Maxine Waters facing ethics trial

[Wezil]

Democrat **** don't stink.

[Wezil]

Military spending is mooching by another name.

How would SD fare without the navy?

[Dinner]

In an attempt to be less partisan & vitriolic and to present a more complete picture here is a map from the New York Times showing which counties in the country get the most government benefits.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/02/12/us/entitlement-map.html?ref=us

Now remember which states are paying all the bills. California especially doesn't look so bad despite the constant right wing attacks leveled against it and, yes, an occasional thank you or at least a refrain from attacking us would be nice.

[Dinner]

Military spending is mooching by another name.

How would SD fare without the navy?

The military is still an important part of the local economy but I dare say with the world's busiest border crossing, one of the largest ports on the west coast (it's a top ten at least), a thriving biotech sector and telecommunications sector... We'd still be better off than most especially since we're so close to L.A. which provides a big economic boost. Then there is tourism.

I have to admit building all of those missiles, preditor drones, and shipyards kept busy building and repairing navy ships does help the economy though.

[Wezil]

Sure it does and military pork barrel spending is legendary in the US (among other pork).

Your link didn't include this.

[Dinner]

Here's another great bit from the New York Times. Tea Party Republicans who rail against government spending and the social safety net but who now find themselves needing that very safety net in record numbers. The psychology of what goes through their minds is just amazing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/even-critics-of-safety-net-increasingly-depend-on-it.html?tntemail0=y&emc=tnt&pagewanted=all

[Wezil]

Don't you think that is a wider problem?

I know lots of lefties that ***** and moan about taxes but never seem to see a social program they don't like.

Very few people want to pay for the government they demand.

[dannubis]

Here's another great bit from the New York Times. Tea Party Republicans who rail against government spending and the social safety net but who now find themselves needing that very safety net in record numbers. The psychology of what goes through their minds is just amazing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us...pagewanted=all

Ah well, they are hypocrites. Who would have thought...

[Dinner]

Democrat **** don't stink.

The difference is Democrats are honest about where they stand. They publicly say they want to help out the poor by improving education, improving health care access for everyone, helping the elderly, making sure kids don't starve to death, etc... While the Republicans claim they hate all of those things, they want to end all of those things (yes, including all public education), even though the places they run are pits of poverty and despair which economically survive thanks to handouts from the actually productive parts of the country. They're essentially liars who make the most use of the very programs they claim to hate and they'd quickly find themselves the poorest of the poor in this country without them. There is a fundamental dishonesty or at least cognitive dissonance going on there.

[dannubis]

Yes. But remeber, you have a brain and contrary to teabaggers are not afraid to use it.

[giblets]

The difference is Democrats are honest about where they stand. They publicly say they want to help out the poor by improving education, improving health care access for everyone, helping the elderly, making sure kids don't starve to death, etc... While the Republicans claim they hate all of those things, they want to end all of those things (yes, including all public education), even though the places they run are pits of poverty and despair which economically survive thanks to handouts from the actually productive parts of the country. They're essentially liars who make the most use of the very programs they claim to hate and they'd quickly find themselves the poorest of the poor in this country without them. There is a fundamental dishonesty or at least cognitive dissonance going on there.

Explain why Obama keeps saying he won't raise taxes on the middle class (and even promises cuts) when we have an enormous deficit and the proposed tax increases on the rich aren't nearly enough to fill it. Seems like Obama wants to tell voters they can have their cake and eat it too. But he won't come out and say "hey, I'm in favor of a huge deficit". Is that completely honest?

[DinoDoc]

Whatever happened to these ethics charges? I guess they must have been without merit because Maxine Waters still has her seat.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70574.html

The investigator wanted more money.

[Dinner]

Explain why Obama keeps saying he won't raise taxes on the middle class (and even promises cuts) when we have an enormous deficit and the proposed tax increases on the rich aren't nearly enough to fill it. Seems like Obama wants to tell voters they can have their cake and eat it too. But he won't come out and say "hey, I'm in favor of a huge deficit". Is that completely honest?

Because Obama is a damned politician just like the rest of them. Don't whine to me about that because I've been one of his most vocal critics here for being spineless and taking the politically easy way out when ever possible. Yes, the Bush tax cuts need to expire, FOR EVERYONE NOT JUST THE RICH, and we need to go back to the sane and sustainable levels of taxation we had under the Clinton administration when the budget was balanced. Spending will have to go down some what but not nearly as drastically as the Republicans claim. Historically since WW2 the US Federal government has averaged 24.5% of GDP as it's budget with taxes averaging around 23.5% of GDP. Right now we're up to just under 26% of GDP in spending but tax rates have gone WAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaayyyyyy down to just 17% of GDP. That's not sustainable and we need both back to around the 60 year average of 24.5% so the budget is balanced.

No one, not a single person, can come up with a politically acceptable way to get government spending down to 17% of GDP without eliminating or massively cutting basic things like the military, social security, or medicare. If you want to keep those three items at their present levels then you're going to need taxes to up at least to the Clinton levels. That really is just math.

[Dinner]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70574.html

The investigator wanted more money.

Don't they always? As I said, I'm not a fan of Waters but this has been dragging on for three years so either prove something illegal happened or end the show. He's had plenty of time.

[giblets]

Because Obama is a damned politician just like the rest of them. Don't whine to me about that because I've been one of his most vocal critics here for being spineless and taking the politically easy way out when ever possible. Yes, the Bush tax cuts need to expire, FOR EVERYONE NOT JUST THE RICH, and we need to go back to the sane and sustainable levels of taxation we had under the Clinton administration when the budget was balanced. Spending will have to go down some what but not nearly as drastically as the Republicans claim. Historically since WW2 the US Federal government has averaged 24.5% of GDP as it's budget with taxes averaging around 23.5% of GDP. Right now we're up to just under 26% of GDP in spending but tax rates have gone WAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaayyyyyy down to just 17% of GDP. That's not sustainable and we need both back to around the 60 year average of 24.5% so the budget is balanced.

No one, not a single person, can come up with a politically acceptable way to get government spending down to 17% of GDP without eliminating or massively cutting basic things like the military, social security, or medicare. If you want to keep those three items at their present levels then you're going to need taxes to up at least to the Clinton levels. That really is just math.

I think you got the numbers wrong:

Historically the federal government has only spent ~20% of GDP, except during the excess of the Reagan era. Taxes have been even less, maybe 18% of GDP historically speaking. We clearly need some major cuts to get back down to 20%.

Also, I think Wezil's point is that Democrats, as well as Republicans, are damned politicians. I really don't think Democratic politicians are being particularly honest about what needs to be done.