@GovLePage/Flickr
Last year Maine Governor Paul LePage signed the largest tax cuts in his state's history, saying it would be good for business and the economy. Today, facing a river of red ink, the Republican governor ordered $35.5 million in immediate spending cuts, a third of that in funding for education. The shortfall now comes from corporate and sales taxes coming in lower than expected.
It's still more money than LePage wanted for government. During the election, he argued for yet more tax cuts:
"I think the state of Maine should have no corporate tax at all and that the United States of America should be around 20 percent," he said. "Then we could compete worldwide."
That position proved unpopular with voters, who picked Democrats and their campaign against LePage's tax policies. Democrats won control of the state legislature, but not with a veto-proof majority. That means spending cuts like the "temporary" ones announced today could become a more permanent feature of governance. Starting this summer, Maine faces the loss of $400 million in revenue over the next two years -- all from the cuts LePage signed in 2011.
Leave a Comment:
It's what happens when the "Progressives" are all disappointed that the president didn't give them their ponies.
Democrats' failure to vote in 2010 may be liberalism's greatest mistake ever.
I'd really like to disagree but, you're right.
No repeat in 2014.
LePage got 38% of the vote. Just out of curiosity, are you suggesting that Democrat Libby Mitchell or Independent Eliot Cutler should have dropped out of the race?
Is cliff still suffering from the GOP delusional land where he believes he knows what a mistake is or means. Really cliff the GOP has been nothing but a total disaster for the country every since your side elected an insane retired soap salesman to the white house who managed in 1 year to turn the worlds number 1 lender country into the worlds number 1 borrowing country with his insane trickle down stupidity. See cliff a mistake is believing that people aren't stupid enough to elect lying GOP candidates who almost put the country into another 1929 depression back into office in just 2 years, the mistake was believing people weren't stupid. Stupidity is not a mistake, its putting on blinders with the belief that by putting all the wealth into the hands of the already wealthy will somehow make you wealthy, that is either insane delusions or stupidity the likes not seen since the charge of the light brigade, because once the wealth gets into the wealthy hands it disappears never to be seen again.
Maine is the victim of the Kochs Coalition's success in 2010. The Coalition did not focus on a single issue like corporate tax relief, but that was part of it. The Coalition had anti gun control, anti-immigrant, anti-Obamacare, anti-government, anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, anti-environmental protection among the wedge issues that they won with. With control of 80% of all media in the country and the unlimited Citizens United monies, they were unstoppable. In 2010, they elected 550 governors and legislators and kept their gains in 2012 with 30 Republican governors and 24 states that have both a Republican governor and Republican legislatures. It would have been worse if Obama had not realized what it would take to win and waged a magnificent campaign. Otherwise, we would have a President-elect Romney.
So, the Progressive would have made only a marginal difference in 2010, but too many of them did stay home and did not vote.
So run this by me again. The Republican initiative is passed, and it is the fault of the DEMOCRATS???
Hey. We voted in CA!
Progressives didn't vote in 2010 because there were few to no Progressive candidates. The "liberals" as you call them, if by that you mean the Democratic Party, are right of center. Progressives weren't going to take anything any house or office, no matter if the Democrats managed to do so. There are only two major parties in play now: the Conservatives, and the Reactionary. The Progressives have no place in either scheme.
If there's a failure in that, it's in the Democratic Party's failure to stay true to its liberal roots, not a fault of disillusioned voters who didn't prop up a party that didn't consider them for anything except rubber stamp votes.
Erik, it might be true that there were not too many progressive candidates in the 2010 election. However, sometimes a democracy is also the election of a lesser evil, and at that the liberals failed in 2010. The liberal, Democratic, progressive, call it whatever you want, did not turn out the vote, and it led to the rise of the tea party.
So, yes, the liberals are also at fault for the mess we are in.
I hope we do not make the same mistake in 2014. As always the next elections are the most important elections.
The Democrats did not fail to vote in 2010. Get your facts straight about the election. LePage only got 39% of the vote because there were 3 candidates for governor. The 2 opponents to LePage split the progressive vote ( 61 % of Mainers voted against LePage). LePage does not have a mandate to do what he is doing, and we can't wait to vote him out!
It is also a result of the Citizens United SCOTUS decision and the Koch brothers and others putting millions into state legislative races. A very smart move which took the democrats by surprise. Now they have gerrymandered districts (federal and state) all over the country so it will be hard to reverse this, but we must work very hard to do it.
Well, that's one way to paint Maine blue.
I'm lol,lol,lol! This is whant happens, when a republican, try's to do something smart!!!!!!!!!! Stupid, as an idoit!!!!!!!!!! Taxes help the state, and by cutting taxes,it really hurts! DOSN"T IT!!!!!!!!
Wait a minuteMelvin - everyone, including the Democrats want to keep the same tax cuts that put the US in the big deficit hole on the federal level (at least for 98%). These are the same "Bush Era" tax cuts that a lot of Democrats bitched about for the past few years. Taxes help the US, and by cutting taxes, it really hurts, Doesn't it? What's the difference?
And what, pray tell, does the expiration of Federal tax cuts have to do with Maine unnecessarily cutting its' revenue before determining what effects those cuts will have on state expenditures? Silly question...
Anyway, every state, as best I know, cannot run a deficit; however, there is also nothing in any state Constitution that forbids them from running a surplus. There was nothing preventing LaPage from not cutting taxes until after it was determined that doing so wouldn't harm the state by having to cut spending on education, police...
Oh wait, that's not a downside for LaPage, is it?
Doug,
So what? Sure states can't run deficts, but the Feds really shouldn't ramp up pretty big deficits just because they don't have the same restrictions. Yeah, I know you will come back with the deficits being no big deal on a national scale, but then why, pray tell is all this theatrics in DC about? I do think it IS about the big deficits or are the President, Congress and the Treasury Secretary not privy to something you are? The WHOLE point about the upcoming fiscal cliff is to stop with such large deficits isn't it?
Again, I marvel at how you and others seem to want tax cuts on the federal level to help the middle and lower class, but somehow if a state tries to help the same group of taxpayers it is a totally different story.
Funny for 4 years President Obama and the Democrats kept attacking the Bush Tax cuts because they were increasing the National Debt, causing the Deficits to rise and the only beneficiaries were the Rich!!!
Now President Obama and the Democrats want to maintain 98% of the Bush Tax cuts
Was President Obama and the Democrats F.O.S. for the last 4 years or are they F.O.S. now
"Yeah, I know you will come back with the deficits being no big deal on a national scale, but then why, pray tell is all this theatrics in DC about?"
It is not about the deficit. Republicans only pretend to care about the deficit when Democrats are in control. All of the theatrics in DC are about control of the national agenda and political power.
Really Herd? So the commission that was formed by Obama that basically got the fiscal cliff in motion - because nothing was being done about the deficit - is because of the Republicans? Wow.....wow.
You might want to mention that to President Obama - who cut his Hawaiian vacation short because of all this - that it is just because the Republicans are pretending to care. Man...they are powerful.
To bad for you that you just can't grasp that you are one of the 98% you are whining about. Here is a clue, the wealthy were the ones who got the lions share of Bush tax cuts, no one in the 2% post on blogs, just delusional people who buy Glen Beck Gold plaited slugs believing they are one of the 2% do. Really people without credibility bragging on blogs about wealth they will never have is rather lame.
"So the commission that was formed by Obama that basically got the fiscal cliff in motion - because nothing was being done about the deficit - is because of the Republicans?"
Obama and the Democrats are irrelevant to my point. The Republicans shifted from "deficits don't matter" to "deficits are bad" when they lost the White House and Congress in 2008. They did the same thing in the 90s when Clinton won. Republicans only care about the deficit when they want to stop the Democrats from implementing policy. When Republicans control the government, deficits don't matter.
Frankly, Republicans in Congress have been quite successful in derailing Democrats onto the deficit reduction bandwagon from the stimulate the economy track.
Well how did you think the wealthy got wealthy, here is a clue, they take every handout and freebie they can get their hands on. Which shows us that cliff is not one of them because the wealthy don't whine on left leaning blogs, they buy GOP congressmen to give them more handouts and freebies while laughing at people like cliff posting right wing non thoughts on left leaning sites.
So....Maine intiates tax cuts and they go broke. Now all the debate on the federal level is to keep tax cuts that caused massive deficits for several of the past years - AND this debate is going during the deficit reduction talks/fiscal cliff. There seems to be a trend here. Tax cuts...less revenue.....bigger deficits. Oh well, everyone still wants to keep the unfunded tax cuts for 98% of the taxpayers and a lot of those same politicians do not want any spending cuts. Makes total sense.
Once again into the breach...
Increasing taxes on 98% of the population at this point will cause more damage to the economy than it would in helping to balance the budget.
I didn't hear screams of outrage when GWB refused to raise taxes to pay for Afghanistan and Iraq, yet we're supposed to be frightened witless now about their costs? Sorry, Charlie, if it wasn't that important then to fund the wars as we fought them, it certainly isn't now.
At any rate, remove the costs of Afghanistan and Iraq, give Medicare the ability to negotiate drug prices and over half of the current deficit disappears. As the economy picks up, which it will barring felonious stupidity on the part of the Tbaggers in the House, Federal monies spent on relief for victims of the recession will decrease and Federal revenues, on everyone, will increase.
Trim some of the fat out of the Department of Defense and, voila!, balanced budget. I figure that sometime during President Hillary Clinton's second term we'll again begin to pay off the Debt.
No thanks to you...
Wow Doug, you should be in DC right now. It seems no one there can come up with what you state. By the way I was screaming when GWB started this whole Trilion per year deficit thing. I did not vote for him either time so bringing up all the wars and not paying for them does not change what is happening now. It the case of his tax cuts and the unfunded wars you are preaching to the choir telling me that. So do not blame me - which you seem to keep trying. I have repeatedly said this here and before I got on this blog - I did not like the big deficits then, and I don't like them now. I too am for the spending cuts in the DOD as well as getting better deals drug wise. I just don't think that is enough. Lookie there Doug, we are in agreement more than you think. :)
On July 3, 2008, Presidential candidate Obama said that adding $4 trillion in debt was “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic.” Obama was referring to the $3.764 trillion that had been added to the national debt during the seven and one-half years Bush had been president. Obama of course got his facts wrong when he falsely claimed President Bush increased the national debt by $4 trillion “by his lonesome.” When Speaker Pelosi took over Congress on January 3, 2007, the national debt was $8.7 trillion. So the Democrats must get some of the credit for one of the four trillion dollars candidate Obama tried to blame on Bush.
Despite his promises to cut the deficit in half by the end of his “first” term, Obama has racked up the largest deficits in U.S. history:
Tax cuts don't cause deficits. Tax cut which cut revenue below the need amount for what is being spent does. If there had been no dramatic increase in spending, not recorded on the budget in those eight years under the guise of being "emergency spending" things probably would have been fine.
Deficits and debt in the short term do no matter because if the economy doe not pick up there will never be any way to pay any of it down later. If the economy improves that is how it can be made up for, the only way. Hurting the economy now in the effort to balance the budget is foolish and will only lengthen the problem.
No politicians oppose spending cuts it's just the guys trying to pretend there is a side with that opinion are the rigid ideologues refusing any revenues and frankly getting work done in general.
Deficits and debt in the short term do no matter because if the economy doe not pick up there will never be any way to pay any of it down later.
I don't think deficits in the Trillions for several years and a debt at $16 Trillion and climbing (thus the need to raise the debt ceiling again) isn't what I call short term. It seems to be rather permanent for the near future. We will have to have continuous unbeleivably robust economic years to even eliminate the $1 Trillion annual deficits, let alone knock any of the debt down. That is a very very long shot at best for it to happen anytime in the next decade.
LOL another one.
@nolaughingmatter - If you are talking about DEFICITS, which you claim Obama has racked up some of the largest - you are dead wrong. Obama has cut the deficit. Let me cut/paste the best way to explain this.
With the end of fiscal year 2012, the Congressional Budget Office announced the 2012 federal budget deficit: $1.1 trillion. Not only has the president cut the deficit by $312 billion during his first term (so far), but he's cut the deficit by $200 billion in the past year alone. And the CBO projected that the 2013 Obama budget, if enacted as is, would shrink the deficit to $977 billion-- a four year total of nearly $500 billion in deficit reduction.
The CBO reported in January, 2009 that the federal budget deficit for that fiscal year, which began on October 1, 2008, was already $1.2 trillion. President Obama's additional '09 spending added another $200 billion to the deficit, bringing the total to $1.412 trillion. Unprecedented and huge, but given the enormity of the financial crisis and the depth of the recession, there weren't many other options on the table. Add two wars into the mix (unpaid for under sir Bush, mind you) and there you go.
But since then, deficit spending has dropped precipitously. Why? Chiefly because President Obama signed the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act in February, 2010, which mandates that new spending be offset with spending cuts or new revenue. Yes, a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress passed this legislation. Guess how many congressional Republicans voted for the law. Zero. Not one. Perhaps during their debate, Vice President Biden should have asked Rep. Paul Ryan who voted against the bill.
Consequently, the president is responsible for the lowest government spending growth in 60 years, according to the Wall Street Journal's Market Watch.
So, again, you wanna throw the same tired, incorrect line out about Obama and his supposed huge deficits he has rang up, you are really just drinking the koolaid at Fox News at this point. If you are talking about DEBT, as in the federal debt, he has done MUCH, much more than had been done in the 2 terms before him to stop the spending. The spending he did incur CANNOT, and i will fight this to my dying day, CANNOT be entirely placed, blamed or thrown onto him - much of it was ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY with the scope of the giant flaming bag of crap handed to him, the economy tanking, the millions unemployed as he was being sworn in, the extensions of the tax cuts and benefits that people had been under in the recession, and ultimately were caused by the massive problem he INHERITED. Had he been elected in ANY other cycle that didn't start with the largest crisis in our economic history since the Great Depression, the story would have been MUCH different. He already has shown he leans more fiscally conservative, which is ironic since the current GOP which you seem so enamored with still does not embody anymore. They had no problem spending during Bush. They had NO problem cutting taxes at an unprecedented rate, when entering into 2 wars that had no plans to be paid for. You do realize the GOP were the first admin. in our history to enter into a war (and 2 wars!) WITHOUT RAISING TAXES TO PAY FOR THEM? Did you expect Obama to just stop all those cuts when he arrived, without care for what had been done before to the people, and the trillions that still hadn't been accounted for?
So point being - you're wrong, you're repeating things that aren't true, you probably have no place posting on the Maddow Blog, and Rachel would give you the exact same answer and has done so MANY TIMES on her show and this blog. Hell, go to google and type in your supposed fact, and look at all the damn evidence saying otherwise. But since you are so easily forgetting history, even when it just happened not even 4-8 years ago, I think doing a google search and learning you are wrong is probably beyond your comprehension. But keep trying. It worked REALLY WELL for the GOP this last election.
The debt and deficit are unimportant by comparison to the economy.
When incompetent austerity kills the economy how eay will it be to pay off the debt then?
Nick Caine don't waste time posting facts for those who have no intention of recognizing the reality as such. Remember no amount truth is able to pierce the bubble surrounding bs mountain. The truth is the deficit, debt and the economy were much wore than the books recorded becaue Gw kept all of it off the congressional budget as "emergency spending", the economic crisis hadn't really gone into full wing until the end of his term and continued to spiral out of control after he left. If you're a truther type you'll never see this, you're tin foil cap is probably blocking it.
All in all it's not about policy it's about the right's militant hatred for the person of Barack Obama.
Poor cliff is sooooooooo punished why in cliff world cliff pays 98% of the taxes. Here is a clue cliff people born wealthy are not successful they are just lucky to have won the birth lotto, why should they get handouts and freebies, oh thats right they buy GOP candidates to get more handouts and freebies because dumb people don't like that the wealthy have to pay their share of taxes.
The only people who say liberals are stupid are the dumb people who vote republican because the guy next door has a newer car then they have. Really it isn't that hard to be smarter then a conservative it only requires you to have the ability to out wit a rock, sadly conservatives can't out wit rocks.
The point of Obama's tax increases is to punish the successful. How dare they EARN more than a drunken stoned pregnant "progressive"(??).
All Obama is going to get is 8 days spending out of the top 2%. He plans to burn through that in 4 days.
Keep lying it worked so well in 2012
The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie.-Non partisan Congreional Reearch Service
http://www.ombwatch.org/files/budget/pdf/CRS-Taxes_and_the_EconomyAn_Economic_Analysis_of_the_Top_Tax_Rates_Since_1945-R42729_-09-14-2012.pdf
American either either keep public education and emergency service funding or give tax cut to people who do not create job. We can help the vulnerable or ubidize the people who don't need any help. We have choen to invet in our future not your upply ide economic fantaie. You accuse people of being commies becaue you can't come up with a factually argue that top marginal tax rates have any real effect on the economy. If Obama wants to "punish" the successful, didn't know doing your civic duty was punishment but when you worship the "me first" doctrine of Ayn Rand it's no surprise, then I suppose he wants to punish himself somehow.
Raising the top marginal tax rates, which is really letting them expire since those cuts were written to expire at a certain point in the first place, will have no real ill effects on the economy. The economy will pick up a the job creator pend more and unemployment tick down and all those whinning trust fund babies will become even richer than they are now. It's interesting that apparently if you know the math that taxes can't stay low forever if you want SS, Medicare, a military to throw at useless conflicts for WMD's, more border agents, etc. that you have to pay for that.
The difference is the left realizes to continue all these things we all benefit from, though the right likes to pretend otherwise, you have to have some taxes. You need revenue. The left understands that you have to pay for these things you want while you on the right want all the benefits with none of sacrifice. Revenue will claim when the economy improves because their is more income to tax and thus the budget operates in a more healthy way for its respective nation. More revenue means less deficits and paying off the debt. The primary focus must be on jobs because no amount of spending cuts can in any way improve the economy and if the economy doesn't improve planning out how to pay our debts is useless since we'll never have the money to do that.
But when you live in a world where all republicans want and are totally self sufficent, getting nothing from government(white male middle age protestants) and your opponents(anyone who isn't white, male, or mid aged) you must be a moocher then there are no surprises. Taxes will go up on the wealthy first and when the economy picks up the same will go for everyone else so we get the debt paid off as fast as we possibly can and after that we can talk about lowering those rates again to balanced levels on the budget. Everyone will be paying more in taxes in a not so distant future, this is not a celebration it is simply what must be done, yet what's interesting is that you've got the middle class and most wealthy americans who are willing to pay more for the sake of the country while a small cabal a few richy richs are complaining the loudest. The people who will be least affected are whinning the most.
2/3 of the nation support that if you're in that 1/3 group who refue to acknowledge the majority will of the people a the direction thenation will go whether you like that or not then jump ship. Find some other country to live in if you are so bothered by that, it's your right. Don't know where you'll go, hopefully to hell for abandoning your nation for purely selfish desires, but just go ahead and go. Try Somolia, no taxes, no real central government, you can carry any weapon you want, what little government there is has a religious basis, you get to legally order women on what to do with their bodies.....it's a right wing pinhead wet dream. Renounce your citizenship and take a hike we don't want you here either
What they need is a federal bail out! Of course they also want a smaller fed and no federal taxes. So keep on listening to those Tea Partiers and those who own them.
Paul,
What do you call Democrats that want to keep those Bush era tax cuts? Tea Partiers? I just don't understand how on the one hand people here complain about the Tea Partiers wanting no tax increase and/or tax cuts while at the same time want to keep those same tax cuts for 98% of the taxpayers. Granted they do want those tax cuts to expire for the wealthy, but their is no way that will cover the extended cuts for the rest. Please help me follow the logic that belittles Tea Partiers that are for tax cuts, but does not do the same to Democrats that want to continue the same "Bush Era" cuts they decried about the last few years. The only difference between the two is $160 Billion (letting the tax cuts expiring for the upper 2%) - that's all. A drop in the bucket difference compared to over $1 Trillion in annual deficits.
When you don't understand something, it's because you don't want to. Your faux concern is really, really pitiful. Should you really care about the deficit quit supporting the GOP.
I won't wait...
Doug, see my post above (4.2). I am getting tired of having to repeatedly point out here that I am not a GOPer. I will claim to be Libertarian leaning at best. Just because I tend to be a lot more fiscally conservative at this site everyone thinks I am a GOP supporter (which you again tried to point out in error) I voted third party the last 3 Presidential elections and have voted both Republican and Democrat for other offices depending the record and platform of each candidate. If there was a Libertarian or Green on the ballot I would usually pick them. I am not really enamored with either major party. OK? So when you bash the Republicans, don't sweep me in with them. Most times I would be agreeing with you.
What is pitiful is that you don't know me yet continue to think you do. I do not judge you and call your argrument "faux" (love it when you use that word - you seem to really like it). Isn't at least more interesting to have differing views here rather the everyone in lockstep and just cheerleading each other?
Skip,
The current deficit cannot be covered by only increasing taxes. Cutting spending on Defense and Homeland Security/Intelligence will also be required (since they collectively are the agencies that have increased spending over the last decade).
$160 billion increase in revenue is a good start. Tax reform focused on eliminating deductions and treating all income with the same tax schedule (no more carried interest, etc.) could increase revenue by an excess of $100 billion more. But reform will take months to formulate and get through Congress. Cuts to the Defense-and-Homeland-Security-Industrial-Complex could yield another $100-200 billion a year (hard to say how much, since a lot of those budgets are 'black').
Once the economy is healthier the rest of the Bush Tax Cuts should be gradually phased out as well, but not while economic growth is too anemic to increase employment.
Good points John. I agree with them all. I do think it is too little, too late but we'll see. One thing that always annoys me is the timing of all this. As you state a lot of the tax reform and spending cuts will take months to formulate. My question is why did they wait until NOW to even start the preliminaries? I understand that the election was on a lot of their agendas, but this fiscal cliff for example has been known to them for many months, yet they wait til the final days to try to work a deal. Just insane, yet very predictable.
On July 3, 2008, Presidential candidate Obama said that adding $4 trillion in debt was “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic.” Obama was referring to the $3.764 trillion that had been added to the national debt during the seven and one-half years Bush had been president. Obama of course got his facts wrong when he falsely claimed President Bush increased the national debt by $4 trillion “by his lonesome.” When Speaker Pelosi took over Congress on January 3, 2007, the national debt was $8.7 trillion.
Oh gee's here we go again spam in a can.
Indeed copy and paste
Loving using President Obamas own words to make in look like the fool that he is
"Obama reiterated his opposition to tax hikes during a recession and making an argument about timing. “We have not proposed a tax hike for the wealthy that would take effect in the middle of a recession.
Yeah Right
Skip,
With the hope of beating President Obama in the November election, the GOP was not going to cut a deal last summer when they thought they would have a much stronger position after the election.
Now that we are past the election, members of Congress in both the House and Senate should grow up and get to work. If they honestly think cuts in spending can solve this, they should tell us what they would cut. Since the Ryan budget did not address the current deficit in a meaningful way, we have yet to be told where they would cut $900+ billion from discretionary spending next year.
The truth is Congress is going to have to both cut and tax far more than will be popular, and both the cuts and taxes will have to be ratcheted up over time. The sooner they admit this and get to work the better for the nation.
NLM,
While economic growth is anemic, as is typical for recovery following a financial crisis, it is not in recession.
The time to begin increasing taxes is during a recovery, and since taxes on the wealthy have the least impact on consumer demand they are an excellent place to start.
We should pay for the government services we insist on getting, such as two wars put on the credit card by the last administration.
Ending a tax cut, is not a tax increase. It's just a way of saying "the party is over, now STFU and pay your share". As for the deficit, not putting the cost of 2 wars on the books for years had to show up sometime, it just doesn't disappear. That's a large part of it, the war and it's side effects has cost us, cost us big. We no longer have the respect of the rest of the world. We have the blind leading the blind with a handful of people calling all the shots. Yea, this is where I want to do business......an unstable economy, a party so bitter they are willing to bring down the country just to make our president look bad. They hate Obama more than they love their country that's for sure.
Indeed.
Does it fit in the bath tub yet?
What's the deal with that picture for this story? It looks like two people looking at a statue at a wax museum.
If that was a wax statue of LePage, I would expect it to look more lifelike.
The tea party want a balanced buget and wants responcible spending and wants no taxes raised at all . Maine is looking california unless it cuts taxes . When will dem/ libs understand raising taxes takes money away from the people and busneses . Dems / libs you can onlyraisetaxes so much or this will happen to entire country state by state .
Right after the GOP figures out if they want police, fire fighters, a military to throw into unneeded conflicts you have to pay for that.....with taxes. Taxe around the nation are at historic lows thanks to Bush while he took spending and negligence to historic highs....hints the problem.
slash away all gov't and you will hurt business by damaging the fabric that allows them to succeed the unnoticed and important jobs we all benefit and depend on
the tea party is not interested in responsible spending just spreading randian social darwinist engineering
Right because the GOP has such a great history of creating jobs, oh wait no they don't every republican since Reagan has increased unemployment the only thing the GOP increases are deficits. Which they say don't matter while in office but once a democrat gets in office deficits matter.
