theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Dec 7, 2010 15:06:43 GMT -5
Watch Voinovich vote cloture on Sanders' filibuster. Not to be too difficult, but another thread propose modifying the filibuster rules since they were too lax. This will be a perfect example of a case where one person in the Senate gets smacked down.
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Dec 7, 2010 17:16:50 GMT -5
That NYT game was fun!
I couldn't figure out how to save mine (no pun intended. . .advice?), but my plan would save: $509 in 2015 and $1.849 in 2030 with a combo of 68% from cuts and 32% from increased revenue.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,457
|
Post by TC on Dec 7, 2010 17:56:59 GMT -5
Watch Voinovich vote cloture on Sanders' filibuster. Not to be too difficult, but another thread propose modifying the filibuster rules since they were too lax. This will be a perfect example of a case where one person in the Senate gets smacked down. My snark was more towards Voinovich's statement "I'm voting against everything". Sure, he'll vote against it - after voting cloture for it. Let's be honest - cloture is now really a proxy for the bill, not a parliamentary motion.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Dec 8, 2010 0:38:31 GMT -5
Ok, so for the people who don't like the compromise.
What's your alternative (realistic) solution?
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Dec 8, 2010 1:04:41 GMT -5
Ok, so for the people who don't like the compromise. What's your alternative (realistic) solution? First off, I don't see this as a compromise. Politically, it's a total back down by Obama - he just gave the GOP what they wanted without anything notable in return. In terms of the deficit, it's a cop out by both sides - they each "compromised" by giving the other side the deficit-increasing pieces they wanted. It was really just a massive show of spinelessness by everybody. I would have preferred a real compromise - letting the tax cuts expire for higher tax brackets, while extending them for the rest. I don't buy this stuff about how higher earners are the "job creators" in our economy. The economy didn't seem to have much trouble creating jobs during the Clinton years, when the higher tax brackets were taxed a lot more than they are today. All this "compromise" showed is that neither side is ready to take the politically tough choices that need to be made to cut the deficit. We need tax increases and spending cuts - instead we got the opposite.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Dec 8, 2010 1:13:49 GMT -5
I don't see how any solution is needed. What's the problem that needs fixing, and what do tax cuts solve? As Stig mentioned, the self-congratulatory job-creation talking points that come up during the tax cut debate are devoid of any substance. The Bush tax cuts have cut incomes by $4 trillion, to say nothing of the job losses that resulted. Plans to cut taxes on estates encourage wealthy beneficiaries to live off of trust funds and not to seek employment.
My solution would be to let the tax cuts lapse - as the original supporters of the debacle voted for years ago. There is no problem that these tax cuts solve that is worth supporting them for.
In news late tonight, Jim DeMint and the Club for Growth have indicated there's not enough slop in the trough for them - the deal is no deal unless making these tax cuts permanent is part of the package. The Onion couldn't top the crap they come up with.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Dec 8, 2010 16:33:34 GMT -5
Bloomberg Urges Centrist Solutions to Economic Excerpt Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg on Wednesday unleashed a blunt and stinging critique of the federal government’s handling of the economic recovery, saying that lawmakers from both parties have “abdicated their responsibility” in favor of partisan bickering, have vilified success in corporate America and have left the country lagging behind its international competitors.
