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.

Frazzled wrote:Don't get me started on the Republicans. They're dicking around so they can kiill Planned Parenthood.

Oh dear, the government might finally have to live up to their obligation to refuse federal funding for abortions.

Woe is thee.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
While I agree in principle, Planned Parenthood expenditures are part of the budget. Again it would have been helpful had the previous Congress actually done its job.
But his vacation has not been cancelled. You'd think after starting War #3, budget fights, gas approaching $5 a gallon, and that whole economy is STILL in the crapper thing he'd around awhile...


I swear its like watching Rome right before the big breakup. The center cannot hold...

What I find hilarious is that both sides, even the one arguing for budget cuts, want to increase the budget; according to their proposals.

"We want 60 billion in cuts!" (30 billion if Blue Dog)

"The budget is 400 billion larger."

"No abortions!" (Some abortions if Blue Dog)

Er...yea...we're in agreement ...again. I'm scared now, someone hold me!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Don't get me started on the Republicans. They're dicking around so they can kiill Planned Parenthood.

Oh dear, the government might finally have to live up to their obligation to refuse federal funding for abortions.

Woe is thee.

Whether or not they want to do that - cool debate that in next year's budget. Right now you have to keep the lights on, so quit the partisan nonesense (both sides) and move on.

Having said that if Obama vetoes he's also grandstanding and this mess is on his head.
Oh wait this is shutting down the government. Why is this bad again?

The House is debating the budget right now and Boehner is going to give a briefing soon, live on CNN (streaming on their website). Bachman was quoted as saying that there would be a deal today.

Talking about revolutions in the US in any near time frame is just silly. Actually holding a revolution means being uncomfortable, and putting your life, liberty, and well-being on the line, not angrily blogging while you sip coffee in a climate controlled room. You really need people who are in dire straights, and the vast majority of Americans simply aren't - they get enough to eat, have somewhere to stay (even if it's with family), and aren't going to end up in jail or killed for their debt. When the biggest health problem facing the people you classify as poor is OBESITY, you don't have starving peasants with nothing to lose ready to storm the castle, you have a bunch of fat people with lots of cheap food who don't want to leave the couch (and might not even be able to take to the streets without a crane).

Plus, the US still has functioning elections. If you could get 10% of the population motivated enough to risk being killed, beaten, or imprisoned for your new idea of government, why bother with a revolution? Just petition to get your guy on the ballot (libertarians manage this while pulling less than 5% of the vote), then get your revolutionaries plus the people who like your ideas but don't want to get hurt for them to vote for your guy, and you're in charge without all the messiness.

Frazzled wrote:
Oh wait this is shutting down the government. Why is this bad again?

Because the Military is still required to go to do their jobs despite not being paid because the parties can't get along.

Note: I'm not saying that they shouldn't be required to do their jobs(hell, if Satellite Operators didn't do their job civilization would collapse), more that there shouldn't be a budget freeze that affects the military.

Frazzled wrote:Whether or not they want to do that - cool debate that in next year's budget. Right now you have to keep the lights on, so quit the partisan nonesense (both sides) and move on.

Having said that if Obama vetoes he's also grandstanding and this mess is on his head.
Oh wait this is shutting down the government. Why is this bad again?

Why is it wrong to debate these issues during the current "budget" debate? Otherwise, you get to take any policies you want off the table simply by stalling long enough.

I heard someone comment recently that the effect of the shutdown is to remove "non-essential" personnel. He then asked: Why do we have non-essential personnel in the first place?

Even Warren Buffet, one of the wealthiest men in the U.S., has comented that it is inherently unfair that he pays a lower marginal rate in tax than his personal secretary.

Indeed. The rich have so many goddamned loopholes and tax breaks that it is laughable to think that they're REALLY taxed more.

Melissia wrote:

Even Warren Buffet, one of the wealthiest men in the U.S., has comented that it is inherently unfair that he pays a lower marginal rate in tax than his personal secretary.

Indeed. The rich have so many goddamned loopholes and tax breaks that it is laughable to think that they're REALLY taxed more.

Define rich.

Of course, thanks to the New Obamacare, under Medicare now they won't do MRI's for people over 70 unless its an emergency.

Frazzled wrote:
Of course, thanks to the New Obamacare, under Medicare now they won't do MRI's for people over 70 unless its an emergency.

