Quote"As a local GOP official after President Obama’s election, I had a front-row seat as it became infected by a dangerous and virulent form of political rabies. In the grip of this contagion, the Republican Party has come unhinged. Its fevered hallucinations involve threats from imaginary communists and socialists who, seemingly, lurk around every corner. Climate change - a reality recognized by every single significant scientific body and academy in the world - is a liberal conspiracy conjured up by Al Gore and other leftists who want to destroy America. Large numbers of Republicans - the notorious birthers - believe that the President was not born in the United States. Even worse, few figures in the GOP have the courage to confront them.
Republican economic policies are also indefensible.
The GOP constantly claims that its opponents are engaged in "class warfare," but this is an exercise in projection. In Republican proposals, the wealthy win, and the rest of us lose - one only has to look at Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget to see that.
As Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein have written, "the Republican Party, has become an insurgent outlierâ€"ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition." Its reckless behavior helps drive the political dysfunction crippling our nation.
In the end, it offers a dystopian vision of our future - a harsher, crueler and more merciless America starkly divided between the riders, and the ridden."
http://www.cagle.com/2012/06/why-i-gave-up-on-being-a-republican/
Wow, that's a really powerful statement. Unfortunately very few people actually think about their votes........it's more of a knee jerk reaction that keeps them in locked in what they've always done.
But the statement is also reflected in Jeb Bush's views about his own political party...........if only he could bring himself to vote against the madness that his party has evolved to.
Saying something is one thing, DOING something about it is another.
We need more doers and less sayers.
Quote from: finehoe on June 14, 2012, 01:14:47 PM
Quote"As a local GOP official after President Obama’s election, I had a front-row seat as it became infected by a dangerous and virulent form of political rabies. In the grip of this contagion, the Republican Party has come unhinged. Its fevered hallucinations involve threats from imaginary communists and socialists who, seemingly, lurk around every corner. Climate change - a reality recognized by every single significant scientific body and academy in the world - is a liberal conspiracy conjured up by Al Gore and other leftists who want to destroy America. Large numbers of Republicans - the notorious birthers - believe that the President was not born in the United States. Even worse, few figures in the GOP have the courage to confront them.
Republican economic policies are also indefensible.
The GOP constantly claims that its opponents are engaged in "class warfare," but this is an exercise in projection. In Republican proposals, the wealthy win, and the rest of us lose - one only has to look at Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget to see that.
As Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein have written, "the Republican Party, has become an insurgent outlierâ€"ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition." Its reckless behavior helps drive the political dysfunction crippling our nation.
In the end, it offers a dystopian vision of our future - a harsher, crueler and more merciless America starkly divided between the riders, and the ridden."
http://www.cagle.com/2012/06/why-i-gave-up-on-being-a-republican/
Republican Economic Policies illuminated below:
(http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s480x480/601862_4092255784029_404489820_n.jpg)
Insert D for R in this contrivance, and the story remains just as viable.
It looks like a dog and pony show, although it contains much truth.
(http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/206073_436161136418309_1973651445_n.jpg)
That is a particularly funny jab after Mittens went after Obama this week for wanting to do something as crazy as hire cops.
Republicans say they want less government but they only propose slowing the growth of government. The vast majority of them would even balk at freezing the federal budget at current levels and even that would mean deficit spending for many years.
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on June 16, 2012, 01:21:33 PM
Republicans say they want less government but they only propose slowing the growth of government. The vast majority of them would even balk at freezing the federal budget at current levels and even that would mean deficit spending for many years.
We continue to spend more on destruction than on rebuilding America:
(http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s480x480/533466_397968660244189_18577659_n.jpg)
Quote from: buckethead on June 16, 2012, 09:37:43 AM
Insert D for R in this contrivance, and the story remains just as viable.
It looks like a dog and pony show, although it contains much truth.
I agree that it is a dog and pony show, but there still is a big difference........Dems generally support collective bargaining, stronger regulation and better enforcement. Besides they are not funded by the Koch brothers!
