[cherdano]

 luke warm, on 2011-May-16, 15:44, said:

it's stupid for thinking people to blame any one man or political party for this mess we're in...

True, but it's stupid not to blame the Republican members of congress for playing with fire the debt ceiling. Anyone knows it has to be raised, everyone agrees it should be done (including Boehner and McConnell), but they are taking it hostage to get concessions on reducing the deficit taxes for the rich.

The basic institutional problem is power and influence without accountability - since the Republicans control the House and can block the Senate, they have power; but since most voters will associate stuff going wrong with "the President is doing badly" there is no accountability for their actions, and they have no incentive to use their share of power responsibly.

[luke warm]

 PassedOut, on 2011-May-16, 17:20, said:

Although you haven't named any of those policies -- do you have some particular offenders in mind? -- you can be sure that I oppose all policies of Obama that spend money unnecessarily.

just one? ok, military spending

[PassedOut]

 luke warm, on 2011-May-17, 03:55, said:

 PassedOut, on 2011-May-16, 17:20, said:

Although you haven't named any of those policies -- do you have some particular offenders in mind? -- you can be sure that I oppose all policies of Obama that spend money unnecessarily.

just one? ok, military spending

It's certainly true that Obama's Afghanistan policies have increased US spending there, and he had the option not to do that. Same with deploying the drones, taking action in Libya, and so on. Overall I feel that Obama has made his military decisions responsibly and after careful reflection, but I can see how folks could consider some of that spending to be unnecessary.

To me, the Bush invasion of Iraq was totally unnecessary (from the get-go), but I did support Bush's decision to invade Afghanistan after the Taliban refused to turn over bin Laden.

There is always going to be some federal spending that I agree with and some that I don't. The same with you and with every other citizen, and we won't always agree on what is necessary and what is not. Those decisions should be debated with vigor, and those decisions won't always go the way we wanted.

Once those decisions are made, however, I believe that they should be paid for quickly by current taxes -- whether we agree with the spending or not. Why should future generations have to pay for poor decisions made today? Let them pay for their own poor decisions, not ours.

I have no problem with our representatives fighting tooth and nail about what spending to cut and what to keep. I know I won't agree with all the decisions, but that's life. Once that process is completed, however, taxes need to be set to pay for those decisions with current tax dollars. A little deficit in hard times, a little surplus in good times, but taxes basically in balance with spending. That should not be up for discussion.

Before 1980, there was a bipartisan consensus on that, and I'd like to see that restored. I strongly believe that paying as you go focuses attention on wasteful federal spending, while asking future taxpayers to pick up the tab takes away some of that urgent scrutiny.

Politicans who refuse to set tax rates to pay for the spending they've authorized are completely irresponsible. So are the voters who support them.

[helene_t]

 PassedOut, on 2011-May-17, 06:56, said:

Politicans who refuse to vote for taxes to pay for the spending they've authorized are completely irresponsible. So are the voters who support them.

I think it's a little harsh to blame the voters for all mistakes the politicians make. I also think it is wrong debating tactics since if you point the finger at a voter and says "it is your fault!" then his likely reaction is to dislike you and not take your advice.

Sure, if a voter expresses, to a poll agency's call agent, that he would be more likely to vote for a politician who votes for unfunded tax cuts, then that voter encourages the irresponsible behaviour and is therefore to blame.

But with the silly American/British election system you have only two options so you pick the lesser evil and you are unlikely to agree with everything the candidate stands for.

Heck, even with the Dutch and Danish systems in which there maybe be dozens of candidates that you can vote for without wasting your vote on chanceless candidates, I have always found myself voting for candidates that had (in my view) pretty disgusting views on certain issues.

[PassedOut]

 helene_t, on 2011-May-17, 07:08, said:

I think it's a little harsh to blame the voters for all mistakes the politicians make. I also think it is wrong debating tactics since if you point the finger at a voter and says "it is your fault!" then his likely reaction is to dislike you and not take your advice.

From time to time people have given me advice of this sort, especially when I was a young man. I do try to keep my natural harshness in check these days (the Nietzsche quote is supposed to be my reminder), but not always successfully.

[hrothgar]

 luke warm, on 2011-May-17, 03:55, said:

just one? ok, military spending

I'm all for sharp cuts in the Defense Budget...

I suspect that Obama is as well. Most people think that the decision to move Leon Panetta from CIA Director to Secretary of Defense signals a serious shift in military spending. (Panetta's has enormous amounts of experience with budgetary matters and manuevering on Capital Hill)

With this said and done, there are a lot of limits on Obama's ability to make sharp cuts to the defense budget, especially where weapon's system procurements are involved. Look at all the insanity that ensued regarding the extra engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. It took years to kill that idiocy despite the fact that neither the Pentagon nor the executive branch wanted it.

I suspect that Obama's biggest room for manuever will involve military bases in Western Europe and Japan. However, I'm not sure how much long term savings this will entail.

I'd like to see us pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
I hope that we're able to pull this one off.

[luke warm]

 PassedOut, on 2011-May-17, 06:56, said:

Politicans who refuse to set tax rates to pay for the spending they've authorized are completely irresponsible. So are the voters who support them.

i assume this also would apply to those politicians that refused to let the bush tax cuts expire... how did your congress(wo)men vote on that? did you vote for any of them?

[awm]

The unfortunate reality is that we live in a two-party system.

It's likely that come November 2012, I will be given a choice between a democratic candidate who voted to extend the Bush tax cuts... and a republican candidate who supports the Ryan budget. While I consider extending the Bush tax cuts to have been a bad policy, I also consider the Ryan budget (which not only makes the Bush tax cuts permanent but further cuts rates for the top earners and slashes medicare in order to pay for it) to be even worse.

Given this choice, I'm not going to vote for the republican (who supports even worse policy) just to castigate the democrat for his free-luncher vote on the tax cuts. And I'm not going to "choose not to vote" because I think there is a clear difference between a politician who grudgingly accepts a bad compromise and a politician who actively advocates bad policy.

With that said, I'd be happy to support a progressive challenger in the democratic primary.

[Bbradley62]

 awm, on 2011-May-17, 16:59, said:

It's likely that come November 2012, I will be given a choice between a democratic candidate who voted to extend the Bush tax cuts... and a republican candidate who supports the Ryan budget.

I guess we call that a restricted choice. That's more than a lot of us get. In order to vote against Newt in 1998, I had to vote for a guy named Bats Pelphrey. Swear to God!

[luke warm]

 awm, on 2011-May-17, 16:59, said:

It's likely that come November 2012, I will be given a choice between a democratic candidate who voted to extend the Bush tax cuts... and a republican candidate who supports the Ryan budget. ~~~ Given this choice, I'm not going to vote for the republican (who supports even worse policy) just to castigate the democrat for his free-luncher vote on the tax cuts.

that's fine, but you're also not the one who called such voters (and votes) "completely irresponsible"

[PassedOut]

 luke warm, on 2011-May-17, 15:37, said:

how did your congress(wo)men vote on that? did you vote for any of them?

Our congressman, a tea party republican, is definitely irresponsible on fiscal matters. I don't condone stealing from our children and grandchildren, so I neither support him nor vote for him.

How about you? Under what conditions, if any, do you consider such stealing to be responsible? Or acceptable?

[kenberg]

I think we need more politicians named Bats Pelphrey. A man who can find his way through the darkest cave. Straighten up and fly right. Cats for Bats.

[luke warm]

 PassedOut, on 2011-May-18, 07:34, said:

Our congressman, a tea party republican, is definitely irresponsible on fiscal matters. I don't condone stealing from our children and grandchildren, so I neither support him nor vote for him.

How about you? Under what conditions, if any, do you consider such stealing to be responsible? Or acceptable?

pretty much as adam spelled it out, if you insist on terming it that way... it's good to see that you are one of the few really responsible voters out there, one who never (by his vote) condoned stealing

[PassedOut]

 luke warm, on 2011-May-18, 03:57, said:

that's fine, but you're also not the one who called such voters (and votes) "completely irresponsible"

Did not recall anyone saying that, so I looked it up. The closest to it was you:

 luke warm, on 2011-May-17, 15:37, said:

i assume this also would apply to those politicians that refused to let the bush tax cuts expire...

As I've mentioned in other threads, I can't be responsible for your assumptions.

Going back to what I actually said, is it your position that politicians who absolutely refuse to raise tax rates to pay for current spending are acting responsibly? When a candidate runs for office explicitly stating that all tax increases are "off the table" despite ballooning deficits, do you consider voting for such a candidate to be responsible behavior?

Judging by some of your posts, I suspect that you actually agree with me. You just wouldn't phrase it the way I do.

In the same vein, if you don't consider sending a gigantic bill for current federal spending to future generations as "stealing" from them, what euphemism do you prefer? I acknowledge that I'm not steeped in political correctness.

[Foxx]

On this topic, I'd say that Stephen Colbert absolutely steamrolled Amy Kremer last night...........

.........except the poor lady's face looks like somebody already did.

[luke warm]

 PassedOut, on 2011-May-18, 16:03, said:

Did not recall anyone saying that, so I looked it up. The closest to it was you:

As I've mentioned in other threads, I can't be responsible for your assumptions.

you said

 PassedOut, on 2011-May-17, 06:56, said:

Politicans [sic] who refuse to set tax rates to pay for the spending they've authorized are completely irresponsible. So are the voters who support them.

and adam said that sometimes it's a choice between two evils, and i answered him,

Quote

that's fine, but you're also not the one who called such voters (and votes) "completely irresponsible"

so there is no assumption of anything, you called such politicians and voters "completely irresponsible"... what exactly are you denying saying?

