Quote :

"House Republicans vote to cut funds to implement food safety law By Lyndsey Layton, Published: June 16 Arguing that the U.S. food supply is 99 percent safe, House Republicans cut millions of dollars Thursday from the Food and Drug Administration’s budget, denying the agency money to implement landmark food safety laws approved by the last Congress. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-republicans-vote-to-cut-funds-to-implement-food-safety-law/2011/06/16/AGMS82XH_print.html

6/17/2011 11:51:59 PM

You know, when all these wars are finally ended, there will be lots of unemployed soldiers....with BRAC and all, not exactly going to have tons of places for them to go in the military. I guess there is always the contractor route overseas.

6/18/2011 1:22:50 PM

Quote :

"when all these wars are finally ended"

lawlz

6/18/2011 1:23:45 PM

Quote :

"The Florida measure would allow government agencies to collect union dues if the union is engaged in political activities."

and the problem with that is....

6/20/2011 7:12:07 PM

Quote :

"Tax on Companies that ship jobs overseas- A bill that would have eliminated a tax break that companies get when they ship jobs overseas. Republicans blocked this, allowing companies to keep the tax break they receive when they ship jobs to other countries. Political Ad disclosure bill- Would have required all donors to political campaigns to reveal themselves. Republicans blocked this, not once but twice. Subpoena Power for the Committee investigating the BP Oil Spill – Give subpoena power to the independent committee responsible for investigating BP’s roll in the oil spill. Republicans attempted to block this. The Small Business Jobs Act -would give LOCAL, community banks access to billions of dollars to loan to small businesses. Republicans blocked this, then attempted to block it a second time and failed."

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/01/03/bills-republicans-have-blocked/

6/22/2011 11:58:32 AM

Quote :

"Tax on Companies that ship jobs overseas- A bill that would have eliminated a tax break that companies get when they ship jobs overseas. Republicans blocked this, allowing companies to keep the tax break they receive when they ship jobs to other countries."

Company outsources jobs due to too much regulation and taxes. The solution? More regulation and taxes. How clueless can you be?

6/22/2011 12:09:27 PM

Quote :

"Company outsources jobs due to too much regulation and taxes. The solution? More regulation and taxes. How clueless can you be?"

They outsource to bare-footed peasants in 3rd world nations so they get cheaper labor. Why should the taxpayer reward moving jobs out of the US?

[Edited on June 22, 2011 at 12:16 PM. Reason : ...]

6/22/2011 12:16:00 PM

The taxpayer isn't rewarding anyone, the government would be attempting to punish them on behalf of the taxpayer. It's protectionism, plain and simple. This is what the Soviets tried to do, and it failed. If there isn't a natural incentive to keep the business in the country, no amount of regulations or taxes will change that.

6/22/2011 12:25:56 PM

We should be giving tax breaks to corporations for hiring Americans.

6/22/2011 1:35:17 PM

We should be using our diplomats to intimidate foreign countries into giving American companies sweetheart deals, illegal favoritism and military support against protests by indigenous peoples. It's the right way to encourage job creation. It just makes sense.

6/22/2011 1:40:44 PM

Quote :

"More regulation"

How is the elimination of a tax break "more regulation"?

6/22/2011 1:53:33 PM

They're taxed too much to begin with. Throwing them scraps with tax breaks might encouraging them to not outsource, and revoking the tax breaks will achieve the opposite effect.

6/22/2011 2:19:20 PM

Outsourcing is nothing some heavy-handed isolationist tariffs can't fix. Anyone that outsources isn't a real American anyway.

6/22/2011 4:40:45 PM

Quote :

"GOP Blew Up Debt Negotiations To Protect Tax Breaks For People Making $500,000 Or More Republicans chose to “protect taxpayer subsidies for big oil companies, tax breaks for corporate jets, and tax breaks for millionaires” Democrats were proposing to phase out tax deductions and certain credits for people making more than $500,000 a year. These would be paired with a reduction in the tax burden on lower earners, by eliminating existing limitations on their deductions "

6/25/2011 12:52:23 PM

Quote :

"Throwing them scraps with tax breaks might encouraging them to not outsource"

6/25/2011 1:17:10 PM

^this is exactly why we are fucked. We want to raise taxes on one group, while cut it on another. No wonder people with money try like hell to avoid taxes. What we really need is more zero liablity voters.

I really wish we could just go to a fairtax and end all this bullshit political favor games polticians play.

6/25/2011 1:18:01 PM

I prefer the No Tax Plan.

http://fairtaxfraud.com/alternatives.asp#notax

6/25/2011 1:50:25 PM

^

That no-tax plan is new to me, but very intriguing at first glance. It almost seems too simple to work.

6/25/2011 7:38:32 PM

That's because it could never be made into law. The political class wouldn't allow it.

6/25/2011 7:59:16 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/06/25/new.york.gay.marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Quote :

"Albany, New York (CNN) -- The number of Americans living in states covered by same-sex marriage laws has more than doubled after New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed a bill into law that gave gay and lesbian couples the right to marry. Cuomo signed the measure after it passed a Republican-controlled Senate on Friday night, raising questions as to whether the move reflects new momentum in the gay rights movement. Cuomo said the law will grant same-sex couples equal rights to marry "as well as hundreds of rights, benefits and protections that are currently limited to married couples of the opposite sex." A few of those are the right of inheritance, employer health benefits and a host of state tax benefits."

Kudos to those GOP.

6/25/2011 8:48:50 PM

Quote :

"That's because it could never be made into law. The political class wouldn't allow it. "

If by political class you mean the "rich" then you're right. They are the same people pushing the regressive tax structures you and eyedrb both support.

6/25/2011 10:16:07 PM

The No-Tax plan looks like it would prevent the US from becoming an aristocracy.

6/25/2011 10:46:17 PM

Quote :

"They are the same people pushing the regressive tax structures you and eyedrb both support."

Ah, yes. The evil regressive tax that we suffer SO MUCH from today... the sales tax. Oh the humanity. Do you hear people bitching about how much someone pays in income tax vs others, or sales tax? yeah.

I have no problem with wealth or income. I dont feel either should be taxed. For most responsible people you have to work to feed yourself. You invest to take care of yourself when you can no longer work. God forbid you do a good enough job that you have enough for generations after you. People attack the wealthy like they are living ON the system vs living OFF and SUPPORTING it. I just dont understand. Just envy driven.

6/25/2011 11:01:13 PM

If we go into default on our debt obligations due to GOP intransigence, I'm gonna be pretty pissed.

6/27/2011 2:03:24 AM

Quote :

"I just dont understand. Just envy driven."

For me it's economics, not envy. Taxing income acts as an automatic stabilizer for the economy.

6/27/2011 11:54:59 AM

Quote :

"If by political class you mean the "rich" then you're right. They are the same people pushing the regressive tax structures you and eyedrb both support."

No, I don't just mean the rich. The political class is rich, but the rich are not necessarily politically connected. There's a huge difference between the CEO of Goldman Sachs and a guy that started a very successful business and has a net worth of 10 million USD. I consider both "rich," but one has substantial sway in the federal government, and one doesn't. It's a shame that many here aren't willing to make the distinction.

The income tax that you love so much was designed by the rich, for the rich. We've said it many times. The rich pay about the same percent no matter how much marginal tax rates go up or down. Why? Because they have the resources to form tax shelters and get out of paying most of their taxes.

I've suggested a VAT-style tax where basic necessities (like food and energy) are assigned a very low flat tax, while luxury goods (that are usually only available to the affluent) are taxed at a higher flat tax. Our current tax scheme is regressive, partially because the rich don't actually have to pay all their taxes, and partially because the dollar's value is being inflated away...but I'm the one that loves the rich and hates the poor.

6/27/2011 12:04:46 PM

Quote :

"Taxing income acts as an automatic stabilizer for the economy. "

hahah, except when you continue to shrink the amount of people who actually PAY taxes, then it tends to destablize revenue as their income falls.

Prawn, default is going to happen. Openly defaulting is, imo, the best option vs trying to inflate the currency. Defaulting will hurt our credit rating in the short term...but we can get it back. inflating the currency will cause a ton of suffering, mainly in the poor and middle classes.

6/27/2011 12:09:55 PM

Quote :

"If we go into default on our debt obligations due to GOP intransigence, I'm gonna be pretty pissed."

What do you think should be done? Just keep pretending, right?

6/27/2011 12:16:33 PM

The obvious solution is a bipartisan compromise featuring both spending cuts and revenue increases. It's absurd that the GOP would walk away from the negotiating table in order to protect unsustainably low revenues. It's time to overhaul the tax code.

I don't see why they continue to cling to the current, failed tax code that is riddled with loopholes and allows 50% of all households to avoid income tax.

6/27/2011 12:55:56 PM

We should tax wealth. Tax the lazy rich sitting poolside waiting for their dividend check to roll in.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7457140802142500840#

[Edited on June 28, 2011 at 5:22 PM. Reason : Born Rich]

6/28/2011 5:15:50 PM

Quote :

"Taxing income acts as an automatic stabilizer for the economy."

Except for when it doesn't.

6/28/2011 5:24:14 PM

i really think soon people are just going to say enough is enough

its going to get bad when a good chunk of the population won't even be able to afford food

which is likely going to be the case if obama yields like a bitch again and gives the GOP this insane tax break they're asking for in exchange for not destroying our economy

when that happens people are gonna take to the streets and start coming after these rich fucks

and its going to get ugly

6/28/2011 5:39:19 PM

Quote :

""The risks, the costs, the disruptions, and the incalculable damage lead me to but one conclusion: the Senate must pass this legislation before the Congress adjourns." "

-Ronald Reagan on raising the debt ceiling

Republicans want the economy to crash so they can blame Obama and try to win in 2012.

6/29/2011 6:20:31 PM

They raised it 19 times under W. to a tune of $4 trillion without batting an eye yet here is where they draw the line. Please, please, please try and tell me this isn't political....

6/29/2011 6:27:40 PM

It is definitely political.

...but it doesn't change the fact that we're fucked anyway.

6/29/2011 6:36:01 PM

As a fiscal moderate I am apt to agree with you. I don't see why there can't be a hybrid approach of cutting spending while ending things like ethanol and gas subsidies. Also, with food prices supposedly "skyrocketing" then why not stop the practice of paying folks NOT to grow. Republicans don't seem to care about any solution that doesn't involve making the president look bad.

6/29/2011 7:35:34 PM

Ethanol and oil subsidies are small potatoes, irrelevant portions of the budget the Dems are making noise about in order to get people up in arms. It's like funding for planned parenthood. if we get rid of it, great. But it won't even begin to close the deficit. Really, who gives a fuck?

Oil subsidies are about $4 billion annually. The Bush tax cuts cost $350 billion in lost revenues every year. The deficit is at $1.4 trillion. Let's maintain perspective. Deficit reduction must begin with spending cuts, but there must be significant revenue increases as well.

6/30/2011 6:58:44 PM

The things that really have to get cut are the things that no one will talk about cutting, which is why it's hard to take any of these budget talks seriously. It's military spending and entitlement spending. That's what we have to deal with. It is impossible to close the deficit without addressing those issues, and dealing with either will require major reform/reversal of policy.

It's for that reason that I believe the politicians, and most of the people, are in denial. There's absolutely no silver bullet. Any return to a legitimate economy is going to be very painful for some (or all) segments of the population. No one wants to hear that, though.

6/30/2011 7:03:56 PM

What are you talking about? Entitlement spending is the MOST discussed area of cuts.

Politicians are not in denial. Congressmen are in the business of carrying out government in a way that balances personal profit with political esteem. Saving money has nothing to do with it. Can't build F-22s in just one state. Gotta spread it over 46 so everyone gets a piece of that kick-back/job-creating pie.

Congressmen are only going to seek cuts that benefit themselves politically and/or financially. The cuts that do matter will be dismissed with waffling rationale. Smart politicians don't spend political capital on issues that most people don't care about. That is the cental problem; the public in general doesn't know what it needs and rallys around over-simplified and emptional concepts like "Not in my backyard" and "Think of the children". Thus, we get the legislation we deserve: shitter-nut pie.

7/1/2011 9:37:23 AM

Quote :

"What are you talking about? Entitlement spending is the MOST discussed area of cuts."

Among politicians? To clear something up, when I talk about entitlements, I really mean Social Security and Medicare. No serious reform is being talked about for those right now. Politicians speak in generalities, but won't get into specifics. Why? I think you already hit on it: because it's not in anyone's political best interest to do so.

In Greece, the reality has set in, the people are suddenly realizing that the government over-promised, and they're not happy. It'll be interesting when the general public here realizes the same thing.

7/1/2011 11:09:19 AM

Quote :

"Congressmen are only going to seek cuts that benefit themselves politically and/or financially."

Damn skippy. I almost broke my damned radio the other day when I heard some Democrat lackey talking about the budget stuff, and she said "yeah, the 'pubs want to do all these cuts, but raising taxes on those making more than 500k is more popular." Well NO FUCK it's more popular, people are always happy to make someone else suffer if they, themselves, can get off scott-free. it really pissed me off.

Quote :

"In Greece, the reality has set in, the people are suddenly realizing that the government over-promised, and they're not happy."

Yeah, this is what is so freaking incredible to me. Do the people there not realize that the have zero money to pay for that shit? What, exactly, do they want? Continue giving out all the freebies that they can't afford that no one will lend them money to give out? I mean, are they really that fucking stupid?

[Edited on July 1, 2011 at 3:20 PM. Reason : ]

7/1/2011 3:18:31 PM

Yall do know the Bush era tax cuts counts for about $4 trillion in the deficit? Let those expire we will be in better shape.....the GOP just doesnt want to raise taxes on the rich. In a couple years (if those are extended) it will count 5 to 6 trillion against the deficit. Sooner or later, those tax breaks (all of them) will have to expire, we simple cannot afford them much longer.

7/4/2011 2:03:15 PM

The deficit is at $1.4 trillion. I know what you are trying to say, but your post makes no sense.

[Edited on July 5, 2011 at 3:17 AM. Reason : 2]

7/5/2011 3:15:34 AM

it's fun to regurgitate DNC and Keith Olbermann talking points without actually looking at facts. Do tell, roddy, are the cuts you are talking about only the ones for the wealthy, or are they the ones for everyone? Just trying to see if you are playing class warfare

7/5/2011 8:01:55 AM

Quote :

"If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century: trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred million dollars of revenue increases. A normal Republican Party would seize the opportunity to put a long-term limit on the growth of government. It would seize the opportunity to put the country on a sound fiscal footing. It would seize the opportunity to do these things without putting any real crimp in economic growth. The party is not being asked to raise marginal tax rates in a way that might pervert incentives. On the contrary, Republicans are merely being asked to close loopholes and eliminate tax expenditures that are themselves distortionary. This, as I say, is the mother of all no-brainers. But we can have no confidence that the Republicans will seize this opportunity. That’s because the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=1&src=rechp

7/5/2011 4:20:34 PM

Quote :

"If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century: trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred million dollars of revenue increases. "

Trillions of dollars in spending cuts...over what period of time? You're in denial, buddy. We need to cut trillions out of the deficit in the near-term. Any promises made by Congress to cut spending in the future will not be kept.

Congress is delusional, and so are most Americans.

7/5/2011 4:25:34 PM

Quote :

"It's protectionism, plain and simple. This is what the Soviets tried to do, and it failed."

This argument is silly. "This thing...the Soviets did it so it's bad." At that level of superficiality it's about as effective as "you know who else was vegetarian? Hitler." Not to mention, by this rationale, we're all communists the world over.

Every nation engages in protectionism. Until you let all barriers to trade down in concert, there's going to be trickery in trade laws. If "free trade" existed, all nations would sign trade deals that are 1 page long with each other. They don't, and they won't, so drop the idealism. I'd rather focus on smart trade and playing up our advantages the same way every other export powerhouse does, first by attaching a green card to every PhD granted in this country.

[Edited on July 5, 2011 at 5:39 PM. Reason : x]

7/5/2011 5:38:02 PM

Quote :

"This argument is silly. "This thing...the Soviets did it so it's bad.""

Except that's not the argument. The argument is "The Soviets tried to do this exact thing, it didn't work, therefore we should not repeat their mistake." Next time someone asks for a blatant example of a straw man, I'll refer them to this thread.

If regulations and taxes are making it hard to start and grow a business, that's a major problem for economic growth, especially if other countries offer a much better business environment. Protectionism is really just mercantalism rebranded.

7/5/2011 5:48:30 PM

Quote :

" S&P Would Lower U.S. Credit Rating to D on Failure to Increase Debt Limit June 30 (Bloomberg) -- Jerome Fons, an executive vice president at Kroll Bond Ratings Inc., discusses the outlook for the U.S. credit rating if the government fails to increase the debt limit, leading to a default. Standard & Poor’s said it would lower the U.S.'s sovereign top-level AAA ranking to D and Moody’s Investors Service said it will probably reduce its rating if the U.S. can't pay its debt. Fons speaks with Erik Schatzker on Bloomberg Television's "InsideTrack." (Source: Bloomberg) "

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-29/moody-s-would-likely-cut-u-s-debt-rating-to-aa-range-in-event-of-default.html

Greece's rating is triple C right now and ours will be worse if the GOP keeps fucking around.

7/6/2011 2:34:20 PM

The U.S.'s credit rating should be worse. There's literally zero possibility that we will legitimately pay back all of our debts. Someone is going to get fucked over. If your income was 45k a year, but your total outstanding debt was something like 150k, would your only solution be to take out more debt so you could continue living how you wanted to live? I would hope not. You'd work with your creditors, figure out how you could substantially reduce your expenditures, and hopefully restructure the debt (default).

Default has to happen, end of discussion. There's no way out of this mess. We either accept a pretty bad depression, or we'll get the Greatest Depression. If you want to buy into the dog and pony show that is Congress, that's great, but both parties are in complete denial, and so are you.

7/6/2011 2:52:42 PM