SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,737
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Sept 28, 2010 9:41:43 GMT -5
If just one of these plans or candidates (I'm looking at you Meg Whitman) would simply propose spending cuts WITHOUT simultaneously providing tax cuts for the wealthy, I'd actually consider voting for them.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Sept 28, 2010 9:55:57 GMT -5
Why you gotta' hate on the wealthy?
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Sept 28, 2010 10:09:49 GMT -5
The Tea Party movement is not a political party. It has no centralized organization so it can't speak as one voice on the solution to the problems but seems glued together by great concern over the debt and the intrusiveness of the federal government. It's up to the Republican or Democratic party to offer a centralized plan for solution. Neither has done so. It's time to start with not spending the remainder of the Stimulus and by repealing the Medicare Prescription Drug program and the Health Care Law. Then move on to upping the age for receipt of Social Security and Medicare and to scale back Medicaid. Increase the upper earned limit for Social Security taxes to the full amount. Abolish the Departments of Labor, Agriculture and Education. Combine the departments of Interior and Commerce. Get the federal government out of the arts. Privatize the postal service. Abolish the Marine Corps. Remove troops from Germany and Japan and close all but a few overseas bases. Close about 75% of the arsenals, warehouses and supply depots spread around various Congressional districts. Consolidate air forces in fewer services and do the same for special forces. Consolidate all ships, boats and craft into the, gulp, Navy. Eliminate duplicative intelligence agencies. Abolish the Department of Homeland Security. This may sound like just a shopping list. Some are hairbrained but each, and others, should be debated on its merits relative to a lean, less intrusive government. It is only through forward thinking that it will be possible to tackle the massive debt. Will either party step up to the plate and will the electorate allow any to move forward, or will the country hem and haw and go bankrupt? I fundamentally disagree with almost of all these proposals, but I admire ed for putting these ideas out there and agree with the general sense that ALL government spending should be looked for potential cuts and streamlining - including both things that Dems like - such as Social Security and Federal Education grants, to things that Republicans like - such as Department of Defense spending. My question to ed, however, would be what happens to all the government employees and private industry employees whose work relies on federal monies? If you think our unemployment is bad now - these proposals would increase it to something like 15% to 20% in at least the short term, as private industry isn't just going to simply step in and take over instantly - and won't have the money to do the same work the government is currently doing. I agree we need to cut down on government spending, but instead of massive cuts that eliminate jobs, why not match smaller cuts with a tax increase on the wealthiest 2% of Americans to the Clinton-year levels? Don't want to hear the baloney about how the wealthiest Americans are "job creators" and would use tax cut money to create new jobs. People are getting laid off now despite the favorable tax rate. Plus with the low marginal capital gains rate, small business, and corporate deductions, employers won't feel the higher rate. The tax increase will ease the deficit without hurting the economy. That being said, I completely agree that raising taxes alone is not the answer - spending cuts MUST be looked at across the board - including entitlement programs.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,737
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Sept 28, 2010 10:21:06 GMT -5
Why you gotta' hate on the wealthy? I'm pretty sure Meg is paying for her campaign with expectations of paying less taxes next year. It's amazing how concerned she is about politics for someone who has never voted. Nonetheless, at least she was a good businesswoman. I'm still trying to figure out how I'm supposed to think Carly Fiorina was good for HP.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Sept 29, 2010 15:13:19 GMT -5
Whitman is probably toast at this point due to the housekeeper problem.
Still, there are probably some decent paths remaining for the Republicans to take over the Senate, and I think those have to run through WI and WV. Losing Feingold would be a significant blow to the Dems and to the country more generally.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,443
|
Post by TC on Sept 29, 2010 15:18:56 GMT -5
Whitman is probably toast at this point due to the housekeeper problem. Hasn't moved the Intrade needle at all.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Sept 29, 2010 15:25:20 GMT -5
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,443
|
Post by TC on Sept 29, 2010 15:30:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Sept 29, 2010 15:31:41 GMT -5
Ahh thanks
CNN poll tonight has the Governor's race at 52-39 in favor of Brown. Boxer over Fiorina by roughly 20 points.
Giannouillis (spelling botch) over Kirk right now, and Murkowski closing on the tea sipper (within MoE).
I am not sure the Republicans need Illinois, but it seems like some of the windows for the expected Senate takeover are closing. Query whether Murkowski would caucus with the Republicans but I would assume so if she pulls it out.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Sept 29, 2010 16:40:07 GMT -5
If you believe Barbara Boxer is up by 20 points, I've got some swampland to sell you near hifi's house.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Sept 29, 2010 16:48:27 GMT -5
If you believe Barbara Boxer is up by 20 points, I've got some swampland to sell you near hifi's house. It looks like Halperin corrected a typo (or I learned how to subtract). It is more like 9 points, well outside the MoE. I am not sure where the 9 points will come from in the next few weeks. My sense is that some candidates have reached the high water mark in the sense that there won't be any sudden surge in tea party support - they've already formed their insurgency and won't win more converts. Fiorina deserves some credit. She is running on specific policy ideas and has put those up on her website. It looks to be that of a traditional Republican, checking all the boxes with respect to "death taxes" and the like.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,443
|
Post by TC on Sept 29, 2010 17:13:20 GMT -5
Fiorina deserves some credit. She is running on specific policy ideas and has put those up on her website. It looks to be that of a traditional Republican, checking all the boxes with respect to "death taxes" and the like. Lemme get this straight - you think the Demon Sheep lady is running on specific policy ideas?
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Sept 29, 2010 17:22:20 GMT -5
I think so - she's put them out there on the website, which is more than most Republicans and Tea Party Republicans IMO. The situation on the ground may be a different animal, and, like in any big-state race, you are going to get the gratuitous attacks and attack ads. I would argue that the DE candidate is also running on ideas. Virtually none of them happen to be good, but she probably has put herself out there more than any other Republican candidate, perhaps due to her confidence in her salt-of-the-earth Oxford education.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Sept 29, 2010 17:37:07 GMT -5
If Fiorinia does for the US what she did for HP, does that mean we're going to buy Canada, have our economy go down by 50%, then pay her $20 million to go away?
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Sept 29, 2010 18:41:33 GMT -5
The Tea Party movement is not a political party. It has no centralized organization so it can't speak as one voice on the solution to the problems but seems glued together by great concern over the debt and the intrusiveness of the federal government. It's up to the Republican or Democratic party to offer a centralized plan for solution. Neither has done so. It's time to start with not spending the remainder of the Stimulus and by repealing the Medicare Prescription Drug program and the Health Care Law. Then move on to upping the age for receipt of Social Security and Medicare and to scale back Medicaid. Increase the upper earned limit for Social Security taxes to the full amount. Abolish the Departments of Labor, Agriculture and Education. Combine the departments of Interior and Commerce. Get the federal government out of the arts. Privatize the postal service. Abolish the Marine Corps. Remove troops from Germany and Japan and close all but a few overseas bases. Close about 75% of the arsenals, warehouses and supply depots spread around various Congressional districts. Consolidate air forces in fewer services and do the same for special forces. Consolidate all ships, boats and craft into the, gulp, Navy. Eliminate duplicative intelligence agencies. Abolish the Department of Homeland Security. This may sound like just a shopping list. Some are hairbrained but each, and others, should be debated on its merits relative to a lean, less intrusive government. It is only through forward thinking that it will be possible to tackle the massive debt. Will either party step up to the plate and will the electorate allow any to move forward, or will the country hem and haw and go bankrupt? I fundamentally disagree with almost of all these proposals, but I admire ed for putting these ideas out there and agree with the general sense that ALL government spending should be looked for potential cuts and streamlining - including both things that Dems like - such as Social Security and Federal Education grants, to things that Republicans like - such as Department of Defense spending. My question to ed, however, would be what happens to all the government employees and private industry employees whose work relies on federal monies? If you think our unemployment is bad now - these proposals would increase it to something like 15% to 20% in at least the short term, as private industry isn't just going to simply step in and take over instantly - and won't have the money to do the same work the government is currently doing. I agree we need to cut down on government spending, but instead of massive cuts that eliminate jobs, why not match smaller cuts with a tax increase on the wealthiest 2% of Americans to the Clinton-year levels? Don't want to hear the baloney about how the wealthiest Americans are "job creators" and would use tax cut money to create new jobs. People are getting laid off now despite the favorable tax rate. Plus with the low marginal capital gains rate, small business, and corporate deductions, employers won't feel the higher rate. The tax increase will ease the deficit without hurting the economy. That being said, I completely agree that raising taxes alone is not the answer - spending cuts MUST be looked at across the board - including entitlement programs. I agree my proposals would lead to more unemployment in the short run but the alternative is to do something small and greatly worsen the long term financial viability of this country.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 29, 2010 19:20:41 GMT -5
If Fiorinia does for the US what she did for HP, does that mean we're going to buy Canada, have our economy go down by 50%, then pay her $20 million to go away? Apparently Barry O. is looking at her to replace Roemer/Summers.
|
|