scoutingagain

If there is a challenger they are more likely to come from the far left of the Democratic Party. In spite of the "socialist" nonsense thrown out there by the far right, within the Democratic Party, it's the more liberal leaning that is most dissatisfied with Obama.

Personally I'd rather see more competent candidates considering running as independants and break up the monoply the two parties have on the government. If there is one out there I'd suspect they'd hold their powder until the primaries are over.

SA

"Personally, I hope Obama goes with a $2/gallon gasoline tax in 2012. We Republicans need all the help we can get to win back the Presidency. "

Others are hoping Michele Bachman wins the nomination and continues to enthusiastically support drilling in places like Everglades National park and off the coast of Florida.

On the other hand if Huntsman wins the nomination I could be turned. I highly doubt it though because he's too sensible and the GOP has been anything but lately.

SA

I have to agree also. The DOE needs to get out of the business of trying to prop up specific technologies through these subsidies, loans and loan garuantees be it solar panels, wind turbines, ethanol technologies, clean coal or tax breaks for oil companies. These technologies need to be able to compete in a free market and stand on their own.

The DOE should limit it's involvment to supporting basic research that then can be privatized and developed by the private sector.

Ending the tax breaks for oil companies would be a back door tax increase on oil and was at one point supported by that raving liberal Rand Paul.

SA

Well I'm assuming the entire Republican field will produce a birth certificate at some point. If not how do you know their really a citizen. Just because they say so? Have pictures of their childhood? Birth announcements? We know now none of that really counts.

SA

"The person may even feel slighted, abused, and a creative lawyer could probably find something to seek damages for. "

While the question is totally inappropriate in my mind it's very doubtful it could be used as the basis of any legal action. The protections of a public school or employment don't apply to a private organization where the decision to be a member is entirely voluntary. The BSA or even a Chartered Organization can limit membership based on just about any criteria they wish. They voluntarily decided to open leadership membership to women, and don't descriminate based on race or religious affiiation,(except for atheists) but these are voluntary decisions. They could chose to limit membership based on height, weight, eye color, hair color, or I just don't like you. It's a private club open to those the BSA decides it's open to. Anyone's membership can be revoked at anytime for any reason no questions asked, no recourse. That's the point of being a private club.

SA

I confess Mitt Romney proved himself to be an effective chief executive while governor of MA and I think would be an effective President if one can get by his shameless pandering on social issues.

The Republican candidate I'm most intrigued with is Huntsman. He seems to be able to play well with others, and has held his ground on some contoversial issues. Would like to learn more about him.

SA

Yes, there are solutions. There have been several that have been proposed, and most resemble the Simpson and Bowles approach. None are painless but the reasonable ones all spread the pain out and include both increases in revenue as well as modest cuts in spending to all the sacred cows including defense, Soc. Security and Medicare.

The problem is gridlock in Washington and the lack of political will. In particular the intransience of one side that refuses to compromise. They want their sacred cows saved and expect everyone else to double down on theirs. Until this situation changes, and there's no reason to believe it will anytime soon,we're in the soup.

The Tea Party is not representative of most Americans. Poll after poll indicate the majority of Americans support a compromise solution, including raising taxes and tax reform. The big difference is the Tea Party votes. Not just in national elections but in primaries and local elections. Until those that respond to polls actually begin voting for leaders that reflect their views and participate in the process a politically active minority will be setting the agenda.

SA

I agree with Pack. I've said this before, we're through the looking glass fiscally speaking. No one alive in the US today has seen an economic and fiscal situation we have today. I'm not even sure the Depression is comparable. We could, immediately balance the federal budget as SR40Beav wants, but that would require cutting federal expenditures by 35 - 40%. Taking around $1.5 Trillion direct dollars out of the economy, let alone the multi-plier effect. It would result in severe financial pain for all us quickly. Don't hold your breath, 'cause Congress can't come close to agreeing on cutting spending on less than 1% of the budget let alone the 35 - 40% needed to balance the budget.

The compromise approach is to try and spread this pain out for 10 years or so. But it's still economic pain, and the government has no plan or effective way to do this. It's not Democrat or Republican. None of them seem to be able to get past their biases and all that's left is finger pointing. As Pack says, we're off the cliff already. All that's left is to buckle up and brace for impact.

SA

Not to answer for Beav but Democrats that think we can deal with the deficit without meaningful changes in Social Security and Medicare are just as delusional as Republicans that think it can be dealt with without raising revenues or making cuts in defense.

The difference is, is that there were several bi-partisan plans put forward that cut the deficit by more than $4trillion dollars over ten years that would have been acceptable to many Democrats and Republicans in the Senate. However, since all those plans included increased revenues, either through direct tax increases, or even minor tax reforms by eliminating some special interest deductions and credits, Tea Party congress folks in the House refused to support them.

As a consequence, the current debt increase authorization cut spending by less than $1 trillion over 10 years, and kicked decisions on another $1.5 trillion in cuts over 10 years down the road for 3 months. Keep in mind the deficit is running close to $1.4 trillion PER YEAR! So even if, the "super congress" agrees on another $1.5 trillion in cuts over 10 years were talking, about reducing the defecit less than 20% over a 10 year period and settling for ongoing deficits of more than a $1 trillion PER YEAR.

That's why the US has been downgraded. The current Congress has effectively demonstrated they have no effective way of dealing with the deficit.

Until there is an effective coalition of centrist Demcrats and Republicans, or and effective third party that can really provide some leadership we're on our way to becoming Greece. As scouters all I can say is "Be Prepared."

SA

"My taxes will be much lower without all that than they are now, "

Not if you really want a balanced budget.

SA

1. The mortgage interest deduction is so entrenched I doubt it would be eliminated completely. At best it might be limited in some way.

2. I doubt even further congress will pass legislation that say BAs of Dunwoody, GA will not be allowed to take his mortgage interest deduction but everyone else can. Such a law would have limited effect on deficit reduction. Any changes would likely apply to a much broader population, and yes I'm ready to give up that deduction if it improves the likelyhood of future economic stability for my kids.

3. My preference would be to go to a flat tax on all income, no deductions, for anyone for anything. The down side to that is it would increase the unemployment rate among lobbyists, accountants and tax lawyers as well as IRS staff. Consequently our bought and paid for congress folks that legislate based on the needs and wants of all those special interests will never adopt a flat tax.

SA

Doesn't suprise me that a Real Estate Agent would come up with a bunch of rationalizations to keep government subsidizing the housing market for the benefit of industry insiders. Heck some of his points contradict each other.

Believe what you want. It's a special interest tax benefit that the majority of taxpayers don't use or qualify for. Those that take it are subsidized by those that don't.

For the record I take it but fully recognized it's a government benefit I take advantage of. I fully understand my home would lose value and I'd pay a bit more in federal taxed if it went away. I also believe it would lower housing prices, allowing my sons a better chance to own their own home for less money. It would help reduc the deficit, again allowing my sons a better chance at a stable economy in the future. It would get government out of a key market sector that they've continued to screw up.

100 Billion/year for 10 years is a $Trillion bucks. Thats a greater contribution to deficit reduction than the current budget compromise came up with.

Or using the numbers in Brent's post, it's more like $117 Billion a year for 10 years is $1.17 Trillion buck. (38.5 million X $3050ea) Again a pretty good chunk of cash.

SA

The mortgage interest deduction is a classic example of government interference in the free market. While the stated purpose is to encourage home ownership, the end result is higher housing prices that basically eliminate the intended benefit. The only folks that benefit from the deduction are banks, lawyers, real estate brokers, and middle to upper middle class home owners that take the deduction. The majority of tax payers don't take this deduction so home owners are essentially subsidized by renters and others that don't take the deduction. In most cases these are folks that can't afford home ownership, so a heavier tax burdent falls on those with less resources. It's just another special interest tax break.

With the elimination of many other deductions in the Reagan years, this became one of the few, if only tax haven for home owners and encouraged the construction of Mcmansions, houses way bigger than folks needed to live in, but they could borrow on the equity of the larger house and get a bigger deduction for an asset that all assumed would continue to appreciate.

True conservative would love to see this deduction eliminated and get government out of the housing market. Let the free market set housing prices and more people could actually afford the loans needed to buy a house. Those that saw their house as an investment more than a place to live...well any investment has risk, even T-bills.

SA

"To reduce benefits for people whose only income is SS would be grossly unfair. "

Seems to me reducing benefits to those who are younger just so those who elected leaders that overspent for years can get more benefits or those who have paid into the system for years and have also managed to save money so they have something more than SS would be unfair. Fair would be across the board benefit cuts or SS tax increases or both.

Means testing is something Nancy Pelosi would come up with.

SA

"A pledge of no tax increase is a pledge to utterly decimate the military and the entitlement programs. Either that, or it's a pledge to bankrupt the nation and sentence our grandchildren to riots and poverty. It's really that simple. "

Exactly. We've been overspending for over a generation. Our grandparents have never seen a shrinking federal budget. The idea we can get out of this by simply getting rid of waste, fraud and cuts to agencies that amount to less than 20% of the national budget is a myth and a lie. We've been using more government services than we've been willing to pay for, for a long, long time. It's time to pay up. Pay our fair share or as Beav notes, leave the mess for our children and grandchildren.

SA

The basic arithmatic is pretty simple.

You can't have an all world military, bigger than the rest of the world combined, the most expensive medical costs in the world, an aging population dependant on entitlements, i.e. Social Security, Medicare, pay interest on debt that been wracked up over a generation and have some of the lowest tax rates in the world.

As Beav has noted, you either gut govt. services, including the military, Soc. Sec., Medicare or raise revenues, or some combination of both. It's not rocket science.

SA

" yet we get on the plane, let them search our bodies and seize our tubes of tooth paste in the name of security? "

And we've seen what the alternative is. The argument over the government's role and responsibility to protect it's citizens from those who would use transportation systems to cause harm is not the same as argument over the effective implementation of that responsibility or the abuse of that authority by individuals.

SA

"If yeh want a government that controls commercial transactions and travel, yeh need to move to China. "

I worked in Shang Hai some 20 years ago on business. Had to take a cab to the plant every morning. The only way I could survive the ride without wetting my pants from all the close calls the driver had with the lack of any kind of respect for traffic laws or regulation was to close my eyes the entire 20 minute ride. Made Boston drivers look positively sane.

I'll take the rules of the road enforced in the good ole US of A. Even here in Mass.

SA

"The ability to conduct a commercial carraige transaction with a private provider is just a convenience and a privilege. So what you're sayin' there is that the government can interfere with any private transaction it wants to, eh? "

Not any private transaction, but when the mode of transportation can be turned into a weapon of mass destruction capable of killing thousands of innocent citizens I'd say representative government not only has a right but an obligation to protect the public at large. Transportation is a privilege when it can threaten others, whether it's a government required driver's license or security surrounding private carriers or public transportation. As a citizen you just don't get to go anywhere you want, any way you want if it has the potential harm others. It's why there are government standards for cars, highways, trains, planes etc. Be realistic.

Or we can wait for the big EMP pulse to wipe out all automated transportation and go back to travelling on foot. Don't know how much govt security was around in N. America before say 1492.

SA

As a wise man once said, just because your paranoid, doesn't meant they aren't really out to get you.

Al Qaeda's dream is a blue eyed tow headed Chechen baby in the arms of a caucasian American mom converted to radical Isam. And don't think for a minute there aren't terrorists that are doing nothing but thinking about how to make their dreams come true.

But I tend to agree with JoeBob. The next attack is more likely to involve a less secure target than aviation, and that's precisely because of the hassles involved at the airports. As a frequent business traveller I'm more than happy to put up with the hassle for any little additional security it provides. Having said that I do believe TSA personnel could use a little more "sensitivity" training in how to deal with the public. I personally only fly now when I have to. If there is any other reasonable mode of transportation that will get me to the same destination within a day, I'll avoid the airport.

And Basementdweller makes a valid point, while flyers may not be "rich" by some standards, they are a population that is not used to getting hassled.

SA

Sounds like they wanted to limit the number of switch hitters on each team.

SA

Interesting discussion. If there is no line to cross with respect to torture to save innocent lives, what about the reverse...no matter how repugnant the thought might be.

If there was a nuclear weapon, hidden in an American city ready to detonate, many are more than willing to inflict whatever pain is necesarry to obtain the needed information to prevent detonation. But, say if you had OBL, and all he asked for was $Billion Dollars, safe passage out of the country, promised to never engage in terrorism again, wear a monitoring bracelet and be set up on a tropical island of his choosing, and he would provide immediate information that would prevent detonation and save tens of thousands of lives. If not he claims he will endure any and all torture up to his death, knowing he will take many American lives with him. The timeing is such that you don't know if you have enough time to "break" him with torture, but are near certain you could meet his demands in time to get the information to stop detonation. Do you cross That line?

SA

"The consumption tax part of this equation is not the problem."

It's the aversion to simply increasing this tax that creates the need to look at alternative revenue systems. Be it tolls, tracking devices, whatever.

If faced with the idea of facing toll booths, or tracking transponders, I'd say most Americans would be happy to pay a bit more at the pump. But the idea we can do nothing is irresponsible. We will pay of infrastructure one way or the other. It can be planned and controlled or we can pay twice the cost for emergency repairs etc. when there are catastophic failures.

SA

The Massachusetts "bottle bill" has been described as the bill that takes litter off the streets and puts it in your garage/basement, wherevever until you load up enough to take to a redemption center.

Never the less bottle/can drives are a local fund raising option.

SA

As Beavah point out the gas tax is a perfect example of the kind of consumption tax advocated by conservatives. It directly taxes users. The current system we have in place is the socialist approach. Subsidizing the highway trust fund with general revenues. This means everyone that pays income taxes, capital gains taxes, and all other federal taxes subsidizes users of our highways.

The original article was one proposed approach to correcting this. As noted it was not intially proposed by the Obama administration, the concept has been around for a while. Another approach that has been discussed in some policy circles has been to actually sell off the interstate highway system to the states of even private enterprise and subject them or portions there of to tolls. There are many new technologies that would allow toll collection without putting tracking devices on vehicles but could charge users as the enter/exit the highways.

Selling off the highways to private investors would actually be the most capitalistic/free enterprise approach.

SA