Frazz, all they'd see is the 10 weiner dogs you have in place of a heart so there's no need.


My wife and I have an immigration appointment on Monday and I called USCIS to see what contingencies they had in case of a shutdown....they just told me to check their website before we go.... I was like, yeah but I had to take the day off of work and my wife did as well...... they just said, "sorry".

Bleh.

Maybe they DO need to shut the government down, dismantle the obese monstrosity and start over.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has laid a final offer at Republicans' feet, and it will require them to drop their insistence on defunding Planned Parenthood, and accepting what Reid insists is an agreed upon level of spending cuts. If Republicans don't take it, and if Reid's not bluffing, the government will shutdown.

"The number we're not bending on," he told reporters in a press briefing Friday morning. "We're not bending on that and we're not bending on women's health."
TPM SLIDESHOW: Shut It Down: The Federal Government Shutdown of 1995

The ball is effectively now in House Speaker John Boehner's court. Republicans have signaled a willingness to drop the Planned Parenthood rider in exchange for more spending cuts. But Reid says they've agreed on cut number -- $78 billion below President Obama's budget request last year, or about $38 billion off current spending. Reports on this figure have varied even in the last several hours.

After the briefing I asked Reid if this spending total, along with a menu of riders that does not include Planned Parenthood, represented his final offer.

"Yeah, that was what we, yeah," he said. "Listen, we've agreed to their number last night. They can't keep changing the goalposts."

After a White House meeting last night, Reid said, all had been agreed to except a GOP plan to defund Planned Parenthood.

"The only thing left was women's health," Reid said. That's a bridge too far, he said. "I am really concerned that this government is going to shutdown" over this issue.

"In the presence of the President of the United States, we went through those they -- the Republicans -- felt were most important," Reid added. "We went through them one by one. They were all resolved -- except the rider dealing with Planned Parenthood."

Sigh @ planned parenthood.

What a joke this partisan bs charade is.

So republicans get nearly 2/3s of what they want in terms of spending cuts, yet are willing to shut down the government over the few millions of dollars Planned Parenthood receives to give women contraception, cancer screenings, etc. In short, this has nothing to do with the actual budget, it's simply a show.

Frazzled wrote:Define rich.

People who make millions of dollars a year.

As noted above, Warren Buffet, one of the richest people in the WORLD, pays an effective tax rate of 17%, almost half of what his receptionist pays. And he doesn't use tax shelters like many do when they have this much money. These are the kinds of people who hire someone specifically for the job of minimizing the amount of tax they have to pay, and they often end up paying a smaller percent than the middle class as a result.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Define rich.

People who make millions of dollars a year.

As noted above, Warren Buffet, one of the richest people in the WORLD, pays an effective tax rate of 17%, almost half of what his receptionist pays. And he doesn't use tax shelters like many do when they have this much money. These are the kinds of people who hire someone specifically for the job of minimizing the amount of tax they have to pay, and they often end up paying a smaller percent than the middle class as a result.

We are in agreement. Of course you have to do it right, not just raise the rate, but eliminate loopholes and personal corps.

Having said that, half the US population doesn't pay income taxes. That needs to change. Everyone needs to have skin in the game.

Graduated tax anyone?

This is not something that's new or shocking. It's something that I've known my entire life. My father owns a business, and he isn't rich, but he has an accountant friend who helps him out in return for favors, to try to minimize our own taxes (which is part of the reason why he incorporated, as corporations pay less in the way of taxes than other business types do). Fun times for us, but it also means the government is getting less of our money because we're using more of the government's loopholes against them.

By the way, only 40% of the population doesn't pay taxes, and msot of them are making 30,000 or less.

Frazzled wrote:
Graduated tax anyone?

Flat tax? You're dangerously close being stoned in the streets.

No, graduated = progressive I think.

tax code needs to be reformed from the ground up, they've been writing on top of outdated architecture for decades now.

Question is, when will someone have the political balls to do it?

Would you?
From the titles on the top of Drudge report over this relatively minor situation:

DNC FACEBOOK event calls for dumping trash at Boehner's house...
Dickering on Budget Goes Down to Wire...
Pelosi calls GOP plan 'war on women'...
Dem: Shutdown 'equivalent of bombing innocent civilians'...
Jesse Jackson compares to Civil War...
Congress doesn't shut down during a 'shutdown'...
Negotiators differ by $6.5 billion...
BOEHNER: 'When will the White House and Senate Democrats get serious about cutting spending?'
REID: GOP wants shutdown to keep 'women from getting cancer screenings'...

