Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree eventually their going tobhave to change some of their views and that will **** off alot of their core supporters.
You both have it backwards. Someone will be changing their tune alright and it won't be conservatives.
Quote:
It is possible to keep taxes at their historical average share of GDP—but only by making substantial cuts relative to current law in the large entitlement programs that benefit a broad group of Americans at some point in their lives. Alternatively, it is possible to keep the laws for the large entitlement programs unchanged—but only by raising taxes substantially on a broad group of Americans.
Changes in other federal programs—besides the large entitlements—can affect the magnitude of the changes needed in taxes or that handful of large programs, but they cannot eliminate the basic tradeoff I’ve just described. Even if spending on all of those other programs—including national defense and a wide variety of domestic programs—fell to a smaller share of GDP than we’ve seen at any point since World War II, debt would still be on an unsustainable upward trajectory without substantial changes in taxes, the large entitlement programs, or both.
And those are based on current law. What does current law mean?
Quote:
What Policy Changes Are Scheduled to Take Effect in January 2013?
Among the policy changes that are due to occur in January under current law, the following will have the largest impact on the budget and the economy:
A host of significant provisions of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-312) are set to expire, including provisions that extended reductions in tax rates and expansions of tax credits and deductions originally enacted in 2001, 2003, or 2009. (Provisions designed to limit the reach of the alternative minimum tax, or AMT, expired on December 31, 2011.)
Sharp reductions in Medicare’s payment rates for physicians’ services are scheduled to take effect.
Automatic enforcement procedures established by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25) to restrain discretionary and mandatory spending are set to go into effect.
Extensions of emergency unemployment benefits and a reduction of 2 percentage points in the payroll tax for Social Security are scheduled to expire.
And what will happen if you the spend-happy tards we have in office continue on a policy that looks very similar to the last 3.5 years?
Quote:
Real GDP would be higher in the first few years of the projection period than in CBO’s baseline economic forecast, and the unemployment rate would be lower. However, the persistence of large budget deficits and rapidly escalating federal debt would hinder national saving and investment, thus reducing GDP and income relative to the levels that would occur with smaller deficits. In the later part of the projection period, the economy would grow more slowly than in CBO’s baseline, and interest rates would be higher. Ultimately, the policies assumed in the alternative fiscal scenario would lead to a level of federal debt that would be unsustainable from both a budgetary and an economic perspective.
Besides the fact that we've had repeated warnings about unsustainable and the democrats tried their best to ignore that until they had no choice, you have a choice once again (although it's still a grim outlook). You can stay on the path to unsustainable and then act all surprised when SHTF or you can do what's right and cut government, cut spending, raise taxes ($400 billion a year or so) and shift away from the current system progressives have foisted upon the people through less than ethical means.
Just for shatz and giggles about what else is assumed to occur not forgetting all of the above...
Quote:
The Board assumes that the various cost-reduction measures—the most important of which are the reductions in the payment rate updates for most categories of Medicare providers by the growth in economy-wide multifactor productivity—will occur as the Affordable Care Act requires. The Trustees believe that this outcome, while plausible, will depend on the achievement of unprecedented improvements in health care provider productivity. If the health sector could not transition to more efficient models of care delivery and achieve productivity increases commensurate with economy-wide productivity, and if the provider reimbursement rates paid by commercial insurers continued to follow the same negotiated process used to date, then the availability and quality of health care received by Medicare beneficiaries relative to that received by those with private health insurance would fall over time, generating pressure to modify Medicare’s payment rates.
We already have almost complete merging of govt and corps. Private small business is about all that is left. Both D's and R's have helped create that. Fascism or corporatism is already here, sorry.
You can debate over how it is marketed to you, but that is a bit like rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.
We already have almost complete merging of govt and corps. Private small business is about all that is left. Both D's and R's have helped create that. Fascism or corporatism is already here, sorry.
You can debate over how it is marketed to you, but that is a bit like rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.
^^this. When the word 'fascism' is used a brief definition should be included. Otherwise you might as well ask whether the Republican party will bring full-on bogeymanism. IOW you're getting into the land of magical thinking.
I define socialism as government ownership of the means of production, and fascism as partnership between gov't and private owners of the means of production. That is clearly exactly what we have under our current system. Solyndra and GM are extreme examples, but generally we have a strong symbiosis between gov't and the private owners of the means of production. And at least since the close of the Reagan era, both parties have been on board with it; Dems just with slightly more enthusiasm and less cavils than R's.
Given the current far-right extremist state of the Republican Party, its tactics of voter suppression, efforts to subjugate government to corporate capitalism by defunding it, including destroying the social safety net, cutting taxes for the rich while increasing military spending, attacking labor unions in order to destroy the political power of the middle and working classes; do you think it likely, or unlikely, that they will succeed in turning the United States into a fascist state? Or do you think they would settle for plutarchy, if they were to seize control of the Senate and Presidency?
They obviously want plutarchy, but would this lead to fascism?
Question: What is the chance of the Democrats bringing in a totalitarian regime? Answer: It's already here as evidenced by takeovers and regulatory go-around Congress moves.
I'm always suspicious of posters who show up in an election year then fly the coop after Election Day.
I'll never understand people's ignorant obsession with totalitarianism, fascism, and the like when it comes to our political process. It seems to me to be more of an uneducated stance to take because it opens the flood gate to ad hominem attacks on a politician and their party rather than a true assessment and rebuttal of something one doesn't believe.
Calling a political party or a candidate a fascist or totalitarian is a lofty charge but one could find any wormhole of evidence they want if that's how they want to frame things. Mitt Romney and Barack Obama both have black hair. So did Hitler, Stalin, Mao and the chubby kid running North Korea. Does that mean that all politicians have black hair or that they share a commonality with people who just so happened to be fascists and totalitarians?
Does anyone really expect that whomever wins the next election will send troops to your house to disarm you, separate your family, and drag you off to a communal government farm? Or, worse, shoot you in the back of the head and bill your family for the bullet? Those are things that totalitarian governments do. Those are things that fascist dictators do. They have complete and utter control over everything and will do anything to keep that power.
If Obama was that way, as many charge, there would have been no debate at all over health care. I don't just mean in our legislative branches, I mean everywhere. No news organizations, no political pundits, no objectors wherever would have made it out alive after criticizing a truly fascist dictator. They would have been dragged from their chair while on the air or shot in the streets as they protested - because that's what fascist dictators do.
Stop poisoning the well with accusations of fascism and totalitarianism. There's no doubt that having a government like that is a scary thing but that doesn't mean that every government regulation is the result of a fascist dictator exerting power through his totalitarian regime. The charges raised in this thread and others like it are ridiculous, denigrating to our political process, and harmful to everyone.
^^this. When the word 'fascism' is used a brief definition should be included. Otherwise you might as well ask whether the Republican party will bring full-on bogeymanism. IOW you're getting into the land of magical thinking.
I define socialism as government ownership of the means of production, and fascism as partnership between gov't and private owners of the means of production. That is clearly exactly what we have under our current system. Solyndra and GM are extreme examples, but generally we have a strong symbiosis between gov't and the private owners of the means of production. And at least since the close of the Reagan era, both parties have been on board with it; Dems just with slightly more enthusiasm and less cavils than R's.
Well you may have a blurred line then. Our govt owns controlling stock in almost all, if not all, publicly traded companies. This includes Goldman Sachs and JPM.
Those same corps control and own 80% of global wealth. That isn't including many other things also already owned by the same group.
This is why the jobs were sent overseas. To fatten the bottom line. Ds and Rs is really little difference here. All are getting fat at the publics expense.
Given the current far-right extremist state of the Republican Party, its tactics of voter suppression, efforts to subjugate government to corporate capitalism by defunding it, including destroying the social safety net, cutting taxes for the rich while increasing military spending, attacking labor unions in order to destroy the political power of the middle and working classes; do you think it likely, or unlikely, that they will succeed in turning the United States into a fascist state? Or do you think they would settle for plutarchy, if they were to seize control of the Senate and Presidency?
They obviously want plutarchy, but would this lead to fascism?
Will Obama and the Democrats Succeed in Destroying America?
Quote:
Originally Posted by artisan4
Given the current far-right extremist state of the Republican Party,
Evidence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by artisan4
its tactics of voter suppression,
Such as?
Quote:
Originally Posted by artisan4
efforts to subjugate government to corporate capitalism by defunding it, including destroying the social safety net,
Examples? Explain how this is being done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by artisan4
cutting taxes for the rich while increasing military spending, attacking labor unions in order to destroy the political power of the middle and working classes; do you think it likely, or unlikely, that they will succeed in turning the United States into a fascist state? Or do you think they would settle for plutarchy, if they were to seize control of the Senate and Presidency?
They obviously want plutarchy, but would this lead to fascism?
There isn't a shred of truth to your rant, and you have not made a single argument for your claims.
Accusations do not equal facts.
In the last 3 1/2 years, Obama has added $5 Trillion dollars to our debt, and we are running annual deficits of $ 1.3 T.
Well over 23 million Americans are unemployed, and real unemployment stands at 14%.
In 2013, if it is not overturned, ObomaCare will burden Americans with the largest tax increas in American history.
ObamaCare will end Medicare Advantage, and it robs $716 M from Medicare.
Democrats have effectively defunded Social Security with the reductions in FICA taxes, with no plans for returning it to even a semblance of solvency.
Obama is cutting our military spending to dangerously low levels putting national security at risk.
The job creating sector of our economy is being hamstrung with onerous regulations and tax increases resulting in slow to no growth, with virtually no job creation.
Those are a few facts to illustrate our current state of affairs.
We can continue down this path to destruction, or we can replace Obama and the Democrats with a team and a Party that knows how an economy works, knows how jobs are created, and who the job creators are, will put people back to work, and begin to deal with Obama's massive debt that he has saddled us with, a debt that our children and grand children will have to deal with the rest of their lives.
Last edited by nononsenseguy; 09-09-2012 at 05:07 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.