Politics - They Play With People's Lives

[tsst]

You missed part of the bold font. Fixed it for you.

And just to be clear, see bold fonts.

From previous post:

Republicans complained that the $7.4 billion price tag was too high, while Democrats said the government had an obligation to help the first responders to the deadliest terrorism attack in U.S. history.

The temperature in Washington dipped into the 20s last week, and here in the capital, that seems to be the point when hell freezes over: President Obama reached an agreement on the Bush tax cuts with the Republican Senate leader who said "the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."


Sen. Bernard Sanders, a socialist from Vermont, and Sen. Jim DeMint, an arch-conservative from South Carolina, threatened to filibuster the agreement. Liberal Democrats said they'd prefer a permanent extension of most of the tax cuts, and the architect of those cuts said the country couldn't afford anything more than a temporary extension.

It's been a little confusing.

But it's also been clarifying. The tax-cut deal, in which the Republicans will give the White House about $300 billion in stimulus in return for the White House giving Republicans about $130 billion in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, laid bare some old and new realities of how Washington works - and doesn't work - right now. It's worth going through them one by one.

1) No one really cares about the deficit. No sooner had Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles completed their work on the deficit reduction package than Democrats and Republicans reached a bipartisan accord to add $900 billion to the debt. Republicans wanted their unpaid-for tax cuts for the rich, Democrats wanted their unpaid-for stimulus measures and both sides wanted the unpaid-for tax cuts for income under $250,000. I think it's appropriate to spend while the economy is weak and then repay when it's strong, but then, I didn't just get elected to Congress by promising to rein in spending.

2) Obama is better at the inside game than the outside game. Sarah Palin likes to ask the president "how that hopey-changey stuff" is going. The answer, it seems, is that the changey stuff is going well, but the hopey stuff is proving more troublesome. Obama might have campaigned in 2008 as the inspirational newcomer who had no patience for the broken ways of Washington, but he has governed like a Washington veteran with little patience for inspired outsiders. In health-care reform, in the stimulus, in financial regulation and in the tax-cut deal, Obama has been a tough negotiator able to move his agenda through a gridlocked Congress - but he has not been able to enthuse Democrats or inspire popular support for his initiatives. He has been prickly when questioned about it.

3) And he's not over health-care reform. Among the president's most passionate moments during the post-deal news conference was his long, impromptu scolding of dissatisfied progressives who're making this into "the public option debate all over again." Obama went on to complain that liberals were so focused on the public option that they lost sight of the rest of the health-care bill - which was much larger. And he's right about that. But it's also time for him to get over it.

4) Republicans really, really, really care about tax cuts for rich people. Many Democrats had been operating under the theory that Republicans would simply obstruct everything Democrats attempted, as that was the best way to make Obama a one-termer. At least when it comes to tax cuts for very wealthy Americans, that's not true. Republicans agreed to far more in unemployment insurance and stimulus proposals than anyone expected, and sources who were involved in the negotiations agree that the mistake Democrats made going in was underestimating how much Republicans wanted the tax cuts for the rich extended.

5) It's still Ronald Reagan's world, at least when it comes to taxes. The Sturm und Drang over the tax cuts for the rich obscured the Democrats' massive capitulation on the tax cuts for everyone else. Even the party's liberals had accepted Obama's argument that the tax cuts for income of less than $250,000 - which includes the bulk of the Bush tax cuts - should be permanently extended. Another way of saying that is Democrats had agreed that the Clinton-era tax rates were too high. If you put it to most Democrats that way, they'd protest vigorously. The economy boomed under Clinton, and the Democratic Party is proud of the efforts it made to balance the budget. But Democrats are so terrified of being accused of raising taxes that they've conceded to the Bush tax rates for 98 percent of Americans.

6) We need tax reform, now more than ever. The end result of this deal is going to be an even weirder tax code than we have now - and the one we have now is pretty weird. We're extending old tax cuts and credits and adding new ones. Some of those may be extended further. Businesses won't want to see deductions for investments expire, and workers won't want to see the payroll-tax cut expire, and the super-rich won't want to see the tax exemption for estates up to $5 million expire. There are so many constituencies fighting for so many breaks that the only hope we're going to have when we actually do need to reduce the deficit - which isn't yet, but will be soon - is to start from square one on the tax code.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/10/AR2010121002242.html

 

[kathylove]

Our tax code is such a mess that this is the main thing I agree with:

"...the only hope we're going to have... is to start from square one on the tax code..."

I would love to see it REPLACED with a national sales tax - then most people would never have to deal with the IRS unless they are in business. But there are way too many government employees, accountants, and others heavily invested in the present system of chaos that it is never likely to happen. They would be more likely to ADD a sales (or VAT) tax, but then never getting around to ending the present income tax. A sales tax that exempted basic food, and possibly a few other "basic" needs (I am sure there would be a HUGE fight over what constitutes "basic"!), means the poor would automatically get more of a break than the rich,as far as what percentage of their income is spent on "basics" - whatever that is determined to mean.

"I can't understand that "dark side" of the Democrats. Usually they make sense, but like you said, the ban probably attracts voters hence is used for political stunts."

"Make sense" and "politician", whichever side of the Republicrat coin they belong to, are not words I usually use in the same sentence!

While the Dems usually are willing to stay out of our bedrooms and marriage, they often want to push programs to redistribute wealth and enforce political correctness. And, IMO, they usually go too far. And most of them seem willing to sign on for whatever humaniac or environmental cause is popular, whether it is scientifically supported (as some are!), or some fringe cause (like python bans). I don't see that as an improvement over the Republicans.

And:

"No one really cares about the deficit. No sooner had Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles completed their work on the deficit reduction package than Democrats and Republicans reached a bipartisan accord to add $900 billion to the debt..."

Yup - sounds about right!

 

[jpccusa]

You missed part of the bold font. Fixed it for you.

Perhaps I was not clear enough... What I meant was that Republicans are blocking $7.4 billion for the 9/11 first responders, but they are demanding $130 billion for the wealthiest people in the country.

The part you "fixed" seems irrelevant.

"I can't understand that "dark side" of the Democrats. Usually they make sense, but like you said, the ban probably attracts voters hence is used for political stunts."

"Make sense" and "politician", whichever side of the Republicrat coin they belong to, are not words I usually use in the same sentence!

While the Dems usually are willing to stay out of our bedrooms and marriage, they often want to push programs to redistribute wealth and enforce political correctness. And, IMO, they usually go too far. And most of them seem willing to sign on for whatever humaniac or environmental cause is popular, whether it is scientifically supported (as some are!), or some fringe cause (like python bans). I don't see that as an improvement over the Republicans.

Well, the way I see it, at least Dems are willing to stay out of our bedrooms and marriage, and that alone makes them an improvement over the Reps.
In the other hand, I agree with you that they can indeed go too far. :cheers:

 

[kathylove]

"Well, the way I see it, at least Dems are willing to stay out of our bedrooms and marriage, and that alone makes them an improvement over the Reps."

I would only see that as an improvement if they were willing to stay out of most of the OTHER aspects of our lives as well. At least the Reps don't seem to be as dedicated to killing our hobby / industry as the Dems are.

I would like to pretty much throw them ALL out of office, and replace them with Libertarians. THEY want to stay out of ALL parts of our lives as much as possible. Some government intrusion is inevitable. But when balancing individual freedoms vs. government "help", those freedoms should weigh very heavily, and be given up only after vary careful consideration of the benefits to be gained.

 

[jpccusa]

I would like to pretty much throw them ALL out of office, and replace them with Libertarians. THEY want to stay out of ALL parts of our lives as much as possible. Some government intrusion is inevitable. But when balancing individual freedoms vs. government "help", those freedoms should weigh very heavily, and be given up only after vary careful consideration of the benefits to be gained.

YEAP!!! :bowdown:

 

[tsst]

Perhaps I was not clear enough. The political gaming ABSOLUTELY comes from both sides of the isle. Just because you agree with one side does not make their gaming any more correct.

Just like the attempted spin in the post. It's made to sound like they want to give rich people billions instead of paying for first responder benefits. When in fact the two are separate issues. Going further they are giving rich people NOTHING. They are simply voting not to TAKE money that belongs to those people. Also from what little I have read about the first responder issue, it's not that they don't want to provide that it has to do with whether the price tag is appropriate and how it will be paid for.

