Sign in to follow this  
badlatitude

So Much For Fiscal Responsibility

Recommended Posts

Canceling the tax cut and reducing the Pentagon budget would go a long way to fixing this country, but I guess Republicans want that cash in their pockets more. I'm glad to see the charade end, I don't think anyone believed in it past the first decade or two.

In big reversal, new Trump budget will give up on longtime Republican goal of eliminating deficit

Source: The Washington Post



By Damian Paletta February 11 at 9:00 PM 

President Trump on Monday will offer a budget plan that falls far short of eliminating the government’s deficit over 10 years, conceding that huge tax cuts and new spending increases make this goal unattainable, three people familiar with the proposal said. 

Eliminating the budget deficit over 10 years has been a North Star for the Republican Party for several decades, and GOP lawmakers took the government to the brink of default in 2011 when they demanded a vote on a amendment to the Constitution that would prohibit the federal government from spending more than it takes in through revenues. 

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), when he used to chair the House Budget Committee, routinely proposed tax and spending outlines that would eliminate the deficit over 10 years, even though critics said his changes would lead to a severe curtailment in government programs. 

In 2013, Ryan proposed $4.6 trillion in cuts over 10 years, an amount he said was sufficient to eliminating the deficit. Those changes were not adopted by Congress or supported by the Obama administration.

Read more:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/02/11/in-big-reversal-new-trump-budget-will-give-up-on-longtime-republican-goal-of-eliminating-deficit/ 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ryan is about to be set aside....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Ryan is about to be set aside....

I see cement shoes in his future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It'll work out - the right wingers are the smart ones with money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plenty of peace and quiet on the Fiscal Responsibility Express these days. All the big mouths hopped off at the “Fuck this, We’re in Charge Now” station. 

Time to enjoy the solitude until the democRATS are in power again and Principled Folk hop back aboard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10.jpg.4068638d59d3d2664c63f19c9b3afb27.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not so fast folks; we will be hearing bout massive cuts in “entitlement” programs shortly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 trillion budget with 1 trillion increased debt; Ronny Raygun would be proud of these guys!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow....

 

President Trump on Monday sent Congress a $4.4 trillion budget with steep cuts in domestic programs and entitlements, including Medicare, and large increases for the military, envisioning deficits totaling at least $7.1 trillion over the next decade.

The blueprint, which has little to no chance of being enacted as written, amounts to a vision statement by Mr. Trump, whose plan discards longtime Republican orthodoxy about balancing the budget, instead embracing last year’s $1.5 trillion tax cut and new spending on a major infrastructure initiative.

The plan does not completely embrace the two-year budget deal struck by Congress and signed by Mr. Trump last week to boost both domestic and military spending by $300 billion. Mick Mulvaney, Mr. Trump’s budget director, informed House Speaker Paul D. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin, in a letter that the president is proposing to pour much of the increased domestic spending in that package into defense and fixing “some longtime budget gimmicks” that have added to the nation’s deficits.

“The administration does not believe these nondefense spending levels comport with its vision for the proper role and size of the federal government,” Mr. Mulvaney wrote.

That bill, which President Trump signed into law last week, would increase military spending by $195 billion over the next two years and increase nondefense spending by $131 billion over that period. But Mr. Trump’s budget proposal calls for a different approach and says Congress should not spend that non-defense money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

President Trump on Monday sent Congress a $4.4 trillion budget with steep cuts in domestic programs and entitlements, including Medicare, and large increases for the military, envisioning deficits totaling at least $7.1 trillion over the next decade.

 

Welcome to Paul Ryan's wet dream, and Donald Trump's giant fuck you to all the working stiffs who voted for him.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well either there is a problem with this budget running up mountains of additional debt, or the democRATS suck and Hillary used email so the FBI is corrupt.  

I just can't make up my mind, there are good arguments on both sides.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intelligence chief: Federal debt is 'dire threat' to national security

Source: The Hill



BY SYLVAN LANE - 02/13/18 02:24 PM EST 

Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats warned lawmakers Tuesday that failing to curb the national debt could jeopardize national security. 

Coats, testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he’s concerned that the U.S. government’s “increasingly fractious political process particularly with respect to federal spending is threatening our ability to defend our nation, both in the short term and especially in the long term.” 

Coats’ warning comes days after President Trump signed a bipartisan budget deal with a $300 billion increase in federal spending tied to a short-term bill to fund the government through March 23. The bill also suspended the debt ceiling, the federal limit on how much debt the U.S could hold, until 2019. Trump also rolled out his fiscal 2019 budget on Monday, which doesn’t balance within ten years or eliminate yearly federal deficits. 

Fiscal hawks have raged against Republican leaders, which they say abandoned their pledge to curb irresponsible federal spending. Trump, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) have praised the budget deal for adding billions in what they consider crucial defense spending.

Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/finance/373647-intelligence-chief-federal-debt-is-dire-threat-to-national-security 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s a set up. Cuts to entitlements on the way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sean said:

It’s a set up. Cuts to entitlements on the way. 

Absolutely 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope that people start realizing that we ALL pay for the stupidity on Capital Hill - and vote responsibly in November, assuming, of course, that the ballot provides responsible options. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I hope that people start realizing that we ALL pay for the stupidity on Capital Hill - and vote responsibly in November, assuming, of course, that the ballot provides responsible options. 

 

 

honest question, when was the last time that happened? follow up question, is it even possible with current special interest/lobbying rules?

 

i hate to sound pessimistic, but my initial thought was "wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, aA said:

 

 

honest question, when was the last time that happened? follow up question, is it even possible with current special interest/lobbying rules?

 

i hate to sound pessimistic, but my initial thought was "wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up"

I wish I could argue against your points - but, I think you're right.  Aside from voting out the officeholders who have violated the public trust - what do ya do?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a related, but, tangential point:  I was downtown this weekend, and was approached by someone who was seeking signatures for Barbara Comstock's entry into the race - and I told them that before the tax-cut vote, that I would have been happy to sign, but, that after that bout of irresponsibility, that she lost my support.  IMHO - this kind of direct, personal feedback is the only way I know that we can begin to wrest control back from the lobbyists.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

On a related, but, tangential point:  I was downtown this weekend, and was approached by someone who was seeking signatures for Barbara Comstock's entry into the race - and I told them that before the tax-cut vote, that I would have been happy to sign, but, that after that bout of irresponsibility, that she lost my support.  IMHO - this kind of direct, personal feedback is the only way I know that we can begin to wrest control back from the lobbyists.   

 

but the lobbyists will always back a(nother) candidate. as long as politics are treated like a business, we will not see fiscal responsibility. to answer your question of what do we do, i don't have a for certain answer. i believe a good start would be term limits and an even better solution is to take the money out of politics.

for our elected officials to govern in our best interest, we have to always come first

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-spending-debt-analysis-20180203-story.html

Government set to borrow nearly $1 trillion this year, an 84 percent jump from last year.

Some people are going to really be up in arms about that.  Wait.  No, no they are not.  

Remember - deep thinking Conservative policy people don't matter to the Convervative movement. The Conservative movement is now just a collection of grudges, emotion and outrage - which is why they follow the Pride of New York wherever he leads. That's the core of the liberal media lie - the NYT has conservative columinists who try and produce a respectable erudite Conservative position that they can pass off as a fictional respectable Republican movement when it reality Conservatives are now just a bunch of internet morons screaming at each other about how Hillary done screwed them over and the evils of liberals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, aA said:

 

but the lobbyists will always back a(nother) candidate. as long as politics are treated like a business, we will not see fiscal responsibility. to answer your question of what do we do, i don't have a for certain answer. i believe a good start would be term limits and an even better solution is to take the money out of politics.

for our elected officials to govern in our best interest, we have to always come first

I have proposed a Constitutional amendment, to state that spending money is spending money, and speaking is speaking, and that we will no longer change the names of verbs to extend constitutional protections to unprotected activities.  Spending money on campaigns will only be allowed by voters who are registered to vote in the district a particular candidate seeks to represent, at whatever level that may be.  Such spending may not exceed a certain amount per election cycle.  There will be draconian penalties for violations, with the human being at the top of the corporate structure of corporate violators to serve any sentence applied to a corporation, and dissolution of any such corporation upon conviction for first offence, with all assets forfeited.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

I have proposed a Constitutional amendment, to state that spending money is spending money, and speaking is speaking, and that we will no longer change the names of verbs to extend constitutional protections to unprotected activities.  Spending money on campaigns will only be allowed by voters who are registered to vote in the district a particular candidate seeks to represent, at whatever level that may be.  Such spending may not exceed a certain amount per election cycle.  There will be draconian penalties for violations, with the human being at the top of the corporate structure of corporate violators to serve any sentence applied to a corporation, and dissolution of any such corporation upon conviction for first offence, with all assets forfeited.  

I like the intent - but....  Let's say I live in VA, and keep a boat in FL.   Even though I can't vote in FL elections, I have a vested interest in FL legislation, and feel that I should be permitted to protect that interest via the political process.  Doesn't your proposal prevent me from doing so? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I like the intent - but....  Let's say I live in VA, and keep a boat in FL.   Even though I can't vote in FL elections, I have a vested interest in FL legislation, and feel that I should be permitted to protect that interest via the political process.  Doesn't your proposal prevent me from doing so? 

Oh yeah.  Donations are tied to the voter registration.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I like the intent - but....  Let's say I live in VA, and keep a boat in FL.   Even though I can't vote in FL elections, I have a vested interest in FL legislation, and feel that I should be permitted to protect that interest via the political process.  Doesn't your proposal prevent me from doing so? 

The problem is the issue voter.  Putting up an ad for an objective like lower luxury taxes on boats goes out to voters everywhere who own a boat.  The candidate gets to get up and says I love boats and gets associated with the issue.

Boat/US spends a lot on lobbying and issue ads.  AARP is the same.  Sierra Club, NRA, issues cross a lot of lines. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

I have proposed a Constitutional amendment, to state that spending money is spending money, and speaking is speaking, and that we will no longer change the names of verbs to extend constitutional protections to unprotected activities.  Spending money on campaigns will only be allowed by voters who are registered to vote in the district a particular candidate seeks to represent, at whatever level that may be.  Such spending may not exceed a certain amount per election cycle.  There will be draconian penalties for violations, with the human being at the top of the corporate structure of corporate violators to serve any sentence applied to a corporation, and dissolution of any such corporation upon conviction for first offence, with all assets forfeited.  

and they laughed and laughed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, aA said:

and they laughed and laughed?

There's no way that such a change could be made.  It would end our modern day feudal system.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I like the intent - but....  Let's say I live in VA, and keep a boat in FL.   Even though I can't vote in FL elections, I have a vested interest in FL legislation, and feel that I should be permitted to protect that interest via the political process.  Doesn't your proposal prevent me from doing so? 

You're wrong on that. If you want to keep a boat other than where you live, tough shit - you vote where you live - period.

We used to have a municipal voting structure that gave businesses a vote in municipal elections. Obviously the owner or CEO got that vote and they also got their personal vote where they lived.

Same thing and it was bullshit - got repealed years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

I have proposed a Constitutional amendment, to state that spending money is spending money, and speaking is speaking, and that we will no longer change the names of verbs to extend constitutional protections to unprotected activities.  Spending money on campaigns will only be allowed by voters who are registered to vote in the district a particular candidate seeks to represent, at whatever level that may be.  Such spending may not exceed a certain amount per election cycle.  There will be draconian penalties for violations, with the human being at the top of the corporate structure of corporate violators to serve any sentence applied to a corporation, and dissolution of any such corporation upon conviction for first offence, with all assets forfeited.  

So if a non-profit, non-pre$$ corporation like the NAACP or Citizens United were to $peak about a candidate prior to an election but not contribute to the candidate's campaign, that would not be any kind of contribution, right? It's just $pending money, after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2018 at 11:50 PM, badlatitude said:

Canceling the tax cut and reducing the Pentagon budget would go a long way to fixing this country, but I guess Republicans want that cash in their pockets more. I'm glad to see the charade end, I don't think anyone believed in it past the first decade or two.

In big reversal, new Trump budget will give up on longtime Republican goal of eliminating deficit

Source: The Washington Post



By Damian Paletta February 11 at 9:00 PM 

President Trump on Monday will offer a budget plan that falls far short of eliminating the government’s deficit over 10 years, conceding that huge tax cuts and new spending increases make this goal unattainable, three people familiar with the proposal said. 

Eliminating the budget deficit over 10 years has been a North Star for the Republican Party for several decades, and GOP lawmakers took the government to the brink of default in 2011 when they demanded a vote on a amendment to the Constitution that would prohibit the federal government from spending more than it takes in through revenues. 

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), when he used to chair the House Budget Committee, routinely proposed tax and spending outlines that would eliminate the deficit over 10 years, even though critics said his changes would lead to a severe curtailment in government programs. 

In 2013, Ryan proposed $4.6 trillion in cuts over 10 years, an amount he said was sufficient to eliminating the deficit. Those changes were not adopted by Congress or supported by the Obama administration.

Read more:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/02/11/in-big-reversal-new-trump-budget-will-give-up-on-longtime-republican-goal-of-eliminating-deficit/ 

The GOP Is Dead

And won't wake back up this time...
 

Quote

 

President Trump has so thoroughly trashed his party's brand of free market loyalty, fiscal responsibility, and traditional values that one cannot help but wonder: What will the Grand Old Party stand for after Trump departs from the White House?

Here's my prediction: The GOP of the post-Trump future will intensify the culture wars against the liberal "enemy," and throw into the mix a regressive economic agenda that consists of nativist immigrant bashing and mercantilist America First-ism. Essentially, even without Trump, the GOP will fuel itself with Trumpism.

It would be easy to predict that Republicans would, after Trump, eschew Trumpism and instead return to austerity and traditionalism. After all, it's become a common criticism of the right that conservatives tend to forget about their commitment to fiscal responsibility when they control all the levers of government — and then rediscover it as soon as a Democrat becomes president. This has no doubt been the pattern in the past, and it would be reassuring if it were to be again in the future.

But that gives the GOP too much credit. The party spent the last decade erecting bulwarks against conservative sellouts that grow government and spend taxpayers into the poorhouse. Conservatives abolished earmarks, imposed budgetary sequesters, and insisted on the debt ceiling — only to crumble without resistance when Trump came along. Never before has a party fought so hard for something and then given it up so quickly. In one short year in office, President Trump has decimated conservatives' adherence to fiscal responsibility — without any audible protest from Republicans.


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

You're wrong on that. If you want to keep a boat other than where you live, tough shit - you vote where you live - period.

We used to have a municipal voting structure that gave businesses a vote in municipal elections. Obviously the owner or CEO got that vote and they also got their personal vote where they lived.

Same thing and it was bullshit - got repealed years ago.

Never said that I should be permitted to vote in both places - but, thanks for once again showing your myopia in focusing more on a rebuttal than in understanding. 

What I *DID* say was that I feel that I ought to be able to act to influence local decisions that impact my interests.   Such action could take the form of signing a petition, donating to support an advertising campaign, etc.   I understand Sol's point - and agree with the intent to keep big money machines out of elections, but wanted to present the perspective that some external interests are valid, and to ask how those interests would be represented in Sol's proposal. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Never said that I should be permitted to vote in both places - but, thanks for once again showing your myopia in focusing more on a rebuttal than in understanding. 

What I *DID* say was that I feel that I ought to be able to act to influence local decisions that impact my interests.   Such action could take the form of signing a petition, donating to support an advertising campaign, etc.   I understand Sol's point - and agree with the intent to keep big money machines out of elections, but wanted to present the perspective that some external interests are valid, and to ask how those interests would be represented in Sol's proposal. 

 

To stick with the dock analogy, your interests would have to be represented by the owner (or owners if the property is owned by more than one registered voter) at the ballot box. If the dock is at Lauderdale Marine Center or other facility owned by out of state interests, it would be up to the locals to foster conditions friendly to the marine industry, to keep the business in the area. They employ a lot of registered voters, who won’t chase them away. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

To stick with the dock analogy, your interests would have to be represented by the owner (or owners if the property is owned by more than one registered voter) at the ballot box. If the dock is at Lauderdale Marine Center or other facility owned by out of state interests, it would be up to the locals to foster conditions friendly to the marine industry, to keep the business in the area. They employ a lot of registered voters, who won’t chase them away. 

So basically - your approach is that if you don't live there, don't expect to be able to exert any local influence, even if you have interests there?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

So basically - your approach is that if you don't live there, don't expect to be able to exert any local influence, even if you have interests there?  

This can be a very big issue in places like the Outer Banks and other tourist areas where the *majority* of homeowners, sometimes a big majority, do not live there.The 100 people that live there year round can vote to tax the living hell out of beachfront property or whatever and the other 5,000 people that have vacation homes there have no say.

I can see being able to vote in a local town election if you own a house there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

So basically - your approach is that if you don't live there, don't expect to be able to exert any local influence, even if you have interests there?  

Let market forces work. If the locals create conditions not conducive to business, business will move. But don’t let business buy the government. 

One person one vote. Not one person, as many votes as he has businesses. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

This can be a very big issue in places like the Outer Banks and other tourist areas where the *majority* of homeowners, sometimes a big majority, do not live there.The 100 people that live there year round can vote to tax the living hell out of beachfront property or whatever and the other 5,000 people that have vacation homes there have no say.

I can see being able to vote in a local town election if you own a house there.   Just saw Sol's reply - and it partially addresses the question, but, I don't think that it addresses the points that Flash & I raised. 

I understand your perspective, and Sol's too - and while I disagree that owning property should give you the right to vote in more than one locality, I *do* believe that having an personal interest like owning property, owning a business, etc,  should allow for a voice in local decisions, even if that voice doesn't come in the form of a direct vote.  

That said - aside from an outright ban on non-voter participation as Sol has suggested, the question is - how do you establish an equitable balance?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

...the question is - how do you establish an equitable balance?  

Balance is soemthing to worry about later. Fix the obvious low-hanging fruit, then observe to see if further changes are needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I understand your perspective, and Sol's too - and while I disagree that owning property should give you the right to vote in more than one locality, I *do* believe that having an personal interest like owning property, owning a business, etc,  should allow for a voice in local decisions, even if that voice doesn't come in the form of a direct vote.  

That said - aside from an outright ban on non-voter participation as Sol has suggested, the question is - how do you establish an equitable balance?  

They can participate, they just can't buy politicians.  Lauderdale is a good example wrt the marine industry.  It is a huge part of the local economy so much so that there are city and county marine advisory boards.  Those are not lobbying groups, they are advisory groups of marine industry pros, who chime in whenever the city or county are deciding something about the waterfront.  That's where business should have their say.  There are plenty of trade associations who have networking events several times a week, for the people doing the work at several different levels.  Those folks stay up to date on all of the issues of the day, and they vote.  There is also a Marine Industry lobbying group that would be constrained by my proposal, but not entirely.  They could still organize the Ft. Lauderdale Boat Show and other trade events.  They just couldn't buy the local governments.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take Rock Hall MD for example. Boats there outnumber people and very few of them are owned by locals. If someone wanted to make the "Rock Hall Sailors Association" to have a voice in local political matters that effected them, would that be wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Take Rock Hall MD for example. Boats there outnumber people and very few of them are owned by locals. If someone wanted to make the "Rock Hall Sailors Association" to have a voice in local political matters that effected them, would that be wrong?

I don't think so Kent - the Pennsylvania Navy  is large in Northeast, too. 

Sol's reply is in line with what I think would be an appropriate avenue for non-resident interests to be voiced.  I don't mean this to be pedantic, but, where does the line between advocacy and lobbying lie?   If we actually want to create a movement to help get big $$ out of elections, I think that this distinction needs to be clearly established and easily explained.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I don't think so Kent - the Pennsylvania Navy  is large in Northeast, too. 

Sol's reply is in line with what I think would be an appropriate avenue for non-resident interests to be voiced.  I don't mean this to be pedantic, but, where does the line between advocacy and lobbying lie?   If we actually want to create a movement to help get big $$ out of elections, I think that this distinction needs to be clearly established and easily explained.  

I draw the line at buying politicians.  An advocacy group is explicitly contemplated by the First Amendment, and is what our nation is all about.  Buying politicians is not.  Take money out of the game, and actual advocacy groups will flourish, though government money laundering outfits will wither. 

We have allowed special interest to substitute a verb that is constitutionally-protected (speaking) for one that is not (spending).  Try going into a cocktail party and ripping a loud fart at a quiet moment.  When your wife is aghast (pun intended), just say "I wasn't farting, I was pontificating."  You can call it any form of speech that you want, but the stink will always give it away.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

I draw the line at buying politicians.  An advocacy group is explicitly contemplated by the First Amendment, and is what our nation is all about.  Buying politicians is not.  Take money out of the game, and actual advocacy groups will flourish, though government money laundering outfits will wither. 

We have allowed special interest to substitute a verb that is constitutionally-protected (speaking) for one that is not (spending).  Try going into a cocktail party and ripping a loud fart at a quiet moment.  When your wife is aghast (pun intended), just say "I wasn't farting, I was pontificating."  You can call it any form of speech that you want, but the stink will always give it away.  

So if I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that positional advocacy be encouraged, but, that direct contributions to officeholders/candidates be eliminated?  

If I've got that right - let's write the petition. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

advocacy defined is "public support for or recommendation of a particular cause or policy." so it seems that the line between that and lobbying is drawn at the money spent. something like $300+ billion spent in 2017 by lobbyists if i'm remembering the correct stat. advocate positions and issues all you want but don't let industries, companies, etc buy influence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

So if I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that positional advocacy be encouraged, but, that direct contributions to officeholders/candidates be eliminated?  

If I've got that right - let's write the petition. 

That's close.  Contributions would be limited to those registered voters in the district the candidate seeks to represent, or represents.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or in another way of equating the battle of lobbying vs. advocacy: money talks and bullshit walks

 

WE should be the voice that washington hears

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

That's close.  Contributions would be limited to those registered voters in the district the candidate seeks to represent, or represents.  

IAW w/established contribution limits?  ( preventing $$ funneling in and being filtered by locals) - Let's write the petition.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

IAW w/established contribution limits?  ( preventing $$ funneling in and being filtered by locals) - Let's write the petition.  

Funneling would fit within the prohibited contribution section, and would be harshly punished.  I'll take a stab at lashing something together.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Funneling would fit within the prohibited contribution section, and would be harshly punished.  I'll take a stab at lashing something together.  

In all sincerity - if we can get something put together?  I'll start a signature drive in my part of Virginia.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as will i sol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, aA said:

advocacy defined is "public support for or recommendation of a particular cause or policy." so it seems that the line between that and lobbying is drawn at the money spent. something like $300+ billion spent in 2017 by lobbyists if i'm remembering the correct stat. advocate positions and issues all you want but don't let industries, companies, etc buy influence

sorry for the incorrect stat, $11.5b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Never said that I should be permitted to vote in both places - but, thanks for once again showing your myopia in focusing more on a rebuttal than in understanding. 

What I *DID* say was that I feel that I ought to be able to act to influence local decisions that impact my interests.   Such action could take the form of signing a petition, donating to support an advertising campaign, etc.   I understand Sol's point - and agree with the intent to keep big money machines out of elections, but wanted to present the perspective that some external interests are valid, and to ask how those interests would be represented in Sol's proposal. 

 

No, I understood what you meant - maybe my municipal vote analogy wasn't the best.

Keep the money out - except mine.

That's more or less the attitude the big money people have.

The only difference is the size of your wallet, not the the underlying principles.

Signing petitions, waving placards etc. fine - money and voting, not fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/12/2018 at 4:31 PM, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I like the intent - but....  Let's say I live in VA, and keep a boat in FL.   Even though I can't vote in FL elections, I have a vested interest in FL legislation, and feel that I should be permitted to protect that interest via the political process.  Doesn't your proposal prevent me from doing so? 

Fine, you can donate $1 to all candidates, superpacs and other lobbyists for state or local politics (total) for every dollar of taxes paid to the state or local entity the year before.   .    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lark said:

Fine, you can donate $1 to all candidates, superpacs and other lobbyists for state or local politics (total) for every dollar of taxes paid to the state or local entity the year before.   .    

How are you going to be able to keep track of the sales tax you've paid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

How are you going to be able to keep track of the sales tax you've paid?

Sales tax to brick and mortar merchants?   How quaint.   Amazon is laughing.   I suppose you could report use tax.   I was thinking of payroll, property, income, etc.    If you don’t have a tax burden you don’t have money on the table.   Just sit back and watch.  Buy and register a new boat or car, pay the tax, then you can “advise” the representative.   Otherwise your only leverage is your vote.   Likely Franklin didn’t expect more, even if he was rich.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So there is a means test to limit one's voice? The poor spend so much more on sales tax as a percentage of income... I think its awkward equating one's monetary support of the government to the quality of individual representation. "The more money you are taxed them more voice you get" seems just like the system you are vowing to replace.

Sunshine is the best cleanser. Insist all donations are up front, and names are published. 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
20 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

That's close.  Contributions would be limited to those registered voters in the district the candidate seeks to represent, or represents.  

IAW w/established contribution limits?  ( preventing $$ funneling in and being filtered by locals) - Let's write the petition.  

If a non-profit, non-pre$$ corporation is just $peaking about a candidate, that wouldn't be a contribution, would it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, phillysailor said:

So there is a means test to limit one's voice? The poor spend so much more on sales tax as a percentage of income... I think its awkward equating one's monetary support of the government to the quality of individual representation. "The more money you are taxed them more voice you get" seems just like the system you are vowing to replace.

Sunshine is the best cleanser. Insist all donations are up front, and names are published. 
 

 

I sort of agree.     Sol’s solution to limit the travel of political money is less extreme then my position, but is an interesting idea.   It doesn’t limit spending, so those with financial power won’t object to being silenced.   It just forces them to financially support the communities they buy control in.   Chesapeake Guy’s concern could be addressed with my modification.   Yachts with facilities can be considered a second home, right?   Register and pay taxes on stuff locally, instead of driving up with a cooler once a month and leaving town for the water.  

 Working class donate $20-100 if they donate at all.   That is the current limit of their $peech.   Even if they kept track of sales tax they couldn’t afford to donate much more.   I am for almost any proposal that eliminates superpacs.   Current legal restrictions on religion in campaigns limit minority faiths but are all but ignored for major Christian religions.    That comes dangerously close to a de facto state church throughout the Midwest.   Foreign spending on propaganda is ok as long as it supports the party in power.    If you want to revert to my prior sarcastic proposal of making the politicians wear the patches of their sponsors like a NASCAR driver, I’m OK with that too.   Any true and fair reform is better then the status quo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Lark said:

I sort of agree.     Sol’s solution to limit the travel of political money is less extreme then my position, but is an interesting idea.

Where does an entity like the National Association of Realtors or the Carpenters and Joiners Union live?

Maybe Wilmington, Delaware or something, but their interests extend beyond that location.

Screen shot from Open Secrets. "Contributions" are part of this story...

OpenSecrets2017.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Where does an entity like the National Association of Realtors or the Carpenters and Joiners Union live?

Maybe Wilmington, Delaware or something, but their interests extend beyond that location.

Screen shot from Open Secrets. "Contributions" are part of this story...

