So Harry Reid feels that the US does not even need a budget, and to "qualify" that outrageous comment the new white house chief of staff went on CNN and told Candy Crawley this:
CROWLEY: "I want to read for our viewers something that Sen. Harry Reid, the Democrat Majority Leader in the U.S. Senate, who said, 'We do not need to bring a budget to the floor this year. It's done, we don't need to do it'...."
LEW: ".....He's not saying that they shouldn't pass a budget. But we also need to be honest. You can't pass a budget in the Senate of the United States without 60 votes and you can't get 60 votes without bipartisan support. So unless... unless Republicans are willing to work with Democrats in the Senate, Harry Reid is not going to be able to get a budget passed."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=aNxzQUyZu_U
Can anyone spot anything distinctly wrong with Lew's statement?
(This is an opportunity for bonus points!)
This guy is chief of staff to the President, and even worse he's the former OMB director. Either he really is incompetent, or he is using CNN to be deceptive.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 14, 2012, 07:30:22 AM
So Harry Reid feels that the US does not even need a budget, and to "qualify" that outrageous comment the new white house chief of staff went on CNN and told Candy Crawley this:
CROWLEY: "I want to read for our viewers something that Sen. Harry Reid, the Democrat Majority Leader in the U.S. Senate, who said, 'We do not need to bring a budget to the floor this year. It's done, we don't need to do it'...."
LEW: ".....He's not saying that they shouldn't pass a budget. But we also need to be honest. You can't pass a budget in the Senate of the United States without 60 votes and you can't get 60 votes without bipartisan support. So unless... unless Republicans are willing to work with Democrats in the Senate, Harry Reid is not going to be able to get a budget passed."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=aNxzQUyZu_U
Can anyone spot anything distinctly wrong with Lew's statement?
(This is an opportunity for bonus points!)
This guy is chief of staff to the President, and even worse he's the former OMB director. Either he really is incompetent, or he is using CNN to be deceptive.
I heard that only 51 votes are needed to pass a budget.
Here come the blue fonts..
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 14, 2012, 07:45:17 AM
I heard that only 51 votes are needed to pass a budget.
+1 We have a winner!
Reid could easily pass a budget in the Senate.
Lew is either one of the most ignorant people ever appointed by a president or he is purposefully using CNN as a platform for deception. I'm not sure which is worse.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 14, 2012, 09:55:36 AM
+1 We have a winner!
Reid could easily pass a budget in the Senate.
Lew is either one of the most ignorant people ever appointed by a president or he is purposefully using CNN as a platform for deception. I'm not sure which is worse.
Where's the "You're just being a partisan hack" chorus?
The GOP
minority in the Senate is a great foil for Reid who time and time again shows he's such an impotent leader.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 14, 2012, 11:18:52 AM
Where's the "You're just being a partisan hack" chorus?
The GOP minority in the Senate is a great foil for Reid who time and time again shows he's such an impotent leader.
Why should it be any different than that goofball leader in the other chamber?
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 14, 2012, 07:45:17 AM
I heard that only 51 votes are needed to pass a budget.
Except when filibustered. And you both know that - it is how nothing happened last year.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 14, 2012, 11:32:52 AM
Except when filibustered. And you both know that - it is how nothing happened last year.
The filibuster does not apply in this case. In accordance with the Congressional Budget Control Act of 1974, a budget, under law, requires only 51 votes to pass the Senate. The use of filibuster is not allowed.
Thanks for playing.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 14, 2012, 11:54:30 AM
The filibuster does not apply in this case. In accordance with the Congressional Budget Control Act of 1974, a budget, under law, requires only 51 votes to pass the Senate. The use of filibuster is not allowed.
Thanks for playing.
You don't play fair though. You knew he couldn't leave that one alone.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 14, 2012, 12:08:14 PM
You don't play fair though. You knew he couldn't leave that one alone.
Set em up. . .
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/feb/13/jack-lew/white-house-chief-staff-jack-lew-says-budget-requi/ (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/feb/13/jack-lew/white-house-chief-staff-jack-lew-says-budget-requi/)
QuoteOur ruling
On the specific question he was asked -- about the congressional budget resolution -- Lew said you need 60 votes to pass it. That's flatly wrong. On the larger question of putting together what we think most people would call the "federal budget," a majority party may be able to get its budget resolution passed, but that's not the same thing as actually enacting spending bills to implement it. In all likelihood, these bills would require 60 votes in the Senate. Still, Lew's specific claim was False.
The Democrats don't dare propose a budget because it can be used against them in an election cycle. Same reason they never proposed one in 2010.
The President issues a budget that is worth only the recycling value of paper it is printed on. It is obvious he intends to use congress as a scapegoat for his continued failure. Meanwhile, the Senate and the White House defend democrats by making the totally fraudulent statement that it's no use for them to present a budget proposal because they could never pass it.
Here is the truth. Any real budget bill proposed must contain deep budget cuts. Democrats pay for votes with programs. If they were to pass any budget proposal they would lose support. Failure to perform this function of their job offers them the only advantage available. . .blame.
