Well they certainly COULD filibuster everything. Rest assured that every time they do it will be plastered all over the news. Then when nothing gets done, it will be clear that it was due to partisan filibustering based on contrived political games rather than conviction. That'll become apparent in the election returns.
This is so misleading it's funny. If Best Buy sent out 50% off your entire purchase coupons and I buy a $1 soda from their cooler I save 50 cents. If you buy a $1200 TV you save $600. I guess we could say that the coupons was a savings largely for the rich TV buyers...but that doesn't make it exactly accurate...even though the nominal dollars make it appear to be.
If Best Buy sent out 50% off your entire purchase coupons and I buy a $1 soda from their cooler I save 50 cents. If you buy a $1200 TV you save $600. I guess we could say that the coupons was a savings largely for the rich TV buyers...but that doesn't make it exactly accurate...even though the nominal dollars make it appear to be. And notice that Best Buy never does that. There's always a limit on it, like there should be on tax cuts.
Perhaps the better example would be the coupon I used today to buy my wife a birthday gift at Mikasa. The coupon was 15% off an entire purchase. It applied to EVERYTHING in the store. It applied to the $40 piece of crystal I bought her (damn she's gonna be happy). It would have applied to the $500 dinnerware set had I chosen to buy that. I think the point is clear. An across the board cut will seem like more going to one set of people as the numbers get larger. That doesn't mean that people on the lower end of the spectrum did not get a cut. Incidentally...the Bush tax cut took the poorest taxpayers off the tax rolls entirely. Previously they paid tax...now they pay nothing. Explain to me exactly how that benefits the wealthy.
Let's not forget that Best Buy is a <b>for profit</b> entity. I don't believe that the US Government is. Details, details.
Irrelevant, but I can't help noting that this thread title makes me sing it to the tune of 'What do the simple folk do?' from Camelot...
I think the point is clear. An across the board cut will seem like more going to one set of people as the numbers get larger. That doesn't mean that people on the lower end of the spectrum did not get a cut. Incidentally...the Bush tax cut took the poorest taxpayers off the tax rolls entirely. Previously they paid tax...now they pay nothing. Explain to me exactly how that benefits the wealthy. I was just messing with you on the Best Buy thing - I know the point you were trying to make. I'm seriously not really against the tax cut as long as the budget cuts come first. Going after the small pork, as you mentioned, is definitely a first step - but that's only going to generate a few billion dollars. In a trillion-dollar tax cut, that's nothing. There would have to be serious cuts to major programs (defense, education, welfare, etc) along with major subsidies such as Steel Tariffs, farm subsidies, etc. I would have no problem with the tax cuts if Congress did them simultaneously with the program cuts. Then the American people can make a fair judgement on cost/benefits. However, what happens is that the Republicans cut the taxes but don't touch the spending. Then down the road, someone else has to either cut spending by itself or raise taxes, and they'll be blamed for it. I just feel that its irresponsible. Bush I got stuck in this mess being blamed for raising taxes to deal with the deficits of the Reagan years.
You make a great point...one I'm not going to quarrel with. There is one thing I need to point out though. If we really need a high level of taxation in order to avoid a deficit, how did we accumulate a 4 trillion dollar surplus? To me that is the fly in the proverbial ointment. Certainly we have had tax cuts already since the surplus was accumulated, but not huge ones. I have a real problem believing that the planned tax cuts would be enough to take us from a surplus state of cash flow to a deficit state of cash flow. In my estimation, the reason we are currently experiencing deficit spending is due to the recession. A lot more people are transitionally unemployed (including yours truly). That means that those persons are not paying taxes and are receiving services they normally do not need. Perhaps once these persons go back to work, the proposed level of taxation will be enough to still have a small surplus once we get rid of several billion dollars worth of wasteful government spending (otherwise known as pork). Just my somewhat educated opinion. If you have facts to show me otherwise please share them with me so I will have a better informed opinion.
Another thing for the Democrats to do aside from a clear program like a simple no bs national health plan, is to push for steps to broaden the electorate and take the big money out of politics. 1) Public money for campaigns. End Enron style buying of politicians and elections. Republicans nearly always have the edge in buying elections with TV time or lobbying politicians. There are exceptions for the occasional rich guy like Tony Sanchez, who it should be noted has supported many Republicans. If the little guy feels like the politicians are "bought" he is less likely to vote. 2) A national holiday for federal elections or voting all weekend long or some such scheme which will encourage lower working class voters who don't have flexible work hours to vote. Much quicker voter registration plans such as motor vehicle registration.(It is always amusing to see Republicans try to restrict democracy, except for when they are using it for an excuse to invade Iraq or some other project. 3) Simpler rules for allowing felons to regain their voting rights. It is a disgrace how throughout predominantly the South thousands of minorities are barred from voting for drug crimes like mar1juana felonies and the possession of a crack pipe with a small amount of residue, which is a felony. Notice how Jeb swung his brother's election in Fla. by his bogus scheme to remove anyone with the same name as a felon from the voting rolls.
WTF are talking about? $4 trillion figure seems better to describe the increase in the deficit Reagan/Bush Sr (plus a Democratic Congress) left behind in their Revolutionary wake. Something you need to consider about the current recession is that the unemployment levels are not relatively bad, in a historic sense. Unemployment levels in the 70s and 80s were in general higher, boom or bust. Returning to the unemployment levels of the late 90s may not happen. There has been talk lately of a productivity based recovery (i.e a jobless recovery). Of course, this is not stopping Bush Jr from pushing more tax cuts in his agenda for the next two years.
The Democrats are in the same boat as the Israelis and Palestinians. They need new leadership with new ideas, and will get nowhere until it happens.
Wow! Glynch came up with three points that weren't way out in left field fantasy land. In fact, I even think the first two have some merit.....and I'm ambivilant enough about the third to not oppose it.
What's irrelevant? I was thinking more of "C'est Moi" with Gephardt descending the steps to the Capitol.
Quote: Originally posted by Refman If we really need a high level of taxation in order to avoid a deficit, how did we accumulate a 4 trillion dollar surplus? Just to clarify, NW and Refman, you guys seem to be confusing the National debt (Which is like 6 Trillion), with the Budget Deficit, which is the annual shortfall, which is something like 150 billion for 2002. The 4 trilllion projected figure would have been the cumulative amount of budgetary surpluses by 2012 or something, given continued (unrealistic) GDP growth and no tax cuts. But due to both, it's about as realistic as Yao Ming getting a double-double.
