Support NeoGAF

[ClovingWestbrook]

I would be in favor of a five or ten year balanced budget amendment

Why would you be in favor of something that limits how we can react to a particular situation or the ebbs and flow of the economy?

 

[gcubed]

why again do we need to even entertain SS cuts?

 

[Skiptastic]

I would be in favor of a five or ten year balanced budget amendment

I don't like it. I'd be much more in favor of Congress doing cost over time analysis in their budgets. For example, using cheaper asphalt which needs to be repaved every other year versus a better asphalt that only needs to be repaved once a decade. The economy is too up and down to attempt to balance the budget.

Besides, taking on new debt is necessary during hard times. Congress is just bad at dialing back spending when the hard times are past. You use that time to make back some of the money you spent on new debt and to avoid crowding out private investment/business.

 

[knitoe]

Why would you be in favor of something that limits how we can react to a particular situation or the ebbs and flow of the economy?

Congress budget never limits emergency spending. Like, how the President keeps on asking and getting more money for Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[GaimeGuy]

why again do we need to even entertain SS cuts?

we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Doing something like removing the social security wage base limit on taxable income doesn't fix spending problems

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Congress budget never limits emergency spending. Like, how the President keeps on asking and getting more money for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Defense is one thing. Obama unlike Bush doesn't include Afghan/Iraq funds outside of the defense budget. Again, why would folks be in favor of a constitutional budget amendment?

 

[A Human Becoming]

Why would you be in favor of something that limits how we can react to a particular situation or the ebbs and flow of the economy?

He probably doesn't want future president like Obama writing blank checks.

 

[gcubed]

we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Doing something like removing the social security wage base limit on taxable income doesn't fix spending problems

sarcasm i hope?

Its not SS's fault that is full of IOUs as its surplus was raped and pillaged for other purposes. Even then the offset of SS is a single generation issue

 

[besada]

So, Perry's for a Federal Marriage Amendment and Bachmann says her husband is off limits.

I'm always fascinated by politicians who think saying something is off limits has any effect other than to drive media to focus on it.

 

[Plumbob]

Why would you be in favor of something that limits how we can react to a particular situation or the ebbs and flow of the economy?

That's why it would be over five or ten years, not year-by-year.

Regardless of whether we have a revenue problem or a spending problem, we definitely have a deficit problem that I doubt will go away once the economy begins recovering. In good times, we cut taxes, in bad times we pass stimulus. I'm interested in changing our behavior during the good times, but that only happens with legal restrictions.

 

[Chichikov]

That's been my problem with the GOP since they took the house. They have been clearly disingenous about spending cuts the entire time. First it was to 'roll back' all spending to 2008 levels (why not 2000 or 2004?), then it was the government shutdown where they proposed a paltry list of cuts (but all their proposals were for Democrat pet projects like Planned Parenthood and Public Broadcasting) now it's for less cuts than other plans AND a renewal of this debate next year. An election year.

So, every step of the way their spending cuts have been more politically motivated than actually for real concern about the systemic spending problems within our government.

The entire thrust of cutting is politically motivated.
They oppose the new deal and the great society, they'e ideologically against things like medicare and social security.

And by the way, in and by itself there's nothing wrong with that, the problem is that they try to frame it as a concern about jobs, solvency or whatever.
Do you really think that they liked a single payer system for seniors when we had a surplus?
Did they thought unemployment benefits was a good idea when the economy is booming?

Let's get real here.
There's definitely a serious debate to be had about our welfare system, but it should be done honestly.
Though I seriously doubt the GOP will do it anytime soon, they know they get killed in the polls if they do.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Congress budget never limits emergency spending. Like, how the President keeps on asking and getting more money for Iraq and Afghanistan.

I don't think yo uunderstand what an amendment means, then.

IT would forbid congress from doing something budgetary that guaranteed a non-balanced budget over a 5 year period.

What's also stupid about the idea is that congress changes every 2 years. The entier house and 1/3rd of the senate. One session of congress would be budgetarily restricted by the actions of the previoius congress. It would make budgets a huge political tool, as well when major power swings are expected in government.

It's just a terrible, terrible idea.

 

[GaimeGuy]

sarcasm i hope?

Its not SS's fault that is full of IOUs as its surplus was raped and pillaged for other purposes. Even then the offset of SS is a single generation issue

Yes, sarcasm. And I know about how the immediate problems with SS are a short term isue caused by the relative size of the baby boomer generation to the next generation

 

[empty vessel]

I would be in favor of a five or ten year balanced budget amendment

There's nothing wrong with a flexible balanced budget amendment (emphasis on the flexible). The important political question is how the budget is balanced. We already spend among the lowest of all industrialized countries (a component of which includes the highest military spending of all industrialized countries). Slashing spending even more will literally destroy this country. It has a barely functioning government that is wholly inadequate to protect American workers and consumers from predatory corporations as it stands. Indeed, the very point of further reductions in spending is to make us even more vulnerable, and reduce labor and consumer bargaining power lower than the abysmal level it already is. This is why the Republican party cares so much what kind of spending is cut, and why none of their bills touch defense spending (which favors business interests). Republicans, their business backers, and their manipulated tea party warm bodies, are attempting to deliver the coup de grace to the US right now.

The threat is less default or a downgrade in rating so much as it is a steep and long term decline in the American standard of living due to the spending cuts that Republicans are attempting to impose and will continue to try to impose until we get our pitchforks out and stop them. And it is up to us to stop them.

why again do we need to even entertain SS cuts?

We don't. It's a pretext intended to reduce benefits and thereby reduce labor bargaining power. As Chichikov said, it's all a pretext, because the underlying concern is actually bargaining power of the American worker and consumer (or, to put it differently, the power of control over the American worker and consumer by corporate businesses).

 

[gcubed]

Yes, sarcasm. And I know about how the immediate problems with SS are a short term isue caused by the relative size of the baby boomer generation to the next generation

the 2nd part wasn't directed at you, just another "SS cuts are bullshit" followup

 

[Joe]

isn't SS completely funded for?

 

[ronito]

I find it funny how many tea partiers are all for a balanced budget admendment, yet they have 2nd mortgages, a $30,000 SUV car loan and are up to their eyeballs in debt.

 

[Chichikov]

What does a balanced amendment even means in practice?
That the US government can't issue any more bonds?

I find it funny how many tea partiers are all for a balanced budget admendment, yet they have 2nd mortgages, a $30,000 SUV car loan and are up to their eyeballs in debt.

Comparing the US budget to family finance is not particularly useful.
Even when it's in a support of something I agree with.

 

[besada]

I find it funny how many tea partiers are all for a balanced budget admendment, yet they have 2nd mortgages, a $30,000 SUV car loan and are up to their eyeballs in debt.

Not any stranger than the number of them who receive various forms of government aid while screaming about the evils of welfare.

 

[BotoxAgent]

My friend's mom is a huge TEA party supporter....and bitches about Obama and
govt spending.

The kicker is that she doesn't work and collects checks from the govt.

And when she was in her usual Obama rant over dinner once, I pointed out her hypocrisy and she kicked me out of the house.


LOL

these people are seriously broken inside the head.

 

[ToxicAdam]

I find it funny how many tea partiers are all for a balanced budget admendment, yet they have 2nd mortgages, a $30,000 SUV car loan and are up to their eyeballs in debt.

Any stats to back this up?

 

[Bishman]

New White House talking point: House GOP plan will ruin your Christmas

By Greg Sargent

With the debate heavily focused on comparisons of the spending cuts in the Harry Reid and John Boehner proposals, the fact that Boehner’s approach would put us all through another bruising debt ceiling debate in six months has not received the attention Democrats had hoped for.

So the White House is circulating a new set of talking points to outside allies and surrogates, instructing them on a new way to make this case: If Boehner has his way, the debt ceiling debate will steal Christmas.

Here are the key bits from the talking points, which were sent over by a source:

Today, the House will vote on Speaker Boehner’s proposal, but that vote does nothing to move the country closer to a solution.

• To be clear: This bill is dead on arrival in the Senate and there is zero chance this makes it to the President’s desk...
  
• Rather than compromising for the sake of the country, the House GOP continues to play politics with the full faith and credit of the United States -- even saying that their strategy is to tell the country to “take it or leave it” and blame the President for default.
  
• Under the Boehner bill, we will be right back into this debate during the holiday season, which is the most important time in the year for our economy.

Of course, the fact that the Boehner plan would force another fight over the debt ceiling is one of the things that recommends it to Republicans: They want him to hike the debt ceiling again just as the reelection campaign is heating up. But by pointing out that this could spark another massive political battle over the holidays — the most important time of the year for our economy — the White House is hoping to dramatize the unpleasantness of this prospect in a way that might grab more media and public attention.​

 

[quaere]

So, Perry's for a Federal Marriage Amendment

Wow. I award Perry both "most blatant flip flop" and "most illogical argument" of the campaign so far, and at the same time too. This guy is off to a good start.

"The real fear is states like New York will change the definition of marriage for Texas," he said. "That is the reason the Federal Marriage Amendment is being offered. It's a small group of activists judges and really a small handful, if you will, of states and these liberal special interest groups that are intent on a redefinition, if you will, of marriage on the nation for all of us, which I adamantly oppose. Indeed, to not pass the Federal Marriage Amendment would impinge on Texas' and other states' right not to have marriage forced upon them by these activist judges and these special interest groups."

 

[ronito]

Any stats to back this up?

Average american has $14,000 in credit card debt.
You gonna say Tea Partiers don't feed into that number?

What I'm trying to get across is that a balanced budget is nice. But as anyone who's come up against an unforeseen circumstance you need the ability to go into the red. Companies do it all the time. Wanna fund a war? How you going to do that? Economic downturn? Well, what are you going to do? I'm all for fiscal responsibility. But you gotta have flexibility.

 

[Averon]

Wow. I award Perry both "most blatant flip flop" and "most illogical argument" of the campaign so far, and at the same time too. This guy is off to a good start.

Perry is a blatant panderer to right-wing social issues. I'm not surprised in the least with this.

 

[Escape Goat]

My friend's mom is a huge TEA party supporter....and bitches about Obama and
govt spending.

The kicker is that she doesn't work and collects checks from the govt.

And when she was in her usual Obama rant over dinner once, I pointed out her hypocrisy and she kicked me out of the house.


LOL

these people are seriously broken inside the head.

She is a douche but she has that right. Its her house. You acted the fool after being invited as a guest at the dinner table. Time and place for everything, Botox.

 

[jmdajr]

My friend's mom is a huge TEA party supporter....and bitches about Obama and
govt spending.

The kicker is that she doesn't work and collects checks from the govt.

And when she was in her usual Obama rant over dinner once, I pointed out her hypocrisy and she kicked me out of the house.


LOL

these people are seriously broken inside the head.

wow that's hilarious

 

[besada]

Wow. I award Perry both "most blatant flip flop" and "most illogical argument" of the campaign so far, and at the same time too. This guy is off to a good start.

He's special, in several meanings of the word.

 

[Chichikov]

New White House talking point: House GOP plan will ruin your Christmas

By Greg Sargent

With the debate heavily focused on comparisons of the spending cuts in the Harry Reid and John Boehner proposals, the fact that Boehner’s approach would put us all through another bruising debt ceiling debate in six months has not received the attention Democrats had hoped for.

So the White House is circulating a new set of talking points to outside allies and surrogates, instructing them on a new way to make this case: If Boehner has his way, the debt ceiling debate will steal Christmas.

Here are the key bits from the talking points, which were sent over by a source:

Today, the House will vote on Speaker Boehner’s proposal, but that vote does nothing to move the country closer to a solution.

• To be clear: This bill is dead on arrival in the Senate and there is zero chance this makes it to the President’s desk...
  
• Rather than compromising for the sake of the country, the House GOP continues to play politics with the full faith and credit of the United States -- even saying that their strategy is to tell the country to “take it or leave it” and blame the President for default.
  
• Under the Boehner bill, we will be right back into this debate during the holiday season, which is the most important time in the year for our economy.

Of course, the fact that the Boehner plan would force another fight over the debt ceiling is one of the things that recommends it to Republicans: They want him to hike the debt ceiling again just as the reelection campaign is heating up. But by pointing out that this could spark another massive political battle over the holidays — the most important time of the year for our economy — the White House is hoping to dramatize the unpleasantness of this prospect in a way that might grab more media and public attention.​

And they continue to focus on the bullshit.
Remember the good old days when a balance approach and increase revenue was all the rage?
Yeah, good times.

Just watch how Obama sign a giant cut bill with no revenue increase, declare victory and get blamed when it tanks the economy (and by the way, he should get the blame).

Worst. negotiator. ever.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Reasons not to think that a third party would make this debate less stupid. Alas.

Rick Perry: Those are gymnastics worthy of a 10-year old Chinese girl. (no way in hell those kids were 14.)

 

[ToxicAdam]

Average american has $14,000 in credit card debt.
You gonna say Tea Partiers don't feed into that number?

This isn't a serious argument. Ronito, you're lucky you're a liberal here. If a conservative made an argument as weak as this, he would be laughed out of the thread.

You used the the word 'many' which would imply most or a sizeable amount. The onus is on you to prove your claim. Otherwise you are talking out of your ass.

What I'm trying to get across is that a balanced budget is nice. But as anyone who's come up against an unforeseen circumstance you need the ability to go into the red. Companies do it all the time. Wanna fund a war? How you going to do that? Economic downturn? Well, what are you going to do? I'm all for fiscal responsibility. But you gotta have flexibility.

Provisions and language can easily be made to circumvent balanced budgets in times of crisis like you describe.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Not any stranger than the number of them who receive various forms of government aid while screaming about the evils of welfare.

heh, I know this one cop who is going back to school. Gets all kinds of government assistance/grants (not to mention his paycheck is directly from taxes) rants all day on facebook about government spending and taxes are to high.

 

[besada]

heh, I know this one cop who is going back to school. Gets all kinds of government assistance/grants (not to mention his paycheck is directly from taxes) rants all day on facebook about government spending and taxes are to high.

There's a lot of cognitive dissonance going on in people who want restrict help from the government. There always has been. The Tea Party has simply raised it to a new level.

 

[vas_a_morir]

She is a douche but she has that right. Its her house. You acted the fool after being invited as a guest at the dinner table. Time and place for everything, Botox.

Nobody is arguing she didn't have the right to do that... but I tell you, SHE acted the fool. If you can't handle dissenting opinion on a subject, you should not broach the subject. That's like when you beat your friend playing Genesis, and they kick you out. Beyond childish.

 

[worldrunover]

Average american has $14,000 in credit card debt.
You gonna say Tea Partiers don't feed into that number?

What I'm trying to get across is that a balanced budget is nice. But as anyone who's come up against an unforeseen circumstance you need the ability to go into the red. Companies do it all the time. Wanna fund a war? How you going to do that? Economic downturn? Well, what are you going to do? I'm all for fiscal responsibility. But you gotta have flexibility.

War tax. Somehow I think we'd be getting into a lot less wars.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

This isn't a serious argument. Ronito, you're lucky you're a liberal here. If a conservative made an argument as weak as this, he would be laughed out of the thread.

You used the the word 'many' which would imply most or a sizeable amount. Which would imply the a sizeable majority. The onus is on you to prove a claim. Otherwise you are talking out of your ass.

We can laugh conservatives out of the thread? Could have sworn I'd tried that.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/keep-your-government-hands-off-my-government-programs/

 

[BotoxAgent]

She is a douche but she has that right. Its her house. You acted the fool after being invited as a guest at the dinner table. Time and place for everything, Botox.

I just couldn't take it anymore, lol. Her son always tells me to practice restraint whenever she's around.

And she's always non-stop. And says a lot of crazy things. She even says that Obama is racist against italians (wut!? lol). The family is italian.

I feel like I am taking crazy pills!!

 

[Escape Goat]

Nobody is arguing she didn't have the right to do that... but I tell you, SHE acted the fool. If you can't handle dissenting opinion on a subject, you should not broach the subject. That's like when you beat your friend playing Genesis, and they kick you out. Beyond childish.

Its her house. He was a guest. You don't talk politics at the dinner table.

 

[speculawyer]

Big Oil reaps big profit in 2Q as fuel price soar

Of course we can't cut their subsidies since GOPers signed a pledge with Grover and that would be considered a 'tax hike'.

Ideologically brain dead. These over-the-top phrases like 'suicide death cult' are hyperbole since it is not physical death but they are completely accurate on the blind-faith ideological purity aspect of it.


We are not even talking about taxing them more . . . this is about SUBSIDIES that they receive. That is crazy.

 

[ToxicAdam]

We can laugh conservatives out of the thread? Could have sworn I'd tried that.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/keep-your-government-hands-off-my-government-programs/

You're providing a link with no context. What is it implying in relation to what me and Ronito were discussing?

 

[vas_a_morir]

Its her house. He was a guest. You don't talk politics at the dinner table.

Maybe it's just Southern culture where this is true, but only complete trash would treat their guests that way. SHE is to blame for bringing it up. The burden is NEVER on the guest.

 

[besada]

Its her house. He was a guest. You don't talk politics at the dinner table.

If you don't want people to question your politics, it's incumbent on you to keep your mouth shut. Once you start talking, you've opened the door for the discussion. A reasonable host keeps their politics to themselves. Those that can't manage it, should expect to be challenged.

This isn't a serious argument. Ronito, you're lucky you're a liberal here. If a conservative made an argument as weak as this, he would be laughed out of the thread.

Your sense of persecution grows more all the time. Soon you'll be ready to be a real conservative. His argument is more serious than most you've put forward lately, and it's not that hard to understand. Most Americans are in personal debt, and since the Tea Party is largely representative of the general population, it would be hard to understand how they aren't in debt. It's not that complicated. Of course, most liberals are also in debt, but the difference is that you don't hear liberals shouting about how terrible the debt is.

 

[Shake Appeal]

There's nothing wrong with a flexible balanced budget amendment (emphasis on the flexible). The important political question is how the budget is balanced. We already spend among the lowest of all industrialized countries (a component of which includes the highest military spending of all industrialized countries). Slashing spending even more will literally destroy this country. It has a barely functioning government that is wholly inadequate to protect American workers and consumers from predatory corporations as it stands. Indeed, the very point of further reductions in spending is to make us even more vulnerable, and reduce labor and consumer bargaining power lower than the abysmal level it already is. This is why the Republican party cares so much what kind of spending is cut, and why none of their bills touch defense spending (which favors business interests). Republicans, their business backers, and their manipulated tea party warm bodies, are attempting to deliver the coup de grace to the US right now.

If only there was a way to put this succinctly on billboards across the land.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

You're providing a link with no context. What is it implying in relation to what me and Ronito were discussing?

Simply providing further evidence that significant numbers of the beneficiaries of government spending are not aware that they are disposed thus.

Do you only ever click on links when someone explains them first?

 

[empty vessel]

There's a lot of cognitive dissonance going on in people who want restrict help from the government. There always has been. The Tea Party has simply raised it to a new level.

Yep, it goes back being ashamed to needing "help." But the problem isn't that feeling (I think that's pretty universal) so much as the perception of government services as "help" instead of as efficient ways to organize our collective business. This is why I hate means-testing programs (and why Republicans--and now, apparently, Democrats also--love it), because it enhances the perception of government as providing 'help' and transferring resources from person A to person B instead of as providing all citizens a service that they pay for through taxes. Because government services are widely available to the middle class in Europe, they are more likely to view the government as an efficient service-provider rather than social-engineering welfare-provider to 'lucky duckies.'

 

[Byakuya769]

I've run across quite a few people who want to spout their political bullshit, then get angry when you have the audacity to challenge it. (on both sides admittedly, but the conservatives are more vocal in my circles)

 

[Wilsongt]

So, Perry's for a Federal Marriage Amendment and Bachmann says her husband is off limits.

I'm always fascinated by politicians who think saying something is off limits has any effect other than to drive media to focus on it.

I can see it now.

"President Bachmann, President Bachmann! How long have you known that your husband enjoys gobbling a fat cock?"

 

[mckmas8808]

The dems don't give leadership positions to ideologues traditionally, or the best policy wonks. It's all based on seniority.

Guys like Harry Reid and Max Baucus are basically goldwater republicans. If someone like Al Franken were in charge of proceedings you'd see a much different result. As it stands, conservatives hold the majority in the house and most of the powerful positions in the senate.

Remember, pretty much every liberal policy passed by the house when the dems controlled the white house and both chamberes of congress was gutted and neutered by the senate. Even the public option and medicare buy ins were killed for health care, and those supposedly had ~55 supporters, more than enough to pass under reconciliation to avoid the cloture vote stonewalling.

Also, the GOP has leveraged against things like food stamps and the debt ceiling to get what it wants. They've gone scorched earth wherever they can most easily make a stand. In 2009-2010 it was in the senate due to the conservative and weak leadership of reid and structural/procedural flaws in the senate rules (which still exist). In 2011 it's in the chamber they control (the house). You need to pass legislaiton in bot chambers, so making a successful stand in either the house or the senate is good enough to get things done your way.

This post is so cryptic, yet you are probably 100% right. *sigh*
What to do?

 

[Dude Abides]

Its her house. He was a guest. You don't talk politics at the dinner table.

But she did. If anyone was breaching etiquette, it was her. Being a guest in someone's house doesn't mean you have to sit quietly and nod as they lecture you on controversial subjects.

 

[Plinko]

Just saw the poll about how Obama is losing the general election poll by 8 points among independent voters. Not good.