(http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s480x480/598367_396019243769218_1909552409_n.jpg)
Quote from: FayeforCure on June 16, 2012, 08:46:10 PM
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on June 16, 2012, 01:21:33 PM
Republicans say they want less government but they only propose slowing the growth of government. The vast majority of them would even balk at freezing the federal budget at current levels and even that would mean deficit spending for many years.
We continue to spend more on destruction than on rebuilding America:
(http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s480x480/533466_397968660244189_18577659_n.jpg)
That pie chart is from 2008 and it may not be entirely accurate since certain spending was left out of it.
Here are two others that are similar to it.
(http://windpathfilms.com/blog/uploaded_images/Picture-2-754187.png)
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_laik8xs3vq1qb8txro1_1280.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAI6WLSGT7Y3ET7ADQ&Expires=1339983147&Signature=FoR9KNfm88XhtyQEsVjC%2Fa4%2B84I%3D)
Really, I find a lot of truth to this thread. I try to see things from a Republican standpoint, but something just doesn't sit well with me as far as today's Republicans are concerned. Do I think Obama has been outstanding? I think he can do better. But at the same time, he passes off as a President who caters more to middle-class America than Romney or any other Republican candidate would (except I got good vibes from Ron Paul). Romney passes off as a guy who would let the middle class die off. Yet, there are those Americans who still support today's Republicans and are not even rich or business owners. Do they know what they support? Even John McCain said that the GOP is messed up. That's saying something, there.
Thanks carpnter for the clarification of it being a 2008 pie chart, that didn't include all expenses.
Still, it shows how our destructive priorities trump any American Rebuilding of the middle class............and Bush policies are almost entirely to blame for the country's deficit problems.........something Republicans try to spin on Obama even though the stimulous spending dwarfs Bush's disasterous policies. See chart below:
(http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/601900_10150853375661167_237156993_n.jpg)
Quote from: FayeforCure on June 17, 2012, 08:56:18 AM
Thanks carpnter for the clarification of it being a 2008 pie chart, that didn't include all expenses.
Still, it shows how our destructive priorities trump any American Rebuilding of the middle class............and Bush policies are almost entirely to blame for the country's deficit problems.........something Republicans try to spin on Obama even though the stimulous spending dwarfs Bush's disasterous policies. See chart below:
(http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/601900_10150853375661167_237156993_n.jpg)
This chart isn't accurate either. I am not going to defend the ridiculous spending under Bush, but spending under Obama has been no better. This isn't a republican or a democrat problem. This is our problem and we won't elect politicians who will make the tough decisions. Instead we elect politicians who are more interested in maintaining their hold on power than they are in doing what is best for our country.
^^^^^^^^^^^
What he said.
MSNBC's "Morning Joe" Scarborough: Why I Voted for Ron Paul
From politico.com
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77335.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77335.html)
QuoteBy JOE SCARBOROUGH | 6/12/12 1:11 PM EDT
I operate on instinct. So I should not have been surprised by my own gut reaction to the absentee ballot that lay before me on the kitchen table.
I scanned the list for Republican primary candidates and let instinct take over.
Mitt Romney? Not on your life. A big government Republican who will say anything to get elected.
Rick Santorum? No way. A pro-life statist who helped George W. Bush double the national debt.
Newt Gingrich? Ideologically unmoored. A champion of liberty one day, a central planner the next.
Ron Paul? Yep. I quickly checked his name and moved on to a far more complex task: fixing my daughter a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.
After spending six months analyzing each candidate’s every move for three hours a day, five days a week, it never occurred to me that my decision to vote for the quirky congressman from Texas would happen as fast as a tornado whipping through an Amarillo parking lot. After all, who would vote for a candidate that criticized the killing of Osama bin Laden, blamed U.S. foreign policy for Sept. 11 and wants to abolish Social Security?
Certainly not me.
But I also would never vote for a GOP candidate who was the godfather of Obamacare, or another who added $7 trillion to Medicare’s debt or yet another who bashed Paul Ryan one week and venture capital the next. Faced with this truckload of big government Republicans, I cast my vote for the only candidate who spent his entire public career standing athwart history yelling “stop†to an ever-expanding centralized state.
While Romney was distancing himself from Ronald Reagan, Paul was fighting with Republicans to balance the budget for the first time in a generation. While Santorum was supporting an unprecedented expansion of entitlement spending, Paul was warning of a great recession that would be caused by government interference in the housing market. And while Gingrich was talking about how he would build up the federal government to push his conservative agenda, Congressman Paul spent all his waking hours focused on dismembering that big government beast.
It was the first “protest†vote I’ve ever cast, and it felt … well, it felt good. Suddenly I understood a bit better why the Ross Perot or the Pat Buchanan or the Ralph Nader voters did what they did.
They thought the system was so broken that they couldn’t sit out but also couldn’t stomach voting for a conventional candidate at a time of unconventional problems.
Do I think a Ron Paul presidency is ever possible? No, I don’t. But I do want some of the Pauline virtues of candor and non-poll-tested conviction to play a larger role in our politics.
So now I’ve cast my protest vote. It felt good.
What I really want, though, is a party and a politics that’s commensurate with the problems and possibilities of the country. We’ll get there one day â€" and then we can focus on progress, not protest.
A guest columnist for POLITICO, Joe Scarborough hosts “Morning Joe†on MSNBC and represented Florida’s 1st Congressional District in the House of Representatives from 1995 to 2001.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77335.html#ixzz1y5726Zv4
-'d be more interested in knowing what the author linked is for. He seems a bit all over the place
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on June 16, 2012, 01:21:33 PM
Republicans say they want less government but they only propose slowing the growth of government. The vast majority of them would even balk at freezing the federal budget at current levels and even that would mean deficit spending for many years.
which is why their refusal to raise taxes by even $1 with $0 in spending cuts is so ridiculous....smh
Quote from: tufsu1 on June 17, 2012, 07:58:14 PM
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on June 16, 2012, 01:21:33 PM
Republicans say they want less government but they only propose slowing the growth of government. The vast majority of them would even balk at freezing the federal budget at current levels and even that would mean deficit spending for many years.
which is why their refusal to raise taxes by even $1 with $0 in spending cuts is so ridiculous....smh
It is going to take tax increases to pay off this debt, what I don't want is what the democrats want, which is tax increases to maintain this ridiculous level of spending. I want to see spending cuts before tax increases, the debt must be addressed but first we must stop adding to it, then we can start paying it down, which is going to take an increase in taxes.
Increasing taxes now just allows the politicians from both parties to ignore the debt and keep spending money without making tough decisions. It is time to make the tough decisions and not worry about reelection prospects.
Quote from: fsquid on June 17, 2012, 07:38:49 PM
-'d be more interested in knowing what the author linked is for. He seems a bit all over the place
He's a former Republican member of Congress from Pensacola and is co-host of the Morning Joe program on MSNBC. If he seems all over the place it's just that his party has moved away from principles he still believes are important.
Quote from: tufsu1 on June 17, 2012, 07:58:14 PM
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on June 16, 2012, 01:21:33 PM
Republicans say they want less government but they only propose slowing the growth of government. The vast majority of them would even balk at freezing the federal budget at current levels and even that would mean deficit spending for many years.
which is why their refusal to raise taxes by even $1 with $0 in spending cuts is so ridiculous....smh
The revenue they would get from the millionaires tax is chump change. The federal government has a spending problem not a revenue problem. The worldwide mission of our military needs to be scaled back dramatically and Social Security and Medicare need to be reformed (increased eligibility age and means testing). That's where the real money is.
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on June 18, 2012, 10:52:55 AM
The federal government has a spending problem not a revenue problem. The worldwide mission of our military needs to be scaled back dramatically and Social Security and Medicare need to be reformed (increased eligibility age and means testing). That's where the real money is.
External sovereign debt, as well as occasional default on such debt, is not unprecedented. What is rather unique in the case of the current global sovereign debt is that it is largely private debt billed as public debt; that is, debt that was accumulated by financial speculators and, then, offloaded onto governments to be paid by taxpayers as national debt. Having thus bailed out the insolvent banksters, many governments have now become insolvent or nearly insolvent themselves, and are asking the public to skimp on their bread and butter in order to service the debt that is not their responsibility.
After transferring trillions of dollars of bad debt or toxic assets from the books of financial speculators to those of governments, global financial moguls, their representatives in the State apparatus and corporate media are now blaming social spending (in effect, the people) as responsible for debt and deficit!
President Obama's recent motto of "fiscal responsibility" and his frequent grumbles about "out of control government spending" are reflections of this insidious strategy of blaming victims for the crimes of perpetrators. They also reflect the fact that the powerful financial interests that received trillions of taxpayers' dollars, which saved them from bankruptcy, are now dictating debt-collecting strategies through which governments can recoup those dollars from taxpayers. In effect, governments and multilateral institutions such as the IMF are acting as bailiffs or tax collectors on behalf of banksters and other financial wizards.
Not only is this unfair (it is, indeed, tantamount to robbery, and therefore criminal), it is also recessionary as it can increase unemployment and undermine economic growth. It is reminiscent of President Herbert Hoover's notorious economic policy of cutting spending during a recession, a contractionary fiscal policy that is bound to worsen the recession. It is, indeed, a recipe for a vicious circle of debt and depression: as spending is cut to pay debt, the economy and (therefore) tax revenues will shrink, which would then increase debt and deficit, and call for more spending cuts.
Spending on national infrastructure, both physical (such as roads and schools) and social infrastructure (such as health and education) is key to the long-term socioeconomic developments. Cutting public spending to pay for the sins of Wall Street gamblers is bound to undermine the long-term health of a society in terms of productivity enhancement and sustained growth.
But the powerful financial interests and their debt collectors seem to be more interested in collecting debt claims than investing in economic recovery, job creation or long-term socioeconomic development. Like most debt-collecting agencies, the IMF and the states serving as banksters' bailiffs through their austerity programs may shed a few crocodile tears in sympathy with the victims' of their belt-tightening policies; but, again like any other debt-collecting agents, they seem to be saying: "sorry for the loss of your job or your house, but debt must be collected--regardless."
A most outrageous aspect of the debt burden that is placed on the taxpayers' shoulders since 2008 is that most of the underlying debt claims are fictitious and illegitimate: they are largely due to manipulated asset price bubbles, dubious or illegal financial speculations, and scandalous conversion of financial gamblers' losses into public liability.
Finehoe, I'm a little confused by your post. Assuming you wrote this, I have a couple of questions.
It seems that you are suggesting defaulting on the debt in the first few lines. It also appears that you are calling for at least maintaining current federal spending, if not increasing it. How would you propose maintaining current spending if we default on the debt service? Currently, about one third of spending is borrowed money.
The rest of the post seems to concentrate on the idea that government debt is largely just transferred from private business interests and that such activity is illegal and illegitimate. Are you speaking of the "bailouts" so often discussed here? And/or you speaking of "quasi" governmental activity such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? What remedies would you propose?
Thanks in advance for your explanations.
The government does have a spending problem; but has an even greater revenue problem. Both corporations and the rich in America have, through effective lobbying, gotten tax breaks and loopholes which have resulted in enormous benefits for them while depriving the nation from much-needed revenue.
We cannot cut our way out of the deficit; study the budget and you will see that eliminating all government services except medicare, medicaid, social security, and defense....and we still don't have enough revenue to balance the budget.
It's going to be painful and our elected officials don't want to cause pain so we will all sit here like the proverbial frog in the pot as the heat is increased until it explodes.
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on June 18, 2012, 10:52:55 AM
Quote from: tufsu1 on June 17, 2012, 07:58:14 PM
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on June 16, 2012, 01:21:33 PM
Republicans say they want less government but they only propose slowing the growth of government. The vast majority of them would even balk at freezing the federal budget at current levels and even that would mean deficit spending for many years.
which is why their refusal to raise taxes by even $1 with $0 in spending cuts is so ridiculous....smh
The revenue they would get from the millionaires tax is chump change. The federal government has a spending problem not a revenue problem. The worldwide mission of our military needs to be scaled back dramatically and Social Security and Medicare need to be reformed (increased eligibility age and means testing). That's where the real money is.
That there's some tough talk. I doubt we'll get such frankness from either big money contender, nor "viable" political party.
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on June 18, 2012, 10:52:55 AM
The federal government has a spending problem not a revenue problem.
um, really.....let's just say we cut spending to match incoming revenues...that takes care of the deficit, but what about the past debt?
face it....we need to get spending back down to around 17-18% of GDP....and revenues need to be closer to 20%
I'm listening... A reduction in spending?
Is government spending not included in the GDP figure?
The metrics are so convoluted that they don't mean anything.
"We're gonna need a bigger boat"
I gave up on being a Republican last year in the beginning of 2011 when rationale thinking became a liberal thing and great purge of main stream conservatives was wrapping up. Ronald Reagan would be too liberal for 2012 Republicans who seem to inch closer towards anti science, pro religious, anti factual information, pro sound bytes, anti middle class, pro 'job creators' rule. Theres no room for Republicans of the 80s and 90s in 2012 party. It is a shame.
John McCain is an old TURD who needs to be flushed and he only cares about himself, as evidenced during the campaign to go back to DC and try and save the banks, for his own campaign. He needs to be flushed and moved out, as grandpa is not part of the new Republican party.
Yes, the GOP has a lot to do to create a new image, but McCain will not be it. Obama resurrected the Democrats in 2008, just as someone will need to do so with the GOP in 2012.
QuoteThe GOP constantly claims that its opponents are engaged in "class warfare," but this is an exercise in projection. In Republican proposals, the wealthy win, and the rest of us lose - one only has to look at Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget to see that.
The Opponents are Democrats who would like to see the country be run as an entitlement state, raising taxes on small businesses, which they are with the BS healthcare plan. To pay for healthcare, all owners of property will be charged 3.8% additional on revenue from rental properties, taxed again to help fix neighborhoods, even though we all pay local taxes, we now have new national taxes. This is a sign of things to come. Tax the people who can pay for it, but its not enough to fix the debt. Both parties are FUBAR on the ideas to fix debt, easier to kick the can down the road.
But Taxaggedon is coming at the end of this year, and we will be in a world of GREECE if we kick the can down the road, so stop trying to spread the wealth and start working with the GOP to come up with solutions. Greece has shown that austerity DOES NOT WORK, you cannot spread the wealth and have a productive society. Greeks cannot pay for their own debt and the time of reckoning is coming, and same with the USA, if we do not get control of spending. Forget growth, we need to control spending, but then we don't really have a plan for the Vets coming back from overseas, so why would we have a plan for the future with the Democrats period?
An area where we can see immediate growth is in natural resources, since Obama took office, private enterprises have been the major driver to make the USA energy independent, Obama's record on green, while taking risks, can we afford half a billion dollar mistakes? Open up federal lands for exploration and expansion, we can do it, its a question of leadership and wanting to open resources.
Quote from: mtraininjax on June 19, 2012, 10:21:20 AM
To pay for healthcare, all owners of property will be charged 3.8% additional on revenue from rental properties
What? Please provide a source for this claim.
QuoteWhat? Please provide a source for this claim.
Not hard to find, just google 3.8% tax from healthcare.
http://www.naturalnews.com/029849_health_care_reform_taxes.html (http://www.naturalnews.com/029849_health_care_reform_taxes.html)
QuoteThe news about Obama's health care reform just keeps getting worse -- and we only find these things long after the bill has passed, of course. The newest revelation concerns a 3.8% tax on income from home sales and home rentals which will go into effect in 2013.
Yet another tax on a fragile housing market that is probably the Number 1 economic engine in NE Florida. This with the Bush Tax Cuts should help push the economy into a tailspin, something we can all share in as the class warfare is now on center stage.
It's a surtax of 3.8 percent on certain types of unearned income of individuals, trusts and estates with income above specific thresholds:
$200,000 for single filers
$250,000 for married filing jointly
$125,000 for married filing separately
Not "all owners of property".
Why do "conservatives" always have to resort to blatant untruths in order to make their case?
It still equates to taxing the wealthier to give to Obamacare, no matter how you slice it, finding a way to pay for a sham of a healthcare system. Instead of getting the Obamacare system to pay for itself, but like everything the Government does, nothing seems to pay for itself.
Quote from: mtraininjax on June 19, 2012, 02:34:08 PM
but like everything the Government does, nothing seems to pay for itself.
Which federal program took in more than it spent last year, added $95 billion to its surplus and lifted 20 million Americans of all ages out of poverty?
Why, Social Security, of course, which ended 2011 with a $2.7 trillion surplus.
Keep 'em comin'.
Quote from: finehoe on June 19, 2012, 02:44:04 PM
Quote from: mtraininjax on June 19, 2012, 02:34:08 PM
but like everything the Government does, nothing seems to pay for itself.
Which federal program took in more than it spent last year, added $95 billion to its surplus and lifted 20 million Americans of all ages out of poverty?
Why, Social Security, of course, which ended 2011 with a $2.7 trillion surplus.
Keep 'em comin'.
Thats awesome... except of course they spent it even before they got it. What year does that surplus turn into a deficit also? Pretty soon I think... As far as the author quitting the republican party... so what? Happens every day. I used to be a democrat. Stephen bemoaned the republican party mutating from what he fondly remembers... same for me. I really do not think JFK would identify to well with what the democrats have become. Ah well... keep up the constructive dialogue...
Quote from: finehoe on June 19, 2012, 02:44:04 PM
Quote from: mtraininjax on June 19, 2012, 02:34:08 PM
but like everything the Government does, nothing seems to pay for itself.
Which federal program took in more than it spent last year, added $95 billion to its surplus and lifted 20 million Americans of all ages out of poverty?
Why, Social Security, of course, which ended 2011 with a $2.7 trillion surplus.
Keep 'em comin'.
It's no use finehoe........today's Republicans remind me of this:
(http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/599275_10150857561386275_908395541_n.jpg)
No better example than their denial of climate change as man-made, and their refusal to see that providing birth control free of charge will reduce the number of abortions in this country as it has done in all other countries that employ this policy.
Quote from: finehoe on June 19, 2012, 02:44:04 PM
Quote from: mtraininjax on June 19, 2012, 02:34:08 PM
but like everything the Government does, nothing seems to pay for itself.
Which federal program took in more than it spent last year, added $95 billion to its surplus and lifted 20 million Americans of all ages out of poverty?
Why, Social Security, of course, which ended 2011 with a $2.7 trillion surplus.
Keep 'em comin'.
I would hope so because once the boomers start reaching the full payout age, it will get drained.
Bruce Bartlett is amazingly smart in his rebuff of the crazy Fair Tax movement that was started by a dentist and a radio show host..........and he is amazingly smart about how the Republican party devolved in recent decades:
(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s480x480/524140_10150946696876275_1246228766_n.jpg)
Because today's Republicans are fine with the policies that increase the divide:
(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/s480x480/179187_10151056132464609_1505951838_n.jpg)
seems like Mayor Brown has given up on being a Democrat
From the Times Union Op Page today, for all the folks who think they know about spending at the Federal Level, some sobering realities and WHY we cannot continue as an entitlement society and borrow against the future:
http://jacksonville.com/opinion/editorials/2012-07-26/story/younger-generation-taking-big-hit (http://jacksonville.com/opinion/editorials/2012-07-26/story/younger-generation-taking-big-hit)
QuoteFederal budget realities
Interesting economic facts from David Wessel in The Wall Street Journal:
- Nearly two-thirds of annual federal spending is entitlements: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, farm subsidies and interest on the debt.
- In 2009, every dollar of federal revenues was committed. Everything else, 36 percent, was borrowed.
- About $1 in $4 in federal spending goes to health care. By 2021 at the current rate, health spending will consume $1 in $3.
- About $1 in $5 goes to defense.
- Tax rates are down. In 1981, a middle-income family paid 19.2 percent of its income in federal taxes. In 2011, it was 12.4 percent. This does not go into state and local taxes, which in some cases have had to fill the gaps.
Stephen - Why not look at some of the ideas that Hogan proposed during the campaign? One that I really liked was combining the services of the libraries with those of the schools. After all, why do you need to build an 85 million dollar high school with a library when we have so many in Jax? Why not share resources, instead of building a kingdom for Gubbin to reign over? Some of his ideas would save money at a time when money is scarce.
People will lose jobs in the City, but we can take the bankruptcy option off the table. Thanks to Mayor Peyton for kicking Pensions down the road, again the lost 8 years or lost decade as many call it in government. Peyton came to the Mayors position with no government experience, no city experience, and Brown had little city experience and all those Federal relationships don't mean squat at the local level. Maybe having Mike Hogan with his considerable city and local experience would have been a good thing for our city, as we do not seem to be headed in the direction of progress, as I see it. Brown is a nice person, not an effective leader, as I see it. My 2 cents.
Quote from: mtraininjax on July 26, 2012, 08:12:25 AM
some sobering realities and WHY we cannot continue as an entitlement society and borrow against the future
I love how the financial crisis - which was caused by bad lending practices and bank fraud - is being made into neoliberal excuses to cut wages, cut taxes, and cut middle class benefits.
Quote from: stephendare on July 25, 2012, 09:29:00 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 25, 2012, 09:27:25 PM
seems like Mayor Brown has given up on being a Democrat
I agree, it seems like he's trading his supporters for the group of people who failed to elect Mike Hogan.
What could possibly go wrong?
Seems like we all agree on something....
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on July 20, 2012, 10:22:32 AM
I don't see what the big deal is.... Isn't AB a Repub anyhow?
QuoteI love how the financial crisis - which was caused by bad lending practices and bank fraud
I love (insert sarcasm) how not one of the large bank executives that caused the financial crisis has been tried and brought to justice. Is Holder waiting until after the elections? OMG? No way???
Madoff does not count, his was a pyramid scheme and defrauded his own investors, he did not get a bailout either.
Quote from: mtraininjax on July 26, 2012, 10:06:07 AM
Is Holder waiting until after the elections?
More likely, waiting for the statute of limitations to run out.
QuoteMore likely, waiting for the statute of limitations to run out.
Nice to know that politics always trump justice.
Quote from: mtraininjax on July 26, 2012, 10:06:07 AM
QuoteI love how the financial crisis - which was caused by bad lending practices and bank fraud
I love (insert sarcasm) how not one of the large bank executives that caused the financial crisis has been tried and brought to justice. Is Holder waiting until after the elections? OMG? No way???
Madoff does not count, his was a pyramid scheme and defrauded his own investors, he did not get a bailout either.
You'll never see one brought to justice either, there are too many politicians who are just as complicit in the financial crisis as the bank executives were.
Quote from: mtraininjax on July 27, 2012, 10:31:26 AM
QuoteMore likely, waiting for the statute of limitations to run out.
Nice to know that politics always trump justice.
It has nothing to do with politics, other than politicians being in thrall to Wall Street money. It's about regulatory capture. Regulators see the industry through the eyes of the financial industry rather than the consumers they exist to serve.
Regulatory capture is political insofar as there is a revolving door between government (all branches) and corporations.
That said, is it wise to outlaw any political participation to those who have a history with any corporation and /or visa versa?
Right now, the largest problem for main street is the revolving door between DC and Wall St Banks.
The SEC is a tool for the big boys to squash up and comers.