Quote

Going back to what I actually said, is it your position that politicians who absolutely refuse to raise tax rates to pay for current spending are acting responsibly? When a candidate runs for office explicitly stating that all tax increases are "off the table" despite ballooning deficits, do you consider voting for such a candidate to be responsible behavior?

asked and answered by adam, and agreed with by me

Quote

In the same vein, if you don't consider sending a gigantic bill for current federal spending to future generations as "stealing" from them, what euphemism do you prefer? I acknowledge that I'm not steeped in political correctness.

where did i say i didn't agree with that? having said that, it might be necessary in some situations

[PassedOut]

 luke warm, on 2011-May-19, 03:59, said:

so there is no assumption of anything, you called such politicians and voters "completely irresponsible"... what exactly are you denying saying?

I certainly did not say that every politician who voted to extend the Bush tax cuts at some point was "completely irresponsible". There is a huge block of free lunchers in congress, and other representatives have to make deals with those dolts to keep the government running. Because you could not find me saying what you wanted to object to, you said (and I quote) "i assume...", and then proceeded to disagree with your own assumption.

So much for your "there is no assumption of anything."

Back to reality, there are adults in congress from both major parties who understand that the deficit will not be eliminated without a combination of both spending cuts and tax increases. They are opposed by the free lunchers who say flatly that "tax increases are off the table."

To solve the problem, then, politicians will have to resort to euphemism: We will get "tax reform" instead of "tax increases." But taxes will be increased nevertheless, and major campaign contributors will be the beneficiaries of the "reform."

In the hypothetical case where a voter can only choose between candidates who are adamant that all tax increases are off the table despite the ballooning deficits, it goes without saying that those poor souls have no opportunity to send a responsible representative to congress and are therefore off the hook.

 luke warm, on 2011-May-19, 03:59, said:

where did i say i didn't agree with that? having said that, it might be necessary in some situations

So we do agree that passing on this monstrous debt of ours is really "stealing," as I thought we did.

As far as it being "necessary in some situations," that would only be the case in drastic situations like when fighting WWII or when threatened with the collapse of the entire economy. We're past both of those calamities now.

[luke warm]

 PassedOut, on 2011-May-19, 07:10, said:

I certainly did not say that every politician who voted to extend the Bush tax cuts at some point was "completely irresponsible". There is a huge block of free lunchers in congress, and other representatives have to make deals with those dolts to keep the government running. Because you could not find me saying what you wanted to object to, you said (and I quote) "i assume...", and then proceeded to disagree with your own assumption.

you said the below, and quoted some blog to illustrate your point

 PassedOut, on 2011-May-12, 06:37, said:

Despite all their noise about the deficit, Boehner and his free-lunch republicans are only adding to the problem. It's good to see some responsible people pointing that out.

Quote

Extending the Bush tax cuts over the next 10 years, which Boehner favors, will increase the deficit by twice as much as the $2 trillion in spending cuts he's calling for will reduce the deficit.

These people are pitiful excuses for human beings. And so are the people who vote for them.

 PassedOut, on 2011-May-15, 15:41, said:

Obama does pander to the free lunch crowd by continuing the irresponsible Bush tax cuts for those making less than 250K.

does that make obama a free luncher by extension? if not, why not? so "free lunchers" includes those who continued the bush tax cuts, they (free lunchers) and those who vote for them are pitiful excuses for human beings because they refuse to set tax rates compatible with spending (since spending has increased in the midst of those cuts)... you do in fact call those who voted to extend the cuts free lunchers, you did say they were pitiful excuses for human beings and you did say

Quote

PassedOut, on 2011-May-17, 07:56, said: Politicans [sic] who refuse to set tax rates to pay for the spending they've authorized are completely irresponsible. So are the voters who support them.

so which of those "completely irresponsible" politicains who voted to extend the cuts is not a "free luncher?" and which of those who voted for them?

Quote

As far as it being "necessary in some situations," that would only be the case in drastic situations like when fighting WWII or when threatened with the collapse of the entire economy. We're past both of those calamities now.

or bank bailouts? or owning an automobile company? or stimulus spending? are any of those "free lunch" programs? welfare? food stamps? just how do you define free lunch programs? you see, you rant about republicans so much (i've never seen you use the term "free lunch democrats") that it's hard to take you seriously... all politicians are in the same boat, as are all voters

[y66]

I am such a rétard. I can't believe I revisited this thread thinking the discussion might have taken a more constructive turn. Where's the DIY lobotomy thread?

[PassedOut]

 luke warm, on 2011-May-19, 09:55, said:

just how do you define free lunch programs? you see, you rant about republicans so much (i've never seen you use the term "free lunch democrats") that it's hard to take you seriously... all politicians are in the same boat, as are all voters

Look, instead of arguing with your conception of what I said, why not just lay out your own position on the matter?