OpenSecrets2017.jpg

Protecting organizations?    Why do we bother?   Team blue will be upset to lose unions, though many the union jobs are in defense shipyards and many union workers are pro Trump, so the lines have blurred.   Clinton was a hawk and many Union workers liked Trump.    The National Association of Realtors came to my attention by defending the housing market on the evening news in the months before the crash, claiming there was no bubble and all was healthy.   They certainly helped create the great recession.   Why give them more voice?    Big Pharm?  They really need more power?   Blue Cross?   I hardly dare go to the doctor while waiting for them to buy new ways to drop me if I ever prove financially burdensome.   Let the individual members donate to their districts "In the name of".  If there are 100000 members that care, the result won't change.   If the organization is a front for big money from one pocket, he will have to find a way to pay more taxes.   Many problems solved.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, aA said:

as will i sol

here here...#metoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

No, I understood what you meant - maybe my municipal vote analogy wasn't the best.

Keep the money out - except mine.

That's more or less the attitude the big money people have.

The only difference is the size of your wallet, not the the underlying principles.

Signing petitions, waving placards etc. fine - money and voting, not fine.

Thanks for clarifying Sloops - I wasn't quite understanding all of Sol's suggestion - he clarified as well, and I think that both of your points align well. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Gee, how does that fine print at the bottom of the image relate to contribution$ to candidates?

The master of pedantry hits one out of the park yet again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Lark said:

Protecting organizations?    Why do we bother?   Team blue will be upset to lose unions, though many the union jobs are in defense shipyards and many union workers are pro Trump, so the lines have blurred.   Clinton was a hawk and many Union workers liked Trump.    The National Association of Realtors came to my attention by defending the housing market on the evening news in the months before the crash, claiming there was no bubble and all was healthy.   They certainly helped create the great recession.   Why give them more voice?    Big Pharm?  They really need more power?   Blue Cross?   I hardly dare go to the doctor while waiting for them to buy new ways to drop me if I ever prove financially burdensome.   Let the individual members donate to their districts "In the name of".  If there are 100000 members that care, the result won't change.   If the organization is a front for big money from one pocket, he will have to find a way to pay more taxes.   Many problems solved.   

The National Association of Realtors example is a good one.

$peaking out on the evening new$ is something that most consider constitutionally protected, but would publi$hing those same opinions be some kind of political contribution that should be somehow taxed/regulated? If so, what kind, to whom, how, and how?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

The National Association of Realtors example is a good one.

$peaking out on the evening new$ is something that most consider constitutionally protected, but would publi$hing those same opinions be some kind of political contribution that should be somehow taxed/regulated? If so, what kind, to whom, how, and how?

 

am i understanding you correctly that you're equating writing or speaking to support a position/provide influence with paying directly for influence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, aA said:

 

am i understanding you correctly that you're equating writing or speaking to support a position/provide influence with paying directly for influence?

No, I'm saying that if you eliminate the paying directly, which is for influence in the case of businesses but is only for access in the case of union$, all the writing and $peaking about positions and candidates by various entities will still occur.

It's exactly that kind of $peaking that was the subject of the Citizens United case. CU Inc didn't contribute any money to a campaign. They just wanted to broadca$t propaganda badmouthing Hillary. Apparently, that's only bad if a non-profit, non-pre$$ corporation does it. I haven't seen anyone say that a pre$$ corporation shouldn't be allowed to $pend corporate money $aying bad things (or good ones) about a candidate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/13/2018 at 7:10 AM, Sol Rosenberg said:

Funneling would fit within the prohibited contribution section, and would be harshly punished.  I'll take a stab at lashing something together.  

just curious if you ever cobbled this together? i'd like to push it here in these parts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, aA said:

just curious if you ever cobbled this together? i'd like to push it here in these parts

Not yet. I’ve been rebuilding my house for a few years, and finally got the roof deck restored (over 100 rafters replaced) to the point where roofers could put a roof on it. They are backed up to the tune of about 150 houses due to Irma, so when they called a couple weeks ago to ask if I was ready for a roof, I dropped everything. That’s done, so now I’m playing catch up at work. Once that’s done, I plan to do some writing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Not yet. I’ve been rebuilding my house for a few years, and finally got the roof deck restored (over 100 rafters replaced) to the point where roofers could put a roof on it. They are backed up to the tune of about 150 houses due to Irma, so when they called a couple weeks ago to ask if I was ready for a roof, I dropped everything. That’s done, so now I’m playing catch up at work. Once that’s done, I plan to do some writing. 

 

no worries sol. sorry about the house, if i'd known and you were closer i'd have offered to throw on my bags and help you get it done.

 

as for the proposition, please no pressure, i just fully support the idea and will be raising the effort of promotion here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2018/04/12/sen-bob-corker-says-vote-tax-bill-may-worst-his-career/510012002/

“None of us have covered ourselves in glory. This Congress and this administration likely will go down as one of the most fiscally irresponsible administrations and Congresses that we’ve had.” 