Because the vast majority of their base constituents don't have the civic knowledge to understand anything beyond what they see on the Daily Show, they have a very good chance of success.
. . .That is unless people start to weigh leadership as a more important issue than blame. We will have to see how the continuation of a blame campaign holds up.
The $4 trillion in cuts in the proposal is probably as real as anything the anti-Obama has to offer.
Your Daily Show reference is a step above any FOX news reference. The Daily Show admits that it is just a show.
If you're looking at blame placement, the current field of GOP contenders aren't pretty. That's a whole load of blame over there.
Quote from: Townsend on February 14, 2012, 01:33:02 PM
The $4 trillion in cuts in the proposal is probably as real as anything the anti-Obama has to offer.
Your Daily Show reference is a step above any FOX news reference. The Daily Show admits that it is just a show.
If you're looking at blame placement, the current field of GOP contenders aren't pretty. That's a whole load of blame over there.
But, but, but....it only counts when the OTHER side does the blame, not my side...
Quote from: Townsend on February 14, 2012, 01:33:02 PM
If you're looking at blame placement, the current field of GOP contenders aren't pretty. That's a whole load of blame over there.
None of them are currently charged with presenting a responsible budget.
President Obama and Senator Reid have both been charged with that task. They are abdicating a basic responsibility expected out of them by the voters who put them in office.
Sorry guys, I can't accept mediocrity, stupidity, and shirking of duties when another administration or opposing party's incompetence is used as some sort of justification.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 14, 2012, 01:39:59 PM
None of them are currently charged with presenting a responsible budget.
President Obama and Senator Reid have both been charged with that task. They are abdicating a basic responsibility expected out of them by the voters who put them in office.
Sorry guys, I can't accept mediocrity, stupidity, and shirking of duties when another administration or opposing party's incompetence is used as some sort of justification.
Maybe the news I've heard about the budget proposal is different than what we've had on here.
Anyway, who's justifying? The political bickering on here just seemed to need more bickering.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 14, 2012, 11:54:30 AM
The filibuster does not apply in this case. In accordance with the Congressional Budget Control Act of 1974, a budget, under law, requires only 51 votes to pass the Senate. The use of filibuster is not allowed.
Thanks for playing.
Awww.... got me! Yep, I was looking at "the budget" as an entire process - wider in scope - including the bills required to implement the process. Since we are concentrating on the minutia, then Lew and Reid are pretty much correct - there is not real need for a budget resolution. It is after all, only a very sloppy wish list, with no force of law. Just a warm-fuzzy feeling maker for people who concentrate on trivia. (The important thing lurking in the background is the how much money is actually spent and on what.)
Who needs a budget when you have a cart load of blank checks and a credit line of $15 trillion or so? Give or take $5 trillion.
Any bets on when the president will return to Congress to ask for another borrowing limit raise?
The GOP says "$100 billion? Pfft, whatever, we're cool with it."
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/house-gop-backup-payroll-tax-200140653.html (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/house-gop-backup-payroll-tax-200140653.html)
House GOP have backup on payroll tax
Personally, I'm glad they changed their mind...whether it was to save their jobs or not.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 14, 2012, 01:39:59 PM
None of them are currently charged with presenting a responsible budget.
President Obama and Senator Reid have both been charged with that task. They are abdicating a basic responsibility expected out of them by the voters who put them in office.
Sorry guys, I can't accept mediocrity, stupidity, and shirking of duties when another administration or opposing party's incompetence is used as some sort of justification.
But I think that members of both parties can agree that the blame can be spread pretty evenly amongst most politicians of ALL political alignments.
Our gubmint is broken. Has been for years. Who has the cajones to step up and finally do something about it. Until the lobbyist/special interest moneys are removed, I'm guessing nobody.
Quote from: Hoss on February 14, 2012, 03:11:46 PM
But I think that members of both parties can agree that the blame can be spread pretty evenly amongst most politicians of ALL political alignments.
Our gubmint is broken. Has been for years. Who has the cajones to step up and finally do something about it. Until the lobbyist/special interest moneys are removed, I'm guessing nobody.
Truest words.
Quote from: Townsend on February 14, 2012, 03:05:47 PM
The GOP says "$100 billion? Pfft, whatever, we're cool with it."
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/house-gop-backup-payroll-tax-200140653.html (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/house-gop-backup-payroll-tax-200140653.html)
House GOP have backup on payroll tax
Personally, I'm glad they changed their mind...whether it was to save their jobs or not.
AH, NM, the democrats won't allow it.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/for-now-senate-democrats-prefer-one-deal-for-payroll-tax-other-expiring-policies/ (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/for-now-senate-democrats-prefer-one-deal-for-payroll-tax-other-expiring-policies/)
Quote from: Hoss on February 14, 2012, 03:11:46 PM
But I think that members of both parties can agree that the blame can be spread pretty evenly amongst most politicians of ALL political alignments.
