The Neverending "Hundred Hours"

[madanthonywayne]

When the Democrats took control of congress, they made a lot of promises about all these "great" things they were going to do in their first hundred hours. Remember?

In 100 hours, the top five oil companies will take in $4.3 billion in profits.

In 100 hours, $1.1 billion will be spent on the war in Iraq.

In 100 hours, the public debt will grow by $4.9 billion.

In 100 hours, the top 10 pharmaceutical companies will gain $2.6 billion in profits.

In 100 hours, the top CEOs will earn an average of $2 million each.

In 100 hours, a minimum wage worker working 8 hours a day will earn $171.67.

If you honor Democratic candidates with your vote today, in the first hundred hours of a Democratic Congress: We will restore civility, integrity, and fiscal responsibility to the House of Representatives. We will start by cleaning up Congress, breaking the link between lobbyists and legislation and commit to pay-as-you-go, no new deficit spending.

We will make our nation safer and we will begin by implementing the recommendations of the independent, bipartisan 9/11 Commission.

We will make our economy fairer, and we will begin by raising the minimum wage. We will not pass a pay raise for Congress until there is an increase in the minimum wage.

We will make health care more affordable for all Americans, and we will begin by fixing the Medicare prescription drug program, putting seniors first by negotiating lower drug prices. We will also promote stem cell research to offer real hope to the millions of American families who suffer from devastating diseases.

We will broaden college opportunity, and we will begin by cutting interest rates for student loans in half.

We will energize America by achieving energy independence, and we will begin by rolling back the multi-billion dollar subsidies for Big Oil.

We will guarantee a dignified retirement, and we will begin by fighting any attempt to privatize Social Security.

I say this as a grandmother (of almost six) and as the Democratic Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-nancy-pelosi/one-hundred-hours_b_33529.html

Those were the words of now speaker Nancy Pelosi before the election. This was obviously her attempt to do FDR and Newt Gingerich one better since they both promised reforms within one hundred days.

Now we find out they meant one hundred business hours. You can't expect them to work four days in a row, can you? After all, they have to take time off to watch football (they actually did that on Monday). Talk about a weasle clause!

To me, of course, a Democratic Congress that doesn't do anything is the next best thing to not having a Democratic Congress. Still, it's not a very auspicious begining.

I wonder when the "hundred hours" will end?

 

[AtomicPistol]

i honestly think the democrates wont pass anything except for the easy issues in the first 100 hours.

 

[Prince_James]

Democrats hate America and they hate, you know, keeping "promises" and being "good citizens".

 

[Baron Max]

Democrats hate America and they hate, you know, keeping "promises" and being "good citizens".

Yeah, but the part that bothers me the most is that they propose taking MY money to use for their liberal, mamby-pamby, give-away projects to help the people who don't want to work or help themselves, yet hold tight to their own fuckin' money!

How can democrats be rich without being outwardly hypocritical???

Baron Max

 

[spidergoat]

I thought Democrats don't have any plans, how could they mean to actually do things? What a novel idea.

 

[Prince_James]

They're champagne socialists. The commisar always drives a Benz.

 

[river-wind]

How can democrats be rich without being outwardly hypocritical???

rich man-> heaven, camel-> eye of a needle.

That said, at least they try and focus on that aspect of our society. As opposed to say, I don't know, selling tax cuts to working families that were derided from day 1 as not designed to help the working family. And guess what? In practice, the significant majority of those tax cut dollars went to a very small portion of the top end of the tax base - not the working family.

Or selling the idea of getting rid of estate taxes in defense of the family farm - when the significant majority of those paying estate taxes (or now re-dubbed 'death-tax' for the shock-appeal) are more affluent than family farmers, because family farms are not taxed until the assesed value being passed on is above $1.35 million, an most family-run farms are valued at less then that.
http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/articles/harl/HarlNov03.htm


I keep hearing the arguement that Democrats talk a good game, but don't follow through on everything; the suggestion is that this makes them worthless. Logically "they aren't perfect in thier attempts to help others, so we should deride them".

Somehow, that's supposed to be a logical arguement????

 

[madanthonywayne]

That said, at least they try and focus on that aspect of our society. As opposed to say, I don't know, selling tax cuts to working families that were derided as not designed to help the working family from day 1. And guess what? In practice, the significant majority of those tax cut dollars went to a very small portion of the top end of the tax base.

I keep hearing the arguement that Democrats talk a good game, but don't follow through on everything, so they are worthless. Logically "they aren't perfect in thier attempts to help others, so we should deride them".

Somehow, that's supposed to be a logical arguement????

Yes it is. Before you start giving away my money, why not give away your own? And of course tax cuts most directly benefit the "rich", they're the ones who pay most of the taxes! How can you cut the taxes of someone who pays no taxes? The "poor" in this country pay zero federal taxes, so every tax cut can be falsly characterized as helping "the rich". Never mind that tax cuts always stimulate the economy and, therefore, help everyone.

To say you are against tax cuts for the rich is to say you are against tax cuts, period.

 

[river-wind]

Yes it is. Before you start giving away my money, why not give away your own?

I do. As for applying this argument to democratic representatives, I think it is a perfectly valid argument. However, since we are a nation, our national policies must be directed by agreement and compromise. I think that we as a nation should be judged by our lowest living standards; by the worst that we allow to exist for our fellow Americans.

Other people I know think that the nation should be judged based on the freedom to succeed, the chances available.

This is a moral difference, and one that directly informs our political leanings. We cannot argue politics and change these moral foundations. As such, public policy needs to be formed around a compromise - the largest amount of freedoms for all, while providing the best basis for our lowest citizens, such that one impacts the other negatively as little as possible.

And of course tax cuts most directly benefit the "rich", they're the ones who pay most of the taxes! How can you cut the taxes of someone who pays no taxes? The "poor" in this country pay zero federal taxes, so every tax cut can be falsely characterized as helping "the rich". Never mind that tax cuts always stimulate the economy and, therefore, help everyone.

This is an old, tired, and continuously debunked argument. YES, you are correct, the top 10% pay roughly 65% of the federal tax income; the top 25% pay ~85%.

HOWEVER, that 10% also has the most after-tax income. Basic living expenses do not changes based on income, but mostly on location. A person making $1 million could live in the slums for $8k/year, just like the lowest end of our society does. But they choose not to because they can afford something better. A person living in the slums cannot choose to move to the nice area; they cannot afford to, and in the majority of cases, will not be able to increase their earning enough to afford to down the road, either.

The rich have additional advantages due to their wealth:
1) better education: because most US public schooling is funded by real estate taxes, those living in wealthier areas have access to better-funded schools.
2) better health care: people with incomes above the US average live longer than those with incomes below the average.
3) more freedom: those who can afford to take advantage of some of the freedoms we have available to us, such as travel, owning land, etc. do so.
4) the delta between the basic needs and their annual income is much greater, offering much greater basic security. A gallon of milk is still $3.50, no matter how much you earn per week.

So yes, if you have 10 people go to lunch together, and 1 of them pays nothing, 5 of them pay $3, two pay $20, and the last one pays $65, it seems unfair to the top end. But that's very narrow thinking. If that last person leaves the restaurant with more money in his pocket that the remaining 9 people combined, and does so in his own car, to drive to a home that he owns, then the fact that he pays more is balanced by the fact that he has more. He is paying for the right to have what he does.

Which is more important to you: the freedom to have more for yourself, and the associated freedom that anyone else could dot eh same if they worked hard, or the freedom to know that you will have a basic level of subsistence should life hand you shit, no matter how hard you work?

I favor a balance leaning toward the security net, though I strongly favor freedom to work hard for more. I just know too many cases where working hard failed to get the returns promised, and also too many cases where no work at all resulted in great wealth; too many to allow me to blinding tell a person "jst work harder, and quit complaining"

To say you are against tax cuts for the rich is to say you are against tax cuts, period.

Right now, with an arguably insolvent nation (more projected debts than projected value) I AM against all tax cuts. I personally volunteer more of my income to the government if it meant that we could balance the budget and run like a surplus, as we briefly did in the late 90's.

 

[river-wind]

some quick opposing opinions on the matter:
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200512070900.asp
http://www.cbpp.org/1-21-99taxburden.htm

Notice that the first one talks about the percentage of pay-in, the second deals with percentage of income paid in.

The two groups have different priorities, and are not talking to each other, but to thier own support bases. One is holding wealth, and worrying about how to hold on to what has been earned. The other is concerned with covering basic family needs with available income.

At a median of $39,000 *household* income, 19% mean fewer dollars paid in than a wealthy individual, but it is a much more significant volume of income compared to water/heat/food bills.

 

[madanthonywayne]

This is an old, tired, and continuously debunked argument. YES, you are correct, the top 10% pay roughly 65% of the federal tax income; the top 25% pay ~85%.

HOWEVER, that 10% also has the most after-tax income. Basic living expenses do not changes based on income, but mostly on location.

This may be an old argument, but that doesn't mean it's not true. This is a lesson we seem to keep forgeting. When President Kenedy took office, the top marginal tax rate was over 90%! What incentive is there for someone to work once he hits that rate? Kennedy wisely cut taxes but by the time Reagan took office the top rate was up near eighty percent again. He got it cut to 28%, and it has crept back up near 40% since then.

No one likes to pay taxes. No one will work when the government gets more than he does. Jack up the rates and you simply stiffle economic growth and increase the work of tax accountants figuring out clever ways to avoid the taxes.

Right now, with an arguably insolvent nation (more projected debts than projected value) I AM against all tax cuts. I personally volunteer more of my income to the government if it meant that we could balance the budget and run like a surplus, as we briefly did in the late 90's.

If I knew it would be used to pay off the debt, I'd be happy to fork over my entire share of the debt (what is it now, thirty thousand or more?). But sadly, the more money you give, the more they spend. The answer is to limit spending, not to increase taxes. We so need a balanced budget ammendment.

 

[spidergoat]

Bush's unending wars are not compatible with a balanced budget.

 

[Prince_James]

Madanthonywayne:

Exactly.

 

[river-wind]

This may be an old argument, but that doesn't mean it's not true. This is a lesson we seem to keep forgeting. When President Kenedy took office, the top marginal tax rate was over 90%! What incentive is there for someone to work once he hits that rate? Kennedy wisely cut taxes but by the time Reagan took office the top rate was up near eighty percent again. He got it cut to 28%, and it has crept back up near 40% since then.

No one likes to pay taxes. No one will work when the government gets more than he does. Jack up the rates and you simply stiffle economic growth and increase the work of tax accountants figuring out clever ways to avoid the taxes.

I agree with all of this. I do not support a 90% tax rate on the highend. But you have made your moral choice - protection of what is earned is more important to you than protection of a basic quality of life for every American.
Yes? No?

If I knew it would be used to pay off the debt, I'd be happy to fork over my entire share of the debt (what is it now, thirty thousand or more?). But sadly, the more money you give, the more they spend. The answer is to limit spending, not to increase taxes. We so need a balanced budget ammendment.

I'd say that a little of each is the way to go, but I agree. People tend to cinch thier belts only when they are forced to; governments are no different.

 

[Oniw17]

I agree with all of this. I do not support a 90% tax rate on the highend. But you have made your moral choice - protection of what is earned is more important to you than protection of a basic quality of life for every American.
Yes? No?

Liar. Nobody has that choice. You have to pay taxes unless you own your own bussiness and can get a lot of tax write-offs, and even then, you have to pay taxes, it's not a choice.

 

[infoterror]

Democrats hate America and they hate, you know, keeping "promises" and being "good citizens".

Republicans are the same.

 

[Oniw17]

Leaders aren't supposed to be good citizens, they're supposed to be good leaders.

 

[spidergoat]

To wash brain, repeat as necessary:

Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America

 

[Oniw17]

Democrats hate America DemoDemocrats hate America crats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate ADemocrats hate America merica Democrats hate America Democrats hate AmeDemocrats hate America rica Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America DemoDemocrats hate America crats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate ADemocrats hate America merica Democrats hate America Democrats hate AmeDemocrats hate America rica Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America DemoDemocrats hate America crats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate ADemocrats hate America merica Democrats hate America Democrats hate AmeDemocrats hate America rica Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America Democrats hate America

 

[Nickelodeon]

America hates Democrats?