It also seems kind of funny that the left decries the egregiousness this issue while having little sympathy for similar lack of support for our military members!?!?

 

[The_Thunderer]

Can't rep you YET, Tsst!!! I owe ya one.

 

[jpccusa]

It also seems kind of funny that the left decries the egregiousness this issue while having little sympathy for similar lack of support for our military members!?!?

How is that?!?!?

I thought it was the Republicans who blocked the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 because it contained language to repeal DADT.

Curiously enough, they were headed by John McCain (military veteran)...

Talking about "lack of support for our military members", what about ignoring top officials concerns and advices, the Pentagon's studies on the issue, and military members surveys, ALL IN FAVOR OF REPEALING DADT?

Where is the Republican support for our military members? :headbang:

 

[jpccusa]

Good article that may be elucidating to some people.

Precious little recommends the pact worked out between the president and congressional Republicans on taxes and benefits, except that it drops the pretense that either the White House or Capitol Hill cares much about reducing the deficit or creating jobs. Or about the working poor.

The $900 billion package extends the Bush-era cuts in marginal tax rates for two years; keeps in place a 15 percent levy on investment income; increases to 35 percent the tax on estates, with $5 million exempted; extends unemployment benefits for 13 months; cuts payroll contributions to Social Security; extends tuition and child tax credits; temporarily fixes the creep of the Alternative Minimum Tax; maintains increases in the Earned Income Tax Credit for low-income workers; and doubles the business write-off for capital expenses.

The package itself will balloon the deficit by the same amount, since not one of those provisions arrives with a corresponding budget cut. Neither is there prospect for serious cuts in the future, since the bulk of taxpayer money is spent on Social Security, Medicare and the Defense Department, all untouchable for one political reason or another.

As a bonus, the deal will actually decrease the amount of money going into Social Security, hastening the financial collapse of that entitlement.

As happened under President Bush, most of the tax provisions in the new plan will disproportionately benefit the wealthiest Americans. In fact, markedly absent from the current proposal is any attempt to get hedge fund managers and other financial types to pay their fair share of federal income tax. Under current law, they pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than people who make $34,000 a year.

The only people likely to pay more taxes under the plan are individuals making less than $20,000 and families making less than $40,000. In other words, people who have barely escaped poverty and are among the most vulnerable in a jobless recovery.

This is more than an academic exercise. The plan concocted by the president and congressional Republicans upends the principle of a progressive income tax system and insults the notion of a common cause.

And for what?

The rationale for extending the Bush tax cuts - especially for fortunate folks making more than $250,000 a year - has been that a lower rate is critical to job creation.

But an extension of the current tax rates for people making more than $250,000 will do precisely the same thing for job creation that it has in the past. Namely nothing. It will, however, keep politicians rolling in contributions, which was always the point.

More importantly, it will allow Washington to pretend that it's working to get the nation's fiscal house in order, as it has pretended to get its medical house in order, as it has failed to get its energy house in order.

It is a testament to how bad the current health insurance system is that the reform passed this year will improve it. Nevertheless, the health care law still amounts to a distasteful collection of the popular (letting kids stay on parents' policies; ending exclusions for preexisting conditions) and the promised (cost containment in the future).

The tax proposal doesn't contain even promises, as the much-maligned bailouts did. It simply digs hundreds of billions of dollars more from our national financial hole without any pretense of paying for it.

Everyone - liberals, conservatives, rich, poor - loves a tax cut. Taxpayer dollars belong to the taxpayers, after all, not to the government. Everybody appreciates a few more dollars in the piggy bank, especially in a recession.

But even at times like these, those should be real dollars, not fantasy money already spent elsewhere. Not money that only adds to the federal deficit. And certainly not dollars stolen from our grandchildren so we can avoid dealing with the fiscal mess we have made.

 

[tsst]

How is that?!?!?

I thought it was the Republicans who blocked the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 because it contained language to repeal DADT.

Curiously enough, they were headed by John McCain (military veteran)...

Talking about "lack of support for our military members", what about ignoring top officials concerns and advices, the Pentagon's studies on the issue, and military members surveys, ALL IN FAVOR OF REPEALING DADT?

Where is the Republican support for our military members? :headbang:

I experienced it first hand. I was in when William Clinton cut our cost of living raise and also cut on base medical care for dependents.

Are you honestly going to sight an anomaly as the rule regarding the Dems history of military support?!?! :headbang::headbang::headbang:

 

[tsst]

As far as DADT didn't the hope and change candidate run on that issue? He also had absolute power and could have repealed it if he really wanted. Now the dems want to blame the opposite side of the isle for blocking it?

More political gaming. It sounds like to me they didn't really want to go out on that limb so at first chance to blame the other side they grabbed it. :headbang:

 

[tsst]

I love these two quotes!

More importantly, it will allow Washington to pretend that it's working to get the nation's fiscal house in order, as it has pretended to get its medical house in order, as it has failed to get its energy house in order.

But even at times like these, those should be real dollars, not fantasy money already spent elsewhere. Not money that only adds to the federal deficit. And certainly not dollars stolen from our grandchildren so we can avoid dealing with the fiscal mess we have made.

 

[jpccusa]

I experienced it first hand. I was in when William Clinton cut our cost of living raise and also cut on base medical care for dependents.

Are you honestly going to sight an anomaly as the rule regarding the Dems history of military support?!?! :headbang::headbang::headbang:

I do not have knowledge about Bill Clinton's era actions on the military, but I humbly ask you, did Bush revert those actions on his era?

And yes, I am honestly going to point the finger on this action of the Republicans because to me it says they are more concerned about what people do with their private lives than with what they do for their country.
It is bigotry winning over military support. If it happened now, it can keep happening.

As far as DADT didn't the hope and change candidate run on that issue? He also had absolute power and could have repealed it if he really wanted. Now the dems want to blame the opposite side of the isle for blocking it?

More political gaming. It sounds like to me they didn't really want to go out on that limb so at first chance to blame the other side they grabbed it. :headbang:

President Obama is still supportive of the repeal. He kindly allowed Congress to act on it instead of issuing an executive order. Yes, he could do so, but he is trying to bring Dems and Reps together and that would accomplish exactly the opposite.

That's why he appealed a court decision to end DADT.

Like Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, if Congress don't act, the judicial system may cause havoc in the military by ordering an immediate ban of DADT (I'm paraphrasing here).

There is still 2 years left for the candidate for hope and change to end DADT. He has 2 more years as the commander-in-chief.

And Dems are not "wanting to blame" anyone... It is a FACT that Republicans blocked it. I'm not sure why you even put it that way. :shrugs:

 

[Outcast]

As a former military member, and current married man. I believe that the DADT policy needs to be looked at, but not completely removed. I do not think that just because someone is homosexual and "out" that they need to be removed from the service. The biggest problem that I know some people have with a complete repeal is during basic training you are expected to shower with up to 20 people of the same sex. If there is someone who is "out" during those kinds of situations, it will cause issues with the other men and women in the basic training unit.
Did it cause problems with me, when I knew a couple of the guys in my flight were gay? No. Would it have with the other men in my flight, if they were to find out? Yes.
That is why the DADT policy is needed, to protect those who it keeps from coming out. There have been men that I have faught beside while in Afghanistan, that turned out to be gay. Did it affect there ability to fight in any way? No.
Do I wish that people would be as accepting as I have been to the service men and women that I have known to be homosexual? Yes.
Are they? No.
I have been in arguments about this subject many times with people who do not know anyone who is homosexual, or think that a homosexual can "turn someone gay". In fact I was in a similar argument with my wifes cousin today about the subject. I think it is dumb that we need to have something like this in affect, and I pray that one day everyone will accept the men and women who want to serve this country and are homosexual, and allow them to serve openly in the military. I think that things would be much better off if it were the case, but to put it simply, there are way too many homophobes in the military for a complete repeal of the DADT policy to fly.

 

[tsst]

I do not have knowledge about Bill Clinton's era actions on the military, but I humbly ask you, did Bush revert those actions on his era?

And yes, I am honestly going to point the finger on this action of the Republicans because to me it says they are more concerned about what people do with their private lives than with what they do for their country.
It is bigotry winning over military support. If it happened now, it can keep happening.



President Obama is still supportive of the repeal. He kindly allowed Congress to act on it instead of issuing an executive order. Yes, he could do so, but he is trying to bring Dems and Reps together and that would accomplish exactly the opposite.

That's why he appealed a court decision to end DADT.

Like Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, if Congress don't act, the judicial system may cause havoc in the military by ordering an immediate ban of DADT (I'm paraphrasing here).

There is still 2 years left for the candidate for hope and change to end DADT. He has 2 more years as the commander-in-chief.

And Dems are not "wanting to blame" anyone... It is a FACT that Republicans blocked it. I'm not sure why you even put it that way. :shrugs:

What I am trying to get at is that the political gaming comes from both sides of the isle. Neither side does anything for the American people unless it also gets them something in return. I know Rachael says dems really care and reps are the devil reincarnate but she is WRONG. Both sides are equally at fault for the mess we are in they just have separate routes to their agendas.

 

[Outcast]

What I am trying to get at is that the political gaming comes from both sides of the isle. Neither side does anything for the American people unless it also gets them something in return. I know Rachael says dems really care and reps are the devil reincarnate but she is WRONG. Both sides are equally at fault for the mess we are in they just have separate routes to their agendas.

Well said. Both parties are at fault, heck I would go as far as to say that "we the people" who put them into office are at fault for the mess we are all in today. If we vote on party lines, instead of looking at the issues, we will never get ourselves out of the hole we have gotten ourselves into.

 

[jpccusa]

The tax deal's big winners

The agreement between President Obama and congressional Republicans resulted in larger average tax cuts than those in either party's original plans.

GRAPH SOURCES: Joint Committee on Taxation, Tax Policy Center | The Washington Post - Dec. 9, 2010

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2010/12/08/GR2010120808056.html

 

[jpccusa]

As a former military member, and current married man. I believe that the DADT policy needs to be looked at, but not completely removed. I do not think that just because someone is homosexual and "out" that they need to be removed from the service. The biggest problem that I know some people have with a complete repeal is during basic training you are expected to shower with up to 20 people of the same sex. If there is someone who is "out" during those kinds of situations, it will cause issues with the other men and women in the basic training unit.
Did it cause problems with me, when I knew a couple of the guys in my flight were gay? No. Would it have with the other men in my flight, if they were to find out? Yes.
That is why the DADT policy is needed, to protect those who it keeps from coming out. There have been men that I have faught beside while in Afghanistan, that turned out to be gay. Did it affect there ability to fight in any way? No.
Do I wish that people would be as accepting as I have been to the service men and women that I have known to be homosexual? Yes.
Are they? No.
I have been in arguments about this subject many times with people who do not know anyone who is homosexual, or think that a homosexual can "turn someone gay". In fact I was in a similar argument with my wifes cousin today about the subject. I think it is dumb that we need to have something like this in affect, and I pray that one day everyone will accept the men and women who want to serve this country and are homosexual, and allow them to serve openly in the military. I think that things would be much better off if it were the case, but to put it simply, there are way too many homophobes in the military for a complete repeal of the DADT policy to fly.

I'm sorry Aaron, but why is DADT any different than integration? If someone has a problem showering with a homosexual in the same room, the solution would be the same as if someone had a problem showering with a black person in the same room - DEAL WITH IT! There are probably less homophobes in the military today than there were racists back then. Again, they just have to suck it up and keep focus on their jobs.

And DADT is not needed for protection... the military has enough rules to protect their members. Straight people won't be jumped by homosexuals.

Perhaps the military can offer "homophobe anonymous" groups for people struggling to accept homosexuality as part of life.

This article came up today... My comments follow it.

The Marine Corps' top general suggested Tuesday that allowing gays to serve openly in the military could result in more casualties because their presence on the battlefield would pose "a distraction."

"When your life hangs on the line," said Gen. James F. Amos, the commandant of the Marine Corps, "you don't want anything distracting. . . . Mistakes and inattention or distractions cost Marines' lives."

In an interview with newspaper and wire service reporters at the Pentagon, Amos was vague when pressed to clarify how the presence of gays would distract Marines during a firefight. But he cited a recent Defense Department survey in which a large percentage of Marine combat veterans predicted that repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" law would harm "unit cohesion" and their tight-knit training for war.