Our gubmint is broken. Has been for years. Who has the cajones to step up and finally do something about it. Until the lobbyist/special interest moneys are removed, I'm guessing nobody.
Come on, you've got more creativity than that, Hoss. That's another cop-out. Be an activist and decry it instead of saying: "That's just the way it is, I think we should take it because we can't elect honest people." Get pissed off and start writing letters. That's how change happens.
At least you do recognize that party affiliation has nothing to do with the problems in government. It's become a ruling class and the party system is simply a way for everyone to take turns
milking bilking the system.
That still doesn't excuse our president and the majority leader of our Senate from performing the duties they are charged with by blaming a complete bogeyman in this case. It's incredibly irresponsible and disrespectful to the American public.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 14, 2012, 03:34:26 PM
Come on, you've got more creativity than that, Hoss. That's another cop-out. Be an activist and decry it instead of saying: "That's just the way it is, I think we should take it because we can't elect honest people." Get pissed off and start writing letters. That's how change happens.
People try that and they get skewered by people who believe the lobbyists and special interests.
Pictures are posted of crazies and the opposition claims they are leaders or the average member of the group.
I'd imagine Hoss doesn't want a picture of some homeless crazy dude crapping on a cop car associated with him and his actions.
Mind if I hack away at this?
Has a budget passed in the past 3 years? Does the President submit a budget and then Reid undercuts POTUS OBAMA?
It's quite remarkable watching the dolts.
A budget will pass in December or early January but, like you have all pointed out, for political reasons nothing before then.
I wouldn't say the system is broke. This follows in lock step with the culture war. We devote %45 of the budget towards social programs and that's where the hang ups occur as Defense and Entitlements are hands off. At least Defense will get efficiency cuts and maybe means testing becomes part of all entitlements. Then roll on back up the tax rates through retroactive sanctioning and we come out in decent shape.
Why the doom and gloom?
Quote from: Conan71 on February 14, 2012, 03:34:26 PM
Come on, you've got more creativity than that, Hoss. That's another cop-out. Be an activist and decry it instead of saying: "That's just the way it is, I think we should take it because we can't elect honest people." Get pissed off and start writing letters. That's how change happens.
At least you do recognize that party affiliation has nothing to do with the problems in government. It's become a ruling class and the party system is simply a way for everyone to take turns milking bilking the system.
That still doesn't excuse our president and the majority leader of our Senate from performing the duties they are charged with by blaming a complete bogeyman in this case. It's incredibly irresponsible and disrespectful to the American public.
I'm not trying to be creative here; simply stating a fact. I tire of the 'he said, she said bs' and if you notice, have tried to stay out of the partisan BS as much as possible. Our political system is broken. I don't care at this point who takes the lead and fixes it, just FIX THE DAMN THING ALREADY! I don't make enough money or have the political savvy to give a smile about how it gets done, because ultimately no one will listen to me anyway. So in that sense it remains a waste of my time.
I'm leaving it to those smarter than I. And believe it or not, there are many of you in here who think you are smart enough to fix it. I'd disagree. Not many here would be.
And Townie would be correct. All the partisan blathering and mocking each other tires after a while. Some of you guys might find it funny. In some cases, I find it crass. No matter who does what at some Tea Party rally or Occupy Whatever rally, guess what. We're all citizens. Let's try and act like it for a change.
Quote from: Teatownclown on February 14, 2012, 03:44:27 PM
I wouldn't say the system is broke. This follows in lock step with the culture war. We devote %45 of the budget towards social programs and that's where the hang ups occur as Defense and Entitlements are hands off. At least Defense will get efficiency cuts and maybe means testing becomes part of all entitlements. Then roll on back up the tax rates through retroactive sanctioning and we come out in decent shape.
Why the doom and gloom?
That's kind of a new spin for you isn't it? I thought you were the one who always talked about the broken government in D.C., or did I confuse you with another poster? The "culture war" only exists for pimping votes. I'd say that's pretty broken, TTC.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 14, 2012, 03:34:26 PM
Come on, you've got more creativity than that, Hoss. That's another cop-out. Be an activist and decry it instead of saying: "That's just the way it is, I think we should take it because we can't elect honest people." Get pissed off and start writing letters. That's how change happens.
At least you do recognize that party affiliation has nothing to do with the problems in government. It's become a ruling class and the party system is simply a way for everyone to take turns milking bilking the system.
That still doesn't excuse our president and the majority leader of our Senate from performing the duties they are charged with by blaming a complete bogeyman in this case. It's incredibly irresponsible and disrespectful to the American public.
And don't think I've not written my congressperson/senator. I have more times than many of you will know, only to get the same, automated mail response. This predates my existence on this forum for the most part.
How can anyone really care about the government when it appears it doesn't give a crap about it's constituents.
I will just come out and say I am a little confused by the statement Reid made, and really the problem with the statements made by both is that there technically is no "budget" to put on the floor. The Presidents budget has been released and now it is the responsibility of the committee's to work on the resolutions and the subsequent appropriations bills. Either way, the "budget" has to be approved by both the house and the senate, so whether Reid has 51 votes or 100, it doesn't matter.
And hell at this point we have operated under CR's at some point or another during 8 of the previous 11 Fiscal years. Additionally, 1 budget was Clintons, 2 were Obama and the remaining 5 were Bush.
Just remembered to add another to Obama as there was a CR for FY12, so Obama has 3
Quote from: Hoss on February 14, 2012, 04:20:41 PM
And don't think I've not written my congressperson/senator. I have more times than many of you will know, only to get the same, automated mail response. This predates my existence on this forum for the most part.
How can anyone really care about the government when it appears it doesn't give a crap about it's constituents.
I've actually gotten thoughtful replies from Senator Coburn. I don't bother with Inhofe anymore, he's been there too long and he's like Brooks Hatlen- institutionalized. I've chatted with Rep. Sullivan several times, but he's really just a tool for the GOP machine, helping to hold a majority in the House. Nice guy, but really can't accomplish much on his own. I did get a form email from his office today wanting to know my budget priorities. I have no idea if my ideas would be translated, just like on Cantor's "You Cut" site, but at least I feel as if I'm putting as much input as I can in without actually having to run for office.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 14, 2012, 04:18:27 PM
That's kind of a new spin for you isn't it? I thought you were the one who always talked about the broken government in D.C., or did I confuse you with another poster? The "culture war" only exists for pimping votes. I'd say that's pretty broken, TTC.
Yes. The new spin is based on an October landslide. Optimism for many of us progressive types. 8)
How can you say,
QuoteThe "culture war" only exists for pimping votes.
? Is that the Teabagger/GOP reason for ignoring public education? And after watching last weeks parade of women haters? I'm too tired to go on and on about those social programs designed to keep this country well maintained and healthy that conservatives would rather watch cut.
Far from broken, Jane.
Quote from: Hoss on February 14, 2012, 04:13:46 PM
I'm not trying to be creative here; simply stating a fact. I tire of the 'he said, she said bs' and if you notice, have tried to stay out of the partisan BS as much as possible. Our political system is broken. I don't care at this point who takes the lead and fixes it, just FIX THE DAMN THING ALREADY!
The problem is that it can't actually be fixed without radical reform of the sort that neither party would find acceptable. First past the post voting combined with the small size of our legislative body combined with the deeply institutionalized corruption on display by political donors and their lapdogs makes actual change nearly impossible. Fixing the problem would necessarily entail reducing the amount of money flowing to the political parties, increasing the number of viable political parties, and dramatically increasing the size of the legislature.
If you can't do that, you're just pissing into the wind. So here we are, stuck on stupid because it makes certain very powerful people very rich. And we keep letting it happen because most of us are too busy trying to win the lottery we call "The American Dream." So busy, in fact, that we fail to sit up and take note when
France, a place where starting your own business involves literally months of paperwork, high fees, and endless bureaucracy, surpasses the US in entrepreneurship
Quote from: Teatownclown on February 14, 2012, 04:41:20 PM
Yes. The new spin is based on an October landslide. Optimism for many of us progressive types. 8)
How can you say, ? Is that the Teabagger/GOP reason for ignoring public education? And after watching last weeks parade of women haters? I'm too tired to go on and on about those social programs designed to keep this country well maintained and healthy that conservatives would rather watch cut.
Far from broken, Jane.
The government isn't broken (at least not yet). It's the concept that government has the responsibility or ability to operate an ever expanding list of social programs that is broken. Entitlement breeds entitlement, and that copulation produces only waste and political corruption. It causes people to fear liberty and saddles them with a yolk impossible to escape.
The ultimate product is Greece. A society so entitled that even as it faces collapse, it's youth demand what they have come to believe is owed to them, through protest and flames.
Quote from: Hoss on February 14, 2012, 03:11:46 PM
But I think that members of both parties can agree that the blame can be spread pretty evenly amongst most politicians of ALL political alignments.
Our gubmint is broken. Has been for years. Who has the cajones to step up and finally do something about it. Until the lobbyist/special interest moneys are removed, I'm guessing nobody.
It is broken because of us, the electorate. We keep electing the same clowns (no offense, TTC!) over and over - reference the Oklahoma delegation. It won't ever stop - or at least not soon - because we ALL go on and on about how bad all those guys are - except for "our guy" - he's ok!
We can and should un-elect every incumbent, every time. At least if we keep a bunch of amateurs in, they won't have time to become entrenched and proficient in the playing of the system. If there is gonna be such a thing as term limits - which is by it's nature stupid - then the limit should be one term maximum. And no terms in any other 'playground". One term. One office. Then out - back to your normal citizen life.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 14, 2012, 04:57:20 PM
The government isn't broken (at least not yet). It's the concept that government has the responsibility or ability to operate an ever expanding list of social programs that is broken. Entitlement breeds entitlement, and that copulation produces only waste and political corruption. It causes people to fear liberty and saddles them with a yolk impossible to escape.
The ultimate product is Greece. A society so entitled that even as it faces collapse, it's youth demand what they have come to believe is owed to them, through protest and flames.
You sure it wasn't the write downs in their net worth that inflamed them? I think your assumption may be wrong.
Social programs are not entitlements but facilitators in giving our fellow citizens firm ground and a hand up. Entitlements are social security, medicare, and medicaid and they will be means tested someday when congress decides to work for their pay.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 14, 2012, 04:30:29 PM
I've actually gotten thoughtful replies from Senator Coburn. I don't bother with Inhofe anymore, he's been there too long and he's like Brooks Hatlen- institutionalized. I've chatted with Rep. Sullivan several times, but he's really just a tool for the GOP machine, helping to hold a majority in the House. Nice guy, but really can't accomplish much on his own. I did get a form email from his office today wanting to know my budget priorities. I have no idea if my ideas would be translated, just like on Cantor's "You Cut" site, but at least I feel as if I'm putting as much input as I can in without actually having to run for office.
Guess it's just the libertarian in me that wants to boot all these tools out of office...
Quote from: Teatownclown on February 14, 2012, 04:41:20 PM
Yes. The new spin is based on an October landslide. Optimism for many of us progressive types. 8)
How can you say, ? Is that the Teabagger/GOP reason for ignoring public education? And after watching last weeks parade of women haters? I'm too tired to go on and on about those social programs designed to keep this country well maintained and healthy that conservatives would rather watch cut.
Far from broken, Jane.
No one ignores public education. We spend entirely too much on a flawed educational system. We keep throwing money at newer and better facilities, athletic facilities which are better than that of small colleges, different ways to teach, even higher teacher pay in some districts, but keep ignoring the
real problem that the failures of education are largely a lack of parental mentorship. We need more volunteerism to help those whose parents don't consider education to be a priority in their house.
Figure out how to change that dynamic and you would be a very blessed
devil er clown.
Quote from: Teatownclown on February 14, 2012, 05:10:32 PM
Social programs are not entitlements but facilitators in giving our fellow citizens firm ground and a hand up.
Why would you not consider social programs entitlements? If the recipients have no right to them (hence entitled) they shouldn't get them.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 14, 2012, 07:46:29 PM
Why would you not consider social programs entitlements? If the recipients have no right to them (hence entitled) they shouldn't get them.
I think Voltaire stated; If you wish to discuss, define your terms. The budget is divided into three categories: 1) defense...2) entitlements.... and
3) social programs. 1+2=%55 3=%45 but within a couple of years 2=%53 unless congress puts some belts and suspenders on the cost of entitlements through means testing.
"Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience." :D
devil clown cupid.
Quote from: Teatownclown on February 14, 2012, 07:58:16 PM
"Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience." :D
OK, I won't argue with you. I define social programs as entitlements so there isn't much to discuss.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 14, 2012, 10:53:04 PM
OK, I won't argue with you. I define social programs as entitlements so there isn't much to discuss.
I define large-assed campaign contributions as entitlements.
The problem is that the special interests, once again, lobby these morons in DC and decide 'hey, we'll spend on this candidate as long as they entitle us'. Look what has happened to the oil/gas industry and that should tell you just about everything you need to know. Tax break upon tax break. If I send $100 dollars to my candidate of choice, can I get a tax break? Doesn't work that way, does it. Least not for the 'common folk'.
Quote from: Hoss on February 15, 2012, 12:30:32 AM
I define large-assed campaign contributions as entitlements.
Without picking specific programs, maybe we all(?) can use a similar (if not the same) basic definition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entitlement
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 15, 2012, 07:50:41 AM
Without picking specific programs, maybe we all(?) can use a similar (if not the same) basic definition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entitlement
Now you've gone and done it. . .
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 15, 2012, 07:50:41 AM
Without picking specific programs, maybe we all(?) can use a similar (if not the same) basic definition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entitlement
Missing a critical component - the definition seems to imply no consideration of source of funds and whether there is a payment to be made in either direction. Care to elaborate?
Quote from: Hoss on February 15, 2012, 12:30:32 AM
I define large-assed campaign contributions as entitlements.
The problem is that the special interests, once again, lobby these morons in DC and decide 'hey, we'll spend on this candidate as long as they entitle us'. Look what has happened to the oil/gas industry and that should tell you just about everything you need to know. Tax break upon tax break. If I send $100 dollars to my candidate of choice, can I get a tax break? Doesn't work that way, does it. Least not for the 'common folk'.
There are already tons of taxes in every gallon of gas you burn. Raise the taxes on the oil companies profits and you will pay even more for that gallon of gas. The obscene profits they are making are keeping millions of us in jobs right now via reinvestment in the petroleum infrastructure. Oil is one of the few industries experiencing real growth right now in the American economy. Unfortunately, none of that is going into new mega-refineries or major pipeline projects right now. I assure you, whatever the oil companies aren't paying in taxes is being trebled in personal income tax and corporate taxes on the businesses who serve the oil industry.
That money is going a whole lot further when the oil companies spend it than it does when the government confiscates it.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 15, 2012, 09:42:42 AM
There are already tons of taxes in every gallon of gas you burn. Raise the taxes on the oil companies profits and you will pay even more for that gallon of gas. The obscene profits they are making are keeping millions of us in jobs right now via reinvestment in the petroleum infrastructure. Oil is one of the few industries experiencing real growth right now in the American economy. Unfortunately, none of that is going into new mega-refineries or major pipeline projects right now. I assure you, whatever the oil companies aren't paying in taxes is being trebled in personal income tax and corporate taxes on the businesses who serve the oil industry.
That money is going a whole lot further when the oil companies spend it than it does when the government confiscates it.
But when those oil companies spend it lobbying the lawmakers, it's part of the problem. As I see it, anyway.
Quote from: Hoss on February 15, 2012, 11:47:15 AM
But when those oil companies spend it lobbying the lawmakers, it's part of the problem. As I see it, anyway.
What industry isn't spending huge sums on lobbying with their profits? Believe it or not, on the list of the largest lobbying spenders from '98 to '11, Exxon Mobil, the leading single spender in the energy industry only ranks 10th on the list at just under $170 million. The U.S. Chamber Of Commerce is, by far, the largest spender at over $800 million.
As an industry, oil & gas ranks fifth in that time period on lobbying expenditures, spending roughly 1/2 what health and pharma spend currently and overall. An odd trend I noted though is up until 2008, oil & gas generally ranked 8th-12th on the list of spenders. They've ranged from 3rd to 5th since 2008. I'm curious what that's all about considering lobbying money is spent mostly on Congress and that represents stepped up spending even during a Democrat-controled Senate and House as well as with the current Republican-dominated House and Democrat Senate.
Spend some time clicking around here, it's pretty fascinating:
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/index.php
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 15, 2012, 08:04:17 AM
Missing a critical component - the definition seems to imply no consideration of source of funds and whether there is a payment to be made in either direction. Care to elaborate?
Payment/benefit is the issue. Some things we are entitled to by payment into a fund, as Social Security is supposed to be. Other things we are entitled to because we exist and laws or regulations have been passed to that effect. Some entitlements just seem to come about by social pressure. I heard tonight (on one of your favorite TV programs) that many high school students feel they are entitled to a passing grade for trying, regardless of success. Trophies for everyone please.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 15, 2012, 09:42:42 AM
There are already tons of taxes in every gallon of gas you burn. Raise the taxes on the oil companies profits and you will pay even more for that gallon of gas. The obscene profits they are making are keeping millions of us in jobs right now via reinvestment in the petroleum infrastructure. Oil is one of the few industries experiencing real growth right now in the American economy.
Profit is by definition not being reinvested in the business.
Anyway, I'll leave you with this line from ExxonMobil's 2010 financial statements:
18. Income, Sales-Based and Other Taxes
2010 2009 2008
U.S. Non-U.S. Total U.S. Non-U.S. Total U.S. Non-U.S. Total
Current $ 1,224 $ 21,093 $ 22,317 $ (838) $ 15,830 $ 14,992 $ 3,005 $ 31,377 $ 34,382
Deferred – net 49 (1,191) (1,142) 650 (665) (15) 168 1,289 1,457
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 15, 2012, 08:14:34 PM
Payment/benefit is the issue. Some things we are entitled to by payment into a fund, as Social Security is supposed to be. Other things we are entitled to because we exist and laws or regulations have been passed to that effect. Some entitlements just seem to come about by social pressure. I heard tonight (on one of your favorite TV programs) that many high school students feel they are entitled to a passing grade for trying, regardless of success. Trophies for everyone please.
And which is my favorite TV show? (Hint; NRA TV channel)
The biggest thing that is being attempted to redefine as entitlement is Social Security. It isn't an entitlement according to that definition. It is closer to an annuity. And yet, entitlement is the term that is trying to be sold to the American people. It is one of their biggest lies.
Quote from: nathanm on February 15, 2012, 08:16:31 PM
Profit is by definition not being reinvested in the business.
I think you're on to something. We can
confiscate tax all the profit without affecting their ability to operate since all the operation costs are subtracted from gross income. Let's do it. The price of gas can actually go down since they won't have to pay someone to figure out what to do with all that profit that they now won't have.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 15, 2012, 08:37:08 PM
And which is my favorite TV show? (Hint; NRA TV channel)
Wrong kind of favorite.... O'Reilly.
QuoteThe biggest thing that is being attempted to redefine as entitlement is Social Security. It isn't an entitlement according to that definition. It is closer to an annuity. And yet, entitlement is the term that is trying to be sold to the American people. It is one of their biggest lies.
I think of SS as an annuity but I suppose, by what appears to be a commonly accepted definition, we are entitled to SS benefits by having paid into the system so it
could be considered an entitlement. Entitled because we paid as compared to entitled because Congress decreed it to be. Still entitled, therefore it's an entitlement. As an annuity, I strongly object to means testing for SS. Means testing for something like food stamps would be OK. No money in, you don't need it, no money out.