Frazzled wrote:Would you?
From the titles on the top of Drudge report over this relatively minor situation:

DNC FACEBOOK event calls for dumping trash at Boehner's house...
Dickering on Budget Goes Down to Wire...
Pelosi calls GOP plan 'war on women'...
Dem: Shutdown 'equivalent of bombing innocent civilians'...
Jesse Jackson compares to Civil War...
Congress doesn't shut down during a 'shutdown'...
Negotiators differ by $6.5 billion...
BOEHNER: 'When will the White House and Senate Democrats get serious about cutting spending?'
REID: GOP wants shutdown to keep 'women from getting cancer screenings'...

GOTTA SUPPORT YOUR TEAM, BRO!

Time to get all mad hyperbolic up in dis hizzouse.

24/7 media doesn't help, they write gak to get the most page views. The more extreme, the more likely it is someone will click it.

daedalus-templarius wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Would you?
From the titles on the top of Drudge report over this relatively minor situation:

DNC FACEBOOK event calls for dumping trash at Boehner's house...
Dickering on Budget Goes Down to Wire...
Pelosi calls GOP plan 'war on women'...
Dem: Shutdown 'equivalent of bombing innocent civilians'...
Jesse Jackson compares to Civil War...
Congress doesn't shut down during a 'shutdown'...
Negotiators differ by $6.5 billion...
BOEHNER: 'When will the White House and Senate Democrats get serious about cutting spending?'
REID: GOP wants shutdown to keep 'women from getting cancer screenings'...

GOTTA SUPPORT YOUR TEAM, BRO!

Time to get all mad hyperbolic up in dis hizzouse.

24/7 media doesn't help, they write gak to get the most page views. The more extreme, the more likely it is someone will click it.

To be clear I am sure you could put up a similar list of histrionic quotes from Republicans. This one was just easy to cut and paste.

Yeah, it's called Fox News. But let's not get into THAT agian.

Frazzled wrote:
Er...yea...we're in agreement ...again. I'm scared now, someone hold me!

We're a bridge for America!

Frazzled wrote:
Having said that if Obama vetoes he's also grandstanding and this mess is on his head.

Well, its on everyone, voters included.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Er...yea...we're in agreement ...again. I'm scared now, someone hold me!

We're a bridge for America!

Frazzled wrote:
Having said that if Obama vetoes he's also grandstanding and this mess is on his head.

Well, its on everyone, voters included.

Not me baby. I literally voted for none of those clowns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:Yeah, it's called Fox News. But let's not get into THAT agian.

Incorrect. I can't copy and paste nearly as well from Fox.

besides they seem more focused on titllation at this point (not that thats a bad thing )

Frazzled wrote:
To be clear I am sure you could put up a similar list of histrionic quotes from Republicans. This one was just easy to cut and paste.

Like I said: The more extreme, the more likely it is someone will click it.

Same with talking points, the more extreme (and short I guess), the quicker its picked up on and repeated.

Like: "Planned Parenthood is for abortion"

is a lot easier to say than

"Planned Parenthood's portion of business associated with abortion is only about 3%, whereas most of the services they provide focus mainly on women's health, cancer screenings, contraceptives, and helping those with lower incomes have access to these things."

Maybe they should change their name to something like, "Women's Health Initiative", then idiots won't pick up on the whole "parenthood" part and flip out because there are indeed some people still in this country that think a woman should make her own damn choices about her body.

Frazzled wrote:
DNC FACEBOOK event calls for dumping trash at Boehner's house...

Let's be real, Boehner lives in a gated community.

Frazzled wrote:
Pelosi calls GOP plan 'war on women'...

Not so far from the truth, if you presume that all women want abortions to be possible.

Frazzled wrote:
Negotiators differ by $6.5 billion...

Which is hilarious, because it is so obvious that the GOP wants to pander to its social conservatives.

Frazzled wrote:
BOEHNER: 'When will the White House and Senate Democrats get serious about cutting spending?'

I know you laughed at this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Not me baby. I literally voted for none of those clowns.

Doesn't matter. You live here, that's all that is pertinent.

I mean, let's be real, it wasn't like you thought your candidate (assuming you voted at all) would win.

Doesn't matter. You live here, that's all that is pertinent.

I mean, let's be real, it wasn't like you thought your candidate (assuming you voted at all) would win.

1. I posted the list just to cite the list of histrionics. As noted both sides can put that up, and the reposte the counterarguments. But there's no need as that wasn't the issue. If you really want to tackle the budget you will have to have balls of steel. Very few in Congress have it. If I made my living like that I'd doubt I would either.
2. Wo, wo keep it personable now Dogma.
I did vote - did you? Play nice now. All my state candidates won, but my protest federal votes did not.

Ahtman wrote:Usually those poor are lead by a cadre of the rich (or elite at at least) though. The American, Russian, and French Revolutions were spearheaded by upper class thinkers that elucidate the cause.

American Revolution I don't think is well defined by rich vs poor. The great irony about Revolution is that rhetoric talks about improving the lot of the underclass, but rarely is their lot improved via revolution (economically). The poor are just as poor after the revolution as they were before the revolution.

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Define rich.

People who make millions of dollars a year.

As noted above, Warren Buffet, one of the richest people in the WORLD, pays an effective tax rate of 17%, almost half of what his receptionist pays. And he doesn't use tax shelters like many do when they have this much money. These are the kinds of people who hire someone specifically for the job of minimizing the amount of tax they have to pay, and they often end up paying a smaller percent than the middle class as a result.

We are in agreement. Of course you have to do it right, not just raise the rate, but eliminate loopholes and personal corps.

Having said that, half the US population doesn't pay income taxes. That needs to change. Everyone needs to have skin in the game.

Graduated tax anyone?

So the fact that the working poor still pay employment taxes (the dreaded FICA), which is regressive, as well as sales taxes, VAT's (in some areas), State taxes, county taxes, city taxes, tolls on some roads and bridges, etc., not count as having a "skin in the game" at some level?

I remember sitting in on a meeting with a senior partner at a firm I worked at a few years back where he outlined a plan to save a family 10 million in estate taxes by creating a series of closely held family "businesses" (I use that term loosely because their business function was solely asset protection for the family). These businesses were able to take minority ownership discounts in order to accellerate the level of gifting that the tax code allows, by discounting the value of ownership due to a lack of complete control held by the donor, but held by the donee who had a minority interest (there are a bunch of other levels of complications and interrelated transactions, etc., which were also involved but that are not necessary for this discussion). He quoted the family matriarch a 50k fee and she pulled her check book out and wrote a check without blinking an eyelash.

My point being is that there are problems on both sides of the spectrum, it is just a matter of degrees. While I think there is a philosophical importance to being "vested" in the nation as a whole by paying taxes at some level; I am much more offended by the wealthy (and you don't even have to be ultrawealthy here, you can just be moderately wealthy) who go out of their way to not pay taxes. The question is, what do you fix first? You can use the old analogy of not being able to squeeze blood from a turnip here, because the poor people are not going to generate any real revenue with a tax, and too cutting the meagre services they receive won't really save very much.

Nope. You're assuming they are paying those taxes either. I have familaies across the street, behind me and next to me who aren't. (employment taxes).
But to the point, if you're not paying a tax, you shouldn't be able to vote representatives on that tax.

Frazzled wrote:1. I posted the list just to cite the list of histrionics. As noted both sides can put that up, and the reposte the counterarguments. But there's no need as that wasn't the issue. If you really want to tackle the budget you will have to have balls of steel. Very few in Congress have it. If I made my living like that I'd doubt I would either.

Histrionics?

"When will the White House and Senate Democrats get serious about cutting spending?" is in no way similar in tone to "equivalent of bombing innocent civilians" or "women from getting cancer screenings".

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:1. I posted the list just to cite the list of histrionics. As noted both sides can put that up, and the reposte the counterarguments. But there's no need as that wasn't the issue. If you really want to tackle the budget you will have to have balls of steel. Very few in Congress have it. If I made my living like that I'd doubt I would either.

Histrionics?

"When will the White House and Senate Democrats get serious about cutting spending?" is in no way similar in tone to "equivalent of bombing innocent civilians" or "women from getting cancer screenings".

I am not going to debate that here, although I am sure the usual suspects will. (Frazzled ducks out back and successfully dodges a bullet).