Total Votes: 958
Current users sign in here.
Neither one is much good.
Whose plan for avoiding the fiscal cliff is the one that makes the most sense?
What? The “fiscal cliff” negotiations could fail and the U.S. economy will fall back into recession and the unemployment rate will go up?
With just four weeks to go until the country hits the so-called "fiscal cliff" on Jan. 1, 2013 – the major sticking point is the President Obama's insistence over higher taxes – and that the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% be allowed to expire.
The Republicans only plan is PROTECT THE RICH AT ALL COSTS.
If the country goes over the hill it doesn't matter.
No taxes ever ever ever.
Grover Norquist should be arrested and charged with bribery and extortion and any Congressman who signed his pledges should be charged with violating his Oath of Office.
It isn't as though Obama's plan called for the uber wealthy to be taxed at the rates during the Eisenhower administration ... they are only being asked to pay a few percent more. They can well afford to do so. We have historically low rates and lower rates than other first world countries.
Now now Willie, don't be such a pessimist.
The Republican Plan, not unlike the President's plan, has a stimulum package. By protecting tax cuts for the top2%, we are going to see jobs maintained if not created. For sure, the top2% will make hefty campaign relection contributions to Republicans and that's nothing to dismiss! Citizens United will be the death of us yet!
Dale, after you said " By protecting tax cuts for the top2%, we are going to see jobs maintained if not created. " you for to insert /sarcasm off.
The Republicans have promised us for 30 years, ever since Reagan, that tax cuts for the wealthy would produce more jobs. Well, technically speaking they didn't lie to us because they didn't mention that the jobs that would be created by the wealthy with their tax cuts would be in China.
The GOP said they wouldn't raise taxes. They are softening. Obama says he won't touch entitlements, and is staying the course. Neither will reach an agreement beforehand.
But guess which side people will blame...The one that moved to the center in an effort to compromise, or the one who refused to move at all?
You and I pretty much see eye to eye. Reaganomics was created by Dr. Murray Wiedembaum at Washington University in St. Louis. Murray became Reagan's chief economics advisor and head of his council. While campaigning in 1980, Reagan would explain his theory of tax cuts trickling down to creat jobs [the rising tide floats all boats!] and how raising taxes to a point where investors would not invest due to taxation of profits [the Laffer curve] was counterproductive. Murray developed this combination of theories and got Ronnie elected. Then Ronnie raised taxes and Murray quit him!
I took Economics from Murray and would hear a lecture on one day, then hear Ronnie repeat it on the campaign trail the next day. We were not surprised that Murray took a subbatical when Ronnie was elected. The trouble with Murray's thinking was the if and when the Cold War ended and investors could invest overseas and not fear loss of their capital, it would be more profitable to hire at low wages foreigners overseas.
Now tax cuts do trickle down, either to China, India, the Philipines, Vietnam, etc. And Republicans no longer mention Laffer or "trickle down" economics. The Devil being in the details, they cannot risk exposure of the faults in that old theory and outdated theory.
Recently as Murray was retiring, I e-mailed him, reminded him of how I had challenged the underlying assumptions of his theory and tried to get him to admit he was wrong and I [the one and only one graduate student who challenged him in class] was right. He would not answer my e-mail!
But you and I have it right. Tax cuts still do trickle down. Some to the campaign coffers of Conservatives, much of the rest overseas.
Know this, all of you who unlike Willie and I voted against the President's plan, his is the only one which addresses funds trickling down overseas. His being based on today's economic thinking [not that of the early 80's cold war era], has measures to encourage both domestic job creation and repatriation of jobs now overseas and also repatiration of overseas investment capital. Sure, it won't be as lucerative as the Republican Plan which still incentivizes overseas trickle down. So if you want to maintain foreign labor forces, vote Republican and know that thanks to the Supremes and Citizens United, we loose and the top 2% continues to win.
Thanks, Murray. Now admit you were short sited and I was not.
Obama really doesn't seem to understand the concept of compromise. Now he's also demanding Congress give up control of the debt ceiling and let Obama raise it whenever he wants. (I thought Obama wanted to reduce the deficit and debt...why does he need to be able to raise the debt ceiling anytime he wants?)
A republican senator tried to prove even Senate Democrats wouldn't support giving Obama such unilateral power, and tried to submit it for a vote. Harry Reid, knowing it would fail miserably, blocked the vote and accused Senator McConnell of pulling a "political stunt".
Dale - You're surprised he ignored your e-mail? He probably got a few sentences in, thought "wacko" and then deleted it.
So tell me: If your economic model is the perfect answer, why does Obama need to be able to have total control over the debt ceiling? If his model works, shouldn't debt go DOWN?
DonMey [or did you really intend to type in DonKey?]
Glad you asked. He does not "need" total control. And incidentally, there is only one nation on earth that has to ask its legislature to raise it's debt ceiling after its legislature already has appropriated the funds which lead to the need to raise the ceiling. [And yes, I am aware of the fact that the Legislature did not appropriate much of our Defense Spending. That was a "W" off the books trick. Why don't you complain about that?]
Do you recall Obama's saying he was not going to "play that game?" The game he refered to was "chicken" over raising the debt ceiling. Recall we played that game earlier in 2012. And No, he has not forgotten how to compromise. When he played chicken earlier, he caved in [or appeared to have caved in to those on the left] but really got this year end financial cliff, a new game in which he's better positioned to prevail.
If you wish to study Obama's talents at both negociating compromises and playing chicken, do what I did. Read his books. His life is a study in these two arts. But WARNING Will Smith. You will discover a person you did not know before.
And for those out there who chided Obama's having started his career as a community organizer, what the Heck to you think Organizing for America was? Community organizing got him a name to be reconned with in South Chicago and OfA got his elected then re-elected. And you thought Romney at Bain Capital was good!
So ask yourself this question. "Why am I [DonMey] missing all of these subtle points? Am I listening to Fox News, too much?
Dale - If the legislature already appropriated the funds, where's the budget passed by the Senate?
Do you recall Obama voting down the debt ceiling increase when he was in Congress? Do you recall him stating Bush was unpatriotic because of his deficit spending?
I'm not missing anything.
You are missing everthing!
But for military spending on our last few wars, every dime spent was spend after the spending was appropriated. But we have a nonsense requirement that after we overspend, we must approve raising the debt ceiling to borrow to pay for that appropriated spending. If you don't believe me, then go visit the local office of your US Representative!
I tried to address more issues related to appropriations, spending, etc. but go the following new East Valley Tribune message.
You comment appears to be spam? What sort of idiotic program has the EVT adopted now!
Let's see if my comments will print a paragraph at a time!
Donkey, perhaps I should explain more.
In addition to "off the budget spending for war," we spend on the budget for routine matters like so called entitlement programs, salaries of senators and representatives, etc... When a formal budget does not get passed by House, then Senate, those routine matters get "authorized" with continuing resolutions, laws that tell the administration [and the house and senate] that they may continue to pay salaries, etc. notwithstanding that a formal budget has not been approved. But that spending is an appropriations bill approved by both house and senate.
Do you recall years ago when each June the Federal Government might have to shut down because we had no budget? We changed the Fiscal Year to September so that we had some additional time during the summer to work things out and we invented "continuing resolutions."
Our federal system has been so messed up that we have had to cap spending and then have those caps raised before we can spend some more. Who is to blame? Shall we start with Obama? Why? We could go back to Reagan and even further. We have not had a balanced budget, one which not only pays for all current spending, but also makes installments on past spending since William Jefferson Clinton and his 39.6% tax rate for the wealthiest. And boy did we prosper back then! Before Clinton we'd have to go back to Eisenhower [as I recall]. Rates were even higher back then! This issue is not that Clinton was great. He was lucky to be in office during an economic boom time. Bush 43's war on terrorism sending us to the wrong country [Iraq] helped push us to a fiscal bring and the Wall Street/Banking mess helped push us over. Now we face another brink. Are we going to cut spending, raise taxes [rates and ridiculous tax exemption entitlements for the rich] and live within our current meager means, or are we going to continue giving passes to the rich in exchange for campaign contributions [like from the Tea Partying Koch Brothers, etc.].
The vision of the Koch's [etc.] is to take us back to a time before WW1 when we had a very small federal government, practically no military, and a fractured system of state governments where business [Carnegie, Mellon, Rockefeller, etc.] could easily dominate a few states and have their way. We were 'United' in name only. The Great Depression and WW2 changed all of that.
Have we swung too far from 1900? Would the Kochs have us swing back too far? That is the discussion we need to consider. No more world dominating US military! No more foreign aid to such "states" as Israel. No more security for our elder class. No more minimum wage! No more protection of the environment let global warming run rampant and let endangered species take care of themselves. Who cares if the Chicago River catches fire again or if you, Donkey, have pesticides in your drinking water? Over the years we've had a lot of good ideas. We can either turn our backs on our current "civilization" and return to the days of Andrew Jackson's 150 slave plantation [only now it's large corporations "employing" slave labor at wages that would make Andy Jackson look good] or we can try to hang on longer, and right our partially over-turned ship. We either all sacrifice or we all lose. It's that simple.
So as some have observed above, neither the President's nor the Republican's plan solves all of the problems. But for my bucks, the President's is a bit closer, but perhaps still not close enough!
Looks like I've found a way around the EVT's spam blocker. I like SPAM. The new Turkey SPAM is great! Thank you again, EVT.
I just reviewed a piece on Teddy Roosevelt. He did not like the nick-name, Teddy, preferring to be called "Colonel" in stead. The Kochs don't like Teddy either. He was the founding father of modern eastern progressivism in the conservative movement. He was the youngest man ever elected president. He had so much money that he could not be bought! But when his fellow Republicans turned their backs on him, he lost for good. His was a very distinquished record. Asst. Navy Secretary, Colonel in the US Army, NYC police commissioner, NYS governor, Nobel Peace Prize winner. No wonder Republicans could not stand him! He was too honest, too visionary, to truely conservative in his approach to addressing changing circumstances.
Nice posts Dale. Factually and historically you are right on. Kudos to you and Az Willie for keeping it real. I'm really amazed that posters here continuously advocate against their best interests. Who exactly would defend no taxes for the 2%, holding the country hostage ( debt ceiling), and defining compromise as getting everything they want while giving up nothing. I'm guessing it's part party loyalty, faux news, misinformation, brain washing, and a real dislike for Obama. As a community organizer he has outsmarted and outmanuvered the Tea Party Repubs every step of the way. So as a Tea Partier, what happens after you burn down the house because you didn't get what you wanted and are you really any better off? Just wondering.
Welcome to the site. At posting number "7" you appear to be new. I recommend you "come out" into the open like a few of us have. Being anonymous does detract a bit from credibility.
I'm not sure that posters are advocating against their best interests, certainly not against what they perceive as being in their best interests. Rather I see fear of things they do not understand, and the tendency to over simplify such that they "understand" that which is hard to comprehend, as being behind what they understand and hence form the basis of what they believe to be in their best interests. Where actual experience is limited or is based upon events they have been thrust into without adequate background and prior understanding, best interests get squewed. For Example:
to be continued
The majority of recent military veterans perceive an Arab World scheeming against them. They did not participate in 9-11 and did not see it coming. [I did.] They take it for what it appeared to be, a 2001 Pearl Harbor. They have no comprehension of the CIA's staging of a coup in Iran to depose a democratically elected, paralamentary based government. They fail to understand the impact on some in the middle east of our attacking Saddam in 1991. They see a series of conflicts between Palestinians and Israelis and take sides based upon 'western values' not realizing that the first terrorist activities there were lead by Manachem Begin against the British, not Arab against Jew. They see Egypt taking aid from the USSR as a sign that Egypt backed communism, when in fact, it was the US that turned its back on Egypt, allowing the Soviets to enter and fill that void by helping build the upper dam on the otherwise flooding Nile River.
to be continued!
It is easy to put White Hats on those who appear to share our values and Black Hats on those who appear to not share our values when in fact, sharing values is a very mixed bag indeed.
I suggest that making war is not and never had been in our collective best interests. But we do it because presidents do not wish to be perceived as being weak.
We back Israel without questioning it's rampant developments on the West Bank which cut against any "Two State" solution, and its persistent occupation of the West Bank in an Apartheid style of keeping the peace when peace is kept through identification and pursuit of mutual best interests, not one set over the other.
All of these mistakes against best self interest demonstrate short sightedness, ignorance and stupidity, backed up by the coruption that money gives to politics.
Slabside sees unrestricted fire arms ownership as his only means to defend himself and his family, when if someone really wanted to get to him, they could. The other neoconservatives on this site perceive the country as going to the dogs, the 47% that one Mitt Romney perceives as being on the government dowl.
If you wish to expand your own horizons, try catching Professor Richard Wolff's recent lecture on Democracy. He points out that democracy is not practiced in the workplace, either here or elsewhere, but that where it is, business flourishes. We perceive that business success is the measure of wealth of nations, when that wealth is being held by fewer and fewer. Democracy has failed because we do not really believe in it. You can Catch Wolff on LINK TV. Expand you own comprehenision of best self interest!
The spam guard is on again. [beam]
I have been watching the percentages on votes go to and fro between the presidents plan and the other (?) plan, but staying fairly central.
The funny thing is that I know there are 'moderators' at the Trib who are extremely right of center and I believe they could be manipulating the results.
Dale, I ditto jataga5000.
PHOTOS: President Obama's 2013 State of Union address
Video: MCCCD to allow in-state tuition for undocumented students
Photos: Mesa on national stage hosting GOP debate
Video: Phoenix mayoral Q&A
Video: 'Furious' fallout
Photos: Mesa recall forum
East Valley Tribune
Phone number: 480-TRIBUNE
Address: 1620 W. Fountainhead Parkway, Ste. 219
Tempe, AZ 85282
More Contact Information...
We're always interested in hearing about news in our community. Let us know what's going on!
A Division of 10/13 Communications