83°Mostly Cloudy

Moran ‘Proud’ of Vote Against GOP Budget Plan

by ARLnow.com July 20, 2011 at 8:00 am 2,671 114 Comments

Rep. Jim Moran says he’s proud to have been among the 190 legislators who voted against a Republican-backed plan to slash federal spending and balance the budget.

The bill passed the House of Representatives 234-190 last night, but faces long odds in the Senate and a presidential veto threat. President Obama and Democrats have called for a “balanced” national debt reduction bill that cuts spending while also raising some taxes.

I was proud to vote against the “Cut, Cap and Balance Act” tonight. The House Republicans have presented us with their vision for America’s future. This is a vision in which the country turns its back on the achievements of the last century and chooses not to invest in meeting the challenges of the next century.

The 18 percent spending cap mandated by the bill would return the government to spending levels not seen since the establishment of Medicare and Medicaid. This would necessarily result in unprecedented cuts in student loans and grants, transportation, education, environmental protection and enforcement, in other words, the physical and human infrastructure of our economy.

The bill also demands that in return for avoiding an economically disastrous default on our debt, we make $111 billion in immediate spending cuts, seriously increasing the likelihood of a double-dip recession.

As an appropriator I have learned that budgets are the firmest expression of our values. This is not the time for the Democratic Party to sacrifice our values, values held by a majority of the American people even in the face of opposition that has reached unprecedented levels of ideological radicalization. We must address our long-term deficits, but we must do so in a balanced manner, combining rational spending cuts and increased revenues.

  • Webster

    It’s bad enough we have the massive heat wave coming, this guy has to add his hot air to it.

    • Bluemontsince1961

      ROFL!

  • KalashniKEV

    I’m “proud” to vote against Moran.

    • novasteve

      Can’t wait for that antisemite to no longer be my congressman.

      • Chuck

        Then you must be moving because this drunk is here for as long as he wants. He swims in a “deep blue” lagoon.

        • novasteve

          🙁

  • Patrick

    “combining rational spending cuts and increased revenues”.

    I would like to know of a single item in the budget that Rep. Moran has ever advocated cutting. The government spending around 25% of GDP is out of control.

  • charlie

    always fascinated about what people blow their horn about.
    and webster, A+ for you today.

  • Arlwhenever

    A 65-year old man who’s had a healthy income his entire adult life and doesn’t have a penny to his name, lecturing us on matters financial and economic? What a joke! What do you say Jimbo, should we give you another 20 years in Congress so we can go $20 or $30 billion in debt? Well, we’ll be Greece before that happens and you’ll do everything to shift, shuck and jive and blame others, rather than looking into the mirror to acknowledge your share of responsibility. Moran, you are a total loser and sadly, you and your colleagues are bringing us all down.

    • doodly

      He didn’t say he opposed all cuts, just these. He didn’t say he opposed cutting deficits, just that he opposes doing it entirely with spending cuts and not tax increases.

      Don’t play the false choice game.

      • ZoningVictim

        Actually, he directly said that he’s not willing to cut $111 billion because it will cause a double dip recession, which is actually the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard a politician say, and after eight years of W, that’s really saying something.

        If we can’t find $111 billion to cut in 2012, we have no hope of ever balancing the budget, much less getting out of debt. End the Afghan war (which Obama promised to do) and you’re already covering $108 billion of that by the end of 2012. Then you only have to find another $3 billion, and that’s not hard.

        • doodly

          Um, why is it hard to believe that sharp cuts in government spending would cause a double-dip recession (And thereby wipe out any deficit reduction due to drops in tax revenue as well)?

          • ZoningVictim

            I think I pretty much just told you; Obama promises to end the Afghan war in 2012 and that will save $108 billion of the $111 billion in proposed spending cuts. Furthermore, $111 billion might sound like a lot, but rounded up it’s a 3% cut from the 2011 budget of $3.83 trillion, which is not a sharp cut. Government spending rose by 9% in 2010 over 2009, which is the year that we had an $800 billion stimulus package that created no jobs. There is no economic stimulus in 2011 and yet there is a budget increase from $3.55 trillion to $3.83 trillion, which is a $280 billion dollar increase. So “cutting” $111 billion will not even return us to 2010 spending levels. It is, in fact, a budget increase of $169 billion over 2010.

