US POLITICS SPRING 2011: Let's just call off this country.

no tax increases — a Republican red line — but perhaps additional revenue from the elimination of tax expenditures

I don't know what this means

yeah it means that taxes will go up, but theyre not "tax increases"

so, thats whats in it for democrats

im sure its a "bad deal" but it remains to be seen if its "really bad" or "could be worse"

i could ask this anywhere, but this is where i'm most interested in the effects, so:

what happens if (when) greece defaults?

some of em are not tax increases, but the expiration of freebies (ie, tax increases to the corporate class)

Coburn was calling em "revenue increases" yesterday

lol okaaayyy

ideological purity is such a funny thing

It's like when they voted yesterday on getting rid of the ethanol tax credit.

An interesting subtext to this week’s Senate votes on the ethanol subsidy is the internal debate going on among conservatives over whether eliminating the tax credit was in effect raising taxes.

That’s the argument that Grover Norquist, chairman of Americans for Tax Reform, had been making to Republicans.

Aides to the chief Republican critic of the subsidy, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, said the issue was settled on Tuesday when Republicans voted en masse to kill the 45-cent-per-gallon tax credit for ethanol. Coburn didn’t get the 60 votes he needed to cut off debate on his proposal that day because Democrats voted against him for procedural reasons.

But on Thursday, just 14 Republicans voted for preserving the tax credit and all of them were from the Midwest – or from Mississippi (Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker.). The other 33 Republicans all voted for killing the credit.

However, going into Thursday’s vote, Americans for Tax Reform told senators that voting to kill the tax credit wouldn’t violate the no-new-taxes pledge they signed with the group, if they also voted for a separate proposal by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., to eliminate the annual usage mandates for biofuels.

”Taken together, this elimination of favoritism toward ethanol is not a violation” of the pledge, said Norquist’s group. No vote on eliminating the mandates has been scheduled, however.

Norquist’s position that eliminating a tax credit has been widely rejected by conservatives outside the Senate, too.

Jonah Goldberg, writing today for National Review Online, wondered whether it also would be wrong for conservatives to vote against a tax credit for abortions on the grounds that that would be raising taxes, too.

“I’m generally sympathetic to Norquist’s pledge, but I think it’s crazy for it to be turned into a tool to defend the statist status quo (statist quo?),” Goldberg wrote. ” Yes, abolishing some market skewing bad policies will increase revenues for the Treasury. Is that really a reason not to abolish them?”

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20110617/BUSINESS01/110617005/0/CAROUSEL

increased revenue for the Treasury, oh fuckkkkk!

sums up this whole thing pretty well

wish someone would drown Grover Norquist in a bathtub. Preferably while dressed as the Planter's Peanut.

what happens if (when) greece defaults?

― goole, Friday, June 17, 2011 4:03 PM (19 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i would like to know this! someone told me that u.s. money market funds "will be in trouble." !!

Guys, this is how Reagan raised taxes yet everyone on the right still thinks he cut them.

I know it is I just find the ideological contortionism amusing. I mean if this is what the Dems can get them to agree to, hey great, at least it's something. doesn't make the maneuvering any less ridiculous/disgusting

they could get around all of this by sending every Republican a kitten named Taxes and a carton of razorblades

yeah well not so fast:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal-government/house-blocks-cotton-payments-to-brazil-renewing-trade-dispute-with-that-country/2011/06/16/AGRZGUXH_story.html

WASHINGTON — The Republican-led House voted to slash domestic and international food aid Thursday while rejecting cuts to farm subsidies.

A spending bill to fund the nation’s food and farm programs would cut the Women, Infants and Children program, which offers food aid and educational support for low-income mothers and their children, by $868 million, or 13 percent. An international food assistance program that provides emergency aid and agricultural development would drop by more than $450 million, one-third of the program’s budget. The legislation passed 217-203.

The bill would trim the Food and Drug Administration’s $2.5 billion budget by almost 12 percent, straining the agency’s ability to implement a new food safety law signed by President Barack Obama this year. Democratic attempts to restore some of the food safety money were rejected.

As they cut other programs, lawmakers rejected two proposals that would have saved money by lowering the maximum amount of money a farmer can receive in subsidies from the government. While fiscal conservatives and other critics of subsidies argued that they need to be cut as lawmakers look for ways to save, farm-state members said those cuts should be pushed back until Congress considers a new five-year farm bill next year.

this is the kind of shit that has me seeing red, not kidding

i'm going to go on about this

the bill, as described by the post anyway, seems less a document about agriculture or even food at all, but again, is a culture war document. if liberals like something, we will stick a thumb in it (plus a shout-out to wall st):

—Directs the Agriculture Department to rewrite rules it issued in January meant to make school meals healthier. Republicans say the new rules, the first major overhaul of school lunches in 15 years, are too costly.

—Forces USDA to report to Congress every time officials travel to promote the department’s “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” program, which supports locally grown food, and discourages the department from giving research grants to support local food systems. Large agribusiness has been critical of the department’s focus on these smaller food producers.

—Prevents USDA from moving forward with new rules that would make it easier for smaller farmers and ranchers to sue large livestock companies on antitrust grounds. The proposed rules are meant to address the growing concentration of corporate power in agriculture.

—Delays for more than a year new rules for reporting trades in derivatives, the complex financial instruments blamed for helping precipitate the 2008 financial crisis. A Republican amendment adopted Thursday would require the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which funded in the bill, to first have other rules in place to facilitate its collection of derivatives market data.

—Prevents the FDA from approving genetically modified salmon for human consumption, a decision set for later this year.

—Questions the scope of Obama administration initiatives to put calories on menus and limit the marketing of unhealthy foods to children.

i mean, what the fuck? beyond parody.

just another day with the party of "small business" and "family farmers" amirite

heh speaking of infuriating

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43445375/ns/politics/t/obama-administration-end-health-care-waivers/

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration says it will end a controversial health care waiver program in September.

Officials announced Friday that all applications for new waivers and renewals of existing ones have to be in by Sept. 22.

That would remove a potential political distraction in the 2012 elections.

The waivers deal with a part of the new health care law that restricts annual dollar limits on coverage. They won't be needed when the law goes into full effect in 2014, because taxpayer-subsidized insurance will be broadly available.

Congressional Republicans had charged favoritism, claiming that waivers were being funneled to unions. But an outside review by the Government Accountability Office found that the administration was using objective standards to make its decisions.

More for the Friday news dump: the Obama administration gets confronted at Netroots meeting.

A Republican amendment adopted Thursday would require the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which funded in the bill, to first have other rules in place to facilitate its collection of derivatives market data.

washington typost amirite?

sometimes i think Big Agriculture is the evilest industry of them all

it does represent a terrifying intersection of a lot of awful policies with wide-ranging consequences - shitty resource use, monopolization, garbage in the food supply/threats to public health, genetic engineering etc etc

US gov't in action

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYqF_BtIwAU

I know the White House can only 'fight one front at a time,' but it's not hard to explain why calories counts aren't socialist, especially when we're obsessed with them in our own lives.

but i think the point is that the 'explanation' wouldnt really matter? all that matters is that democrats are for calorie counts/healthy lunches/local food

I think framing the debate as "we might be trying to tell you what to eat but at least we aren't trying to kill you" should be possible

http://vimeo.com/25237798

unbelievable.

producer of this ad also did the demon sheep and the "i'm not a witch" ad.

I have the right not to be informed of facts by the government. Keep your facts off my body!!!!

i wonder who that mysterious ad paid for by jon huntsman was about

AARP Is Open to Cuts for Social Security Benefits

now Obama has cover if he wants to slash Social Security ...

old motherfuckers be entitled and shit

Obama: smarter than his lawyers.

old motherfuckers be entitled and shit

it's not gonna be the old motherfuckers who will get fucked. it's gonna be you, me, and practically everyone on this listserve (i.e., anyone 45 and under) if SS is "reformed."

the old motherfuckers will be fucked if Medicaid is gutted, though. Medicaid is what pays for long-term care in nursing homes and assisted living facilities for many elderly folks.

can't wait for the Civil War of 2025 fought over Social Security benefits

I've got a few decades before I hit social security age, but I've honestly never expected to receive a single payout.

crucial part of u not caring when it goes

Crucial part of not caring about me, yeah. Does not preclude me from caring about others.

Honest question: how much does SS pay out a month, on average? Is it even enough for someone to live on now?

whether it's enough to live on depends on your payout and standard of living i guess, but social security is primary source of income for elderly women.

i fugured my SS payment would be around 1300 a month

figured

I'm all for smashing the state BAMN if they try to deny us our SS payouts, btw

AARP refuted that article yesterday

http://www.aarp.org/about-aarp/press-center/info-06-2011/aarp-has-not-changed-its-position-on-social-security.html

that kind of beats around the bush tbh

Obama: smarter than his lawyers.

― The Edge of Gloryhole (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, June 18, 2011 7:40 AM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

this article is nuts