Reply With Quote
Change in en lements. Some specifics. Until there is real budget cuts, why raise taxes? It just shows that the conservatives are the only ones who have to give up something.
I have been away from the board for the last two weeks more or less.
Not much has changed, huh?
How about if we start a bipartisan effort right here, right now, saying what we are willing to change in the federal budget to reduce deficits?
1. Cuts in defense spending programs that are suggested by the current Secretary of Defense, Gates. These include outdated weapons programs and specific military expenditures that the pentagon no longer wants, but that members of both political parties continue because the defense contractors have cleverly put building programs in virtually every state in the union. Thus, to vote against the continued expenditure is to vote for unemployment in your own state.
Count me as one vote.
2. Changes in en lement programs that will involve some form of means-testing for both medicare and medicaid, as well as social security payments.
Count me as one vote.
3. Elimination of the Bush tax cuts for earners making more than $500,000 per year in income. All other tax cuts continue.
Count me as one vote.
How many votes could we get for each of these? In this combination, everybody's sacred cows get gored, at least a little bit. Can the folks on this forum agree that some compromise is necessary to get the deficits under control, and actually vote for something that they don't want to happen in order to save the economy?
Forget party ties and talking points. Can we get the votes?
Change in en lements. Some specifics. Until there is real budget cuts, why raise taxes? It just shows that the conservatives are the only ones who have to give up something.
Regarding en lements: What I was really after was trying to get some agreement that en lements need to be modified. That is why I was not specific regarding the actual means test to be employed.
I could give an example that would say "Social Security Payments should not be paid out to citizens currently earning more than X amount". What is the X amount? I don't know. Maybe the same $500,000 that is suggested for those who could still afford to pay more in taxes in the middle of a recession.
Social security was established as a 'safety net' for folks. If you are making X amount of money per year in your retirement, you don't need a safety net, so why take it?
Regarding medicare and medicaid, I don't know what the current levels are of means-testing, but for medicare, as long as you are a certain age, you get it, correct? So, couldn't the same means test be applied for medicare as is applied for Social security (in this scenario)?
I'm afraid of getting too specific because then people will argue about the leaves on the trees rather than the forest.
I just want to know if we would all agree, theoretically, of course, to some basic budgetary modifications if we are serious about lowering the deficit.
Well I am all for that. But I think it is too easy for politicians to say "vote for me, i'll give you things that we can make someone else pay for." Both parties need to start coming up with real budget cuts. Once that starts going through, I would be ok with tax hikes for everyone to pay off our deficit. But, one it should be raising taxes on everyone. Two, it shouldn't be a permanent raise. All taxes too. People shouldn't have to pay 40% of their assets if they die.
See, I really believe (perhaps naively) that there is more agreement than not on some real budget pain.
I understand that no one wants to bear all of the burden. What I'm trying to figure out is if we are all actually willing to do some things that would be hard if others are also willing to do some things that would be hard. I don't know any current politicians in either party that have the guts to try to really make a dent, but there are some folks who are willing to try to help.
Gates is one. He is not in congress, but he is willing to cut defense costs in certain areas, and I wish we would all let him. Cutting out outmoded weapons systems doesn't mean that you are in favor of unemployment or that you are unpatriotic, but lots of folks will make both of those charges against whichever politician in either party would get behind the suggestions.
In the same vein, changes to en lement programs HAVE to happen to get the budget under control, and some of the potential changes are pretty common sense, like not paying social security to billionaires. But all the gutless wonders in both parties are afraid of their own bases so much that they won't do anything...so it never gets fixed, by either party at any time.
But if we on this forum are unable/unwilliing to agree to theoretical changes, how we blame the politicians? They are no worse than us, are they?
Seems pretty reasonable to me.
This whole Political forum is a complete waste of time. I sincerely doubt that any Republican has ever converted a Liberal over to their side and vice versa. Its mental masturbation at its finest.
Welcome back to the forum, Veterinarian.
Otay.
It is not, in my humble opinion, a requirement that either side experience a "conversion" moment.
What I am trying to point out is that a conversion may not be necessary if we think about a willingness to compromise before we start the specifics. In other words, focus on the strategy rather than the tactics.
I posit that all americans on this forum want what is best for our country, regardless of their political persuasion. Given that premise, and given that our legislative system requires some form of compromise, I further posit that we could agree on some broad outlines of things that would be required in order to advance our nation's economic security.
Maybe that is mental masturbation. What, then, would you call the verbal attacks that people of opposite political persuasions make toward one another?
Scoreboard:
EVAY and WH23, aye.
SnC seemed to agree for a moment that taxes might have to go up at some point to pay down debt, and exhibited a normal and healthy interest in hearing a bill of particulars re: reforming "en lements."
It's slow going, EVAY, but the conversation has at least started.
Reforming is too gentle of a definition for what I would like to do to the Soc Sec, Medicare and Medicaid.Scoreboard:
EVAY and WH23, aye.
SnC seemed to agree for a moment that taxes might have to go up at some point to pay down debt, and exhibited a normal and healthy interest in hearing a bill of particulars re: reforming "en lements."
It's slow going, EVAY, but the conversation has at least started.
Good point. It used to be commonsensical. Now people look at you like you're from Mars when you say things like that. If you don't cheat, you obviously don't care very much about winning, right?
I would agree with this, but sometimes people actually prefer bickering and name-calling to making some vague promise to play fair beforehand, and then actually trying to play fair, and then actually "doing a deal" with friends, political opponents and everyone in between who are all, after all fellow Americans.
And on top of all that seeking to treat them with the courtesy and respect commensurate with your stated opinion on the matter, as well as their status as fellow citizens.
Actually taking pains occasionally not to piss them off needlessly?
How ridiculous, right?
Old fashioned consensus making works but you have to make it work. And you have to pay attention. People have to care.
There's precious little of that to be had around here, as perhaps reflected in the page count/reply ratio. Maybe consensus is way too boring a concept to hold people's attention anymore.
But hey, you gotta start somewhere.
It might be interesting to see how many people you could get to sign a very simple list of politically acceptable remedies for a fiscal condition such as ours.
In all candor, EVAY, I very much doubt you have chosen the right vehicle to launch it. You can do much much better than this. But that wasn't such a bad start.
A dry run, let's call it.
Authoritatively struck.
Last edited by Winehole23; 07-25-2010 at 10:56 PM. Reason: lunch/launch
A quibble about the headline. The word bipartisan might tend to push out a lot of extra-systemic (new, occasional, untraditional) interest at a time when the ins utional prestige of both major parties is at (or very near) historic lows.
Trans-partisan? Non-partisan? Extra-partisan?
Why bipartisan?
In a world of monistic tribal prescriptions about the excellence and desirability of the USA, why limit the ice cream shop of political accommodation to only two flavors? Just curious.
Last edited by Winehole23; 07-25-2010 at 10:49 PM.
Loud and clear.
I guess I'd vote for them if that was my only choice. I'd prefer...
1.) Greater cuts in military spending. Perhaps a 5 year freeze on new military weapons systems since we are far ahead of any potential enemies. As well as at least a 20% reduction in our foriegn military bases.
2.) That's a tough topic and I'm not sure means testing is the way to go. We need to completely overhaul those programs. I don't pretend to have all the answers to fixing our en lement programs.
3.) That's fine but it's really only a symbolic jesture. The effective income tax rates are too low from the middle class brackets on up.
Agree 100%, and reflecting from the vantage of this post I'm not so sure I'm sold on mean-testing either, but I lack any ready riposte.
I hadn't thought of that, either. You could be right.
Truth is, I don't know what the answer to means testing is either. I'm not opposed to a complete overhaul of these programs. I just think it more likely in this hyper-partisan environment that we could more likely 'tinker around the edges' and accomplish something than we could propose massive overhauls and go nowhere.
Re: income taxes. I might agree that we, as a people, are not overtaxed by wrold-wide standards. But getting agreement on a tax increase for the middle class is a political non-starter. You are correct, I think, that raising the rates on the uppr-upper class is symbolic in that it won't be a significant contribution to deficit reduction. The value in it, to me, is in getting all of us used to the notion of sacrifice.
The deficits aren't going to get reduced without sacrifice by everybody
, and no politician seems to have the balls to call for sacrifice. Granted, a 4% increase in the top rate for the wealthiest is not gonna be much of a sacrifice for them, but it would show that we are asking for contributions from everybody, not just the poor stiffs whose FICA payments go up every 15 minutes.
Similarly, the estate tax (which doesn't exist this year) really is not gonna make or break the deficit, and I am personally opposed to it (I mean, how many times are you really gonna tax an asset earned, anyway?), but I would be willing to have it taxed for purposes of compromise. The only thing taxing it would accomplish would be another full-employment act for tax and estate lawyers, but I'd be willing to do it.
How 'bout post-partisan? No? Okay, how 'bout "citizen-initiated"?
No? Okay, how 'bout "Real Americans for Deficit Control" ( doesn't that sound like the le given to some of the bogus grassroots movements that pay for political advertisements on tv, but are really nothing more than the campaign for whichever candidate or movement being advanced?
I mean, think about how much fun one could have accusing anyone who opposed your deficit reduction plan as not being real Americans.
Both better, IMO.
It does, but branding is important, and people seem to be fed up with both major [political] brands. There might not be any better time to make an American consensus, if people can possibly be persuaded to put away the nettles and vinegar.
If we have nothing to argue over and agree to compromise, then we have to share the spoils of victory.
So, no.
PS: Bipartisan is the tiest word in politics. Yuck.
Identifying agreements beyond party tribalism can't be a bad thing, but impugning the patriotism of those who disagree could be counter-productive. It's already been done to death, and will be again. (But I do see your point: anyone who hoists the fortunes of his own party over that of his/her country has a screwed up sense of loyalty.)
It was offered tongue-in-cheek, WH. Sorry for not being clearer.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
