Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Obama Waives Child Soldier Ban in Yemen and Congo

33 posts in this topic

Posted

Geneva convention schmeneva convention... Again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Somehow Bush is to blame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

the sucky part about all this is that you can disengage to protest something you don't like, or carrot and stick it do death and never give up so you can try to make thing somewhat better.

Do you follow dogma, or be pragmatic?

This is a microcosm of our own political issues. Every sane economist understands that we need to raise revenues but when politicians sign arbitrary pledges restricting them from doing something they find unpleasant but necessary, who should win out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

the sucky part about all this is that you can disengage to protest something you don't like, or carrot and stick it do death and never give up so you can try to make thing somewhat better.

Do you follow dogma, or be pragmatic?

This is a microcosm of our own political issues. Every sane economist understands that we need to raise revenues but when politicians sign arbitrary pledges restricting them from doing something they find unpleasant but necessary, who should win out?

Do you mean increase taxes?

What about spending cut instead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Theres no instead, we need both. The problem is not cutting spending, it's the fact that people don't want to cut their own stuff. In a normal system there is negotiation, cuts are passed, revenue is increased and no one is happy. In this broke dick system, common sense as well as the opinion polls back up my assertion that substituting ideology for pragmatism is the real killer in our current fiscal mess. Seriously, lets go over the fiscal cliff to prove a point? Lets force more job losses in a weak economy in order to show how tough we are about spending? It's idiotic - if we worked on jobs more and deficit talk less, we would create more jobs, create more revenue, which would help dig us out as well as improve lives (this is most economists view, not something I made up). But no, we have an Obama to defeat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/02/19/3863963/gov-mccrory-to-signing-unemployment.html

like this kinda

The unemployment plan repays $2.5 billion owed the federal government for jobless benefits paid since the Great Recession by cutting maximum weekly jobless payments from $535 to $350 and the maximum number of weeks from 26 weeks to 12 to 20 weeks, depending on the state unemployment rate.

The bill also raises state unemployment taxes, partially through the elimination of a zero-percent rate that about 30,000 businesses have been paying. Federal taxes will continue to rise by $21 per employee per year until the debt is repaid and a 20-percent state surcharge will continue a little while longer.

McCrory, a Republican, announced during Monday night's State of the State address he would sign the bill, saying the state is going to stop borrowing money from the federal government without knowing how to pay it off.

"This bipartisan solution will protect our small businesses from continued over-taxation, ensure our citizens' unemployment safety net is secure and financially sound for future generations, and help provide an economic climate that allows job creators to start hiring again," McCrory said Tuesday in a statement

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/02/19/3863963/gov-mccrory-to-signing-unemployment.html#storylink=cpy

Read the article, I am sure that more Republicans are happy with it than Dems but they are in power now so thats the way bipartisan works. Not filibuster after filibuster and yelling NO to everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I understand what you are saying, but didn't the Feds raise taxes back in December? Shouldn't the President and Congressional Democrats be looking at some quid pro quo spending cuts, before more revenue increases are discussed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

If you think that the Dems should just give away their bargaining chips as a gesture of good will so the Republicans will feel compelled to do the same, you are in a dream world.

As far as "raising taxes" not really sure, I think there were some expiring temp stuff that was actually allowed to expire as designed maybe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The fiscal cliff deal allowed payroll tax decreases to expire, but it also increased income taxes on those making above 400 grand a year. It also changed some deductions on those making more than 250 grand a year. It was a tax increase, not as much as the president wanted, but it was something.

Now the democrats need to offer some spending cuts. Maybe not as much as what the republicans want, but they need to offer something. If they want the 89 house republicans who voted for the tax increase to vote for more of them, then its a necessity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites