MP DEMs and GOP are Unpopular
Both the GOP and Dems have done damage to themselves for the past 45 years since Nixon got caught up in Watergate. Lying to the voters used to have consequences, you were voted out, now it is accepted behavior. Regular folks don’t trust politicians at all, yet the politicians demand more of your paycheck with increases in property taxes, higher gas taxes, taxes on cigarettes, booze and every other little item they can tax. Neither party will talk about the projected 10 Trillion more being added to our National debt by over spending on the budget the next 10 years. That is happening even with record high amounts of hard earned tax dollars being sent to DC every year. Dems however will howl about the new tax law adding 1.5 Trillion over that same 10 year period. Hypocrisy, dishonesty, wasting tax payer money has turned off 70% of Americans. Who can blame them?" Joe
"Based on the comments I have received, I certainly know that I am in the minority...
I would have preferred if the tax bill had not been passed and that the GOP would instead have focused on cutting Federal government spending, programs and services until we were running a surplus again.
And we really should be increasing the payroll tax rate (ie premiums) and/or cutting SS, SSD and Medicare (ie benefits) until they are balanced. No other pension or insurance plan is allowed to be that unbalanced.
And yet it seems that one thing both the Left and Right can agree on is that they are okay letting the current voters live large, while passing additional debt and other obligations on to our children and grand children.
We are in probably nearing the end of a long up cycle during which we should be paying down debt in preparation for the next recession, and here we are still adding to the debt. How did American's get so irresponsible and self centered?
Maybe it is that old saying... When people learn they can vote themselves money... It foreshadows the end of the republic..." G2AMP Not Just the Money
"Confusing. The above discussions are definitely interesting and confusing.
We have Liberals complaining about wealthy people having to pay more taxes in high tax states. And complaining that the rich States are not getting back as much as they pay in. Where as usually they want the rich to "pay more than they get back". And they want the excess to be given to the less fortunate.
As for the GOP desire to reduce the spending of the Federal government. I am assuming they are trying to do the usual... Squeeze the money and then follow up with trying to cut the spending. Unfortunately history has shown that they fail at step 2 and our National Debt keeps going up.
Personally I was against the tax bill, I just wanted to start cutting Fed spending to get back to having a surplus. Unfortunately both Liberals and Conservatives seem to be against something so logical." G2A
23 comments:
"Don't see the complaint about paying higher taxes, Just see, why we should keep bailing out red states that are trying to hamstring us from being successful! You do see that connection don't you? We voted to tax ourselves (invest in a better city, county state) they chose not too. That's fine, now we reap our rewards, they should reap theirs, fair enough? No we weren't complaining we were demonstrating that we are way above our fair share, already -30% vs, + 700%, not to mention we are a very well run state #1, so the answer should be, what are we doing right that they are doing wrong? No one is complaining or stopping these folks from implementing their own state income or property tax, why aren't they? Would seem like a great way to require less federal aid and lower the Federal spending. We think these red states aren't poor, we think they are gaming the system, as some folks would say "Looking for free stuff" even though they already got lots of wealth! We agree on the tax bill, but with any problem, some of us, liberal/open minded folks, take a more global approach, poor people are poor because in simple terms, either spend to much or don't make enough, Work both sides of the equation, the spend side and the revenue side. Seems every company I have ever worked for, looks at raising sales(revenue) where they can and keeping costs (spend) under control. Fair enough?" Dennis
"Sorry for the absence, work has been busy and Trump keeps giving me more to write about back home. :-)
As I have said before, Conservatives seem to be fine with minimizing the Federal government to it's basic roles: National Defense, International Issues, Laws controlling interstate commerce, Laws for the common good of the country, Negotiating differences between States, etc. This would be a Conservative concept where States would need to compete and care for their citizens. And if they did not adequately care for their citizens, they would have few citizens or businesses.
However over the last ~80 years Liberals have deemed that they know better and have moved a lot of those responsibilities to the Federal level. (ie Medicaid, Welfare, etc) In other words, the only reason we have so much government mandated wealth transfer between States is because the Liberals wanted it that way.
I mean it makes sense since the Liberal viewpoint is to arbitrarily take from the successful and give to the unsuccessful with few expectations for improvement, so hearing folks complaining that Rich States will pay more and Transfer more to Poor States is very ironic in my view.
My point is that Liberals voted over the last 80 years to enable the Red states with "free money" to maintain their status quo and not improve. Now the Liberal States are actually going to have to pay more for the policies they insisted on implementing. Sounds like karma to me. :-)" G2A
Only problem with your prescription is that "entitlements"--NON-discretionary spending-- is what is driving the deficit. Eliminate ALL discretionary spending except Defense (or vice versa) and you just about solve the deficit for this year. And it is getting worse. Some estimates have entitlements alone exceeding revenues as early as 2025.
Yes it was a very irresponsible time for the GOP to cut revenues...
Let us come at this a different way. If past congresses, of whatever makeup, were irresponsible for increasing spending beyond revenues, why is it irresponsible to cut taxes knowing that revenues will go up because of it, and that big spenders won't allow spending cuts or the more necessary entitlement reform?
"why is it irresponsible to cut taxes knowing that revenues will go up because of it"
There has never been a tax cut in the history of the Republic that has paid for itself. You can argue it's good policy for a myriad of other reasons, but that ain't one of them.
I think we need a Democratic President again... Deficits seem to decrease under them
Well that is as long as they do not have control of the Congress...
Same old story-- Democrats sabotage the economy and drive up spending, the Republicans get to come in, suffer the recession and perhaps turn things around, and Democrats take over because they promise more, and round we go. wouldn't it be great if Party didn't matter, and we did what was right, instead, and stuck to it?
What are you getting and can I get some?
The "Great Recession" started under Bush. And the economy was rocking at the end of Clinton and Obama's terms.
Now if you go all the way back to Carter, you may have point. Though he did have a lot going on back then. (ie OPEC)
Rocking? Well, we're never going to get past our distorted views of history, especially if we blame (or credit) the President for everything that happens in the economy. How about discussing how the two Parties have both failed to "do right"? Surely Congress' dismal popularity must be because of this obvious failure, and I am getting tired of the constant attempt by each Party to drive the popularity of the other down further. (IMHO, the Democrats are the main offender and I can prove it). Nonetheless, the result is a popular "pox on both your houses" attitude and a general cynicism that anything can ever be improved. There is so much disinformation and misinformation out there on the issues, no wonder good ideas are unpopular and bad ideas are popular. Legislation should be crafted by smart people who study the issues in depth, not based on an opinion poll among the general public, 2/3 of whom cannot name even one of their two US Senators, let alone having knowledge of the many issues.
I personally think both parties are unpopular because Americans are basically selfish and controlling in nature...
Both sides want what they want and neither group wants to pay for it from their own pockets. They would prefer to push off the bill to future generations or make someone else pay...
Both sides want to use the government to dictate morality as they see it, and force the other side to comply...
And since public policy usually ends up somewhere between the 2 views, and since people are seeing compromise as failure more and more... The "people" see their politicians as failing.
It is like one of my children wanting a yellow marker and the other wanting a blue marker...
When I compromise and give them a green marker... Neither one is happy with me.
How exactly do you think Congress could improve their popularity scores?
Since Liberals and Moderates seem to be in the majority now... And with the rich being so rich, and so many citizens struggling... Maybe adopting slightly Left of Center policies would maximize their popularity...
Of course that leaves the folks on the Right and Far Left unhappy...
With our citizen groups becoming so polarized and emotional, I am not sure how Congress succeeds. I am happy I don't have their job.
The big question is if the disenfranchised Left leaning and Moderates give Congress back to the DEMs in a year... Who will you blame?
As for historical facts and data... It sure looks like me that we have been booming for quite awhile.
The down side is that based on history we should be in a modest recession right now... In the early 2000's Bush bought us out of it with tax cuts and a war, and then we paid for it big time in 2008... Which blew up the national debt...
I am not even sure how much of a disaster the GOP is buying us with this very unnecessary tax cut.
I think policies the dems support such as strengthening social security are pretty popular across the board. I think conservatives just reflexively hate anything the dems propose. I think the dems should increase SS for those who receive the least amt and cannot afford to retrire
s
‘I hope I can quit working in a few years’: A preview of the U.S. without pensions
Same old question... Who are you going to tax how much to pay this "welfare" to those who did not save for themselves?
This is the crux of the problem for pensions... SS... and IRA's...
"The average life expectancy in 1950 was 68, meaning that a pension had to pay out only three years past the typical retirement age of 65. Today, average life expectancy is about 79, meaning that the same plan would have to pay out 13 years past typical retirement age."
AARP How Much Do I Need?
Do you support increasing the "mandatory savings rate"? (ie raising the payroll tax rate)
It’s because of the perpetual and negative campaigning. And I think the war waged on the whole concept of credibility.
—Hiram
I would increase withholding from everyone and significantly raise the cap on wages that are taxed for SS. I would gladly pay a little bit more into SS for a bigger future benefit.
"I personally think both parties are unpopular because Americans are basically selfish and controlling in nature..."
And your principal objection to FREEDOM is, what?
Hiram,
Agreed. Both sides in essence calling the other politicians and citizens awful things certainly does not promote team work and positive feelings.
Laurie,
Just remember that folks like myself who have been paying the max for years are likely already paying for more than our fair share if one wants to consider SS as a "I paid for my benefits" program.
The higher you raise the cap, the more welfare like it becomes unless you are willing to raise the benefit cap also.
Jerry,
Freedom is not FREE... It comes with many responsibilities to the society one lives within. It is truly the society that protects one's freedoms. And in a democratic society, we the people get to set the freedoms and the expectations.
Needless to say some people will feel free and some will feel excessively constrained within any society created in this way.
Please remember all the freedoms Conservatives strive to constrain:
- Women's rights to birth control and abortion
- LGBT rights to live as they wish and have their partnerships legal recognized
- Rights protecting one from another citizen's pollution
- Employees right to collective bargaining
To name a few.
"This is the crux of the problem for pensions."
The crux of the problem for pensions is that they've been chronically underfunded (and the law allows it to happen). For instance, General Electric's pension funds are underfunded by about $30B even though they've made over $100B in profits over the last decade. We could just make companies pay up instead of waiting for funds to go belly-up and get bailed out.
FREEEEEEEEEEDOM!
"The Trump administration is scaling back the use of fines against nursing homes that harm residents or place them in grave risk of injury, part of a broader relaxation of regulations under the president.
The shift in the Medicare program’s penalty protocols was requested by the nursing home industry. The American Health Care Association, the industry’s main trade group, has complained that under President Barack Obama, federal inspectors focused excessively on catching wrongdoing rather than helping nursing homes improve.
...
The new guidelines discourage regulators from levying fines in some situations, even when they have resulted in a resident’s death. The guidelines will also probably result in lower fines for many facilities.
...
But the change means that some nursing homes could be sheltered from fines above the maximum per-instance fine of $20,965 even for egregious mistakes.
In September 2016, for instance, health inspectors faulted Lincoln Manor, a nursing home in Decatur, Ill., for failing to monitor and treat the wound of a patient whose implanted pain-medication pump gradually slipped over eight days through a ruptured suture and protruded from her abdomen. The patient died.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services fined Lincoln Manor $282,954, including $10,091 a day for 28 days, from the time the nursing home noticed the problem with the wound until supervisors had retrained nurses to avoid similar errors. An administrative law judge called the penalties “quite modest” given the “appalling” care.
The fines were issued before the new guidelines took effect; if the agency had issued a one-time fine, the maximum would have been less than $21,000."
NYT: Trump Administration Eases Nursing Home Fines
Post a Comment