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Dec 9, 2010 17:59:37 GMT -5
Enough with the nickel-and-dime game. Time to man up. Playing the prevent D is only preventing victory.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jan 20, 2011 14:30:23 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2011 15:05:10 GMT -5
Real meat? Federal spending in 2010 was $3.55 trillion. $2.5 trillion over 10 years is, what, 7% savings? And only if you assume that we flatline the budget at $3.55 trillion/year for 10 years, which is a terrible assumption. But hey, let's throw some "big" numbers out there to make people think that we're doing something, even though we're really still playing the nickel-and-dime game.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jan 20, 2011 16:00:10 GMT -5
We could have saved money on the paper used to print the ceremonial repeal bill.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jan 20, 2011 16:10:52 GMT -5
I say we give the stupid pandas back. Those friggin' rodents eat more than Nibbler.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jan 20, 2011 19:24:18 GMT -5
Real meat? Federal spending in 2010 was $3.55 trillion. $2.5 trillion over 10 years is, what, 7% savings? And only if you assume that we flatline the budget at $3.55 trillion/year for 10 years, which is a terrible assumption. But hey, let's throw some "big" numbers out there to make people think that we're doing something, even though we're really still playing the nickel-and-dime game. Where I come from, $2.5 Trillion is a heap big amount ot moolah. And, that's before tackling the so-called entitlements. And, it's not just numbers, it lists where the savings are to be made. I say "hats off".
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jan 20, 2011 20:47:41 GMT -5
Real meat? Federal spending in 2010 was $3.55 trillion. $2.5 trillion over 10 years is, what, 7% savings? And only if you assume that we flatline the budget at $3.55 trillion/year for 10 years, which is a terrible assumption. But hey, let's throw some "big" numbers out there to make people think that we're doing something, even though we're really still playing the nickel-and-dime game. But what's the percentage when you take out Medicare, SS, etc.?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2011 8:42:03 GMT -5
Real meat? Federal spending in 2010 was $3.55 trillion. $2.5 trillion over 10 years is, what, 7% savings? And only if you assume that we flatline the budget at $3.55 trillion/year for 10 years, which is a terrible assumption. But hey, let's throw some "big" numbers out there to make people think that we're doing something, even though we're really still playing the nickel-and-dime game. But what's the percentage when you take out Medicare, SS, etc.? That's the point: if you really want to make a dent, you start by talking about Medicare, SS, and Defense. But no one (on either side) is going to start that conversation. So, we'll maybe save 3%, 5%, 7% here and there, but in the end it's mostly window dressing. EasyEd: I appreciate the fact that they actually listed programs, as you do. And $2.5 trillion sounds like a lot of money to you and me, But over ten years, it's about 4 or 5 drops in the bucket when we're talking about the US federal budget. Plus, for this $2.5 trillion to be saved, we also have to assume that none of the programs on this list are located in Republican districts. As soon as some of these guys realize that cutting Program X means losing a couple of hundred jobs in their district, things will start disappearing from the list. If President Obama had proposed this exact list of potential spending cuts over the next ten years, I'm guessing that none of these Republicans would stand up and applaud him. But if they want to go pat themselves on the back over it, that's their prerogative.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jan 21, 2011 8:56:33 GMT -5
Only a liberal would consider $2.5 Trillion trivial.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2011 9:07:28 GMT -5
Only a liberal would consider $2.5 Trillion trivial. Ah...reasoned debate. I love it. I think $1 million sounds like a lot of money. Warren Buffett doesn't. It's all about putting things into perspective - but why bother with that?
|
|
nychoya3
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,674
|
Post by nychoya3 on Jan 21, 2011 9:32:32 GMT -5
The 2.5 trillion is an imaginary number. We're talking about discretionary appropriations which are made every year by Congress and signed by the President. Even if the RSC could implement their brilliant agenda of sharp cuts to government spending while unemployment is sitting at 9.4 percent, they cannot commit future Congresses to do the same. Their should be a footnote in their plan that says it assumes total control of the appropriations process for the next ten years by the most conservative wing of the GOP.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jan 21, 2011 13:34:19 GMT -5
The 2.5 trillion is an imaginary number. We're talking about discretionary appropriations which are made every year by Congress and signed by the President. Even if the RSC could implement their brilliant agenda of sharp cuts to government spending while unemployment is sitting at 9.4 percent, they cannot commit future Congresses to do the same. Their should be a footnote in their plan that says it assumes total control of the appropriations process for the next ten years by the most conservative wing of the GOP. I assume you apply the same thinking to the Health Care budget savings?
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Feb 14, 2011 15:02:53 GMT -5
|
|