Over the next couple of years 4,000 new regulations are being jammed down the throats of business by Obamatoids.....expensive regulations!!!!!
No there are not. Regulations have not increased at a drastic level under any president in decades. Obama's regulations are projected to benefit more than they cost to implement.
The majority of business owners who do not wish to hire right now are those who are worried about not enough spending or that they imply don't need more employees.
Corporate profits are at their highest level in all of american history.
Regulations are not the problem if you know how a real economy functions. If you worship supply side economics which is as debunked as Freud at this point and is mostly talked in schools for it's false premise. We have a demand economy, we don't need more corporate capital, we need more small business capital. That is called consumer spending aka buying things. Consumers are not affected by regulation and most small businesses aren't either for that matter.
The most low paying jobs and low education come from the republican dixie belt states in the south. Tx has added many jobs, most of them are service industry not career. The hubs of highest wages, unions, and innovation come from the boom states which coincidently is where most wealthy people live.
Glad to see you'd like to hurt the country in the name of politics your beloved tea party ha had some success there but their order of theocracy, randian social darwinism, and corporatism is failing. 2012 proves Operation Lie Your Ass Off didn't work out for right wingnuts.
But all that's like trying to teach algebra to a pet rock so I don't know why I bother
Yep, Cynical- Refusing to look at reality in order to be comforted in your little bubble of lies or "escape from reality".
I have stopped talking after a couple of tries with some of these. I just can't get through, so we have the responses of clobbering over the head "rhetorically" by some tenacious folks that see the futility, such as Donna. Appropriate reactions, but I am sometimes stubborn in trying to touch a nerve with some of these folks that get their "high" saying b.s. they hear.
It's like talking to an addict about the consequences of the drug their body craves. Maybe it will get through when the bottom is reached. But not often enough.
The funny part is reading what some say, as you quoted. "The low paying jobs liberals usually perform will be eliminated".
Excuse me but that is complete cr@p.
I've always been fairly liberal, but made a decent wage. The union negotiated with my large employer. It helped both employer and employees be more successful. Lay out the terms and we have "confidence" and "certainty", not hamstringing growth and that "uncertainty" we keep hearing about.
It's the opposite, the jobs PEOPLE perform are becoming lower and lower wage, as evidenced by the infamous chart that follows unions decreasing, so go wages.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/03/03/147994/unions-income-inequality/
http://www.epi.org/blog/union-decline-rising-inequality-charts/
http://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp143/
But then that bubble prevents people from looking, to fall back on the familiar.
Economics is driven by consumers. Business people should be keenly aware of this fact. Trying to do supply side instead of reliable consumer driven prosperity creating more demand in both jobs and products. Economy is not driven by lowering taxes to create a hoarding situation that stagnates the economy.
Those charts and videos confirm, the growth during higher wages and benefits explains much. Cutting jobs and wages only harms economy further. So, that's why many business savvy folks say we should go ahead and raise taxes on high incomes and keep them lower on low and mid income.
Sheesh, when is all this b.s. going to fade away? It's not that I don;t want to engage in the political process, because I do. It's just so hard to believe the lie that the public is so bent on doing what the RW say they want.
I gotta just roll my eyes right now.
TP doesn't want a balanced budget, they want to stop popular things like SS and Medicare, give out tax cuts and privatize public money to certain private companies. It's just that it sounds better to argue about budgets when they can point at others, when they did this.
succinctly said!
@Sandyc954..Break it down for them so that they'll clearly understand...The TP Republicans want to systematically destroy our national economy and particularly the programs you succinctly stiputlated in your comment. They (TP Republicans) are Stuck on Stupid[ity] and because they're Stuck...it can't (their thinking; statements; etc) be fixed.
Tea Party my ass. The TP consists of corporate heads who force their employees on buses, make them carry stupid signs at their pretend rallies to give the impression of grass roots. The idiot TP who were elected are nothing but empty heads that regurgitate what they are told since they obviously know nothing about how a government runs. Nothing grass roots about these scumbags. And that pledge to Grover Norquist to never raise taxes - how does that work exactly, what about inflation? Or do you just keep cutting, and cutting until there's no government at all? So we are paying taxes for.......?
ines-1633391 yep, the illusion being perpetrated upon the U.S. public. There are people that say yeah man, that's what we need to do, make gov't. suffer. But gov't. is for US, not just for corporations to profit.
This is so ridiculous, most simply want to bankrupt the country or do not care an iota about the country or freedom, just profit. Taxes cut into their profit. They WANT to cut SS, Medicare, all that FDR brought to fix their devastation, they hate. But people love these, which they want to destroy.
Welfare is not the ideal. I do not think people would choose it, given an opportunity of an education with a future well paying job.
For wealthy to make more money, from public coffers. The most prime example is military (remember Rummy giddy over the military privatization, with Cheney drooling all the way). Then the equally troubling prison privatization. That's what they want- to make profit from public funds, no matter if the elderly or poor suffer.
and yes, LA-USMC-RET- they are stuck on stupid. They do want to drown gov't. in a bathtub. They have said so, but they keep distracting the public.
A magician distracts and creates illusions to make the audience believe what they performed (a trick) is real.
No, the TP was a made up thing, which was nothing but getting more people to hate the gov't. and the President. So the corps can make money, the wealthy (loudmouths Trump and Limpy are what, again?- wealthy) individuals that know how to get in front of a microphone and bloviate to rile up anyone that pays any attention.
They consider a public that disengages from voting a "victory". They call themselves America loving patriots, those that want the opposite of freedom. These are authoritarians that are actually in the minority wishing to push their agenda on the rest of us. The authoritarians use trickery to get the public on board with their bs. If we let them, we lose.
Taxes is just the tip of the iceberg. Letting poor folks bear the burden so you can keep taxes low is immoral! Jailing people for profit is immoral! Making soldiering a profit making venture is immoral and continually appropriating armies seems to be against the idea here:
http://constitutionus.com/#a1s8c10
But we were warned about this.
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_by/benjamin+franklin
Then FDR said
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/86216-the-liberty-of-a-democracy-is-not-safe-if-the
Yeah until they want SS and medicare...that for them i earned but everyone elsse is a handout. It's a hobby of theirs, trying to pretend they don't need or get no benefit from anything government related.
There are several distinct sects of modern republicanism
The theocrat wing of Bachmann, Santorum, Huckabee and the like who seek to impose a religious government forcing everyone to live by their spiritual beliefs.
The corporatist wing of Romney, Ryan, Boehner who want to use government to manipulate the free market which they also say they oppose. They seek to pay no taxes and take government money to socialize the risks of business(raiding pensions to put them on gov't support programs to defend them) and privatize the gains.
The tea party wing is a group of zealots who are a mix of both. These people can say we need to have a constitutional government and say we then need a biblical government in the same breath. They can say "get the government out of SS and medicare and return it to the private sector as it used to be" with a straight face. If you disagree they vomit conspiracy bile on you.
New in town? Do you even know that what you said/say?
I would say I am fairly liberal, but I worked my arse off for my employer and myself, (one of them 31 years) for 41 years, now on a well earned retirement.
No further response, as it is complexly futile to try to reason with someone that responds like this:
You seem to be quoting me, but I am not new in town.
What an idiot this politician is. Aren't any people paying attention to what is going on in Europe? And we know how to make things better, we did it ourselves after the Depression and after WWII. Government has to spend on necessary projects (duh, some infrastructure, huh) and it puts people back to work on jobs that pay a livable wage. People who earn a living spend their money. People who don't know where the next month's rent is coming from don't spend much money. Store owners know when there are aren't any jobs available for their neighbors--they don't have many customers.
Actually a troll thinking that statement is funny is really quite ignorant!!!!!!!!
Says the trailer park trash living on those government checks himself.
Speak Susan Wilkie...Break it down for the people...You know economics...I concur with U 100%...Don't despair, keep educating...
That's right, Susan W,
There are people saying/repeating "we do not want to go the way of Greece". But then they say we have to cut with a huge axe, which would hold any recovery down, or worsen things (Greece?).
But I think they are still stuck on the "Obama must fail" zombie chant. No matter about any fallout.
Austerity in Maine Republicant's really know how to ruin an economy. Remember the Maine! But this time it was sunk because it was torpedoed by Republicons!
Well, duh. LePage is an idiot and a horse's ass. But I understand that he didn't get an overwhelming amount of votes, he just got more votes than the other candidates.
Democrats should simply not agree to any additional spending cuts. The problem is not spending, except for military spending. We have slashed essential social programs repeatedly. When we cut spending to education, TANF, etc., we are cutting into bone that is essential to our society.
We need to return to sane tax rates. Taxes are the dues to membership in a civilized society. We are not broke. The wealthy have sold the fiction of voodoo economics because they care only for their own desires, and not for anyone else.
No spending is the problem. Not enough revenue= spending too much for what you have. That's the equation. Too much spending is the same as saying you aren't making enough to have all you want. Thus we must address both sides. There is a lot of unnecessary spending that goes on that no could possible argue are necessary like oil subsidies. The problem is that those who foam at the mouth about cutting spending only seem to want to cut things which are doing fine(US postal service) or things that are important to the future of our society(education).
Indeed but I would say it's not that we need to change anything specifically as what makes me frustrated is this whole idea that taxes are evil and thievery or other blah blah. The idea that taxes only ever going down is a logical budgetary outlook. It's really like if these people want to complain so much they should just self deport. If anyone out there wants to pretend the existence of government in all of human civilization is an evil force that you get nothing out of then just get lost. Renounce your citizenship, get out we don't need you. Otherwise STFU and do your civic duty. The GOP likes to talk about golden years of eisenhower republicanism but looking back did we ever complain about taxes? Remember when paying taxes and voting were civic responsibilities?
But we can't be surprised this is not a group with a real grasp on history.
As I like to say the difference between the right and the left is that the left acknowledges they do get something out of government as a blessing of being a citizen. The left understands that if you want SS, medicare, military, etc that you have to pay for those things in taxes. The right just thinks we can have all this stuff and never have to contribute a dime to paying for it.
And the tax rates of Eisenhower…And others were….
http://news.yahoo.com/eisenhower-obama-wealthiest-americans-pay-taxes-193734550--abc-news.html
It began with Reagan slashing tax rates to 28%. But we follow deficit from Reagan time, well what do you know… economy was OK, nobody was complaining about deficit spending or debt, but raised debt ceiling like clock work.
http://zfacts.com/p/1170.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/thirty-years-of-the-debt-ceiling-in-one-graph/2011/07/11/gIQAEJdEGI_blog.html
And the non existent inflation being advertised on Becky-poo etc:
http://zfacts.com/price-inflation
I need more coffee apparently.
That should be:
For my apology offering/pennance, here's one courtesy of PRWatch.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXUPDAMc_6o&feature=player_embedded#!
The video exposes the big problem that should have T Pub "followers" up in arms, but apparently they are OK with it???
This what happens when you "Starve the Beast". Ronald Reagan, remember him? The great communicator. Between him and W, they ruined this country and the Koch brothers tried to bury it.
You don't have to be a mental giant to figure out that if you don't collect taxes, then you don't get money to pay for things like cops, trash removal, things like that. The big companies aren't the smartest knife in the drawer either. If you pay your employees minimum wage, and if you do this to enough people, who is going to buy your products? I mean how stupid do you have to be? If you cut wages, people will only have enough to pay for the necessities. So unless these business expect the rich to keep them afloat, they will be OUT OF BUSINESS in no time. Pay people more, they buy more. Simple.
The Congressional Research Service proved that supply-side (trickle-down/voodoo) economics does not grow the economy and only serves to transfer wealth upward. The past 30 years of trickle-down bears this out with the top 20% now owning 93% of the wealth, income disparity is huge, and the taxes for the top tax brackets is lowest it has been in 60 years. The House Republicans tried to have the report quashed over the objections of the CRS, but the report was resurrected by the Senate Dems and is posted on their website.
Considering the abject failure of supply-side, why do Republican ideologues in parroting Fox News talking points believe that continuing the failed policy will do anything differently?
I'm just amazed at the Lie's I hear. This election was by far the worst I ever lived through. Lets face it. We the people have nothing to do with our country. If I had my choice I would fire them all. I wouldn't give a dime out to another country. Bring our troops home. We'd need to make some hard decisions. Our Government is WAY to big. This crap of making laws every time a person dies has to stop. Gun control is a joke. Guns don't kill, people do. If we control everything people kill with we won't have many house hold items. Yes i understand the weapons holding 30 to a hundred rounds are an issue. But you tell me there wasn't warning signs before this fools did what he did. drugs. I don't mess with then. Never have. But how many people die across this country because of them ?? including officers. What if the legalize it ? Tax it to death like cigarettes. of course I'm split on that ideal. It has a lot of risk. No matter what we do you are going to have Good people and Bad people. There everywhere. though most work in DC. Well enough. Thanks for letting me Ramble on I feel much better now :)
I'm one of the 61% who didn't vote for Gov. A$$hat and I would like to point out that in this one particular instance it's not that we didn't vote, it's that we split the vote between two better choices. The suckage remains the same, but there are more of us in a position to say I Frickin Told You So.
What a complete incompetent person. His agenda, and it's personal, over the people's agenda.
I really did love your show while in the US and appreciate how you frame your opinions and the logic of them all.
Sometimes a group of people do not necessarily know what is good for them;a democratic congress, this time around, would have made a tremendous impact on the CHANGE the world was expecting.
And as for taxes; the rich want to get richer and the poor- with begging bowls- they want them crying to be fed a morsel.
The question is- what is fair? But then again the framers can turn that on its head and make all of us believe that the false premise is the true one!
this works out fine for companies to rape a state....they will set-up near the borders of mass. and new hampshire...and hire smart people from those states and contribute nothing to the state of maine..but contribute to the dumbing down of citizens....stress the infrastructure....polute the area....then leave as soon as the next fool offers up corporate welfare.......................
We love Maine, but we don't get to live there. It is really upsetting to see what this poor excuse for a governor is doing to the state. We have many friends who are deeply hurt by this terrible management and every school child in the state will pay for years for his uninformed mistakes.
Hoffman,
Please come to the table with something, anything intelligent to say next time... lie after lie... enough already
This is what happens when rethuglican policy is really implemented. It sinks the state and the country into utter economic ruin and disaster.
Why do right wingnuts read mainstream and progressive media sites? All they're going to do is post meaningless primitive blather about things there already hated before they signed on.
I don't see proggressives spewing on right wingnut sites.
They might think that of me. But facts & logic are hard for them to understand.
Why do they come to progressive sites rather simple..............they were told to do so to stop discussions that show the GOP for the crap party they are. Every economic disaster can be traced right back to the GOP who then act like 4 year olds and point fingers everywhere except themselves. They learned it from The buck stops here Reagan who then found scapegoats to pass the buck onto.
whom,
KKKliff is a new idiot troll on this site; new sock just created in December. Ignore this inbred troll.