- Bob Corker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This should go over well with our right handed friends.

NY Times opinion

The Democrats Are the Party of Fiscal Responsibility

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/04/15/opinion/democrats-fiscal-responsibility.html

By now, nobody should be surprised when the Republican Party violates its claims of fiscal rectitude. Increasing the deficit — through big tax cuts, mostly for the rich — has been the defining feature of the party’s economic policy for decades. When Paul Ryan and other Republicans call themselves fiscal conservatives, they’re basically doing a version of the old Marx Brothers bit: “Who ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes?”

Ever so slowly, conventional wisdom has started to recognize this reality. After Ryan’s retirement announcement last week, only a few headlines called him a deficit hawk. People are catching on to the con.

But there is still a major way that the conventional wisdom is wrong: It doesn’t give the Democratic Party enough credit for its actual fiscal conservatism.

Over the last few decades, Democrats have repeatedly reduced the deficit. They have raised taxes. They have cut military spending and corporate welfare. Some of them have even tried to hold down the cost of cherished social programs. Obamacare, for example, included enough cost controls and tax increases that it’s cut the deficit on net.

ECD9835A-DB2F-4998-991E-2ADE2C0CBDAE.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lies, all lies.

Everyone knows the Republicans are the smart ones with the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Senate to vote on balancing the budget by 2023

They're going to vote it down, of course, but seeing who does so will be illuminating.

And down it went

Quote

The Senate on Thursday resoundingly rejected the Kentucky Republican's plan to balance the federal budget by 2023, voting 76 to 21 against a bill that would have required a $400 billion cut in federal spending next year, followed by 1 percent spending increases for the rest of the next decade.

We'll be defenseless!!!

Quote

 

"Let me tell you what that means to the military," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) before voting against the bill. "Devastation. This budget throws our military in the ditch."

Hardly. Even if the entire $400 billion cut Paul proposed were applied to the Pentagon, America would still spend far more on the military than any other nation.

 

Any talk of cutting our welfare/warfare state results in cries of "starving the poor" and "we'll be defenseless" from Duopoly types.

Only four states, Idaho, Nebraska, Texas, and Wyoming, saw both Senators vote for fiscal sanity. No one from TeamD stepped aboard this Fiscal Responsibility Express.

Quote

"When the Republican Party is out of power, they are a conservative party," Paul said just before the vote. "The problem is that when the Republican Party is in power, there is no conservative party." Thursday proved, once again, how correct that assessment is.

Yep.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  Quote

"When the Republican Party is out of power, they are a conservative party," Paul said just before the vote. "The problem is that when the Republican Party is in power, there is no conservative party." Thursday proved, once again, how correct that assessment is.

This

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/25/2018 at 8:42 PM, SloopJonB said:
On 5/25/2018 at 8:11 PM, mad said:

How did we go from UK knife law to Tom’s.22 discussion?

Every thread ends up discussing his fucking .22


Not this one.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Reagan to Trump what has Conservatism Conserved?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/from-reagan-to-trump-what-has-conservatism-conserved

What about the national debt? Conservatives rightly oppose excessive deficits, which over time result in a mountain of public debt. This puts future generations — our children and grandchildren — on the line for obligations that we couldn’t be bothered to meet. Little could be more anti-conservative than consuming posterity’s inheritance. But since the Reagan era, frequently with conservatives steering the ship of state, public debt as a percentage of GDP has exploded. In 1980, federal government debt was about 30 percent of GDP. Today it’s about 105 percent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

It has conserved the family fortunes of the few hundred families for the benefit of whom this country is run, and greatly enhanced them through a series of redistribution programs involving (but not limited to) various forms of borrow and spend government programs, resulting in future generations of Good Americans being enriched by future generations of the Great Unwashed before they are even born.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:
Quote

Not only has conservatism failed to conserve, it has actively taken part in the squandering. Conservatives supported the expansion of military activity that resulted in the current Middle Eastern morass, with nothing to show for it except wasted life and wealth. Conservatives have also been no strangers to crony capitalism, handing out political favors to well-connected interest groups when doing so was in their political self-interest. And most troubling, conservatives have not even come up with the outlines of a feasible plan to restore fiscal sanity.

...

I do not want to see Trump’s brand of conservatism become the new normal. Demagoguery always and everywhere is contrary to conservatism. But what came before it is not worth reviving.

On the other hand, the goal of liberty under law, of a government that respects the Constitution and the rights of the people, is always a worthwhile one. It’s time to look elsewhere than political conservatism to restore it.

He's noticed something that libertarians have only been pointing out for a few decades. So it might take a while to figure out where "elsewhere" might be so he can find people who don't like our endless war on "terror" and who don't like crony capitalism

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites