Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Idiotic, for reasons this board doesn't have the space within which to list. But look on the bright side: It's a fairly long document, and time spent reading is time in which they won't be passing any actual legislation.

There is no hope of either party enacting serious custs to Medicare, SS or Defense, or even stanching substantial pork projects. Let them fiddle. I'll be moving to commodities... emphasis: Scotch and Spam.

(No, Adder, the economy is not getting better. Wall Street is getting better because companies are doing well in emerging markets and we were getting some manufacturing growth from a depressed dollar. The domestic liabilities remain ominous, with us reaching $1 trillion in yearly debt service alone by 2017-2020. Unemployment is not down. That's seasonal hiring for shit wage temp work. And housing is conservatively forecast to drop another 5-10%. So don't give me the usual lip on this issue.)

The Rs have promised $100 billion in cuts to domestic programs. So far, they've only announced what won't be cut, e.g. the military (because, obviously, there is no waste, fraud, or abuse there).

Are you saying you don't believe them?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I But look on the bright side: It's a fairly long document, and time spent reading is time in which they won't be passing any actual legislation.

It really ain't that long.

There is no hope of either party enacting serious custs to Medicare, SS or Defense, or even stanching substantial pork projects.

I guess we can debate what's serious, but I'd bet on some tweaks to SS, although it isn't really much of a problem.

As for health care, the GOP House rules apparently exempt the cost savings of the health care reform from paygo (to go along with there desire to cut taxes without paying for them). On the one hand, it's nice to have them admit that they believe there will be cost savings. On the other it's disappointing that they don't want the savings

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

The sad, sad thing here is that Hank's approach to the constitution appears to be what will guide the House of Representatives for the next two years.

You and sidd are back on ignore for January. Enjoy.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

The Rs have promised $100 billion in cuts to domestic programs. So far, they've only announced what won't be cut, e.g. the military (because, obviously, there is no waste, fraud, or abuse there).

Are you saying you don't believe them?

The power centers in the GOP want crisis. They want the wars that ultimately spring from them. They know we're fucked and the only way out is a radical game change. They don't want incremental solutions.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

You and sidd are back on ignore for January. Enjoy.

Translation: I lost this one so badly that I'm going to pick up my marbles and go home.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

You and sidd are back on ignore for January. Enjoy.

I'm really not going to research this for you (well, at least not until I get more bored), but here's a very fast taste from the ever reliable wikipedia:

There are varying interpretations of the original intent of Congress, based on statements made during the congressional debate over the amendment.[5] During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as excluding American Indians who maintain their tribal ties, and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." He was supported by other senators, including Edgar Cowan, Reverdy Johnson, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull.[6] Howard further stated the term jurisdiction meant "the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now"[6] and that the United States possessed a "full and complete jurisdiction" over the person described in the amendment.[7][8][6] Other senators, including Senator John Conness,[9] supported the amendment, believing citizenship should cover all children born in the United States.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Adder

It really ain't that long.



I guess we can debate what's serious, but I'd bet on some tweaks to SS, although it isn't really much of a problem.

As for health care, the GOP House rules apparently exempt the cost savings of the health care reform from paygo (to go along with there desire to cut taxes without paying for them). On the one hand, it's nice to have them admit that they believe there will be cost savings. On the other it's disappointing that they don't want the savings

They could reverse Medicare Part D.

Oh, wait -- that was a W program. Those don't increase the deficit. They were paid for with tax cuts.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Translation: I lost this one so badly that I'm going to pick up my marbles and go home.

Hank has marbles left?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

They could reverse Medicare Part D.

Oh, wait -- that was a W program. Those don't increase the deficit. They were paid for with tax cuts.

The fiscal credibility of the parties in two paragraphs (per Ezra Klein):

During the Bush administration, Democrats made a big deal of the Republicans' tendency to pass big initiatives without paying for them. The tax cuts, for instance, went right onto the deficit. So too did the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit. The Democrats promised that they'd be more responsible. They'd pay for their big projects.

When health-care reform came around, they made good. They cut $500 billion from Medicare, handing conservatives a potent attack line. They introduced a tax on high-value health insurance plans, infuriating their union supporters. They didn't just pay for the bill: They overpaid for the bill, packing it with enough spending cuts and revenue increases to cut the deficit by more than $100 billion in the first 10 years, and then used the momentum of the bill to get liberals to sign off on cost controls, like an independent board designed to control Medicare's costs, that they'd have never countenanced in normal times

Where's club been anyway?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Adder

I'd bet on some tweaks to SS, although it isn't really much of a problem.

It isn't much of a problem IF we *don't* start paying back the $4,634,739,130,665.17* in treasury debt held by the "trust fund". That sounds like a significant problem, perhaps worse than the $9,390,476,088,043.35* held by the public, as the public isn't *necessarily* looking to reduce their holdings in the next decade.

*as of 12/31/10

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

I'm really not going to research this for you (well, at least not until I get more bored), but here's a very fast taste from the ever reliable wikipedia:

Thanks adder. Good thing the only socks that posted about how there is no way the record would read that way are socks that are used to being perfectly wrong all the time. I suppose the citizenship is "all free!"

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

It isn't much of a problem IF we *don't* start paying back the $4,634,739,130,665.17* in treasury debt held by the "trust fund". That sounds like a significant problem, perhaps worse than the $9,390,476,088,043.35* held by the public, as the public isn't *necessarily* looking to reduce their holdings in the next decade.

*as of 12/31/10

You mean we can default on our debt to the SS trust fund if we reduce the trust fund's obligations?

Sweet. I'm going to call up Citibank and tell them that I'm paying less on my mortgage, since they've been cutting their expenses.


(Okay, I understand your point. Honestly, I'm just pissed off that more people haven't taken up, loudly, the fact that Reagan massively increased taxes on the working poor and middle class, pretended it didn't matter because those were payroll taxes that were going into SS, then debt-financed the government and now the day of reckoning is getting closer. That piece of shit set the tone for fiscal irresponsibility that will doom this country.)

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Thanks adder. Good thing the only socks that posted about how there is no way the record would read that way are socks that are used to being perfectly wrong all the time. I suppose the citizenship is "all free!"

Like I said, five minutes on Google would give you the answer. Five more minutes and you'd see that a dissenting minority of 2 adopted your view in a landmark case -- one that occurred when the "history" was still pretty fresh.

Which is easier -- getting Adder to do a research project for you, or getting your associates to do one?

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

There is no hope of either party enacting serious custs to Medicare, SS or Defense, or even stanching substantial pork projects. Let them fiddle. I'll be moving to commodities... emphasis: Scotch and Spam.

I'm not so sure about this. There is a block of tea partiers that will not vote for raising the debt ceiling unless it is tied to budget cuts/deficit reduction. Normally, I would think this is posturing, but I think a lot of these guys are nuts enough to play chicken.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

You mean we can default on our debt to the SS trust fund if we reduce the trust fund's obligations?

Sweet. I'm going to call up Citibank and tell them that I'm paying less on my mortgage, since they've been cutting their expenses.


(Okay, I understand your point. Honestly, I'm just pissed off that more people haven't taken up, loudly, the fact that Reagan massively increased taxes on the working poor and middle class, pretended it didn't matter because those were payroll taxes that were going into SS, then debt-financed the government and now the day of reckoning is getting closer. That piece of shit set the tone for fiscal irresponsibility that will doom this country.)

And, just for those here who don't always admit to understanding a point that isn't spelled out:

the point is that anyone who says we *don't* have a SS problem is being willfully blind to the general fund problem created by the debt held by SS and expected to be repaid/drawn down over the next 20 years.

Think an extra $200B/year on-budget isn't a problem? You're no better than the Rs you (rightly) condemn for being unserious on the budget.