"So the Marines came back and they said, 'Look, anything that's going to break or potentially break that focus and cause any kind of distraction may have an effect on cohesion,' " he said. "I don't want to permit that opportunity to happen. And I'll tell you why. If you go up to Bethesda [Naval] Hospital . . . Marines are up there with no legs, none. We've got Marines at Walter Reed [Army Medical Center] with no limbs."

Amos had said previously that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly could cause "distractions" and "risks" for combat units. But his remarks Tuesday were the first time that he or any other senior military leader has suggested that repealing the 17-year-old "don't ask, don't tell" law could directly endanger troops and cost lives.

The Marine Corps - which prides itself on its macho image - and its leaders have been more resistant to overturning the law than other branches of the armed forces.

The Defense Department survey, released last month, found that 58 percent of those in Marine combat arms units predicted that repeal would negatively affect their ability to "work together to get the job done." In comparison, 48 percent of those in Army combat units felt the same way.

Overall, 70 percent of those in the military said they believe repeal would have little or no effect on their units.

Amos, the first Marine commandant with a background as a jet pilot, has been outspoken on the subject since he was confirmed by the Senate in September. In testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee on Dec. 3, he was more critical of efforts to overturn the law than the other military branch chiefs, saying that changing the rules during wartime would be disruptive and ill-advised.

The commandant made clear Tuesday, however, that he would not resist if Congress formally integrates gays into the military, saying the Marines would "get in step and do it smartly." He noted that the Corps was "not a democracy" and that the Pentagon's survey did not amount to a referendum in which leaders were beholden to obey the whims of the force.

At the same time, he said he was obligated to listen to Marines under his command.

"Right now is a very intense period of time for a pretty healthy slice of the United States Marine Corps. This is not training," Amos said.

"The forces that wear this uniform, that are in the middle of what I call the real deal, came back and told their commandant of the Marine Corps they have concerns," Amos said.

"That's all I need. I don't need a staff study. I don't need to hire three PhDs to tell me what to interpret it," he said. "If they have concerns, I do, too. It's as simple as that."

The Marines' overall reluctance to accepting gays in the ranks stands in contrast to public opinion. About eight in 10 Americans favor allowing gays to serve openly in the military, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The House of Representatives plans to vote Wednesday on a bill to repeal the gay ban. It is expected to pass easily, but its fate in the Senate is uncertain.

A distraction?!?!? I thought the Marines were trained to overcome small distractions. And who is going to be thinking about what someone else does in their bedroom when in the battlefield?!?!?

If this General thinks this will be a real problem, than he certainly has a much bigger issue to deal with in the Marines.

 

[tsst]

I'm sorry Aaron, but why is DADT any different than integration? If someone has a problem showering with a homosexual in the same room, the solution would be the same as if someone had a problem showering with a black person in the same room - DEAL WITH IT! ....

Wish you were in charge of the military when I was in. Integrate the sexes too. If the women don't like showering with men tell them to DEAL WITH IT! Save budget money having separate dorms and restrooms. Hey why don't we integrate all of society not just the military. If a guy has a problem in a public restroom filled with women tell him to DEAL WITH IT! Cool. I sure would have enjoyed showering a lot more in a shower full of nekked women! :grin01:

All kidding aside ... whether it's right or wrong society and our gov have both shown there are some things that they are not ok with. DEAL WITH IT sounds nice and easy but I would guess, like integration, it is far from it. The goal should be as smooth a transition as possible. I am going to go out on a limb and say the Marine General may know a little more about the Marine Corp and his troops than a Demican or Republicrat bucking for his next vote. Maybe just maybe we should listen to him some. :shrugs:

 

[jpccusa]

I am going to go out on a limb and say the Marine General may know a little more about the Marine Corp and his troops than a Demican or Republicrat bucking for his next vote. Maybe just maybe we should listen to him some. :shrugs:

Overall, 70 percent of those in the military said they believe repeal would have little or no effect on their units.

Maybe, just maybe, he has underlying reasons why not to want to repeal DADT. Homophobia, confusion about his own sexuality, IDK... :shrugs: