Shocker.
Posted by ann at September 26, 2005 08:29 PMLet's be as honest and say that the "starve the beast" philosophy is dominant in Republican leadership circles today. The big wigs are no doubt putting their wealth, both new and old, offshore so that when the meltdown comes they may lose power but they won't lose their wealth.
BTW, we've already had an effective tax increase at the gas pump. The problem is, the money is not helping with the 8 Trillion in debt we have, it's going to fund petroleum conglomerates and through Saudi Arabian and other benifactors, the terrorists that are killing our troops.
Posted by rlp at September 26, 2005 08:51 PMGood Goolies, Steve. You used the '*' word! Wash your mouth out with Pfizer ChristOral (tm) or you and your heinous website acolytes will be damned for all time to watching 1994 C-Span reruns.
Oh right, the spending offsets. Well, internal congressional budgetary committee reports indicate that if 4.5% of Congressional non-bid sex is curbed at the Capital and surrounding hotels, projected savings may exceed $815 billion dollars a year. Many Republicans are hesitant to agree with this figure, assuring their constituents that they have fixed low-rate contracts with the major contractors. They do, however, readily admit that any reduction in five minute dry-cleaning bills may save in excess of $300 billion a year.
Well, I think the transportation bill, prescriptions for seniors, and rebuilding New Orleans should be halted immediately.
Nevertheless, most of the social spending programs are on the course of fiscal meltdown anyways. It's just a spreadsheet exercise you can do at home on your PC with Excel. Or even Microsoft Works' spreadsheet.
They'll have to be means tested in the future. Basically, the only folks who will get them will be the poor folks.
Posted by muckdog at September 26, 2005 09:51 PMWithout a doubt America's wealthy elite are putting their wealth outside the control of the government to which they pretend to owe allegiance. Just look at all of the new investment US business has made in China and the Pacific Rim. Does anyone seriously believe that this investment hasn't had the effect of transferring American wealth offshore. That capacity would have had to have been added to domestic production capacity. It wasn't. It was shipped offshore deliberately. The domestic capacity has been allowed to deteriorate and depreciate so it can be discarded like a soiled tissue when need arises.
Most of the "investment" made in the US by business has been in brick and mortar - buildings and real estate - which is treated advantageously in tax law and is financed by banks. US business can walk away from that "investment" in the blink of an eye because it doesn't affect their operations. They can always find new space to warehouse their staff. Hell, they're constantly trying to find new ways to get new, cheaper staff too. The real value is in the business data base for customers and processes, and that can be stored secretly in multiple locations along with the cash.
Posted by PrahaPartizan at September 26, 2005 10:00 PMThey'll have to be means tested in the future. Basically, the only folks who will get them will be the poor folks.
Damn, I knew that would happen eventually. How can a poor embedded systems engineer afford a quarter-million dollar a year crack addiction without government handouts? It will take some tricky re-disbursement of R&D (recreation and debauchery) funds, I'm quite sure. Well, we all have to make sacrifices.
After ignoring the anti-war demonstration Saturday of more than 150,000 people to 300,000 Wolfy on CNN finally mentioned that Cindy was arrested today. He was saying” There was a demonstration this Saturday”. Then the little girl CNN news Blogger without mentioning numbers added that they were also “For the War demonstration”! I guess 100 to 400 depending where you look, was worth mentioning to reduce the 150,000 to 300,000 numbers of the real demonstration. + The numbers all over the world amount to nothing. CNN is becoming as bad as Faux News. Even Ted Turner who was on CNN with Wolfy seems to question what was happening to his creation. I think it has become as worst as all the other news media on TV but free speech TV of you can get it...
The numbers are down for our drunken leader because any intelligent person would not make the decision that this ape have made. When he lost Co he had Mommy and Daddy friends and junior got big jobs on the co with big stocks, He was elevated to a high office, and then sole the stocks. And as he did mention earlier with Putty pooh that they were making ‘HIS’ Legacy!!!!!!!!
Well that is why he is wasting gas on his photo ups. He wants people to think that he care.
Bull S***t. Does he care????????????????
When is the nightmare going to end? This crooks and liars administration that will all of us feel sorry.
What can we live with but cannot live without??????????????????? Water is was is all people cannot survive without Why do we believe that bottles water is better, you could go to any store and buy a BRITA You can waste money on water that you don’t know where it came from????????????????.
It has happen in South America, The access to water was privatized, they did fight against it but it is still a commodity that is not for sale. We have to replace every republican in congress, and senate. You have to check that election is real. Not like the last 3 since 2000.
Regarding the faith based payments - I think the important designation is that they are only eligible for reimbursement if they did so "at the request of state or local governments..." and that request should be in writing and dated in advance of this announcement. In that scenario it is appropriate, otherwise payments are unacceptable. If the mosque or church in question volunteered, then payments are not appropriate.
As for cuts... I think that's a storm that's brewing... not that people will be happy when they happen, but I intend to keep asking for them - especially pork programs and things like the bridge to nowhere for a state that gives income tax payments to its residents and shouldn't get any federal $$. Too many democratic leaning republicans have been put in charge and they need to be replaced with some real conservatives instead of the blue hat republicans that are in charge in the Senate and House.
How you going to replace them?
Who's going to replace them?
What mechanism needs to be used to replace them?
How are you going to overcome the minority of fools like muckdog who seem to live in juniors bubble, but not in it you see, but who serve as dutifool foot soldiers for these fascists and cause no end of misery with their ignorance?
You watch, only the Democrats will offer up any offsets, which of course the goppers would gladly take for themselves and their cronies.
Josh Marshall has a piece up about the GOP slush fund operation, and if you don't think it's real, read his piece, and think again.
Despite what simpletons and fools "think," there's a reason why we have government services, why cities grow where they do, why governance is broken up into different spheres of influence.
It's called reality, muckdog. Check it out sometime.
Posted by Duckman GR at September 26, 2005 11:20 PMMr. OutsideTheEchoChamber:
Regarding the faith based payments - I think the important designation is that they are only eligible for reimbursement if they did so "at the request of state or local governments..." and that request should be in writing and dated in advance of this announcement.
Well Jesus is my Savior and my God, but in all the flooding, panic, family death and so on, I forgot my FTD-0114735 reimbersement forms. Silly me.
Too many democratic leaning republicans have been put in charge and they need to be replaced with some real conservatives instead of the blue hat republicans that are in charge in the Senate and House.
Upon questioning, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay responded: "I have recently had my balls lowered to approved Republican standards. You are way far from my Xmas list, pal. And my son did knock up your daughter, doofus."
Posted by tempus at September 27, 2005 12:37 AMIf I didn't know better, Muckdog, I'd say you were positively sullen about this. Sounds like you're not too happy about it, either.
Interestingly, this mirrors what some other ideological conservatives I know are saying: basically, they're none too pleased about the spending run amok (not so much that the budget's out of whack, but that the spending isn't being cut. I guess we'll take what we can get).
Posted by Jonathan at September 27, 2005 01:21 AMHEre's the reality of the situation: Neither side is going to cut anything. If the Dem's were in control there would be no difference. Congressman are not going to cut spending on the bacon they take home to their districts. It's as simple as that.
I don't like it either, but that's the way it is.
Posted by John at September 27, 2005 04:01 AMBut if an actual opposition party with a progressive political approach were in power we would
a) withdraw from Iraq.
b) roll back the tax cuts on the wealthiest
c) fire the crony hires and bring in some experts
d) order that all rebuilding efforts employ local, unemployed people to rebuild wherever possible (thus funnellling the taxpayers money right back into devastated areas.
e) call for serious conservation measures and work to create alternate fuel sources
f) work to create single payer health care and eliminate waste and fraud in goverment payments.
And even if we only got in a party that did the exact opposite of the republicans--in other words, if we only had a party that always asked "WWWD?" and did the opposite, we'd still be better off.
aimai
Posted by AIMAI at September 27, 2005 05:24 AMAimai, I would vote for anyone who could accomplish a thru f.
Posted by Judith at September 27, 2005 05:35 AMIf I didn't know better, Muckdog, I'd say you were positively sullen about this. Sounds like you're not too happy about it, either.
As long as muck keeps getting tax cuts for his income bracket, he's happy. He'd like to see some pork trimming and definitely cuts to social programs because, well, he doesn't see a benefit to himself. He hasn't even mentioned the tremenous corporate welfare program know as the energy bill that includes subsidies for energy and oil companies who are posting huge profits. He doesn't want any money spent on New Orleans, and would like to see the poor housed in trailer park Bushvilles. He'd like to cut the prescription drug benefit for seniors because, well, he isn't a senior. He just can't see outside his own little bubble. I suspect there are quite a few folks out there with the same myopia.
Posted by ann at September 27, 2005 05:43 AMJohn,
For the most part, I completely agree, and think this has been the case for many, many years, even as Republicans pretended to be interested in austerity vis-a-vis spending.
The biggest difference between the parties is not how much they spend, but what they spend it on and how (or whether) they pay for it.
Posted by Jonathan at September 27, 2005 07:31 AMI love the class warfare talk that always accompanies talk of a tax increase. If you were affluent, how many of you would seek tax shelters and exemptions and how many of you would salute and hand over 28% of income without a fuss? Given the choice I bet most of you would shield as much income you could from the taxman. I will espouse my original challenge to those that think taxes are too low: PAY MORE. Simply send a check payable to “General Fund” to the IRS and they will be happy to accept it (Congress will no doubt promptly spend it). I would be in favor of halting the Drug program and the latest highway (pork special) bill. Both would be invisible to the public because neither is in affect at this time.
Posted by Cyber Sarge at September 27, 2005 08:00 AMWe're in a secular bear market that started in 2000, and probably won't end until late in the next decade. Things will get worse before they get better. Nothing moves in a straight line down, so the best move is to realize what's happening, and make money.
Take responsibility for yourself.
Posted by muckdog at September 27, 2005 08:20 AMIf you were affluent, how many of you would seek tax shelters and exemptions and how many of you would salute and hand over 28% of income without a fuss?
My wife and I are in a higher than 28% nominal bracket and we wound up paying only slightly less than the nominal percentage after all our deductions last year. We're able to fund retirement accounts, college accounts for our kids and have a bit of savings. Our primary deduction is the interest on our mortgage. We take reasonable vacations and live within our means. I have no problem with the amount of tax I pay Cyber Sarge.
I will espouse my original challenge to those that think taxes are too low: PAY MORE. Simply send a check payable to “General Fund” to the IRS and they will be happy to accept it (Congress will no doubt promptly spend it).
Thank God you're not incharge of this country. It'd be a lovely place if everyone could just decide which laws and programs they felt like funding and/or obeying. You argue that it's human nature to try and keep as much as you can in one breath and then turn around and suggest that we rely on philanthropy in the next. LOL! Do you think about what you write while you're writing it Sarge? I disagree with the way Bush is spending my tax money in Iraq. Maybe I can just deduct my portion of that funding from my taxes and keep it for myself? Or send a note specifying that the government should please spend it on social programs instead of the war? And btw, people don't think that taxes are too low. They just think that we should collect the amount of money that we need to pay for all the things our government chooses to spend it on.
I would be in favor of halting the Drug program and the latest highway (pork special) bill. Both would be invisible to the public because neither is in affect at this time.
Well that statement is at least well intentioned. How about rewriting the percription drug law so that it isn't just a giveaway to Big Pharm? It's funny I don't think I've heard a single person outside the government express any support for the transportation bill.
Posted by muckcat at September 27, 2005 08:25 AMTake responsibility for yourself.
But why not corporations? Why don't they have to take responsibility for themselves? Why do we give them such generous tax deductions and subsidies just so they can post even bigger profits? Don't tell me because they create jobs, that's BS. They outsource good jobs. They undercut wages and benefits to workers to increase the bottom line to make the stockholders happy. But then, most people who own stock (real stock, not just indexes in 401Ks) are the wealthy and we want to keep them happy, happy, happy because they make campaign contributions to the GOP.
Posted by ann at September 27, 2005 08:58 AMfuckdog you make an even bigger asshole out of yourself each time you post...asswipe...
Posted by headxray at September 27, 2005 09:22 AM I love the class warfare talk that always accompanies talk of a tax increase. ….Posted by Cyber Sarge
Of course there is class warfare in this country and the rich are winning by shuffling off more of this country's tax burden on to the middle and working classes. Wealthy people earning income from investments will pay less for unearned income. Bush wants to lower these rates. Wealthy individuals can also reduce their tax rates by investing in tax free municipal bonds for income. With the Republican tax policy, this percentage is lower than that for people making their living by earned income who can pay up to 35%. That is fundamentally unfair because income is income, and a dollar is a dollar. Your ignorance of the difference in tax rates between earned and investment in come for tax purposes is typical of deluded supporters of the Bushevic regime.
Your offer of paying more taxes can be generalized: If you support Bush's illegal war, go fight for him. If you support Bush's corporate welfare policy, send your spare change to Exxon. If you support Bush's FDA policy, take Vioxx. If you support Bush's environmental policies move downwind of a coal-fired plant, and so forth.
Lastly, as we saw in New Orleans, the infrastructure of this country is in dire need of repair, upkeep, and maintenance. The Bush budgets do not fund these needs unless they are special pork. The Prescription Drug program provide more corporate welfare for pharmaceutical companies than it does for seniors in need. That is typical of your party.
... the only folks who will get them will be the poor folks.Posted by muckdog
The goal of Republican economic policies is to create a two-tier economy: the rich and the peons.