single sentence grabs. An argument that given the current deficit and the reality of the basic level of committed spending that cannot be cut, taxes will need to be raised, and given how close to edge poor and middle class families are, that tax increase will have to be on high income earners is just too many words to get out in the media. Instead we get mantras of 'rich people don't pay their share' opposed by 'the other side side wants class warfare'. Which is nonsense, but unavoidable given the rules of the game.

To paraphrase Doctor Insano: "What,don't you know anything about POLITICS?"

Of course they did. How DARE the president attempt to actually get something done instead of squandering what little time thy have left before the end of this session.

As much as people like to bash him, at least Obama tried to do everything he promised he would do. Some of them he accomplished some of them he didn't, but his track record is still better than ninety percent of politicians.

sebster wrote:

Phryxis wrote:It's really pretty shocking just how fundamentally STUPID our leadership is, how totally devoid of vision, inspiration or leadership they are.

It's one of those things, people call the electorate stupid, people call the politicians stupid, but neither are. They're all smart enough, smart as they are anywhere else in the world, it's just the game that makes everyone stupid.

Look at the OP. Now, I've not seen anything out of politics that makes me think djones520 is a dumb guy, he holds down a technical job so I'd expect he's certainly bright enough to form a smart opinion on politics. Yet he wrote that complete load of nonsense.

Now, I hope djones520 doesn't take this the wrong way, but there's plenty of people smarter than him, smarter than me, smarter than you and likely smarter than anyone on this forum who write even more complete nonsense. Because choosing to become part of one side or the other doesn't have anything to do with being smart, but everything to do with wanting to be part of a cause. The politicians have no choice but to play to the true believers on their side - because they need those people to keep their political machines working, to do the hard slog of door knocking and standing at rallies with signs. You need all that to look legitimate.

Nor is it practical to make considered arguments in the current media format, when everything is driven by single sentence grabs. An argument that given the current deficit and the reality of the basic level of committed spending that cannot be cut, taxes will need to be raised, and given how close to edge poor and middle class families are, that tax increase will have to be on high income earners is just too many words to get out in the media. Instead we get mantras of 'rich people don't pay their share' opposed by 'the other side side wants class warfare'. Which is nonsense, but unavoidable given the rules of the game.

Oh I totally know there are smarter folks out there then myself. I also know I'm not half as smart as I could be. And I wasn't pointing fingers at politicians saying they were doing wrong. Well... it is, but that's not the point of this.

This was solely about the people who have been attacking Republicans lately as the Party of No. There is plenty of documentable evidence that they've been trying to work with the Democrats, but the Dems have been saying "no" all along. This latest issue is just one more in a long line of it.

Dogma, in his elitsm, wants to attack the electorate for being "dumb". I'd say it's the exact opposite. One of the biggest shifts in government that our country has ever seen was a result of the people being smart enough to see what was happening.

What about those of us that attack Republicans as the party of no (which they have been), but don't hesitate to attack Democrats who start to do the same thing?

Not everyone holds double standards you know.

djones520 wrote:
Dogma, in his elitsm, wants to attack the electorate for being "dumb". I'd say it's the exact opposite. One of the biggest shifts in government that our country has ever seen was a result of the people being smart enough to see what was happening.

I'm still wondering what this 'shift' in government is.

Based on what I'm seeing, the mob voted for people that promised things that they liked; regardless of whether or not those things were conducive to good state conduct.

So yeah, the mob is dumb.

Oh boy, a Dogma is Elitist thread! I mean, he totally is, but I find it highly entertaining when its not being directed at me.

I'm pretty right of center, and I'm not really sure how extending the tax cuts are going to reduce the deficit. Then again, I'm not an economist either.

If the extra money retained by tax-payers is used for investment in productive machinery, training and so on, which leads to an increase in export output, then the deficit can be reduced.

But most of the last decade was tax cuts, and it was progressively downhill for the economy.

Theoretically part of what Repubs wanted in this last election was increased fiscal responsibility, but extending tax cuts for the income brackets who manifestly do NOT need it is anything but fiscally responsible.

Obama is sensibly a centrist, and has consistently and constantly been about compromise.

The Dems have been bending over backward for the Repubs for two years. They have forced almost nothing through with the last two years of bicameral control. They took more than a year trying to work with the Repubs on the health care bill and all we got out of that was the loss of the public option. We still haven't seen an end to Don't Ask Don't Tell, an end to the wars yet, or an end to the ban on military women getting abortion care with their own money.

Some Dems (and Bernie Sanders, who is the man) are standing up for their principles. It's not necessarily the most productive thing to do, but it may well be the right thing to do.

djones520 wrote:Oh I totally know there are smarter folks out there then myself. I also know I'm not half as smart as I could be. And I wasn't pointing fingers at politicians saying they were doing wrong. Well... it is, but that's not the point of this.

This was solely about the people who have been attacking Republicans lately as the Party of No. There is plenty of documentable evidence that they've been trying to work with the Democrats, but the Dems have been saying "no" all along. This latest issue is just one more in a long line of it.

Dogma, in his elitsm, wants to attack the electorate for being "dumb". I'd say it's the exact opposite. One of the biggest shifts in government that our country has ever seen was a result of the people being smart enough to see what was happening.

Nah, I’m not saying that anyone needs to be smarter than they are. I’m saying we’re all plenty smart enough, including the politicians at the top, but the game of politics produces a result that is very dumb. People think this is because people at some level must be stupid, but they’re not, it’s just that the game doesn’t encourage the electorate to use their smarts to learn about how the country actually needs to be run. Then, because of that, politicians are extremely restricted in the options available to them – they know what actually needs to be done, but trying to do it would be career suicide and would fail, so it doesn’t happen.

I mean, you said in plain, simple English a thing that should be very obvious, your country needs to fix the deficit, and the way to do this is to charge the wealthy a little more in income tax. It’s a simple and intuitive thing, but think about all the people you know who just couldn’t accept that argument – most of them are reasonably bright people, right?

So there could be real, serious debate on maintaining services, and keeping taxes as low as possible while moving to a sustainable budget. We’re all smart enough to handle it. Instead we people saying ‘you’re the party of no’… ‘no, you’re the party of no’. It’s ridiculous.

I don’t know what you’re talking about when you refer to the biggest shift in the electorate. I can’t think of a point in US history where voters suddenly started voting for their interests.

Kilkrazy wrote:If the extra money retained by tax-payers is used for investment in productive machinery, training and so on, which leads to an increase in export output, then the deficit can be reduced.

Except time has shown that it just doesn’t work. Investment is driven by demand and opportunity, not spare funds. That is, even if there was no spare funds for investment, if there are new markets looking to buy, or new technological innovations ready to be brought to market, the funds will be found from overseas to invest.

Leaving the rich with surplus funds and hoping they’ll be used to invest hasn’t worked, historically.

Mannahnin wrote:But most of the last decade was tax cuts, and it was progressively downhill for the economy.

Theoretically part of what Repubs wanted in this last election was increased fiscal responsibility, but extending tax cuts for the income brackets who manifestly do NOT need it is anything but fiscally responsible.

Obama is sensibly a centrist, and has consistently and constantly been about compromise.

The Dems have been bending over backward for the Repubs for two years. They have forced almost nothing through with the last two years of bicameral control. They took more than a year trying to work with the Repubs on the health care bill and all we got out of that was the loss of the public option. We still haven't seen an end to Don't Ask Don't Tell, an end to the wars yet, or an end to the ban on military women getting abortion care with their own money.

Some Dems (and Bernie Sanders, who is the man) are standing up for their principles. It's not necessarily the most productive thing to do, but it may well be the right thing to do.

Our economy did fine until the housing market was flooded with an overabundance of houses that were empty and banks lending money out to people who couldn't pay their mortgage payments. Thusly raising the costs for people who were paying their mortgages, tumbling more dominoes until the banking collapse in September of 2009, where many of the largest banks and investment firms in the nation were using those said mortgages as assets.

Our economic problems were brought on by a bad governmental policy and greed by bankers. Look up what Jamie Gorelik (Sp?) and Franklin Raines earned while they were at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac becasue they sold so many loans. It wasn't because they were responsible, they just met a quota.


Raising tax rates is the quickest way to reduce the deficit, but it would cripple our economy for the foreseeable future. Supply side economics do work when spending is kept much lower (which has never coincided with an attempt at supply side economics).

Stormrider wrote:Raising tax rates is the quickest way to reduce the deficit, but it would cripple our economy for the foreseeable future. Supply side economics do work when spending is kept much lower (which has never coincided with an attempt at supply side economics).

How is this different to a communist arguing that while communism might have failed on all those other occasions, communism wasn't to blame because they just weren't doing it right?

The fundamental problem with supply side economics is that investment is not driven by the level of savings, but the investment opportunities available. This does not change in any way if you maintain lower spending.

Our economy did fine until the housing market was flooded with an overabundance of houses that were empty and banks lending money out to people who couldn't pay their mortgage payments. Thusly raising the costs for people who were paying their mortgages, tumbling more dominoes until the banking collapse in September of 2009, where many of the largest banks and investment firms in the nation were using those said mortgages as assets.

Actually, our banking system was over-leveraged everywhere and there were numerous other bubbles that burst then too. Our economy was fine until it went over a cliff, but that doesn't mean it wasn't driving towards a cliff for years before going off. Economies don't just suddenly spin out for no reason, there has to be endemic flaws.

Our economic problems were brought on by a bad governmental policy and greed by bankers. Look up what Jamie Gorelik (Sp?) and Franklin Raines earned while they were at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac becasue they sold so many loans. It wasn't because they were responsible, they just met a quota.

Our economic problems are predicated on the rise of globalization and Americas struggle to stay competitive against cheaper markets. We didn't realize we were in trouble because the banks used loopholes to keep making profits and the housing market kept booming despite every other sector showing troubling signs. Blaming it all on bankers is easy, but it's not accurate and it's not going to help us fix the big problems.

Raising tax rates is the quickest way to reduce the deficit, but it would cripple our economy for the foreseeable future. Supply side economics do work when spending is kept much lower (which has never coincided with an attempt at supply side economics).

Then how do you know they work when they've apparently never worked?

Campaign contributions and popular branding.

I always assumed it was a sort of Reagan hero-worship thing. Like, if he said something, it's not to be questioned.

You should, because it doesn't.

Bleh, that's just as dogmatic as saying it always does.

I mean, who are "the rich?" How far does money have to "trickle down" for it to be "working?"

I don't feel like giving a multi-millionaire a tax break is going to significantly increase his spending, but I do feel like there is a wide swath of the people that are called "rich" that will spend more or less depending on their taxes, and those people are going to be buying things that will necessarily impact the American economy, things like homes, home improvements, cars, electronics, etc.

So, whatever, saying it "doesn't work" is somewhat unhelpful, unless you mean that speaking in generalities and absolutes "doesn't work" in which case I generally agree.

Its the electorate that is dumb, and easily bilked by boilerplate.

I dunno, I don't feel like the electorate is being fooled, they just don't have a lot of options. Who are they going to vote for?

The only real option we have is to vote for the people who are at least lying in the direction we want.

What options do they have? You either vote, or you don't, and every single vote is either for the status quo, or for Tea Party nutbats.
It's insane to me that the only people we can find that understand the concept of "not enough money" are also mentally ill. Can we not find somebody who understands how to balance a checkbook but DOESN'T think Barack Obama is a member of Al Qaeda?

They're all smart enough, smart as they are anywhere else in the world, it's just the game that makes everyone stupid.

Oh, sure, I don't mean to suggest that American people/politicians are less intelligent than elsewhere in the world.

I more think that the US political class has become entrenched in destructive positions that they refuse to back away from out of pride, cowardice and tradition. Perhaps "stupid" isn't the best word, maybe something like "broken" is more accurate, but I do feel like the American political landscape has gotten into a place where things are fundamentally malfunctioning, and the people in charge are reacting in all the wrong ways.

Honestly, I blame it on the mainstream media. They have made the debate so stilted, hyperbolic and ridiculous, it's impossible for anything to get done.

Jamie Gorelik

It's amazing how many abject failures that woman manages to be directly involved with.

I don't believe in the Illuminati, but a woman like this makes me wonder.

Phryxis wrote:Oh, sure, I don't mean to suggest that American people/politicians are less intelligent than elsewhere in the world.

I more think that the US political class has become entrenched in destructive positions that they refuse to back away from out of pride, cowardice and tradition. Perhaps "stupid" isn't the best word, maybe something like "broken" is more accurate, but I do feel like the American political landscape has gotten into a place where things are fundamentally malfunctioning, and the people in charge are reacting in all the wrong ways.

Honestly, I blame it on the mainstream media. They have made the debate so stilted, hyperbolic and ridiculous, it's impossible for anything to get done.

Yeah, you're at a point where it is impossible for a Republican to say that stable government spending requires a higher top marginal tax rate, despite the rate having been higher only a decade ago (when you had a sustainable budget). Similarly, it is impossible for a Democrat to say that private savings funds are the best way of securing individual citizen's retirement funds, despite this having a strong record elsewhere in the world.

The media is certainly part of the problem, but I think that structurally the US system just lends itself towards identity politics and sloganeering over policy debate.

The politicians, meanwhile, are just playing their part. Why come out and give some hard truths, if they still won't happen and you'll just get voted out of office. You do get guys like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich who will say the politically unacceptable, but it's easy for them because they both have dedicated voting bases. That these guys are often wrong is besides the point, that they're ignored even when they're completely, indisputably right is very much the point.

Phryxis wrote:
Bleh, that's just as dogmatic as saying it always does.

I mean, who are "the rich?" How far does money have to "trickle down" for it to be "working?"

I don't feel like giving a multi-millionaire a tax break is going to significantly increase his spending, but I do feel like there is a wide swath of the people that are called "rich" that will spend more or less depending on their taxes, and those people are going to be buying things that will necessarily impact the American economy, things like homes, home improvements, cars, electronics, etc.

Sure, but the purpose of trickle-down economics is the progressive increase of wealth amongst the lower classes due to higher spending amongst the wealthy. The economy is certainly affected by spending amongst the "landed", but it doesn't lead to expanding incomes amongst the plebes, so trickle-down doesn't work.

Its not dogmatic, merely an acceptance of reality.

Phryxis wrote:
I dunno, I don't feel like the electorate is being fooled, they just don't have a lot of options. Who are they going to vote for?.

I know plenty of people that understand their vote is for the lesser of two evils, but I also no plenty of people that are essentially true believers.

I guess I'm not certain which group is larger.

dogma wrote:

djones520 wrote:
What makes it even better is that the first major bill after the election, Republicans act in a bipartisan manner, give the Dems what they want, and the Dems still fight it. The Republicans were never the Party of No. It has been the Democrats the entire time. No to the Republicans.

Yeah, great political analysis. Only one party was 'irrationally' intractable, because one vote panned out in a certain way. It could never be that both were complicit in the grandstanding nonsense.

A very nice summation of American politics in general.

Other apt phrases include:

Walking lunatic asylum
Bongo's bedlam of befuddlement
Sarah Palin

Phryxis wrote:Bleh, that's just as dogmatic as saying it always does.

I mean, who are "the rich?" How far does money have to "trickle down" for it to be "working?"

I don't feel like giving a multi-millionaire a tax break is going to significantly increase his spending, but I do feel like there is a wide swath of the people that are called "rich" that will spend more or less depending on their taxes, and those people are going to be buying things that will necessarily impact the American economy, things like homes, home improvements, cars, electronics, etc.

If government taxes that money, it has that money to spend. Assuming we're looking at a budget policy with no impact on the final deficit, then by definition government will spend all the money that it receives. Whereas we know that if they have a greater increase in their net income, they only likely to spend somewhere 60c and 90c in the dollar, depending on their incomes already (the wealth are likely to spend less, of course). As such, we can see that taxing and government spending will result in a greater increase in aggregate demand.

Now, complicating that are two competing points. The first is the idea of incentive, that if you tax the rich too highly they won't be incentivised to earn more money. Which is a fair point and important to consider, but it really doesn't present as a factor when you're talking about a top marginal rate of 35%. The other factor is savings - the wealthy save a greater portion of their income and are in a greater position to invest it. Which is great and all and seemed a pretty decent piece of reasoning in the late 70s and early 80s, but it just hasn't worked out. Turns out investment is driven by profit opportunities, not spare funds.

Seeing Clinton kick Obama off the Podium warmed my heart. Ah the good old days.