          • doodly

            You told me how you think we could cut, not why you don’t understand that reductions in spending could produce a new recession.

            The stimulus created lots of jobs.

          • ZoningVictim

            Fair enough; I assume you understand why I believe that now.

            Not according to the unemployment numbers. Even when the market was looking up economists were referring to this as a “jobless recovery,” which is an oxymoron.

        • Burger

          Moran is basically an economic idiot and he has said much dumber things including raising taxes on dividends so companies do pay it back to shareholders but use it for R&D…this was in front of a group of small business owners looking for capital so that didn’t exactly go over too well.

  • Arrrrrlington

    Can’t we just cut social security, medicare and medicaid for those who are above anyone 30 years or younger when they reach the age of 65 or some other elderly age?

    This will give you all enough time to prepare for retirement by saving your $$$. The cost savings for the government would be ridiculous.

    If you are worried about paying your medical bills until your 90, my question to you is do you really need to live that long? Your mind will be going, your body will be failing…..I would rather be taken out back and shot like Old Yeller than be a burden on my family.

    Note: I am under 30, and am willing to give up these benefits in the future to get government spending under control.

    • doodly

      SS is not a retirement program. You should be preparing for retirement even with SS around. It’s a social insurance program for, for instance, those who plan for retirement but are wiped out when rich bastards on Wall Street blow up the economy so they can make squeeze out a few million more bucks (but I’m not biased).

      As for Medicare – where else are you going to get insurance when you’re retired? Who would sell health insurance to old people who get sick all the time? You won’t have an employer to provide it any more.

      Medicaid is for the poor and disabled. Nobody prepares to be on Medicaid.

      • Patrick

        Any idiot that was overly invested in stocks nearing their retirement is a fool who got what they deserved. Can’t get the returns unless you are willing to accept the risk. I’m sure those same people weren’t complaining about wall street when they were getting great returns the previous two decades. It’s called taking responsibilities for your own actions, i.e. taking on way too much risk in your retirement portfolio.

        • doodly

          Oh, so they should invest in, what, Treasurys? LOL.

          My point, which you took to an unncessary level of specificity, is that SS is not a retirement plan, it’s social insurance. In other words, if you treat it as a retirement plan, you’re a fool who gets what you deserve. I’m sure you agree with that, huh?

          • Patrick

            Yes I do.

        • Lee

          As a Certified Financial Gerontologist, I can tell you that the AVERAGE life expectancy at age 65 is 22 years for women and 18 years for men. That means half will live longer than that. To not invest in growth (stocks) with a 20+ year horizon would be foolish. Do you really think a person on the edge of retirement should be in bonds or CD’s getting 1% before taxes and inflation? Do the math. As someone else stated above, just wait until you are there and see how much your opinion will change. Secondly, people are no longer falling apart in their 80’s like before. The good news is we are living longer than ever. The bad news is we are living longer than ever. Do you even know how much you will need to have banked at age 65 if you plan on living to 90? Millions. How many Americans even come close to that? Very, very, few.

          Those that don’t plan will be a burden to the rest of us and those who do not want to be forced to buy health insurance shouldn’t expect the taxpayers to pay for them when they get sick or have an accident. If everyone had to just fend for themselves for everything, we better make sure everyone is armed. We are all in one boat and need to take care of each other. We can afford it.

          • LVGuy

            You’re obviously not a very good one. If you were, you’d understand what AVERAGE meant.

          • JimPB

            The MEDIAN age would reflect the split between the half who will live longer and those who are no longer with us.

      • ZoningVictim

        If that’s what it was, I’d be all for it, but that really isn’t what it is. If it were, there would be requirements to prove that you would be poverty stricken if you didn’t get it instead of giving it to everybody just because they turned a certain age. The baby boomers will be taking far more out of the system than they paid in and they will get it no matter how rich they are.

        • doodly

          Yes, exactly – SS should be “means-tested.” That would make alot more sense than trying to phase it out like Arrrrrlington suggested.

        • Josh S

          The fact that there is no means test doesn’t mean that it’s not social insurance. It’s just that means testing didn’t occur to the crafters of the program and no one has had the political guts to implement it since.
          When the program was created, benefits started at an age that was at or above the life expectancy at the time.
          Clearly, they didn’t think it would be the huge budgetary issue that is it today.

          • ZoningVictim

            It’s not insurance, it’s a social program. Insurance is a business where you invest the float to make money. There is a big difference.

            Conservatives of the day told them this would happen, and I totally agree with you about Washington’s lack of guts to take on these problems. However, Medicare is the bigger problem with the skyrocketing cost of healthcare.

          • Josh S

            in-sur-ance n. contractural coverage binding a party to indemnify another against specified loss in return for premiums paid.

            According to Websters.

            Nothing about investing the float. That’s a choice made by the party of the second part. I imagine it would be possible to run a non-profit insurance entity, if you designed it carefully enough.

            Anyway, you’re right SS doesn’t exactly fit the definition either, but it’s close – just substitute “reaching a certain age” for “specified loss”.

      • TMP

        There are insurance brokers who will sell policies to the elderly. Check https://www.daveramsey.com/elp/health-insurance/

        • doodly

          Of course there are. Anyone will sell something – at the right price. Whether the price is within reach is another matter. And of course, it’s almost certain that these policies are subject to pre-existing conditions restrictions, though that will be eliminated by Obamacare soon. But that will likely just drive up the price or kill the individual market for seniors.

          • ZoningVictim

            If all of the seniors were in the same pool with all of the healthy people, it wouldn’t be so bad, but since Medicare is screwing up the free market, all you have is expensive supplemental insurance that’s for seniors only.

    • Josh S

      And I guarantee your point of view and therefore opinions will be slightly different when you are 50+.

    • Jake

      It just dawned on me that this idiot gets to vote – I am moving

  • Mike
  • Henry

    So proud of you Jim! Keep on votin’ against those big bad republicans, you can do it!

    I’m all for a reasonable plan for reduction of the deficit, but at this point we need to do SOMETHING. Rather than congratulating yourself on voting against their plan, could you not be making a good one of your own? This is what representatives are supposed to do.

    • doodly

      Why do you assume he hasn’t? Why do you assume the Democrats haven’t offered any alternatives? Of course they have.

      • Henry

        I know they have, and assume that he has! But it’s so counterproductive to make a big deal about the things that one votes against, rather than coming up with new things to try. I understand that politics require he show he’s fighting the evil republicans, but the eleventh hour isn’t the time.

        • doodly

          The reason he has to talk about the things he votes against is because the GOP runs the House, and therefore their ideas get voted on, not the Dems. He would vote on his own party’s proposals–if he had the chance to.

          • Henry

            No, I can look it up just fine on my own, thank you very much. Political talk has a time and a place, but I think that many folks agree with me that it would be preferable for the politicians to just sit down and work on the problem rather than blabbing about how proud they are of themselves.

            That being said, the vote is done and we’ll have to see what happens in the Senate…

            http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2011-606

  • JimPB

    Right on, Moran, you voted my view.

    AND: Moran is a member of the House progressive caucus that developed The People’s Budget. It reflects listening to the American people and their wants and needs.

    The People’s Budget has many strengths. For example:

    Unlike other plans that may balance the budget in decades, if ever, The People’s Budget balances the budget and begins PAYING DOWN the debt in just one decade. That’s what the American people want and need.

    The People’s Budget puts Americans back to work. That’s what the American people want and need.

    The People’s Budget secures Social Security financially for 75 years. That’s what the American people want and need.

    The People’s Budget ends the wars. That’s what the American people want and need.

    For more information about the features of The People’s Budget: http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=70

    • Patrick

      Well then why didn’t they pass the “People’s Budget” when they controlled congress? Why didn’t they pass any budget in 2009?

      • Rick

        is that what they call it in the Peoples Republic of North Korea?

        • LVGuy

          Clever!

      • doodly

        You do understand that a “budget” is not the same thing as appropriations, right?

  • LVGuy

    We don’t need to cut services for the poor while the rich keep on hurting us. Tax them first – they’re not doing anything with their money.

    • ZoningVictim

      Oh yes, those evil rich people; take their money, right? Because you deserve their money, don’t you? Because, they screwed you by being rich, those horrible, awful people.

      They are holding on to their money / investing it in foreign markets because of the uncertainty of the US markets and because we already tax them so much more than other foreign markets do. This is a global economy and we cannot stop them from investing in markets that are more favorable to making money (and not paying taxes is a form of making money), but we can certainly stop them from investing in the US market by taxing them to the point where they just leave and setup shop elsewhere.

      • LVGuy

        Nah they never took my money, and I don’t think they’re all evil. I grew up pretty well off and I’m thankful for that. I’m just a student about to enter six figures of debt.

        Maybe instead of investing in foreign markets, the rich should be investing in the US economy by either providing jobs or paying taxes. They’re doing neither. Until then, we’ll continue screwing ourselves. Oh yeah, and if you think taxes are high now, just look at what they were under Reagan, Nixon, and Eisenhower. In the 1950s, the super rich were handing over 90% of their salaries to the US Treasury. When JFK tried to lower that rate, he was attacked by Republicans as trying to destroy the financial viability of the United States. Now the Republicans admit to following a financial policy that a 14 year old developed in middle school.

        • ZoningVictim

          I’m just a student about to enter six figures of debt.
          Ouch.
          “Now the Republicans admit to following a financial policy that a 14 year old developed in middle school.”
          Please enlighten me.

          Yeah, I know most of our history of taxation and the fact that our politicians change their position on things to get reelected instead of attempting to help the country. That’s why I hate both parties and pretty much all politicians. However, if you try to tax them, they’ll just create even fewer jobs. You’re right, they don’t really care about America. The way they see it, if the middle class here basically goes away, that will make a middle class elsewhere in the world and they can just hire them and sell products to them. That’s our new global economy. It may suck, but trying to tax them protecting American jobs isn’t going to work.

          • LVGuy

            There have been few changes to the tax code since the Bush tax cuts. Taxes have not gone up for anyone (not even Obama has raised taxes), only down, yet the unemployment rate is hovering above 9%. I have yet to see proof that taxes are job killers besides statements from CEOs. There’s no proof of that.

            Grover Norquist, who leads Americans for Tax Reform, admitted in the past that he came up with his “Taxpayer Protection Pledge” as a middle school project (he no longer speaks of this fact). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_for_Tax_Reform

          • LVGuy

            He’s also admitted that he doesn’t know if his idea is a good economic policy, he just wants to lower taxes. He said this in an interview with NPR last week. This is a cornerstone of the Republican Party platform.

      • doodly

        I believe his attitude is motivated by the fact that the wealthy have received many tax breaks, some arguably part of the cause of these huge deficits, and at the same time have taken ALL of the share of growth in income in the last three decades.

        You may be right that in the short run, taxing them may be counterproductive, though I doubt we tax more than most foreign markets. But in the long run, it’s fair to say that the wealthy are getting off easy.

        • ZoningVictim

          Sorry, I should have been more specific; I meant the corporate tax rate. Check out this graphic and look for all the countries taking America’s manufacturing jobs and I think it tells the story pretty clearly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg

          The top 10% of wage earners pay 71% of the Federal income taxes, seems somewhat unfair fair to the top 10% of wage earners to me.

          • LVGuy

            The top 10% have more than 71% of the wealth. That’s why.

            Also, to clarify I’m speaking of personal income tax.

          • ZoningVictim

            That’s not correct; the top 10%of wage earners made 45.77% of the AGI and paid 69.94% of the income taxes in 2010 (the 71% number was from a different year). It really pains me that people don’t know this stuff; worse, they assume they know and make voting decisions based on incorrect assumptions.

            The top 25% of wage earners make 67.38% percent of the AGI and they pay 86.34% of the income taxes (2010 numbers). And before we all have to hear the “well they’re rich and they can afford it,” the top quartile has an income split point of only $67,280.

          • LVGuy

            you’re looking at income. I’m looking at total wealth. Those bottom 90% have significantly less savings to fall back on, which is why their tax rates are so low. The top 10% generally have more than enough, which is why they’re taxed more.

          • Josh S

            Victim, one of the reasons why the rich are so rich is because they don’t live on anything so pedestrian as “AGI.” For them, wealth equals capital. Salary payments are only a portion of it. Capital gains are not figured into AGI and are taxed at a much lower rate than income, even at middle class income brackets.

            So the top 10% making 47% of AGI information that you are so pained that people don’t know, isn’t entirely relevant.

          • Josh S

            And since when were we talking about the top quartile? What’s the top 10% split? And if we use national numbers, we have to remember that $67K goes a lot further in Peoria than it does here…..

          • ZoningVictim

            The top 10% split is a massive $113,799. I was talking about the top quartile because it shows that their share of the taxes versus AGI percentages is unfair, too, but it’s actually because of the top 10%’s contribution. The people in the 5%-10% range of wage earners are the only ones who pay almost dead on what they when you compare one percentage to the other. Everyone below them doesn’t pay their fair share and everyone above them pays more than their fair share.

            The top 5%’s numbers: 34.73% of AGI, 58.72% of income taxes, $159,619 split point.

            The top 1%’s numbers: 20.00% of AGI, 38.02% of income taxes, $380,354 split point.

            You won’t convince me that people who make $159,619 – $380,354 have a massive amount of unearned income. In fact, they’re busy spending all of their money trying to keep up with the Joneses like the other 99% of us. So, those wage earners who Obama wants to tax because they’re rich, you know the ones who make over $200K a year and “don’t pay their fair share,” well I think they pay more than their fair share.

            LVGuy a few things you’re not considering in all your comparisons to past tax rates: we had protectionist policies in place that dramatically curtailed outsourcing until the mid 90’s, people’s unearned income was already taxed at the corporate rate of 35% before they ever got their slice of the pie, which is then taxed at 15% when they get it (an effective tax rate of 50%), and the ranks of the affluent and standard of living in the US are both rising.

            What would you do if you had a corporation bringing in a few million a year and needed to open a new plant that will cost you several million dollars in the first year (so you’ll have to borrow the money at rates somewhere around 20%); pay 35% corporate tax here and deal with the high costs of regulatory compliance, or open your new manufacturing plant in China and save 50% of those costs? I think it’s a pretty simple choice when it’s your money.

          • Josh S

            But Victim, their Jonses are a heck of lot different than my Joneses. Why should I care that increasing their tax rate by a percentage or two will mean they have to buy a Lexus SUV instead of a Porsche SUV?

            That’s sorta what I mean by they can afford it. They have no need to take the kids to France every year. It’s OK to shop at Macy’s instead of Ermenegildo Zegna every once in awhile.

            I’ll leave out any comments about why anyone should be keeping up with the Jonses in the first place.

          • Westover

            Last time we tried a luxury tax, in 1990, we destroyed half of the South Florida economy as well as small boat manufactures across the country and resulted in over 30,000 job losses in the boat industry alone. It has been said that the luxury car retail sector lost another 20000 jobs. Gulfstream and Cessna aircraft corporations only survived off of government contracts and the tax allowed Eurocopter get get a foot in the American market at the expense of Bell and indirectly lead McDonnell Douglas to merge with Boeing when MD Helicopter suffered.

            Need to be very careful when you are talking about how folks don’t need their Porsche or boat, sure they don’t but someone needs them to buy the boat to help their personal economy.

          • ZoningVictim

            Josh, you have a very wierd view of the world and how much money people have and who is entitled to take it from them, but since you come from the entitlement generation, that doesn’t surprise me.

          • Josh S

            What does it mean to say I “come from the entitlement generation?”
            And the statement seems to imply you believe that all people from certain generations think alike.
            And, to borrow a phrase, who are you to tell anyone that their viewpoint is “weird?”

          • Josh S

            Westover –

            I love the “it has been said.” By who, Fox News?

            No doubt there is quite the industry built up to serve the needs and desires of the rich. But given that wealth disparity in the country continues to get worse and worse, I’m not sure that that apparatus has a great deal of social value.

            While entirely uncertain about the number of jobs that were lost that could be directly attributable to the luxury tax, let’s just take them at face value. So, 30,000 lost in the luxury boat industry. That may be put into the negative consequences column. But what gets put into the positive consequences? Who benefited from the luxury tax? What programs were funded that otherwise would not have been? Where did the rich shift their spending? Did they buy smaller boats, which then caused those small boat manufacturers to increase hiring? Did they maybe go on more vacations instead which benefited those industries? Did they invest the money instead, which may or may not have led to even greater benefits for the economy due to the multiplying effect of investments? Etc. Etc. Etc.

          • Josh S

            Yeah, it’s awfully hard to see how that would be unfair. Are you suggesting that the top 10% of the wage earners would pay 10% of the Federal income taxes? And the bottom 10% of wage earners would pay 10% of the Federal income taxes?
            So the bottom people would end up paying 80-90% of their income in tax while the top 10% would pay about 1% of their income in tax? Does that make sense?
            I have no idea where you get the “top 10% of wage earners pay 71% of the Federal income taxes” in the first place, but just taking it at face value – they pay that much because THEY CAN AFFORD TO.

          • SomeGuy

            What ZoningGuy is describing is not a difficult concept. Using easy numbers, he’s saying that if you have 100 people paying a total of $100 to some entity (i.e. the government), that 10 of those people would be contributing a $71 to that total. While the other 90 only have to cough up a total of $29.

            I haven’t checked his statistics, but they sound similar to what I’ve heard.

            And Josh, who are you to tell someone else what they can or cannot afford?

          • Josh S

            Yeah, I got that part. Again, the point is that what makes those 10 people paying $71 special is that they collectively make something like 100 times more than the other 90 people put together.
            So, cry me a river that their total taxes are higher. Of course they are.

            I don’t really understand the point of the question about telling someone else what they can or cannot afford. I thought the discussion was about equitable tax rates.

          • SomeGuy

            Usually your “THEY CAN AFFORD [IT]” statement is made in the context of raising the tax RATE of so-called rich people. That’s why I questioned who you are to tell them what they can afford. And since you don’t sound concerned about over-taxing “rich” people with your “cry me a river” statement, it doesn’t sound like I was too far off-base in assuming that you *might* support a punitive tax rate increase on people who make more than you.

            However, if you want equitable tax rates that just charge everyone the exact same income tax rate, then we’re on the same page, and I agree.

          • Josh S

            I definitely don’t want so-called “equal” tax rates since they are demonstrably NOT equal and burden the poor to a greater degree than they do the rich.

            When I said “equitable tax rates” was the discussion topic, I definitely understand that different people have different interpretations of what is and isn’t “equitable.” That’s why you have the discussion, to try to arrive at at least an understanding.

            But clever use of words like “punitive” I don’t think gets us any closer….

          • Rick

            if and when you make that kind of money, are you going to be okay with paying more in taxes just because you CAN AFFORD TO?

          • LVGuy

            yes

          • Josh S

            yes. It’s called being a member of society.

          • ZoningVictim

            Again Josh, I’ve given you all the numbers to know that this “they make 100 X that amount” stuff isn’t true. Here’s a neat little fact, those mega rich people that everyone is talking about, if we assume those are people with a networth of $1 M or more, only 1% of the US population fits that bill.

            And no, I’m not suggesting that the bottom 10% pay 10% of the income taxes. I’m simply suggesting that the top 10% paying 71% of the taxes despite only getting about 46% of the income is unfair.

          • doodly

            Well, then, LVGuy might not have been talking about the corporate tax rate, so you’re back to square one.

  • Linda

    Bravo, Moran, I heard your entire speed on the house floor via C-Span. Bravo! Very Well Said!

    • LVGuy

      Do you have a link to the speech? I’d like to see it.

    • Westover

      Yea, it is always a proud moment when the Chair has to remind our Congressman to behave and follow rules of decorum on the House Floor.

      • Rick

        ….again.

      • doodly

        Happens every day.

        • Westover

          And does not even matter which party holds the chamber. The man is anythng but a role model to our kids in the 8th District.

  • ClarendonFlops

    On this board – answer is always just take more from the rich and give to the poor. There are fundamental financial issues at stake and economic health of our country and nobody has yet developed a budget to address our future financial train wreck. I’d rather our country have some pain (i.e. self responsibility) due to capitalism than a bankrupt country that cannot take care of the truly needy – not the “I deserve it needy.”

    • This comment has been edited.

    • doodly

      You make a great point, CF – if we aren’t fiscally responsible, we will lose the ability to support the needy anyway.

  • Rick

    I don’t understand how an entire political party is based on handouts…

    • LVGuy

      Seriously. Those Republicans need to stop giving those handouts to CEOs. It’s getting unacceptable.

      How much longer is summer break? Does elementary school still start up after Labor Day? I remember loving the fact that I didn’t need to start up til September when all my Maryland summer camp buddies had to start up in August. Lame right?

      • Rick

        Labor day still. Speaking of which, “Labor Day” is pretty meaningless to most people in arlington as the holiday of the american worker. This is the root of the problem.

        • LVGuy

          You’re thinking of labour day.

          • Rick

            No, I’m not. It’s only a rumor I’m an illegal immigrant from Canada.

    • Westover

      Handouts to the poor and middleclass or handouts to corporations? 😉

      Politics is a balance.

      • Rick

        if you give money to a giant corporation theres a decent chance they’ll put it to good use, like hiring more people. if you continue to subsidize individuals, it will become the norm to them and it wont help anyone. Subsidizing tommy callahan’s 7 years of college is not going to help anyone.

        • LVGuy

          There are a few examples of this, but it’s not in the form of tax cuts. The famous auto bailout is an example of giving companies money to hire people – that saved thousands of jobs.

          Tax cuts don’t motivate giant corporations to hire more people.

          • Rick

            It motivates the smart ones to

          • doodly

            Well, there’s your problem right there.

            But hey, you want to give corporations tax cuts specifically for hiring people, I’m on board.

          • Josh S

            Rick, seriously? You have more faith in corporations than individuals? Yours must be a lonely existence.

          • Rick

            I have more faith in corporations than the ones this bill would affect. And that’s not being elitist since I fall in that target audience.

          • Josh S

            It’s a balanced budget bill. It would affect all of us.

          • ZoningVictim

            Corporations are made up of individuals, just like your beloved big brother government. I’ve never understood why people think that the folks who run the government are all saints and the people who run corporations are all evil when the government has proven itself to be full of corrupt individuals at least as much as corporations have.

            Yes, a balanced budget bill, if coupled with spending cuts, would improve the economy and restore investor faith in the US, and that would definitely affect all of us.

          • Josh S

            Well, it’s not necessarily the people. Corporations have one goal – make money. In fact, it’s the law. They have to make decisions with the bottom line of their investors in mind. And one of the key ways to make money is to grow. Constantly. This necessarily places enormous strains on the physical Earth to accommodate this growth. It also provides enormous incentive to break the law and to lobby the government to weaken laws that stand in the way of making more money. Because corporations must make money and grow above all else, they have no sense of place, no sense of history, no sense of community. There may be individuals who work in the corporation who make efforts to give back to the community, volunteer their time, etc but the institution itself does not care about people. It’s just not part of its DNA.

            Government, on the other hand, has no such restriction distorting their activity. The aim of a democratic government is to serve the interests of the citizens. That doesn’t necessarily mean money. Instead, it’s summed up nicely in those immortal words – life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (We can argue endlessly about HOW government should serve those interests, but that’s a different subject.)

            Yes, yes, yes governments can be corrupt and wasteful. But they are not DESIGNED to be. There is no desire built into the government institution. Again, in contrast to the corporation, which must have profits to stay alive.

            So, to think that any criticism of corporations necessarily means criticism of the individuals working in those corporations is to miss the point.

        • doodly

          LOL! Sure, corporations will put it all to good use. Whereas regular people have no good use for their own money.

          The funny part about your comment is that you committed the same sin the GOP always bashes Dems for, only instead of saying government knows better how to use the money, you said corporations do.

          • Rick

            The neglect of the second half of my argument is funny. The left-leaning posters have yet to respond to my claims that subsidies lead to people abusing the privilege and not learning self-sustainability. I bet if I mentioned time limits on welfare, everyone would throw their hands up and proclaim YOU CANT PUT A CLOCK ON THESE THINGS! Too many people treat human services like a net and not like a trampoline

          • Josh S

            I think you’re not being particularly clear here, but we’ll soldier on anyway…

            There is a difference between causation and correlation. Subsidized housing for low income people does not CAUSE people to be low income. Welfare does not CAUSE people to be poor. Etc. I think most people want to stand on their own two feet. Yes, of course there are those who abuse the (various) systems. But do you scrap the system because of those abusers?

            And specifically to welfare – there are limits already. Passed into law by President Clinton almost (gasp) twenty years ago. (Yes, yes, he was pushed into it by a Republican congress….)

          • Rick

            I understand causation and correlation. That’s why I called social services a net and not a baited trap. And I could argue that every law in the books is because enough people abused the privilege given to them (speed limits, term limits, no guns here, no guns there, etc), but I think the more heated argument is over homeless burgers and their quality at the moment..

          • ZoningVictim

            It doesn’t cause them to become that way, it just keeps them that way and causes them to work less. This is a documented fact that has been proven in experiments of the Negative Income Tax (NIT). People decreased their labor output (employment) by two to four weeks per year because of the guarantee of a minimum income.

  • Westover

    Only way to pay down the debit is for the economy to boom again and to not blow the surplus on new spending, tax cuts and rebates. Frankly, it is too large to be taken care of with spending cuts and tax increases alone, both actions that have the strong possibility of putting us rig back into a recession if not done VERY carefully.

    • Josh S

      Well, I believe the bi-partisan plan developed at Obama’s request last year (by various ex-Senators and the like) came up with a quite reasonable plan that would, in fact, balance the budget.

      It doesn’t require soaking the rich, although returning to the tax rates of just ten years ago is part of the solution. Perhaps raising the capital gains tax. Certainly not eliminating the inheritance tax and perhaps returning it to levels it was, again, only very recently.

      It doesn’t require massive cuts to discretionary spending since they are a small portion of the total budget anyway. Reforms do have to be made to the entitlement programs. SS is the most obvious – either means testing it, raising the age at which payments begin, or some other combination of these and other ideas.

      Paying down the debt is quite a different story, of course, but one way to start is to stop increasing it, which is what balancing the budget would do.

  • dpj0122

    Was Moran swilling a bottle of scotch when he said it?

  • NoVapologist

    45% of Americans pay no federal income taxes. If Moran wants a revenue boost, he should look there. I mean that jokingly of course, because no politician is going to alienate half the voter base by actually making them share the sacrifice the other half makes.

  • John Andre

    What infuriates me is this attempt to include Social Security and Medicare in these “debt-trimming” shenanigans. That’s nothing but “Logan’s Run” treatment of seniors…kill us off by reducing our monthly income while hiking prices so we’re IMPOVERISHED to death!

    That seems to be the GOP policy! Let’s see it applied to the billionaires they’re trying to protect, and the handful of folks in Wall Street doing the credit ratings! These are the people who are wrecking our economy by raising interest rates.

  • John Andre

    Not to mention …”outsourcing” everyones’ jobs to China and elsewhere! Lotta good that does to OUR economy…and our future ability to pay down the debt!

  • The Wegenator

    Round up all the babyboomers who are dragging us down, ship them to China to become Wal Mart greeters = problem solved.

×

Subscribe to our mailing list