Quote from: nathanm on February 15, 2012, 08:16:31 PM
Profit is by definition not being reinvested in the business.
Anyway, I'll leave you with this line from ExxonMobil's 2010 financial statements:
18. Income, Sales-Based and Other Taxes
2010 2009 2008
U.S. Non-U.S. Total U.S. Non-U.S. Total U.S. Non-U.S. Total
Current $ 1,224 $ 21,093 $ 22,317 $ (838) $ 15,830 $ 14,992 $ 3,005 $ 31,377 $ 34,382
Deferred – net 49 (1,191) (1,142) 650 (665) (15) 168 1,289 1,457
::)
Quote from: Conan71 on February 16, 2012, 01:13:13 AM
::)
What, you think it's odd that they pay 17 times more tax to other jurisdictions than their home jurisdiction?
Quote from: nathanm on February 16, 2012, 12:52:56 PM
What, you think it's odd that they pay 17 times more tax to other jurisdictions than their home jurisdiction?
No, rolling my eyes at your persistent hair-splitting. This time over profit. If it's not profit and it's not debt which funds capital expansion, or payroll expansion then what is it?
Quote from: Conan71 on February 16, 2012, 01:15:09 PM
If it's not profit and it's not debt which funds capital expansion, or payroll expansion then what is it?
Revenue and the sale of stock.
You just love to throttle me, don't you?
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_WAi2txkagVM/Sas_KvPyt5I/AAAAAAAAE5I/RYIIB1QV0C0/s400/splitting_hairs.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on February 16, 2012, 02:50:14 PM
You just love to throttle me, don't you?
It's really not hair splitting, though. The distinction is important when talking about corporate income tax. The money generated that is reinvested in the business is not taxed in the long run. CapEx doesn't count as a deductible business expense (usually), but you get it back in future years as you depreciate.
I'm just amazed at how some people can spend all their time figuring out new ways to tax things.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 17, 2012, 07:20:32 AM
I'm just amazed at how some people can spend all their time figuring out new ways to tax things.
I'm just amazed at how some people can spend all their time with their fingers stuck in their ears saying "LA LA LA LA LA" at the top of their lungs so they don't have to face the fact that we can't cut our way into a balanced budget, unless your name is Ron Paul and you have no problem with eliminating the DoD.
Not that it matters, because the idea of a budget under this administration is simply a novelty, but. . .
The CBO has now scored President Obama's Budget.
http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/16/cbo-obama-budget-deepens-debt-35-trillion/
"President Obama's budget would pile up an additional $3.5 trillion in debt over the next 10 years and shows the government's trust funds running out of money in 2020, Congress's official non-partisan scorekeeper said Friday.
In 2012 alone Mr. Obama's budget would leave a $1.3 trillion deficit — $82 billion worse than if none of his policies were enacted. Over the next ten years the deficit would dip to less than a half-trillion dollars in 2017, but would rise again in the later years.
By 2022, a decade from now, the federal government would spend $5.6 trillion and take in $4.9 trillion in revenue — both figures far outstripping today's levels.
CBO's analysis also shows the government's combined trust funds, including the Social Security trust funds and the cash flow of the Postal Service, will begin running deficits in 2020."
Of course you can always multiply CBO estimates by whatever number you are comfortable with.
Someone needs to investigate the CBO. I suspect they must be racist!
Yes, with the economy still far from full employment, it is to be expected we would continue to run large budget deficits. That's how countercyclical spending works. It wouldn't be so much of a problem if the last group hadn't decided that they ought to run up the debt even higher than it already was when the economy was doing well.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 16, 2012, 01:52:40 PM
Not that it matters, because the idea of a budget under this administration is simply a novelty, but. . .
The CBO has now scored President Obama's Budget.
http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/16/cbo-obama-budget-deepens-debt-35-trillion/
"President Obama's budget would pile up an additional $3.5 trillion in debt over the next 10 years and shows the government's trust funds running out of money in 2020, Congress's official non-partisan scorekeeper said Friday.
In 2012 alone Mr. Obama's budget would leave a $1.3 trillion deficit — $82 billion worse than if none of his policies were enacted. Over the next ten years the deficit would dip to less than a half-trillion dollars in 2017, but would rise again in the later years.
By 2022, a decade from now, the federal government would spend $5.6 trillion and take in $4.9 trillion in revenue — both figures far outstripping today's levels.
CBO's analysis also shows the government's combined trust funds, including the Social Security trust funds and the cash flow of the Postal Service, will begin running deficits in 2020."
Of course you can always multiply CBO estimates by whatever number you are comfortable with.
Someone needs to investigate the CBO. I suspect they must be racist!
My Mother Jones (http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/03/cost-obamacare-has-gone-down-not) to your Washington Times:
QuoteThe current estimate of the gross costs of the coverage provisions ($1,496 billion through 2021) is about $50 billion higher than last year's projection; however, the other budgetary effects of those provisions, which partially offset those gross costs, also have increased in CBO and JCT's estimates (to $413 billion), leading to the small decrease in the net 10-year tally.
In actuality, the CBO estimate decreased over ten years. The Republicans, nor their house organs (like the Washington Times) will report that, however.
Quote from: we vs us on March 16, 2012, 02:25:34 PM
My Mother Jones (http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/03/cost-obamacare-has-gone-down-not) to your Washington Times:
In actuality, the CBO estimate decreased over ten years. The Republicans, nor their house organs (like the Washington Times) will report that, however.
My Huffington Post to your Mother Jones. What? Huh?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/16/obama-budget-deficit-cbo_n_1353481.html?ref=politics
"WASHINGTON — A new analysis of President Barack Obama's budget for next year says the deficit scenario isn't as rosy as the White House painted it.
Friday's Congressional Budget Office report said Obama's budget would produce a $977 billion deficit next year – $75 billion more than predicted by the White House."
After the big bump the deficit goes down, made up by new anticipated revenue, but then it shoots on up at an even speedier rate, and the loading of entitlement programs weighs down the machine. Of course, I will reiterate that CBO estimates start out grey, then get pink, then red. By the time this is revised next year it will double or perhaps even triple. Remember, it's a racist plot.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 16, 2012, 02:59:04 PM
My Huffington Post to your Mother Jones. What? Huh?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/16/obama-budget-deficit-cbo_n_1353481.html?ref=politics
"WASHINGTON — A new analysis of President Barack Obama's budget for next year says the deficit scenario isn't as rosy as the White House painted it.
Friday's Congressional Budget Office report said Obama's budget would produce a $977 billion deficit next year – $75 billion more than predicted by the White House."
After the big bump the deficit goes down, made up by new anticipated revenue, but then it shoots on up at an even speedier rate, and the loading of entitlement programs weighs down the machine. Of course, I will reiterate that CBO estimates start out grey, then get pink, then red. By the time this is revised next year it will double or perhaps even triple. Remember, it's a racist plot.
And isn't it even more amazing that it is a full $1 trillion dollars less than the deficit from the year before he took office!! That's 1/2 the deficit he inherited!
But hey, keep on ignoring reality... I'm sure the Republicontins will make it all better if they win...
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 21, 2012, 08:26:17 PM
And isn't it even more amazing that it is a full $1 trillion dollars less than the deficit from the year before he took office!! That's 1/2 the deficit he inherited!
But hey, keep on ignoring reality... I'm sure the Republicontins will make it all better if they win...
What, not quite.
FY 2008: $459 billion
FY 2009: $1,413 billion
Quote from: Gaspar on March 22, 2012, 10:59:37 AM
What, not quite.
FY 2008: $459 billion
FY 2009: $1,413 billion
You do realize that FY2009 began in calendar year 2008, right?
Quote from: nathanm on March 22, 2012, 12:56:33 PM
You do realize that FY2009 began in calendar year 2008, right?
You realize that doesn't matter to Gas, right?
Yes, and yes.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 22, 2012, 02:41:54 PM
Yes, and yes.
Thanks for being so honest about being intentionally misleading. ;D
Quote from: nathanm on March 22, 2012, 05:02:47 PM
Thanks for being so honest about being intentionally misleading. ;D
If your math indicates that 400Bil = 1Tril than I suppose so.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 23, 2012, 07:22:16 AM
If your math indicates that 400Bil = 1Tril than then I suppose so.
Sorry
Quote from: Gaspar on March 22, 2012, 10:59:37 AM
What, not quite.
FY 2008: $459 billion
FY 2009: $1,413 billion
Well, yeah...quite. From 9/30/2008 to 9 30/2009, the debt increased by approx. $1.9 trillion. From 9/30/2009 to 9/30/2010, it increased by approx. $1.66 trillion. That is a reduction - look it up - and since the estimate for this year is about $1 trillion, that means it is almost (not quite, but close) 1/2 of what it was.
The big difference in the numbers you see through those Republicontin glasses is the fact that Baby Bush reported hundreds of billions "off budget", while ole' what's-his-face stopped that practice and started putting the war numbers in the budget numbers.
Reality!! Take a big bite sometime - you might enjoy it!
Debt records - back to 1791.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
Dems punt again.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/17/democrats-punt-on-senate-budget-bill-for-3rd-year/
Too bad they can't be fired for dereliction of duty, other than at election time.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 18, 2012, 10:09:06 AM
Too bad they can't be fired for dereliction of duty, other than at election time.
LOL! If they were to commit what they are doing to a budget, they would likely be recalled. They've been backed into a corner by the $5 trillion dollar man.
"I'm here to get me some Obama money."
Quote from: guido911 on April 19, 2012, 11:20:30 PM
It's not the dimes I am worried about. It's the thousands of dollars.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 19, 2012, 11:27:28 PM
It's not the dimes I am worried about. It's the thousands of dollars.
Point RA.