Official Republicans In Congress Are Idiots Thread

[Balloon guy 158]

Sure sounds like the democrats will only be judged by their motives, not their results.The republicans will be blamed for not 'keeping government small' Again.FYI, I am all for hedge fund managers being required to count their income as income, not as capital gain. Especially George Soros.

[brvheart 1,752]

Bob is very right.Obama has offered an excellent offer to congress. Republicans and Democrats should take it and, in doing so, simultaneously raise the debt ceiling (which is 100% necessary, anyone who tells you otherwise is wasting your time) and reduce the deficit.It'll be interesting and very telling to see how things play out. I think the next few week will have (or should have) a major effect on next year's election. They'll demonstrate in a very real way who in Washington is willing to get things done, to compromise, and to look forward to the future. And it'll show who has fallen so deep into their own fundamentalism that they would sacrifice the well-being of this country for symbolic points.

You and I think very very differently about this topic, and just so you know, the far majority of the voting Republican block heavily disagrees with you. If the Republicans "compromise" their major beliefs then they are done next election.

[mrdannyg 274]

You and I think very very differently about this topic, and just so you know, the far majority of the voting Republican block heavily disagrees with you. If the Republicans "compromise" their major beliefs then they are done next election.

I know hblask is not a Republican, but how consistent would you consider Republican views from the ones he has espoused in this thread?

[All_In 0]

No. People should try to achieve long term goals and use this opportunity as a chance to make things better. But if it's the night before the the debt limit is to be reached, anyone who refuses to accept a deal to raise the limit based should be impeached. It's too serious a thing to mess around with.

unfortunately, most americans don't realize how serious this is. there should not even be a debate about it; raise the limit and get on with your other work. how people still side with the repubs boggles the mind. they are now proving that they do not care for the american good, only for their political gain. the US is still mired in a recession (18 thous. jobs last month? lol), and they are threatening to not raise the ceiling????the american pop just sits back, rants and raves, while tribally clinging to 'their' side.

[Balloon guy 158]

unfortunately, most americans don't realize how serious this is. there should not even be a debate about it; raise the limit and get on with your other work. how people still side with the repubs boggles the mind. they are now proving that they do not care for the american good, only for their political gain. the US is still mired in a recession (18 thous. jobs last month? lol), and they are threatening to not raise the ceiling????the american pop just sits back, rants and raves, while tribally clinging to 'their' side.

NOW its the US.Before Obama is was all Bush's economy, Bush's war, Bush's fault.But now it the US problem, the US not able to recover, the US debt issue.Funny how you lefties are such hypocrites.And by Funny I mean pathetic.

[mrdannyg 274]

NOW its the US.Before Obama is was all Bush's economy, Bush's war, Bush's fault.But now it the US problem, the US not able to recover, the US debt issue.Funny how you lefties are such hypocrites.And by Funny I mean pathetic.

wait, All_In is on 'our' side? Goddamnit.

[Balloon guy 158]

wait, All_In is on 'our' side? Goddamnit.

Hey, we got Glen Beck...Suck it upAnd no we will not trade All_In for Glen Beck. We would need you to at least also take Larry Craig

[brvheart 1,752]

And no we will not trade All_In for Glen Beck. We would need you to at least also take Larry Craig

...and Mitt.

[Roll the Bones 74]

There is probably nothing in this World that I hate as much as dogmatic ideologues. I find it hard to believe that the Congressional Republicans are so set in their no revenue increases of any sort position that they would actually not increase the debt ceiling and are putting the US Gov't in a position to possibly default on it's debt.The debt ceiling is actually an insane thing to have in your system of government. All of the spending has already happened and been approved. If the debt ceiling isn't increased it's exactly like running up your credit card bill willingly and then just not paying. Not increasing the debt ceiling can't magically make that money that has been spent not get spent.I think this editorial from the Economist sums things up pretty well when they call the Republican position "economically illiterate and disgracefully cynical". The Economist is a right wing pro business magazine but they aren't ideologues and I think it's the smartest best magazine in the English speaking World.Don't get me wrong, the morons in the Democratic Party who refuse to even consider reform of entitlements are just as bad. Basically I think you're all screwed since it seems there is no such thing as a talented reasonable politician in the US currently who actually has any influence. It's the idiots on the fringes who are controlling things.http://www.economist.com/node/18928600?story_id=18928600

As for the comment "Independents take notice", I hate to say it but I believe that Obama has simply been pandering to the small independant voters who mostly agree with his moves here since they are the critical swing vote for him to get re-elected.

wait, All_In is on 'our' side? Goddamnit.

Yeah, it's like the ugly cheerleader rooting for you and leaves that icky feeling regardless, but it is pretty bad when one Canadian province outperformed the entire US in job growth. We need 150K jobs a month to keep up with population growth, so only 18K jobs is really depressing. The fact that politicians are only worried about the debt limit and not talking about jobs is reprehensible.

[Roll the Bones 74]

You and I think very very differently about this topic, and just so you know, the far majority of the voting Republican block heavily disagrees with you. If the Republicans "compromise" their major beliefs then they are done next election.

So you would be mad if the Republicans caved and allowed our government to close loopholes for the rich, or even outright raised taxes on the very wealthy? This, despite the fact that every rational economist outside of those speaking on behalf of political gain, agrees that the only possible path to reducing the debt is through tax increases? It's all mind boggling insane that just the top 25 hedge fund managers get billions in low tax income that you or I don't. I mean really, if there is anything that has become very very glaringly obvious is that all these low taxes on the wealthy have not done a thing for the middle class, the deficit, this country or anything positive.

[hblask 1]

there should not even be a debate about it; raise the limit and get on with your other work.

Case closed. I think we all know the correct thing to do now.

[hblask 1]

This, despite the fact that every rational economist outside of those speaking on behalf of political gain, agrees that the only possible path to reducing the debt is through tax increases?

No rational economist says this, since tax rates have a negligible effect on revenue. The best way to raise tax revenue is through pro-growth polices, and raising taxes is the opposite of that.But certainly no sane person can object to simplifying the tax code with an eye to eliminating the loopholes that are thinly veiled corporate welfare. Either side could win this debate convincingly by providing a plan that balanced the budget while eliminating "targeted tax breaks", i.e., corporate welfare, for the richest corporations. This could easily be sold to the public as "raising taxes on the richest Americans".Neither side will present a plan like that, because those loopholes are how they buy campaign contributions.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

No rational economist says this, since tax rates have a negligible effect on revenue. The best way to raise tax revenue is through pro-growth polices, and raising taxes is the opposite of that.But certainly no sane person can object to simplifying the tax code with an eye to eliminating the loopholes that are thinly veiled corporate welfare. Either side could win this debate convincingly by providing a plan that balanced the budget while eliminating "targeted tax breaks", i.e., corporate welfare, for the richest corporations. This could easily be sold to the public as "raising taxes on the richest Americans".Neither side will present a plan like that, because those loopholes are how they buy campaign contributions.

I don't know the details, but isn't this what Obama is putting on the table: a small amount of tax loophole fixes (raising taxes) coupled with a large amount of spending cuts, including Medicare? He's public stating that his goal is 4 trillion in reduction, and he's supposedly put a plan on the table (no one knows the details because so far the talks are behind closed doors). It appears that it's this sort of plan that the Republicans are outright rejecting because it contains tax increases. Again, I can't say for sure what exactly Obama is offering because I think it's mostly private for now.

[hblask 1]

I don't know the details, but isn't this what Obama is putting on the table: a small amount of tax loophole fixes (raising taxes) coupled with a large amount of spending cuts, including Medicare? He's public stating that his goal is 4 trillion in reduction, and he's supposedly put a plan on the table (no one knows the details because so far the talks are behind closed doors). It appears that it's this sort of plan that the Republicans are outright rejecting because it contains tax increases. Again, I can't say for sure what exactly Obama is offering because I think it's mostly private for now.

We're not getting a lot of details, but I don't think 4 trillion comes close to touching the problem, depending on the timeframe and permanency of the changes. While it's starting to sound like we are making tiny steps in the right direction, but I think now is the time to fix it for real.If we don't fix it now, then in 4-6 years we'll be back here and having this same argument about how to delay the day of reckoning until after the next election.

[hblask 1]

I don't know the details, but isn't this what Obama is putting on the table: a small amount of tax loophole fixes (raising taxes) coupled with a large amount of spending cuts, including Medicare? He's public stating that his goal is 4 trillion in reduction, and he's supposedly put a plan on the table (no one knows the details because so far the talks are behind closed doors). It appears that it's this sort of plan that the Republicans are outright rejecting because it contains tax increases. Again, I can't say for sure what exactly Obama is offering because I think it's mostly private for now.

I was thinking about this some more, and that 4T is probably 10 year projections, heavily loaded to the last couple years after the current batch of criminals is out of office. But even if it were honest and divided evenly among the years, the CBO projects about $7 TRILLION in added debt over those 10 years, in addition to the $14 TRILLION we already have. So basically, what that says is that Obama's idea of responsible budgeting is to reduce the amount we are overspending by a little over half, and increasing our net debt by 50% over 10 years, at a time when our credit rating is already in danger.So, if that's what the numbers really mean, and it is likely that they do, a $4T spending cut over the next ten years is a joke.If that's $4T over the next two or three years, then we have a decent starting spot.

[Balloon guy 158]

So you would be mad if the Republicans caved and allowed our government to close loopholes for the rich, or even outright raised taxes on the very wealthy? This, despite the fact that every rational economist outside of those speaking on behalf of political gain, agrees that the only possible path to reducing the debt is through tax increases? It's all mind boggling insane that just the top 25 hedge fund managers get billions in low tax income that you or I don't. I mean really, if there is anything that has become very very glaringly obvious is that all these low taxes on the wealthy have not done a thing for the middle class, the deficit, this country or anything positive.

I am not saying I don't see your point, but I think you are stopping too soon here.Those billionaire hedge fund guys go out and buy $50MM homes, have them gutted and put 100 people to work changing the motif, then buy a dozen new cars, put in new silicone implants into at least 4 super models, gamble $1mm a year to make them feel good, tip cocktail waitresses crazy amounts of money etc.Their money goes back into the economy in ways that helps the economy a lot more than giving half of it to the government so they can pay off some political debt to a former Hillary Clinton pollster etc.Its not like them keeping the money means the money is shoved into a mattress and removed from the national equation. Even the money they stick in a T-Bill or Muni Bond that they won't pay any taxes on either results in the money being put to work.Sure the taxed money also works itself back into the economy, the union guys have to buy new baseball bats to beat up people that are willing to work for only $50 an hour, Hillary's pollsters need money to invent graphs to tell her she still has a chance to run again, And scaring the public about the evils of 2nd hand smoke isn't cheap....But no matter what, the money they spend also works itself into the economy, but it is 'forced' into the economy.My philosophical difference with the democrats is that I think the way the money is put to work by the private sector is more likely to have beneficial long term gains than the government taking huge chunks of it and delaying their returning of the money to the economy, then forcing it into a non-returning result. XYZ corp spends the money on new equipment, labor etc, they will continue to do so for years. XYZ corp creates a demand for ZYX Corp etc. Long term stability in the economy.Government program IDT puts $100 million into public schools into Florida for 2 years. So they hire more teachers etc. Then 2 years expires, and there isn't $100MM lying around anymore so the Republican governor has to 'fire teachers' that never could have been hired had the Feds not forced the money into the system in a manner that would not sustain itself.Cliffs: Republicans Rule, Dems Drool

[mrdannyg 274]

No rational economist says this, since tax rates have a negligible effect on revenue. The best way to raise tax revenue is through pro-growth polices, and raising taxes is the opposite of that.But certainly no sane person can object to simplifying the tax code with an eye to eliminating the loopholes that are thinly veiled corporate welfare. Either side could win this debate convincingly by providing a plan that balanced the budget while eliminating "targeted tax breaks", i.e., corporate welfare, for the richest corporations. This could easily be sold to the public as "raising taxes on the richest Americans".Neither side will present a plan like that, because those loopholes are how they buy campaign contributions.

I think "opposite" is not accurate. Otherwise, lots of good points, and good debate from several people in this thread.

[brvheart 1,752]

So you would be mad if the Republicans caved and allowed our government to close loopholes for the rich, or even outright raised taxes on the very wealthy?

Classic Dem bully tactic. Everyone wants the tax code to be changed, I didn't say anything about this, nor did I imply that any Republicans had this as a core value. I mean, you read my post, right?

This, despite the fact that every rational economist outside of those speaking on behalf of political gain, agrees that the only possible path to reducing the debt is through tax increases?

This isn't just not true, but it's probably a borderline lie. I believe that you know that you're talking out of your ass here.*opening Principles of Microeconomics book sitting right next to me**Reading"Other things equal, a tax cut is more likely to raise tax revenue if the cut applies to those taxpayers facing the highest tax rates. Economists disagree about these issues in part because there is no consensus about the size of the relevant elasticities. The more elastic that supply and demand are in any market, the more taxes in that market distort behavior, and the more likely it is that a tax cut will raise tax revenue. There is no debate, however, about the general lesson: How much revenue the government gains or loses from a tax change cnanot be computed just by looking at tax rates. It also depends on how the rtax chnage affects people's behavior."*Reading another economists book"What is the implication of this Dead-Weight Loss? When tax rates are low, raising them isn't harmful, and lowering them isn't beneficial. However, when rates are high, raising them is very harmful, and cutting them is very beneficial."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve"In economics, the Laffer curve is a theoretical representation of the relationship between government revenue raised by taxation and all possible rates of taxation. It is used to illustrate the concept of taxable income elasticity (that taxable income will change in response to changes in the rate of taxation). The curve is constructed by thought experiment. First, the amount of tax revenue raised at the extreme tax rates of 0% and 100% is considered. It is clear that a 0% tax rate raises no revenue, but the Laffer curve hypothesis is that a 100% tax rate will also generate no revenue because at such a rate there is no longer any incentive for a rational taxpayer to earn any income, thus the revenue raised will be 100% of nothing."The only way to reduce our debt is through economic growth, which is something taxation usually murders behind the warehouse down by the river.

It's all mind boggling insane that just the top 25 hedge fund managers get billions in low tax income that you or I don't. I mean really, if there is anything that has become very very glaringly obvious is that all these low taxes on the wealthy have not done a thing for the middle class, the deficit, this country or anything positive.

I don't care about hedge fund managers, and I'm totally in favor of having a simplified tax code.

[All_In 0]

NOW its the US.Before Obama is was all Bush's economy, Bush's war, Bush's fault.But now it the US problem, the US not able to recover, the US debt issue.Funny how you lefties are such hypocrites.And by Funny I mean pathetic.

and it's pathetic how simple and short-minded idiots like u r. it was bush who led america on this path. man, don't u feel like an idiot for being so clueless on EVERYTHING?

[FCP Bob 1,312]

*Reading another economists book"What is the implication of this Dead-Weight Loss? When tax rates are low, raising them isn't harmful, and lowering them isn't beneficial. However, when rates are high, raising them is very harmful, and cutting them is very beneficial."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve"In economics, the Laffer curve is a theoretical representation of the relationship between government revenue raised by taxation and all possible rates of taxation. It is used to illustrate the concept of taxable income elasticity (that taxable income will change in response to changes in the rate of taxation). The curve is constructed by thought experiment. First, the amount of tax revenue raised at the extreme tax rates of 0% and 100% is considered. It is clear that a 0% tax rate raises no revenue, but the Laffer curve hypothesis is that a 100% tax rate will also generate no revenue because at such a rate there is no longer any incentive for a rational taxpayer to earn any income, thus the revenue raised will be 100% of nothing."

The debate in economics is what the level of taxation is where the Laffer curve comes into play. Not even Laffer thinks that current levels of US taxation are close to that level.

[brvheart 1,752]

The debate in economics is what the level of taxation is where the Laffer curve comes into play. Not even Laffer thinks that current levels of US taxation are close to that level.

I apologize, Mr. Laffer.

[hblask 1]

My philosophical difference with the democrats is that I think the way the money is put to work by the private sector is more likely to have beneficial long term gains than the government taking huge chunks of it and delaying their returning of the money to the economy, then forcing it into a non-returning result. XYZ corp spends the money on new equipment, labor etc, they will continue to do so for years. XYZ corp creates a demand for ZYX Corp etc. Long term stability in the economy.

Much of it boils down to this; it's the difference between hiring someone to dig a hole and fill it back in or hiring someone to build a new computer chip that provides 30% more processing for 1/2 the price.Liberals tend to believe that the former is just as valuable to the economy as the latter, especially if the hole-digging job is union and pays above-market rates.

[timwakefield 68]

Those billionaire hedge fund guys go out and buy $50MM homes, have them gutted and put 100 people to work changing the motif, then buy a dozen new cars, put in new silicone implants into at least 4 super models, gamble $1mm a year to make them feel good, tip cocktail waitresses crazy amounts of money etc.Their money goes back into the economy in ways that helps the economy a lot more than giving half of it to the government so they can pay off some political debt to a former Hillary Clinton pollster etc.

It doesn't take a hundred people to gut and refurbish a house. It takes about a dozen. Ok, so good for those guys. Then you have money going to (we can assume) already wealthy plastic surgeons, already wealthy car dealers (poor people don't sell luxury cars, because if they did they wouldn't be poor), already wealthy land owners and property lawyers, extremely wealthy casinos, and a few waitresses get a few hundred bucks. That's not stimulating shit. Let's at least hope he plays poker, so the guys around him benefit more than the casino. Either way though...

[hblask 1]

It doesn't take a hundred people to gut and refurbish a house. It takes about a dozen. Ok, so good for those guys. Then you have money going to (we can assume) already wealthy plastic surgeons, already wealthy car dealers (poor people don't sell luxury cars, because if they did they wouldn't be poor), already wealthy land owners and property lawyers, extremely wealthy casinos, and a few waitresses get a few hundred bucks. That's not stimulating shit. Let's at least hope he plays poker, so the guys around him benefit more than the casino. Either way though...

Seriously, it only stimulates the economy if you give it to millionaire campaign contributors like politicians do. Voluntary private exchanges aren't good for anything.

[brvheart 1,752]

It doesn't take a hundred people to gut and refurbish a house. It takes about a dozen. Ok, so good for those guys. Then you have money going to (we can assume) already wealthy plastic surgeons, already wealthy car dealers (poor people don't sell luxury cars, because if they did they wouldn't be poor), already wealthy land owners and property lawyers, extremely wealthy casinos, and a few waitresses get a few hundred bucks.

These sentences reek (wreak? SJ?) of very little knowledge of business. Not to mention the fact that you are arbitrarily dismissing the basis for every economic system on earth. You're saying that microeconomic systems don't matter because they only help 12 people? Really?Casinos go bankrupt all the time. Trump anyone? Car dealers aren't all mega-wealthy. In the economic downturn many went bankrupt. Just because someone owns a business doesn't mean they are an evil genius that needs to be destroyed.