Page 7 of 15 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 144

Thread: Senate says 'no' to federal debt commission Obama endorsed

  1. #61
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: Senate says 'no' to federal debt commission Obama endorsed

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I am *very* concerned about what this illustrates about the dysfunction of our Congress. The Senate can no longer even bring itself to appoint a commission to PROPOSE ways of reducing the deficit. The Republicans have steadfastly refused to compromise on any tax increases, and some Democrats are worried that the commission will propose entitlement cuts. How can we ever hope to get our finances under control if these suggestions are both off-limits forever?

    We need some serious reform of the legislative process itself, lest our Congress becomes as dysfunctional as the Italian Parliament. We need to either adopt Sen. Harkin's proposal to ease cloture requirements, or go back to the old Senate rules of requiring those in favor of a filibuster to actually filibuster.

    And I'm in favor of even more commissions like these in lieu of the dysfunctional manner in which Congress usually handles financial matters. If it was up to me, we'd have technocrats writing the legislation for just about all economic issues, with Congress only getting to vote yes or no.
    This wasn't a "Budget reducing" anything. It was an attempt to create a work around of the filibuster.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  2. #62
    Student pugetsoundwa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    02-10-10 @ 01:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    252

    Re: Senate says 'no' to federal debt commission Obama endorsed

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Interestingly, only 16 republicans voted for this. I think it is time for republicans to give up their claim of fiscal conservatism.
    Its long since past time. Reagan proved beyond doubt that he was no Fiscal Conservative. Thus any Repub who claims they are a Ronald Reagan Conservative will never get my vote. Amazing how they have re-written history to make him appear greater then he was.

  3. #63
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Senate says 'no' to federal debt commission Obama endorsed

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    This wasn't a "Budget reducing" anything.
    I didn't say budget reducing. The commission was supposed to investigate ways of reducing the deficit. That could include budget reductions, tax hikes, or a combination of the two. If the senators objected to the commission because they supported deficit spending during a recession, that's perfectly understandable and I could respect that. But Republicans opposed it because the commission might suggest tax hikes, and Democrats opposed it because the commission might suggest entitlement cuts. This is grossly irresponsible. We *have* to get the deficit under control in the long-term...and if those are both off-limits it's very difficult.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio
    It was an attempt to create a work around of the filibuster.
    As I just mentioned, that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. Congress has lost its ability to govern in the last 20 years (and is constantly getting worse), due to stringent filibuster requirements.

    I like Sen. Harkin's suggestion to have a cloture vote require 60 votes the first day, then 57 votes two days later, then 54 votes two days later, then 51 votes two days later. This would ensure that Congress would actually be able to debate the issue (which is what the filibuster is all about, ostensibly) but would allow them to move on with business once it had majority support. Alternatively, if we went back to the old system of requiring filibuster-supporting congressmen to actually filibuster, Mr. Smith-style, then it would simply become an endurance match and Congress would eventually be able to move on with its business once the opponents stopped talking.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 01-27-10 at 02:04 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  4. #64
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,263

    Re: Senate says 'no' to federal debt commission Obama endorsed

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    Let's compare three states.

    New York
    California
    Texas

    So there we go.

    New York, Cali, going broke.

    Texas, sitting pretty.
    Poor correlation, but what can i expect. Are you aware of the state budgets when the US economy is not in recession? Comparing a right to work state to non RTW states is questionable as well.

    Care to answer any questions i have asked?
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  5. #65
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Senate says 'no' to federal debt commission Obama endorsed

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I am *very* concerned about what this illustrates about the dysfunction of our Congress. The Senate can no longer even bring itself to appoint a commission to PROPOSE ways of reducing the deficit. The Republicans have steadfastly refused to compromise on any tax increases, and some Democrats are worried that the commission will propose entitlement cuts. How can we ever hope to get our finances under control if these suggestions are both off-limits forever?

    We need some serious reform of the legislative process itself, lest our Congress becomes as dysfunctional as the Italian Parliament. We need to either adopt Sen. Harkin's proposal to ease cloture requirements, or go back to the old Senate rules of requiring those in favor of a filibuster to actually filibuster.

    And I'm in favor of even more commissions like these in lieu of the dysfunctional manner in which Congress usually handles financial matters. If it was up to me, we'd have technocrats writing the legislation for just about all economic issues, with Congress only getting to vote yes or no.
    These are all valid points, and I'm strugging with my own hesitation toward this panel because I wholeheartedly support the creation of similar things in other areas, such as in Medicare/aid. I think I've come up with the reasons why:

    1) The decisions on what types of procedures to cover and how much to pay for them would be made by apolitical experts, and
    2) The decisions on what types of procedures to cover and how much to pay for them would affect the citizenry with little correlation to political position or ideology.

    In the case of the proposed panel, I'm much less trusting because the people making the decisions will be self-interested politicians subject to the forces of their parties at large, and because there are many ways to cut spending or raise taxes that would disproportionately harm one group over another.

    If there were a way to impanel a group of experts that would be as apolitical as possible (maybe including some former legislatures) that would propose a few sets of recommendations, I would be much more supportive.

    Another note:

    As bad as some of you might see the rejection of this panel as being, it could very well be a good thing. Imagine that the panel is enacted and is seated with 10 Democrats and 8 Republicans. The recommendations aren't released until after the Nov. elections, so Congress spends the next 10 months ignoring the problem of the deficit simply because they've delegated it to someone else to deal with. The elections happen and the Republicans pick up a handful of seats due to disillusionment among the Democrat base, making the political stakes that much higher. With that background, I can very easily see the Democrats coming forward with a proposal that would be very friendly to their base in order to get them back, with the Republicans on the panel being stridently opposed in order to try to highlight the partisanship.

    The end result is that we'll have wasted 10 months, increased the rancor in DC, gotten absolutely nothing passed, and will have turned Congress and the public off of the idea of creating panels like this that could be so useful in other scenarios.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  6. #66
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: Senate says 'no' to federal debt commission Obama endorsed

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Poor correlation, but what can i expect. Are you aware of the state budgets when the US economy is not in recession? Comparing a right to work state to non RTW states is questionable as well.

    Care to answer any questions i have asked?
    No, not really. I don't see the point. All you'll do is dodge, obfuscate and ignore what doesn't fit your preconceived notion that higher taxes = good, lower taxes = rich get richer.

    The sign of a good healthy state budget is one that can survive in hard economic times. And as for the "RTW" issue, ya think just MAYBE that might be part of the PROBLEM in those states? Somehow, I doubt you'd admit that.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  7. #67
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,263

    Re: Senate says 'no' to federal debt commission Obama endorsed

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    No, not really. I don't see the point. All you'll do is dodge, obfuscate and ignore what doesn't fit your preconceived notion that higher taxes = good, lower taxes = rich get richer.
    Not my opinion at all. You see, i am not a political hack unlike you and your brethren. Higher taxes = bad, lower taxes = good. However..... Lower taxes and higher spending during non recession years = bad. Lower taxes = bad when you are fighting a mighty expensive war. Higher taxes = good when your debt ceiling is constantly being raised.

    But lets get back to the questions i have posed to you. Why is it you have neglected to answer them?

    The sign of a good healthy state budget is one that can survive in hard economic times. And as for the "RTW" issue, ya think just MAYBE that might be part of the PROBLEM in those states? Somehow, I doubt you'd admit that.
    Not sure about Texas, but the quality of construction in Florida (RTW) is about as bad as i have ever seen. So much so, that firms/government frequently hire in union companies from Chicago to meet contractual time constraints.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  8. #68
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: Senate says 'no' to federal debt commission Obama endorsed

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Not my opinion at all. You see, i am not a political hack unlike you and your brethren. Higher taxes = bad, lower taxes = good. However..... Lower taxes and higher spending during non recession years = bad. Lower taxes = bad when you are fighting a mighty expensive war. Higher taxes = good when your debt ceiling is constantly being raised.
    GB, you are a hack. You're also economically impaired. You claim you are enlightened, yet you ignore that lower taxes generates higher revenues. Higher taxes may give a short term boost but are long term detrimental.
    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    But lets get back to the questions i have posed to you. Why is it you have neglected to answer them?
    It's not negligence, it's choice. You're playing the bumper sticker logic game. I.E. populations grew over 20 years, so that is the OBVIOUS source of the added revenue, not the lower tax induced economic activity.

    The typical answer of a dishonest person, which you are.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post

    Not sure about Texas, but the quality of construction in Florida (RTW) is about as bad as i have ever seen. So much so, that firms/government frequently hire in union companies from Chicago to meet contractual time constraints.
    That's great, I don't recall bringing Florida into the discussion.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  9. #69
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Senate says 'no' to federal debt commission Obama endorsed

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    GB, you are a hack. You're also economically impaired. You claim you are enlightened, yet you ignore that lower taxes generates higher revenues. Higher taxes may give a short term boost but are long term detrimental.
    I think his point is that neither extreme works, so we have to reach a middleground that balances individual interests with the need for revenue and economic growth.

    Neither a 99% tax nor a 1% tax would raise much money.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  10. #70
    Student pugetsoundwa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    02-10-10 @ 01:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    252

    Re: Senate says 'no' to federal debt commission Obama endorsed

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    Let's compare three states.

    New York
    California
    Texas








    So there we go.

    New York, Cali, going broke.

    Texas, sitting pretty.
    New York and California also receive the least federal funds of the 3 states.

    The Tax Foundation - Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2005

Page 7 of 15 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •