View Poll Results: Who's to blame for going of the the fiscal cliff?

Voters
83. You may not vote on this poll
  • Democrats

    14 16.87%
  • Republicans

    45 54.22%
  • Other (please elaborate)

    24 28.92%
Page 10 of 17 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 164

Thread: Who's going to take the blame for the fiscal clif

  1. #91
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,137

    Re: Who's going to take the blame for the fiscal clif

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    Budget for fiscal year 2007 was approved by congress and signed by G.W. Bush, Feb 6, 2006. FDsys - Browse BUDGET
    Yet apparently, they deserve no blame for it. Interesting....


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  2. #92
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,137

    Re: Who's going to take the blame for the fiscal clif

    I don't know who will be blamed. I assume that depends on which side's propaganda a person buys into.

    I DO know who's gonna get ****ed in the ass. Pass the vaseline, please.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  3. #93
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    01-22-17 @ 09:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    4,136

    Re: Who's going to take the blame for the fiscal clif

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang View Post
    Receipts minus outlays equals surplus. Since the revisions of 1983, SS has built up more than $2.7 trillion worth of those.
    When we didn't have a recipient to worker ratio of less than 3. https://www.socialsecurity.gov/oact/tr/2011/lr4b2.html
    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang View Post
    R
    Gee, that's exactly the situation the boomers (then aged 19-37) faced back in 1983. They resolved it by raising taxes on themselves. Can anybody here take a hint?

    As for your 2034 number, it's bunk. First of all, the offcial number is 2035, and second of all, it is based on severey pessimistic assumptions. It has only been during the "bad years" of the Great Bush Recession that the projections of the SS trustees have been even close to realistic. Consider that in 1997, they projected the SSTF would be exhausted in 2029. In 2007, they projected it would be exhausted in 2042. So ten years went by (about evenly divided between strong years under Clinton and weaker ones under Bush), but not only did exhaustion fail to get ten years closer, it got three years further away, 35 years to 32. That's a good measure of how distorted the SS trustees reports are. To be sure, all projections are and should be done to the pessimistic side, but SS (and Medicare) have taken things to unjustified extremes.
    1. Why should I have to pay higher taxes into the system to get the same benefits that the last generation got?

    2. Because we had an economic boom=more money into the system. But until our economy starts picking up again, it is merely wishful thinking to just assume that we will return to 4% growth rates and everything will be fine and dandy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang View Post
    R
    Drop the "ticking timebomb" nonsense if you want serious people to take you seriously. All of Medicare's problems arise within the hopelessly inefficient, for-profit, fee-for-service health care system that it is plugged into. PPACA made a long overdue start at redefining our health care financing systems, but while it extended the Part-A actuarial projections by about a decade, there is a lot of work left to be done.
    I agree. Except for the insurance mandate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang View Post
    R
    As for allegations of a looming public sector pension crisis, the whole idea is a corporate, hard-right invention aimed at the trained seals. The argument here is basically that since lack of union protections among other things allowed corporations to plunder and then destroy private sector pension systems, public sector systems now seem attractive by comparison, so to be fair, we'd really better destroy those as well.
    I'd like to see some evidence?
    After all, excessive pension obligations did actually contribute to the auto bailouts and GM going bankrupt.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang View Post
    R
    From your experience in economics thus far, do you consider dead-wieght loss to be a micro effect or a macro effect? How about national tax and revenue sysems?
    Both? Correct me if I'm wrong, but "macro" economics is just the total aggregate of the "micro."

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang View Post
    You will change your mind.
    Do elaborate.

  4. #94
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,595
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Who's going to take the blame for the fiscal clif

    Other is the vote.
    The GOP is split by moderates and extreme tea baggers..Its the extremists who are the problem..
    We do need people to watch these politicians very closely.
    Of course, every Republican who is a Norquist(sp) lackey and refuses to listen to reason re : taxes, should be voted out of office...

  5. #95
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: Who's going to take the blame for the fiscal clif

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    Don't blame us, if you vote for politicians who are irresponsible, you get what you get.
    I'm not "blaming" anyone. That is just the way it is.

  6. #96
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,755

    Re: Who's going to take the blame for the fiscal clif

    You changed the question. The subject of the thread says who is going to take the blame. The answer is obvious, nobody is going to take the blame, they're going to point fingers at the other party. Then you change the question when you get to the actual poll.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  7. #97
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    02-15-14 @ 04:49 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,939

    Re: Who's going to take the blame for the fiscal clif

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    The tax cuts were only for the Rich?
    No, they were merely called that because -- like almost everything Bush ever did -- they were so heavily tilted toward benefitting the already wealthy.

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    Also, the Cuts were put in place before we were attacked. Who knows what would of happened if we hadn't.
    More to the point (and almost anything would be), they were passed before the road to the credit crisis had become clear. But when they failed (as predicted) and the Fed had to jump in to freeze interet rates at 1% in a last-ditch effort to stimulate economic activity, that path became a whole lot clearer.

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    You are correct, I made a mistake, it was the Senate that the Dems controlled in 2001-2002.
    The Senate was 50-50 in 2001, but because Cheney would cast the tie-breaking vote, Republicans were in control. In June 2001 however, Jim Jeffords -- a lifelong Republican fed up with his party's refusal to fund education for the disabled -- left the Republican Party and became an Independent caucusing with the Democrats. That gave them control of the calendar and committee chairs for 18 months.

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    The country was attacked by an enemy which Clinton refused to deal with.
    That's quite irrelevant and also a hoot. Clinton is the guy who was always off on one of those wag-the-dog wild goose chases of his, going after some guy bin Laden when any Republican could have told you that the REAL issue was Monica Lewinsky. Bush on the other hand was the guy who decided that the attack on the USS Cole was a "stale" issue by five months later, so they weren't going to do anything about it. In fact, having been told by outgoing Clinton staff that terrorism would be the number one problem on their watch, the Bush administration completely ignored the matter until they were blind-sided on 9/11.

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    The military was in dismal shape. During Clinton, the military had been drastically cut of Personnel, however, number of squadrons, divisions and other "fighting" units were barely touched, forcing greater utilization rates of remaining personnel. In 2000, the DoD was funded at a staggering $260.8, with just the maintenance cost for the Air Force alone rose to over $100 Billion in the mid 90's.
    All of this is rubbish, and again, what on earth does any of it have to do with the fact that "only" increasing the debt by $5 trillion doesn't quite sound so hot when it was "only" $5.7 trillion to begin with.

    Meanwhile, military and intelligence downsizing had kicked in under Bush-41 concurrent with the fall of the Soviet Union. That's just a matter of historical record. Total obligational authority for DOD was repeatedly cut over Bush's four years, including by 9.8% in 1992 and 8.1% in 1993. Meanwhile, force levels declined by nearly 20% -- from 2,202K to 1,776K.

    And of course Bush-43 would fight his lovely wars in Afghanistan and Iraq using only and exactly the military that Clinton had left to him. You know what they say...

    A commander-in-chief leads the military built by those who came before him. There is little that he or his defense secretary can do to improve the force they have to deploy. It is all the work of previous administrations.
    -- Dick Cheney

    Fortunately, that Clinton hand-me-down military was one that even in the face of declining budgets had moved forward into advanced command and control systems, precision weapons, expanded use of robotics, and communications protocols with real-time links between remote intelligence posts and boots on the ground. JDAMs and drones were Clinton products as well. Every time you hear about what a Predator or Global Hawk did, you should think of Clinton. The overwhelming speed and efficiency of military operations under Bush were owing to the quality and capacity that Bill Clinton had put together for him. Clinton also took care to boost military pay, retirement, and health care benefits -- all of which right-wingers naturally hate him for.

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    Prove that it is "Bush's Great Recession". The Nature and the Origin of the Subprime Mortgage Crisis
    Your blogger source is an illiterate hack who makes almost as many mistakes as you do. Did you check his publications? Almost all are in the Southern Economic Journal. I'd never heard of it, so I looked up its rankings. A well regarded, peer-reviewed journal might have an influence index approaching 100. A few are over 200. The index for the SEJ is 3. That's abysmal. It's vanity journal level. There is meanwhile nothing at all wrong with subprime lending. There is however something wrong with abuse of subprime credit markets. And it was the abuse of subprime and other markets that led to the bad paper that led to the credit crisis that led to the Great Bush Recession. Rather than putting a stop to any of it, Bush egged the abusers on, calling for more and more lending and lifting leverage limits to allow it. Cowboy capitalists enabled and encouraged by the awful fiscal, monetary, and laissez-faire regulatory policies of the Bungler in Chief are what put us into the biggest black hole in 75 years.

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    Clearly the problem started long before Bush took office. Problems were identified and prediction of bailouts being needed in the future were made in 1999, before Bush even ran for office.
    Well yes, the back story includes the Asian and Russian financial crises of the late 1990's that wiped out a significant number of the finance companies, That plus Bush's antagonism toward CRA helped create a credit vacuum in low- and moderate-income communities that unscrupulous private brokers could then easily push into, abusive practices and all;.

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    You can hold that line as long as you wish. But since taking office, yes, approximately $1 Billion went to a stimulus program. Where did the rest go?
    The rest of what? Can you explain what it is you are trying to add up?

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    And even the stimulus had unreasonable political ties in it so some states necessarily rejected it.
    Yet more unfounded slop. Led by right-wing rising star Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina (remember him proudly, right-wingers), a handful of whackjob southern governors walked away from free money for those struggling in their states to make an entirely partisan point. They put their own political needs ahead of the financial needs of people in their states. "Slime" is a good word for those folks.

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    That depends on how you want to define "fair". If they couldn't buy it under previous rules, then the rules should of never been changed. Want a house? Earn it. Don't earn enough, then make yourself more valuable, otherwise STFU.
    We had people being denied credit when they had more assets in the bank they were seeking to borrow from than the amount they were seeking to borrow. Their applications were denied simply because of their street address while similarly situated borrowers in other parts of town were being routinely approved for loans. Does that meet your definition of "fair," or would you oppose practices such as that?

    On the other side of the coin, there has never been any law, policy, rule, or court order requiring anyone to lend anything to anyone who was not qualified for the loan. The fact is that a large contingent of unscrupulous mortgage brokers quite purposely and voluntarily did put people into mortgages they knew full well would fail simply because those mortgages would make a lot of profit for them and for their Wall Street securitizers. Paper-churning for fun and profit. Strip off all the gains, sell off all the risk. After all, I won't be here and you won't be here -- whatever problems will all fall into somebody else's lap. Meanwhile, we'll all get rich.

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    I also never said Bush/Republicans didn't help it along and they certainly didn't stop it. But, they were not the originators of the crises.
    They absolutely WERE the originators of the crisis along with the cowboy capitalists they cheered on and opened doors for and then refused to regulate even when evidence of credit market abuse began piling up to the rafters. Warnings of an eventual crisis building in a stock of poorly underwritten adjustable-rate loans had begun to appear in professional and scholarly writings by late 2003. The chorus grew from there, but it was all ignored. Like the Wall Streeters, the Bush administration wanted its profits now and didn't care about bills that would come due in the future. We tend to descibe that sort of thing with words like "incompetence" and "malfeasance". These were in fact the hallmarks of the entire Bush-43 era.
    Last edited by Cardinal Fang; 12-27-12 at 08:21 AM.

  8. #98
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:10 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,785

    Re: Who's going to take the blame for the fiscal clif

    Quote Originally Posted by johnny_rebson View Post
    Boehner should not comprimise with Obama. The Republicans in DC should let us fall off the fiscal cliff and then blame Obama.

    As shown by this past election season, Republicans lack the communication skills necessary to make a majority of Americans believe anything they might say about the President.
    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
    ~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

  9. #99
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:10 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,785

    Re: Who's going to take the blame for the fiscal clif

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    The retirement age DOES have to go up because of the baby boomer generation. There are SO many retiring and NOT enough younger people working. The baby boomer generation is going to eat up SS, and it will probably be gone by the time I retire, if I ever get to.
    A much simpler and fairer solution would be raising the amount of income subject to FICA (presently at $110,000). If that level were to be raised to say $1,000,000, SS and Medicare - if the funds were protected, remember some guy saying something about a "lockbox" - would be solvent into the foreseeable future
    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
    ~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

  10. #100
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,833

    Re: Who's going to take the blame for the fiscal clif

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    As shown by this past election season, Republicans lack the communication skills necessary to make a majority of Americans believe anything they might say about the President.
    Nah...they don't lack the skill. They lack the media and the tendency to lie repeatedly.
    TANSTAAFL

    “An armed society is a polite society.”
    ― Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon

Page 10 of 17 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... 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
  •