PDA

View Full Version : Poll on Fiscal Cliff


gunns
12-12-2012, 09:04 PM
It's quite a lengthy poll asking numerous questions regarding Dems, Repubs, Congress, Obama, fiscal cliff, but quite interesting.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/12/15870087-nbcwsj-poll-public-wants-compromise-to-avoid-fiscal-cliff?lite

Meck77
12-27-2012, 03:14 PM
I think we should go over the cliff and layoff the president, most of congress, and about 5 million federal workers. These jack asses have us in wars all over the world and they can't even pass a damn budget plan.

These idiots are going to kick the can down the road and raise taxes on everyone. The poor included. This political uncertainty is already having adverse effects on the economy. On a personal level I know of major deals being shelved because people don't even know how much they are going to be taxed!

Bottom line they are creating a disincentive to hire people, take business risk, and quite frankly make more money.

peacepipe
12-27-2012, 03:27 PM
The senate already passed a bill extending the tax cuts for the middle class 250,000 and below. They're just waiting on the rightards in the house to put it to a vote.

BTW, I agree with you we should go over the fiscal cliff.

Fedaykin
12-27-2012, 03:31 PM
If the right weren't controlled by loons, this wouldn't be a issue. Even "Saint Ron" would have understood that we need to tackle the problem with both revenue increase and spending cuts.

Meck77
12-27-2012, 04:04 PM
Rightards? loons?

Fellas the democrats have been in charge for 4 years now. Had our economy actually grew instead of debt ceiling raises, quantitative easing, operation twist, and other fed tricks we wouldn't be in this mess.

Meh....I think when all of you see your tax bills, new fees, and you paychecks shrink you'll be wishing a guy like Ron Paul got in office instead.

Our federal government is so bloated it's disgusting.

Fedaykin
12-27-2012, 04:32 PM
Rightards? loons?

Fellas the democrats have been in charge for 4 years now.


Not at all true. Why do you guys insist on lies all the time?


Had our economy actually grew instead of debt ceiling raises, quantitative easing, operation twist, and other fed tricks we wouldn't be in this mess.


Hard to get anything done when even the ideas the right _agrees_ with they block just for the sake of blocking. It's childish and absurd, and you're the same if you deny it's going on.

There's finally some GOP leadership that are acting like grown ups, but color me unimpressed.


Meh....I think when all of you see your tax bills, new fees, and you paychecks shrink you'll be wishing a guy like Ron Paul got in office instead.


You know, I do my own taxes: they've done nothing but go down since Obama took office (by almost 3%). Most of the middle and working class has seen a significant tax cut under Obama (mostly due to the FICA tax holiday).

Overall tax rates (as a % of GDP) are at a 60 year low.

But keep drumming the tax scare tactics. There are plenty of folks that will believe you.


Our federal government is so bloated it's disgusting.

No argument there.


And the Saint Ron I'm referring too isn't Paul it's Reagan. You know, the president who raised taxes almost twice a year during his presidency when even he realized that the huge cuts he was part of couldn't be paid for with just money stolen from SS?

peacepipe
12-27-2012, 04:39 PM
Rightards? loons?

Fellas the democrats have been in charge for 4 years now. Had our economy actually grew instead of debt ceiling raises, quantitative easing, operation twist, and other fed tricks we wouldn't be in this mess.

Meh....I think when all of you see your tax bills, new fees, and you paychecks shrink you'll be wishing a guy like Ron Paul got in office instead.

Our federal government is so bloated it's disgusting.
Have ever read what you actually post. It might answer the question on why I refer to reps/teabaggers as rightards.

SoCalBronco
12-27-2012, 04:40 PM
The senate already passed a bill extending the tax cuts for the middle class 250,000 and below. They're just waiting on the rightards in the house to put it to a vote.

BTW, I agree with you we should go over the fiscal cliff.

Why would the House pass just that? Where would the future incentive be to make major changes in spending if that's already done?

Meck77
12-27-2012, 04:41 PM
We are approaching 17 trillion in debt. If you enjoyed any tax break kiss that goodbye.

Facts are facts.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_debt_chart.html

Fedaykin
12-27-2012, 04:46 PM
We are approaching 17 trillion in debt. If you enjoyed any tax break kiss that goodbye.

Facts are facts.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_debt_chart.html

Nice strawman. I don't recall anyone but the wingut contingent claiming we can solve the debt problem without tax increases.

The wingnut contingent wants to have their cake and eat it to: pay off an enormous debt without actually you know, paying anything.

cutthemdown
12-27-2012, 06:07 PM
Obama acts like he just wants a few tax raising things though fed. People don't realize how much he is raising them just to try and pay for Obamacare.

Now the whole mood of the country is ****. Retailers had a horrid xmas and that accounts for 50% of their nut in some cases. We are so screwed right now and the funny thing is liberals still think it was because of Iraq lol.

Enjoy the ride. The last time xmas sales were this bad was 2008 right before the recession. We may be headed into a recession again. Obamacare starting to kick in and its plain to see the states do not have the money to meet their end of the deal.

cutthemdown
12-27-2012, 06:09 PM
I hear rich people having trouble figuring out what the charitable deduction will be? I can't believe Obama and Congress waited this long lol.

Also I think its funny that Clinton was so awesome but even liberals scared to death to go back to his tax rates.

peacepipe
12-27-2012, 06:18 PM
I hear rich people having trouble figuring out what the charitable deduction will be? I can't believe Obama and Congress waited this long lol.

Also I think its funny that Clinton was so awesome but even liberals scared to death to go back to his tax rates.

What libs? Gwb tax cuts need to expire in its entirety. IMO

W*GS
12-27-2012, 06:36 PM
The whole thing is stupid - based solely on GOP extremism and servicing Grover.

Fedaykin
12-27-2012, 06:50 PM
The whole thing is stupid - based solely on GOP extremism and servicing Grover.

Gotta 'respect' the huge brass balls it takes for a party to put in writing a refusal to compromise on fiscal issues (particularly taxes) while at the same time calling the other major party "extreme".

W*GS
12-27-2012, 07:47 PM
Gotta 'respect' the huge brass balls it takes for a party to put in writing a refusal to compromise on fiscal issues (particularly taxes) while at the same time calling the other major party "extreme".

Rigidity in the face of the facts doesn't earn respect - good use of the quote symbol.

ant1999e
12-27-2012, 08:44 PM
Why would the House pass just that? Where would the future incentive be to make major changes in spending if that's already done?

I like how they conveniently ignore your question.

Cito Pelon
12-27-2012, 09:18 PM
Not at all true. Why do you guys insist on lies all the time?



Hard to get anything done when even the ideas the right _agrees_ with they block just for the sake of blocking. It's childish and absurd, and you're the same if you deny it's going on.

There's finally some GOP leadership that are acting like grown ups, but color me unimpressed.



You know, I do my own taxes: they've done nothing but go down since Obama took office (by almost 3%). Most of the middle and working class has seen a significant tax cut under Obama (mostly due to the FICA tax holiday).

Overall tax rates (as a % of GDP) are at a 60 year low.

But keep drumming the tax scare tactics. There are plenty of folks that will believe you.



No argument there.


And the Saint Ron I'm referring too isn't Paul it's Reagan. You know, the president who raised taxes almost twice a year during his presidency when even he realized that the huge cuts he was part of couldn't be paid for with just money stolen from SS?

You're wasting your time with Meck. You can try to talk logic, compromise, moving forward, dialogue, bi-partisanship, nope he has all the answers, it's his way and everybody else is a dope.

The nope-you're-a-dope method of government. It's always somebody elses fault he's not King of the World.

SoCalBronco
12-28-2012, 12:04 AM
I like how they conveniently ignore your question.

Gutting the Bush tax cuts above 250K is not something I'm opposed to. I welcome it. It's a major deficit reducer....but it has to be coupled with very, very significant spending cuts, especially in our biggest long term debt drivers (Medicare). While new revenues are needed, we also need to make difficult choices on spending. Spending can't be addressed if you give away the leverage for free.

B-Large
12-28-2012, 09:22 AM
I think we should go over the cliff and layoff the president, most of congress, and about 5 million federal workers. These jack asses have us in wars all over the world and they can't even pass a damn budget plan.

These idiots are going to kick the can down the road and raise taxes on everyone. The poor included. This political uncertainty is already having adverse effects on the economy. On a personal level I know of major deals being shelved because people don't even know how much they are going to be taxed!

Bottom line they are creating a disincentive to hire people, take business risk, and quite frankly make more money.

Taxes will go up, but they will be able to pass loophoes and other gimmicks to ease the tax burden on the poor... the wealthly will just out their money elsewhere and avoid taxation on many fronts... its really the middle income earners, 50-150K that get the biggest hit.. not poor enought o qualify for the breaks, not rich enough to hire an accountant to figure it out.

My Aunt just sold her business for 26 years, the collective tax liability on the assets was just a smidge under 50 percent, and her annual income form the business over the years, over 40%. She said she would not do it again considering hours worked and stress undertook.

I say let the cuts take place and let taxes go up. We have been living on the national credit card for a decade and not paying our bills.... the bills Politicians have run up.... its time to pay the tab, and only then in the high tax environment will the true Fiscal Conservatives be taken seriously.... until then, we live on borrow time and money

B-Large
12-28-2012, 09:25 AM
I think we should go over the cliff and layoff the president, most of congress, and about 5 million federal workers. These jack asses have us in wars all over the world and they can't even pass a damn budget plan.

These idiots are going to kick the can down the road and raise taxes on everyone. The poor included. This political uncertainty is already having adverse effects on the economy. On a personal level I know of major deals being shelved because people don't even know how much they are going to be taxed!

Bottom line they are creating a disincentive to hire people, take business risk, and quite frankly make more money.

Taxes will go up, but they will be able to pass loophoes and other gimmicks to ease the tax burden on the poor... the wealthly will just out their money elsewhere and avoid taxation on many fronts... its really the middle income earners, 50-150K that get the biggest hit.. not poor enought o qualify for the breaks, not rich enough to hire an accountant to figure it out.

My Aunt just sold her business for 26 years, the collective tax liability on the assets was just a smidge under 50 percent, and her annual income form the business over the years, over 40%. She said she would not do it again considering hours worked and stress undertook.

I say let the cuts take place and let taxes go up. We have been living on the national credit card for a decade and not paying our bills.... the bills Politicians have run up.... its time to pay the tab, and only then in the high tax environment will the true Fiscal Conservatives be taken seriously.... until then, we live on borrow time and money

Meck77
12-28-2012, 09:37 AM
I say let the cuts take place

I'm a big fan of major cuts. Contrary to cito's idea of me I'm also a firm believer in personal responsibility. We all have a little responsibility in this nearly 17 trillion dollar debt. We've allowed our politicians to run wild with our tax dollars. I feel personally responsible for that but I've done what I can on an individual level.

Cito you just have an ax to grind with me because I think your beloved Israel should be cut from the American tax payer tit. 100+ Billion shipped to a wealthy nation while we have millions suffering at home and our own border lies unprotected. It's a tragedy!

Yes we need big cuts. See my first post on this thread. Instead this has been obama's/geithners debt policy the last 4 years.


I am responsible for about 25 bucks of the debt recently. Had breakfast in the White House last week. I did offer to pay for it though. They insisted it was on the house. ;D

Having spent a week in DC meeting with various people it was painfully clear how out of touch our representatives are and this bubble mentality of the people in DC. The recession isn't even understood in DC. The federal dollars have floated around there so freely those aholes have been living high on the hog on your dime.

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/9278/debtlimit.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/210/debtlimit.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

B-Large
12-28-2012, 11:27 AM
I'm a big fan of major cuts. Contrary to cito's idea of me I'm also a firm believer in personal responsibility. We all have a little responsibility in this nearly 17 trillion dollar debt. We've allowed our politicians to run wild with our tax dollars. I feel personally responsible for that but I've done what I can on an individual level.

Cito you just have an ax to grind with me because I think your beloved Israel should be cut from the American tax payer tit. 100+ Billion shipped to a wealthy nation while we have millions suffering at home and our own border lies unprotected. It's a tragedy!

Yes we need big cuts. See my first post on this thread. Instead this has been obama's/geithners debt policy the last 4 years.


I am responsible for about 25 bucks of the debt recently. Had breakfast in the White House last week. I did offer to pay for it though. They insisted it was on the house. ;D

Having spent a week in DC meeting with various people it was painfully clear how out of touch our representatives are and this bubble mentality of the people in DC. The recession isn't even understood in DC. The federal dollars have floated around there so freely those aholes have been living high on the hog on your dime.

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/9278/debtlimit.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/210/debtlimit.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

It the result of our elected official being able to run the Government on borrowed money rather than tax receipts.... The Starve the Beast strategy on works if old Beastie Can't Borrow at Exceptional Rates!! LOL

Low taxes are great and all, but not when your Government spends 30% more than it brinks in for nearly a decade..... but somehow most Americans go about their lives...

Agreed, we will need huge means tested changes to our safety net program primary, and probably have to take the Ron Paul stance on Defense.... We will have to get back to the Safety Nets really being program that give our fellow Americans, who are of meager means a dignified end to their lives... but if you can afford to retire nicely and afford private health insurance as you age, you might be forced to go it alone.

We can do it, Americans just have toget over the manufactured notion that people will die in the streets and civilization will turn on its head and people will resort to bunkers... We can have a limited Government, there is just no reason otherwise..

cutthemdown
12-28-2012, 06:35 PM
defense is only what 4% of gdp? something like that? You can cut defense and not make a dent. Entitlements are where the money is.

Fedaykin
12-28-2012, 07:18 PM
defense is only what 4% of gdp? something like that? You can cut defense and not make a dent. Entitlements are where the money is.

So, stealing SS and medicare money once wasn't good enough for your warmongering greed? You want to do it twice?

W*GS
12-28-2012, 07:19 PM
So, stealing SS and medicare money once wasn't good enough for your warmongering greed? You want to do it twice?

Remember, cut wants the US to be able to kick military ass on the rest of the world put together.

ant1999e
12-28-2012, 09:35 PM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-orders-raise-biden-members-congress-federal-workers_692223.html

President Barack Obama issued an executive order to end the pay freeze on federal employees, in effect giving some federal workers a raise. One federal worker now to receive a pay increase is Vice President Joe Biden.

According to disclosure forms, Biden made a cool $225,521 last year. After the pay increase, he'll now make $231,900 per year.

Members of Congress, from the House and Senate, also will receive a little bump, as their annual salary will go from $174,000 to 174,900. Leadership in Congress, including the speaker of the House, will likewise get an increase.

Here's the list of new wages, as attached to President Obama's executive order:
See link


"A new executive order has been issued providing for a new pay schedule beginning 'on the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning after March 27, 2013,'" reports FedSmith.com. "The pay raise will generally be about 1/2 of 1%."



UPDATE: According to a senior Republican congressional aide who has reviewed the executive order and consulted with the Congressional Budget Office, Obama's pay raise will cost $11 billion. "The CBO told us that the President’s pay raise for federal workers will cost $11 billion over ten years," says the aide.

The aide explains, "On the cost-estimate, CBO says the (discretionary) cost of the .5% pay-hike the President is calling for in the Exec Order – relative to a freeze – is about $500m in FY 2013 and $11 billion over the ten years from FY 13 - FY 22. The reason why the FY ’13 savings is only $500 million is because the pay hike as proposed by the President’s Exec Order would not go into effect until April 1st, 2013 - when the current CR expires. So it only covers half the fiscal year. The annualized cost of the pay hike is about $1 billion/year."

cutthemdown
12-28-2012, 09:59 PM
So, stealing SS and medicare money once wasn't good enough for your warmongering greed? You want to do it twice?

Social Security was always just another tax thought up by liberals. I'm not surprised people pissed about that now that they are finding out.

cutthemdown
12-28-2012, 10:03 PM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-orders-raise-biden-members-congress-federal-workers_692223.html

President Barack Obama issued an executive order to end the pay freeze on federal employees, in effect giving some federal workers a raise. One federal worker now to receive a pay increase is Vice President Joe Biden.

According to disclosure forms, Biden made a cool $225,521 last year. After the pay increase, he'll now make $231,900 per year.

Members of Congress, from the House and Senate, also will receive a little bump, as their annual salary will go from $174,000 to 174,900. Leadership in Congress, including the speaker of the House, will likewise get an increase.

Here's the list of new wages, as attached to President Obama's executive order:
See link


"A new executive order has been issued providing for a new pay schedule beginning 'on the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning after March 27, 2013,'" reports FedSmith.com. "The pay raise will generally be about 1/2 of 1%."



UPDATE: According to a senior Republican congressional aide who has reviewed the executive order and consulted with the Congressional Budget Office, Obama's pay raise will cost $11 billion. "The CBO told us that the President’s pay raise for federal workers will cost $11 billion over ten years," says the aide.

The aide explains, "On the cost-estimate, CBO says the (discretionary) cost of the .5% pay-hike the President is calling for in the Exec Order – relative to a freeze – is about $500m in FY 2013 and $11 billion over the ten years from FY 13 - FY 22. The reason why the FY ’13 savings is only $500 million is because the pay hike as proposed by the President’s Exec Order would not go into effect until April 1st, 2013 - when the current CR expires. So it only covers half the fiscal year. The annualized cost of the pay hike is about $1 billion/year."

I'm ok with them getting a slight raise and with how much they make. Really those numbers are a drop in the bucket. If we make this job to low of pay we will get even worst people in office.

Plus most of them have a spouse and go over the 250 threshold. Obama has to give them a raise to offset the thousands more in tax they will pay. :)

cutthemdown
12-28-2012, 10:11 PM
Remember, cut wants the US to be able to kick military ass on the rest of the world put together.

Don't look now but N Korea just launched a missile that could hit the US. Oh and in a few days they will detonate another nuke.

China being belligerent trying to snatch resources from other coutries in asia.

Russia building military and becoming more and more a thorn in our side. Their plan is to become more powerful then the US.

I agree we can cut. My point is we only spend like 4% of gdp, around what 700 billion a yr? I'm not sure what we could cut. Our aircraft carriers are old and making some new ones is a smart move. The old ones use an outdated powerplant. Its just one of those things we have to have. Carriers are how we project power to other regions on a moments notice.

Also we already spent too much on the f-35. We have to push ahead and finish that project. The money spent keeping the older planes in service is getting tough. I know a marine jet mechanic and according to him many of our f-16s f-15s are way passed how many hours they were designed to fly.

Really the money is in the troop levels. So.......we could cut there after Afghan draws down. Maybe reduce by what? 50 thousand troops? Not really sure how many we could cut out and still have enough if some conflict arose.

Mainly though I believe that we have to keep staying as far ahead technologically as we can. That takes money.

Cito Pelon
12-28-2012, 11:19 PM
I'd like to see more problem solving and less finger pointing.

Cito Pelon
12-28-2012, 11:52 PM
Trying to save face or gain face seems to be ruling on the Beltway. They're not governing, they're in competition with each other.

B-Large
12-29-2012, 09:47 AM
defense is only what 4% of gdp? something like that? You can cut defense and not make a dent. Entitlements are where the money is.

We should go back to Reagan Term Military spending levels.... That's 300b a year in savings, and there is no super power threat right now militarily...

But yes, Medicare and Healthcare is our largest outlay with projected growth... We will need to make decisions about it very soon

Meck77
12-29-2012, 10:00 AM
They're not governing, they're in competition with each other.

Our government reminds me of the Tim Tebow lead Broncos. You have one guy running up and down the field trying to make plays even though he's a very poor passer and poor QB/leader in general. Oh but he had heart! Rather than steady leadership throughout the game Tebow would lead us to the fiscal cliff. Come to find out later not many on the team respected Tebow which was an obvious problem.

Effective leaders bring people together and make everyone better. See Peyton Manning. Barrack Obama is no Manning.

Fedaykin
12-29-2012, 10:15 AM
Social Security was always just another tax thought up by liberals. I'm not surprised people pissed about that now that they are finding out.

No, it was a specifically funded social safety net program that was increased and then turned into a quasi-general tax by Reagan.

But of course, you're just trying to avoid the question. Why should we steal that money twice?

The SS program is currently >$2.6 trillion in the black (meaning SS tax revenues have exceeded outlays by $2.6 trillion). Reagan decided we should be allowed to "borrow" that money (>$2.6T of the current debt figures are in treasury bills owed to the SS program), in part for his unwarrented build up in the 80s (600 ship navy, etc.). Now you want to say: too bad, we borrowed it but we aren't going to pay it back.

It hasn't never contributed a dime to the current national debt. Why should it used to fix the problem (and in large part continue funneling huge amounts of wasted money into the military), again?

Fedaykin
12-29-2012, 10:39 AM
Don't look now but N Korea just launched a missile that could hit the US. Oh and in a few days they will detonate another nuke.

China being belligerent trying to snatch resources from other coutries in asia.

Russia building military and becoming more and more a thorn in our side. Their plan is to become more powerful then the US.

I agree we can cut. My point is we only spend like 4% of gdp, around what 700 billion a yr?


You always talk about China hiding defense spending, then continue the myth that we only spend $700bn on defense.

Don't forget the VA, NASA (about half their budget is military R&D), Department of Energy (nukes), Homeland Security (most of what it does is defense oriented: coast guard, border patrol, USSS, etc.), The Treasury dept (pays military pensions).

All told we spend over a trillion a year on defense every year, probably more.


I'm not sure what we could cut. Our aircraft carriers are old and making some new ones is a smart move. The old ones use an outdated powerplant. Its just one of those things we have to have. Carriers are how we project power to other regions on a moments notice.

Also we already spent too much on the f-35. We have to push ahead and finish that project. The money spent keeping the older planes in service is getting tough. I know a marine jet mechanic and according to him many of our f-16s f-15s are way passed how many hours they were designed to fly.

Really the money is in the troop levels. So.......we could cut there after Afghan draws down. Maybe reduce by what? 50 thousand troops? Not really sure how many we could cut out and still have enough if some conflict arose.


The vast bulk of the savings we could have comes from waste. You know, that waste all the conservatives rail about, except when it comes to military spending?

Everything from treating generals and admirals like royalty to having unneeded (that the PENTAGON didn't even WANT) weapons systems to just general waste that occurs in every large organization. You seem to want to remain entirely clueless about how much pork goes into military spending as a consequence of our economy being propped up by it.

Some defense projects the pentagon didn't even want:

- The Global Hawk Block 30 drone program;
- The C-27J Spartan cargo aircraft;
- Upgrades to the M1 Abrams tank;
- Air National Guard funding;
- A proposed East Coast missile defense system.
- Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle
- Surface Launch Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile System (a.ka. the SLAMRAAM)

That's something around $100 billion in various programs that the military didn't even want.

Then just general waste:

"Like any government agency, the Pentagon has a serious problem with waste. An audit last year by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that management failures at the Department of Defense led to $70 billion of waste over just a two-year period. Another GAO report from 2010 found that the Defense Logistics Agency, which acquires military equipment, was ordering 50 percent more equipment than it needed, and $7 billion worth of supplies were sitting in a warehouse."

Oh, and lets not forget the trillions (more than one) spent in the last decade on completely unnecessary wars. Even if we pulled every single troop and piece of equipment out of useless wars today we'd still be spending $100bn or more on those wars a year for decades (VA, pensions, etc.)

You could probably lop $200 billion (or perhaps more) off the defense budget without any effect whatsoever on defense capability. Ask the admirals and generals what they really _need_, and just do that. Hell, we could probably afford a couple more carrier groups you are so proud of and still have cuts. Of course, that would mean politicians doing whats right for the country and not whats good for themselves, so it won't happen if we leave it in their hands.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/22/crony-capitalism-creeps-into-the-defense-budget.html

http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/2222-Military-Industrial-Complex-Wins-Again

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/08/20/congress-pushes-for-weapons-pentagon-didnt-want.html

Meck77
12-29-2012, 11:09 AM
- The Global Hawk Block 30 drone program;
- The C-27J Spartan cargo aircraft;
- Upgrades to the M1 Abrams tank;
- Air National Guard funding;
- A proposed East Coast missile defense system.
- Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle
- Surface Launch Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile System (a.ka. the SLAMRAAM)

That's something around $100 billion in various programs that the military didn't even want.


You can thank the mid east holy war for that. Meanwhile our border is basically unprotected. It's idiotic.

Watch this video. You will be outraged knowing this is happening to our country. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KcwIy_fQuU

Fedaykin
12-29-2012, 11:16 AM
You can thank the mid east holy war for that. Meanwhile our border is basically unprotected. It's idiotic.

I don't disagree that mideast wars are a problem with spending, but the real cause for this is politicians wanting to give handouts to their districts (handouts in the form of unnecessary spending). At the root of it all is the basis of our tech and manufacturing economy being military/industrial.

Bronco Yoda
12-29-2012, 12:02 PM
Millions of people will lose their unemployment in a couple of days if nothing is done.

'Fiscal cliff' cost for you per CNN

$0 - $20,00 = $412 added taxes to you
$20,000 - $40,000 = $1,231
$40,000 - $65,000 =$1984
$65,000 - $108,00 = $3540
$108,000 - =$4173

several tax deductions expire
alternative min. tax kicks in
payroll tax holidy expires

Thank you TeaParty you ****ing twits.

Requiem
12-29-2012, 12:05 PM
I say Obama throw down that Brandon Marshall Law and start bangin' hammers.

Cito Pelon
12-29-2012, 12:26 PM
Our government reminds me of the Tim Tebow lead Broncos. You have one guy running up and down the field trying to make plays even though he's a very poor passer and poor QB/leader in general. Oh but he had heart! Rather than steady leadership throughout the game Tebow would lead us to the fiscal cliff. Come to find out later not many on the team respected Tebow which was an obvious problem.

Effective leaders bring people together and make everyone better. See Peyton Manning. Barrack Obama is no Manning.

Well, that's true. Obama doesn't grab Congress by the lapels and say "let's get something done".

peacepipe
12-29-2012, 12:36 PM
Our government reminds me of the Tim Tebow lead Broncos. You have one guy running up and down the field trying to make plays even though he's a very poor passer and poor QB/leader in general. Oh but he had heart! Rather than steady leadership throughout the game Tebow would lead us to the fiscal cliff. Come to find out later not many on the team respected Tebow which was an obvious problem.

Effective leaders bring people together and make everyone better. See Peyton Manning. Barrack Obama is no Manning.
What an ignorant post with absolutely no basis in reality. But then again nothing you post is based on reality.

Cito Pelon
12-29-2012, 12:53 PM
Millions of people will lose their unemployment in a couple of days if nothing is done.

'Fiscal cliff' cost for you per CNN

$0 - $20,00 = $412 added taxes to you
$20,000 - $40,000 = $1,231
$40,000 - $65,000 =$1984
$65,000 - $108,00 = $3540
$108,000 - =$4173

several tax deductions expire
alternative min. tax kicks in
payroll tax holidy expires

Thank you TeaParty you ****ing twits.

That Tea Party is holding the whole country hostage.

Jetland
12-29-2012, 01:13 PM
What an ignorant post with absolutely no basis in reality. But then again nothing you post is based on reality.

it really does need to be put on the mount Rushmore of crazy

DenverBrit
12-29-2012, 01:21 PM
That Tea Party is holding the whole country hostage.

The GOP should push that intransigent group off a 'cliff.'

cutthemdown
12-29-2012, 05:03 PM
That Tea Party is holding the whole country hostage.

If rich people are going to pay 15 grand more then other people shouldnt complain about 400-1500 bucks etc. You are getting exactly what you paid for a tax and spend President. Don't blame the tea party they voted for Romney.

cutthemdown
12-29-2012, 05:03 PM
We should all go over the cliff together! Stap up liberals and enjoy the ride! YOU ARE THE CAPTIAN OF THE SHIP NOW!

Fedaykin
12-29-2012, 05:12 PM
We should all go over the cliff together! Stap up liberals and enjoy the ride! YOU ARE THE CAPTIAN OF THE SHIP NOW!

I've seen this bull**** a lot.

Since when does controlling <1.5/3 branches of the federal government mean a particular party is in control?

With the absurdity of currently filibuster rules, it's more like 1/3.

Fedaykin
12-29-2012, 05:14 PM
If rich people are going to pay 15 grand more then other people shouldnt complain about 400-1500 bucks etc. You are getting exactly what you paid for a tax and spend President. Don't blame the tea party they voted for Romney.

15 grand to the people who might actually see that kind of raise is equivalent to change lost in the couch to them.

400-1500 bucks to the others actually matters.

SoCalBronco
12-29-2012, 05:19 PM
This isn't that hard of a concept. Raise the Medicare eligibility age and use alot more restrictive rules for inflationary increases and then gut the Bush cuts over 250k. You can't have one without the other.

cutthemdown
12-29-2012, 05:19 PM
Its the same friggin rate they paid under Clinton who you all love. Thats what is so funny they talk about the Clinton era rates like they are so scary. Hell you loved them back then right?

cutthemdown
12-29-2012, 05:20 PM
Liberals just want the taxes with none of the cuts. They will probably get that for a short time but the debt limit will not be part of the deal. At some point Obama will have to cut.

cutthemdown
12-29-2012, 05:23 PM
I've seen this bull**** a lot.

Since when does controlling <1.5/3 branches of the federal government mean a particular party is in control?

With the absurdity of currently filibuster rules, it's more like 1/3.

WAIT WAIT WAIT does that mean liberals don't have a mandate? Exactly so they need to deal just like the repubs do. You can't throw out take it or leave it because we have all the power, then get pissed when it turns out you don't have near as much power as you thought.

Fedaykin
12-29-2012, 05:25 PM
WAIT WAIT WAIT does that mean liberals don't have a mandate? Exactly so they need to deal just like the repubs do. You can't throw out take it or leave it because we have all the power, then get pissed when it turns out you don't have near as much power as you thought.

Since I never said any of the above, once again you're just making **** up.

SoCalBronco
12-29-2012, 05:37 PM
Liberals just want the taxes with none of the cuts. They will probably get that for a short time but the debt limit will not be part of the deal. At some point Obama will have to cut.

The debt limit is the only remaining leverage. That's the only way to get spending under control.

Fedaykin
12-29-2012, 05:39 PM
Liberals just want the taxes with none of the cuts. They will probably get that for a short time but the debt limit will not be part of the deal. At some point Obama will have to cut.

Who are these "liberals" you're talking about?

cutthemdown
12-29-2012, 06:30 PM
The debt limit is the only remaining leverage. That's the only way to get spending under control.

I heard that wont be part of any deal so repubs at least have some more leverage like you said.

cutthemdown
12-29-2012, 06:31 PM
Who are these "liberals" you're talking about?

Just read through the mane. Tons and tons saying no change to medicare, soc security, entitlements. Those are the big drivers of furture debt.

Houghtam for example.

cutthemdown
12-29-2012, 06:34 PM
And then of course the liberals who matter like Reid, Pelosi, who say no cuts to entitlements when just a few months ago they were on the table. So to say Liberals want to cut anything is a joke Fed. They want to cut defense and raise taxes. They want to untouch entitlements. Thats why the deal has to be scaled back.

obama will get his increase on the 250 and up crowd, but it wont raise much revenue and will kill charitable contributions from the upper middle class. The super rich probably wont care much.

Fedaykin
12-29-2012, 07:16 PM
Just read through the mane. Tons and tons saying no change to medicare, soc security, entitlements. Those are the big drivers of furture debt.

Houghtam for example.

So the only place to cut is in Social Security and Medicare (NOT ENTITLEMENTS) and actual entitlements?

Fedaykin
12-29-2012, 07:19 PM
And then of course the liberals who matter like Reid, Pelosi, who say no cuts to entitlements when just a few months ago they were on the table. So to say Liberals want to cut anything is a joke Fed. They want to cut defense and raise taxes. They want to untouch entitlements. Thats why the deal has to be scaled back.

obama will get his increase on the 250 and up crowd, but it wont raise much revenue and will kill charitable contributions from the upper middle class. The super rich probably wont care much.

So, cuts you don't agree with == no cuts huh?

:facepalm:

Make you a deal. When you can give me a good reason why we should steal $2.6T in money from people paying into SS/Med all their lives INSTEAD of cutting defense and other discretionary spending, I'll give you a pony.

SoCalBronco
12-29-2012, 07:41 PM
Because Medicare is the biggest cost driver going forward that's why. This isn't in dispute even the administration agrees. Give up the Bush cuts and make serious changes to Medicare. If no one is happy that means you have a good deal.

Fedaykin
12-29-2012, 08:12 PM
Because Medicare is the biggest cost driver going forward that's why. This isn't in dispute even the administration agrees. Give up the Bush cuts and make serious changes to Medicare. If no one is happy that means you have a good deal.


Yep, going forward (meaning for people not currently at or near the eligibility age) we will need to make some changes, but that's not going to do anything to solve the current deficit problem.

Nor have you addressed the slobbering over cuts to Social Security.

It's pretty simple, The top three causes of the current deficit problemare:

1.) Military Spending (more than doubled, after inflation, since 2000): $350+bn/year (much more, probably a total of over $500bn/year, when you consider things OTHER than DoD budget)
2.) Bush Tax Cuts (as well as other tax cuts from Obama): $450bn/year
3.) Medicare Part D: $???/year

Want to cut the deficit now without stealing from people? You have to work with #1 and #2. You can assist with a general cut to other discretionary spending (which I'm in favor of) but that contribution will be dwarfed by rolling back #1 and #2.

SoCalBronco
12-29-2012, 08:26 PM
Yep, going forward (meaning for people not currently at or near the eligibility age) we will need to make some changes, but that's not going to do anything to solve the current deficit problem.

Nor have you addressed the slobbering over cuts to Social Security.

It's pretty simple, The top three causes of the current deficit problemare:

1.) Military Spending (more than doubled, after inflation, since 2000): $350+bn/year (much more, probably a total of over $500bn/year, when you consider things OTHER than DoD budget)
2.) Bush Tax Cuts (as well as other tax cuts from Obama): $450bn/year
3.) Medicare Part D: $???/year

Want to cut the deficit now without stealing from people? You have to work with #1 and #2. You can assist with a general cut to other discretionary spending (which I'm in favor of) but that contribution will be dwarfed by rolling back #1 and #2.

Military spending will automatically decline as the war ends in 2014 and the administration has already began a program to streamline it. I'm all in favor of replacing the Bush tax cuts withnsomething more responsible but it has to be linked with serious structural changes to Medicare. There will never be any incentive for the Left to agree to changes if they already got the tax changes they wanted. The tax changes and Medicare changes have to be linked.

There is no such thing as "let's take care of taxes first and we can talk spending next year". If taxes go up on everyone automatic cuts come to Medicare and defense and it all leads to a recession that's fine. That's a far better result than eliminating any incentive to tackle spending issues. I'll take the recession and 2.2T in savings.

Fedaykin
12-29-2012, 08:29 PM
There is no such thing as "let's take care of taxes first and we can talk spending next year".

I didn't argue that. You're better than that SoCal.

SoCalBronco
12-29-2012, 08:34 PM
I didn't argue that. You're better than that SoCal.

I didn't say you were but that is what the Admin is saying. Up or down vote on the middle class tax cut if you can't agree on a resolution. Umm no...there will be no vote. That's trying to get everything while giving up nothing. There is a comprehensive agreement which involves sacred cows on both sides getting gored or there is nothing at all.

Fedaykin
12-29-2012, 08:41 PM
I didn't say you were but that is what the Admin is saying. Up or down vote on the middle class tax cut if you can't agree on a resolution. Umm no...there will be no vote. That's trying to get everything while giving up nothing. There is a comprehensive agreement which involves sacred cows on both sides getting gored or there is nothing at all.

To get any real deal done you're going to need some adult behavior on the right. The last time Obama offered a sacred cow type deal (debt ceiling crisis) the right spit in his face because they weren't getting 100% of what they wanted.

SoCalBronco
12-29-2012, 08:52 PM
To get any real deal done you're going to need some adult behavior on the right. The last time Obama offered a sacred cow type deal (debt ceiling crisis) the right spit in his face because they weren't getting 100% of what they wanted.

I agree that House Republicans need to be more supportive of Boehners efforts to compromise. There must be new revenues. There is no way around it. By the same token the Dems have to swallow hard and accept real changes on the spending side.

Fedaykin
12-29-2012, 09:06 PM
I agree that House Republicans need to be more supportive of Boehners efforts to compromise. There must be new revenues. There is no way around it. By the same token the Dems have to swallow hard and accept real changes on the spending side.

I agree. Putting defense spending back in line isn't the only spending that needs to be curbed, now or in the future. But, if we don't touch the #1 problem nothing else will matter.

Defense spending accounts for ~65% of discretionary spending (DoD, HS, NASA, DoE, VA disc. budget, etc.) and >10% of mandatory spending (VA and pensions mostly).

And even when we pull out of Afghanistan you can bet there won't be any actual reduction due to more VA, more pensions, and general warmongering.

Pick Six
12-29-2012, 10:46 PM
I agree. Putting defense spending back in line isn't the only spending that needs to be curbed, now or in the future. But, if we don't touch the #1 problem nothing else will matter.

Defense spending accounts for ~65% of discretionary spending (DoD, HS, NASA, DoE, VA disc. budget, etc.) and >10% of mandatory spending (VA and pensions mostly).

And even when we pull out of Afghanistan you can bet there won't be any actual reduction due to more VA, more pensions, and general warmongering.

In my mind, defense of this country should be the #1 priority of the U.S. government. Little else matters...

peacepipe
12-30-2012, 06:14 AM
In my mind, defense of this country should be the #1 priority of the U.S. government. Little else matters...
But not the only priority,remember you can chew gum & walk at the same time.

houghtam
12-30-2012, 08:24 AM
Just read through the mane. Tons and tons saying no change to medicare, soc security, entitlements. Those are the big drivers of furture debt.

Houghtam for example.

Quote me.

Stop trying to attribute things I didn't say to me.

Bonus question: What is my position on defense spending, and how quickly should it be cut?

Bonus bonus question: Remember when you didn't understand how defense spending related to unemployment? There's a whole thread of you looking like an idiot in that regard.

houghtam
12-30-2012, 08:26 AM
WAIT WAIT WAIT does that mean liberals don't have a mandate? Exactly so they need to deal just like the repubs do. You can't throw out take it or leave it because we have all the power, then get pissed when it turns out you don't have near as much power as you thought.

Can you even articulate what he's talking about with regard to filibuster reform? Here's a hint: he's not in favor of getting rid of the filibuster entirely. I can't even think of a single person who is.

Fedaykin
12-30-2012, 12:24 PM
Quote me.

Stop trying to attribute things I didn't say to me.

Bonus question: What is my position on defense spending, and how quickly should it be cut?

Bonus bonus question: Remember when you didn't understand how defense spending related to unemployment? There's a whole thread of you looking like an idiot in that regard.

I knew cutlet was, as usual, FOS in what he attributes to you. Didn't want to speak for you though. =)

houghtam
12-30-2012, 05:57 PM
I knew cutlet was, as usual, FOS in what he attributes to you. Didn't want to speak for you though. =)

LOL it doesn't even sound like something I'd say.

Play2win
12-31-2012, 12:36 AM
In my mind, defense of this country should be the #1 priority of the U.S. government. Little else matters...

Education, especially higher education should be the number one priority of the U.S. Government.

BroncoInferno
12-31-2012, 06:05 AM
Last Sunday, Lindsay Graham was on Meet the Press and said that the Congressional Republicans need to realize that if you can get 87% of what you want, that's a good deal. Now think about that for a minute. Graham said this as if he was playing the voice of reason, as if settling for 87% of the GOP agenda would be magnanimous on their part. Someone should tell Graham that the GOP got thumped in the election. That means you don't get to dictate terms...you don't get to have 87% of what you want. That sums up the obstructionist GOP: they think it's a moderate position to expect to get 87% of they want in a deal following an election when they got their asses handed to them. I'm glad the President is standing up to them this time.

Meck77
12-31-2012, 10:35 AM
So once we go over the cliff I heard Obama is planning to resume his $4,000,000 vacation in Hawaii. I think the entire congress and especially the president should not be paid nor be able to vacation on our dime until this is figured out. Unbelievable disrespect to the tax payers of this country.

Bronco Yoda
12-31-2012, 10:57 AM
I say lock them ALL in a Hotel until things get worked out. Grover Norquist can clean all the rooms, cook & scrub the toilets with his finger.

barryr
12-31-2012, 11:03 AM
So once we go over the cliff I heard Obama is planning to resume his $4,000,000 vacation in Hawaii. I think the entire congress and especially the president should not be paid nor be able to vacation on our dime until this is figured out. Unbelievable disrespect to the tax payers of this country.

Obama is not held accountable for anything, so he can do about whatever and it gets a free pass. Even drones killing children and more involvement in government checking people's personal emails get a yawn from the supposed staunch rights activists anti-war crowd.

Requiem
12-31-2012, 11:13 AM
So once we go over the cliff I heard Obama is planning to resume his $4,000,000 vacation in Hawaii. I think the entire congress and especially the president should not be paid nor be able to vacation on our dime until this is figured out. Unbelievable disrespect to the tax payers of this country.

The Democrats proposal offers most everything permanent that the Republicans want, with the Democratic wants being temporary measures (unemployment benefits, etc.) that will expire after one year. Very few concessions are being made by the Right. They simply want to take their balls and leave, which is what a majority of them did over the weekend, flocking back to their homes instead of actually getting serious about making a deal. The offer the Democrats are making now is more generous than what will happen if a deal isn't accomplished. Mind-boggling that the Right hasn't figured that out.

houghtam
12-31-2012, 11:16 AM
So once we go over the cliff I heard Obama is planning to resume his $4,000,000 vacation in Hawaii. I think the entire congress and especially the president should not be paid nor be able to vacation on our dime until this is figured out. Unbelievable disrespect to the tax payers of this country.

Do you really think not paying anyone a salary at this time would have any effect whatsoever?

Do you really think most of Congress would notice? Would Obama not be able to go on vacation because he can't afford it?

Bronco Yoda
12-31-2012, 12:27 PM
I think maybe both sides secretly want to go over the cliff. They get to raise taxes and make cuts without anyone actually doing anything... but point fingers at each other.

The Repubs will end up paying for it to some extent later , but Norquist already has their balls in olive jars neatly lined up across his mantel.

Meck77
12-31-2012, 12:33 PM
I think maybe both sides secretly want to go over the cliff. They get to raise taxes and make cuts without anyone actually doing anything... but point fingers at each other.

The Repubs will end up paying for it to some extent later , but Norquist already has their balls in olive jars neatly lined up across his mantel.

I think you are right Yoda.

Houghtam considering virtually every member of Congress is a millionaire or mega millionaire I really doubt they would care less.

*edit* HOLY ****!!!! Obama is giving all of the rat bastards a raise! http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/31/obama-gives-congress-pay-raise/

Would be a great symbolic statement if the people had that type of power.

Pick Six
12-31-2012, 03:29 PM
Education, especially higher education should be the number one priority of the U.S. Government.

What do you want the federal government to do, about higher education?

Bronco Yoda
12-31-2012, 07:30 PM
Higher education is the only thing we still do right. It's the lower education that's messed up beyond belief.

Pick Six
12-31-2012, 07:34 PM
A particular poster, who shall remain nameless, sent me a rep on my defense spending post. I want to clarify that we need to be more selective about how we use our defense spending. We stick our noses in places that we shouldn't be (the U.S. has done that for a long time). We have to work on cutting out needless spending. However, the basic needs of the troops MUST be met, as well as the support they require when they get out of the service. That's where the budget funding has to start. After that, we talk about other budget needs...

Arkie
12-31-2012, 10:38 PM
Higher education is the only thing we still do right. It's the lower education that's messed up beyond belief.

Lower education was better before the federal government got involved.

houghtam
01-01-2013, 01:47 AM
Lower education was better before the federal government got involved.

Link?

Fedaykin
01-01-2013, 02:17 AM
A particular poster, who shall remain nameless, sent me a rep on my defense spending post. I want to clarify that we need to be more selective about how we use our defense spending. We stick our noses in places that we shouldn't be (the U.S. has done that for a long time). We have to work on cutting out needless spending. However, the basic needs of the troops MUST be met, as well as the support they require when they get out of the service. That's where the budget funding has to start. After that, we talk about other budget needs...

Who has argued otherwise?

cutthemdown
01-01-2013, 04:16 PM
The Senate passed a bill worthy of DC lol. Almost 700 billion in taxes and not even 20 billion in spending cuts lol. What a joke. I hope the repubs in the House vote against it. Better to just get all the spending cuts by going over the cliff. They can pass a middle class tax cut after we hit sequestration.

elsid13
01-01-2013, 04:36 PM
Lower education was better before the federal government got involved.

it was far better before everyone decide to create state test that graded and gave/took money to/from schools. Then add all the politics that have been played at the States Board of Education and you have system that is screwed.

elsid13
01-01-2013, 04:47 PM
I think you are right Yoda.

Houghtam considering virtually every member of Congress is a millionaire or mega millionaire I really doubt they would care less.

*edit* HOLY ****!!!! Obama is giving all of the rat bastards a raise! http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/31/obama-gives-congress-pay-raise/

Would be a great symbolic statement if the people had that type of power.

Yes because that 00.5% is going to be a problem. For Congress that means that they get another additional $870.00 a year. For the average GS (which is GS-9 Step 5) it is about $270.00

cutthemdown
01-01-2013, 07:40 PM
Obama got his tax raise. So now will liberals finally agree that he owns the economy going forward no matter how it goes?

Cito Pelon
01-02-2013, 12:05 AM
Obama got his tax raise. So now will liberals finally agree that he owns the economy going forward no matter how it goes?

The House approved it 257-167, so some GOP'rs own the economy going forward also. The responsible ones, anyway. You're a partisan tool, cutt. Everything is the Dem's fault. This is a necessary first step to more comprehensive reform across the board.

Fedaykin
01-02-2013, 12:14 AM
The House approved it 257-167, so some GOP'rs own the economy going forward also. The responsible ones, anyway. You're a partisan tool, cutt. Everything is the Dem's fault. This is a necessary first step to more comprehensive reform across the board.

Not to mention all they really did is put it off auto sequestration for another two months.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_fiscal_cliff#American_Taxpayer_Relie f_Act_of_2012

cutthemdown
01-02-2013, 03:17 AM
Nope its all 100% Obama policy now. High taxes, high spending, big govt. Lets see how it works out.

peacepipe
01-02-2013, 07:03 AM
Nope its all 100% Obama policy now. High taxes, high spending, big govt. Lets see how it works out.
Worked great under Clinton.

peacepipe
01-02-2013, 07:29 AM
Nope its all 100% Obama policy now. High taxes, high spending, big govt. Lets see how it works out.
Worked great under Clinton.

frerottenextelway
01-02-2013, 07:48 AM
The GOP is collapsing before our eyes. Such a shame lol

Rascal
01-02-2013, 08:17 AM
Well my taxes just went up 2%. That's a nice happy new years.

BroncoInferno
01-02-2013, 08:49 AM
Well my taxes just went up 2%. That's a nice happy new years.

You're doing pretty damn well then. Either you're making $400,000 or better as an idividual or $450,000 or better as a family? I think you'll weather the storm.

Meck77
01-02-2013, 09:22 AM
Nope its all 100% Obama policy now. High taxes, high spending, big govt. Lets see how it works out.

It's funny. Obama wins the election and LABF disappears. I guess his work was done.

Let's not forget that QE4 just hit also to the tune of $85,000,000,000 per month with no limit.

I'm beside myself that these aholes are getting a raise. They raised our taxes $600,000,000,000 and did not agree to cut any significant spending. There is a train wreck coming.

If any of you think that just the rich are going to get taxed your are an idiot. You are going to get hit in every direction now. Sales taxes, property taxes, fees at the DMV, hunting license, park entry, you name it. The endless printing of money will catch up and each American is going to pay for it every time you walk out your front door or open your mail to pay bills.

If I'm hearing Obama correctly he flat out wants a blank check now to keep increasing the debt limit. Insane.

Like you said Cutt the Democrats own this economy now. Tax and spend without limit. Wow!

frerottenextelway
01-02-2013, 09:30 AM
You're doing pretty damn well then. Either you're making $400,000 or better as an idividual or $450,000 or better as a family? I think you'll weather the storm.

I assume he's referring to Obama's payroll tax cut expiring, which applies to everyone working.

BroncoInferno
01-02-2013, 10:01 AM
I assume he's referring to Obama's payroll tax cut expiring, which applies to everyone working.

Ah, gotcha.

BroncoInferno
01-02-2013, 10:04 AM
If I'm hearing Obama correctly he flat out wants a blank check now to keep increasing the debt limit. Insane.

You do realize that the purpose of increasing the debt limit is to fullfill commitments that have already been made, not to increase future spending, right? Because it would be stupid NOT to increase the debt ceiling under that proper understanding. This was an uncontroversial issue until the Tea Party lunatics got into Congress.

Pony Boy
01-02-2013, 10:14 AM
I assume he's referring to Obama's payroll tax cut expiring, which applies to everyone working.

The budget deal passed by the U.S. Senate today would raise taxes on 77.1 percent of U.S. households, mostly because of the expiration of a payroll tax cut, according to preliminary estimates from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington.

More than 80 percent of households with incomes between $50,000 and $200,000 would pay higher taxes. Among the households facing higher taxes, the average increase would be $1,635, the policy center said. A 2 percent payroll tax cut, enacted during the economic slowdown, is being allowed to expire as of yesterday.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-01/senate-passed-deal-means-higher-tax-on-77-of-households.html

DenverBrit
01-02-2013, 10:32 AM
Now we have the 'bandaid,' it's time to get serious about the deficit.

Cuts, fixing waste and corruption should be the next order of business, but it will be another partisan food fight. If the House and Senate holds the country hostage again over the debt ceiling, it will be time for the electorate to cull out the partisan hacks at the mid terms.

Unlikely that any will happen.....except the debt ceiling rinse and repeat.

frerottenextelway
01-02-2013, 10:34 AM
The budget deal passed by the U.S. Senate today would raise taxes on 77.1 percent of U.S. households, mostly because of the expiration of a payroll tax cut, according to preliminary estimates from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington.

More than 80 percent of households with incomes between $50,000 and $200,000 would pay higher taxes. Among the households facing higher taxes, the average increase would be $1,635, the policy center said. A 2 percent payroll tax cut, enacted during the economic slowdown, is being allowed to expire as of yesterday.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-01/senate-passed-deal-means-higher-tax-on-77-of-households.html

Ftr, the payroll tax cut was implemented by Democrats against Republican opposition and an extension was in Obama's original plan but removed in the compromise with Republicans. Just so it's clear who supports what.

Meck77
01-02-2013, 10:41 AM
You do realize that the purpose of increasing the debt limit is to fullfill commitments that have already been made, not to increase future spending, right? Because it would be stupid NOT to increase the debt ceiling under that proper understanding. This was an uncontroversial issue until the Tea Party lunatics got into Congress.

You do realize we keep hitting the debt ceiling because of failed policies, bailout outs, and the economy just isn't growing like Obama wanted, with the democrats refusal to seriously cut spending. Not to mention Obama has been rocking the war machine even though he ran on a platform of "Bringing the boys home".

Look I realize everyone has a personal agenda. If I was getting a government check I wouldn't be lobbying for spending cuts either.

Obama got his entitlement votes and it's what got him elected. Will be interesting when those people get lopped off the government tit. It's coming. It has to.

frerottenextelway
01-02-2013, 10:47 AM
You do realize we keep hitting the debt ceiling because of failed policies, bailout outs, and the economy just isn't growing like Obama wanted, coupled with the democrats refusal to seriously cut spending.

Look I realize everyone has a personal agenda. If I was getting a government check I wouldn't be lobbying for spending cuts either.

Obama got his entitlement votes and it's what got him elected. Will be interesting when those people get lopped off the government tit. It's coming. It has to.

Pretty much none of that is true.

http://m.static.newsvine.com/servista/imagesizer?file=steve-benen57CD2902-6D92-9061-2E25-AB4623F0ABDE.jpg&width=600

Deficit is just a code word for going after Social Security and Medicare.

And Obama won the vote of the people that work for a living, btw.

barryr
01-02-2013, 10:59 AM
Taxes going up on everybody that has a job, drives a car, and eats. Not to mention health insurance premiums going up on most that are still alive. Happy days.

BroncoInferno
01-02-2013, 12:04 PM
You do realize we keep hitting the debt ceiling because of failed policies, bailout outs, and the economy just isn't growing like Obama wanted, with the democrats refusal to seriously cut spending. Not to mention Obama has been rocking the war machine even though he ran on a platform of "Bringing the boys home".

Yeah, just like I thought...you didn't realize that raising the debt ceiling does not prevent spending, it prevents us from paying our bills. Unfortunately, the Tea Party nuts in Congress are just as ignorant as you on that point.

Look I realize everyone has a personal agenda. If I was getting a government check I wouldn't be lobbying for spending cuts either.

Obama got his entitlement votes and it's what got him elected. Will be interesting when those people get lopped off the government tit. It's coming. It has to.

LOL Is that you, Mitt?

BroncoInferno
01-02-2013, 12:09 PM
Taxes going up on everybody that has a job

You can thank the GOP for that, FYI. Obama wanted to extend the payroll tax (the 2% increase Rascal mentioned), but it was dropped as a concession to Republicans. Shows once again that they'll fight to the mat to protect the wealthy, but they don't give a damn about the working class.

Arkie
01-02-2013, 12:12 PM
Pretty much none of that is true.

http://m.static.newsvine.com/servista/imagesizer?file=steve-benen57CD2902-6D92-9061-2E25-AB4623F0ABDE.jpg&width=600

Deficit is just a code word for going after Social Security and Medicare.

And Obama won the vote of the people that work for a living, btw.

That graph represents every deficit that went over a trillion. The 2012 bar is inaccurate. It will be bigger than 2010 and 2011. The last four deficits account for 1/3 of our entire debt. No other deficit was half that big before 2009. We are in unchartered waters.

Meck77
01-02-2013, 01:29 PM
Yeah, just like I thought...you didn't realize that raising the debt ceiling does not prevent spending, it prevents us from paying our bills. Unfortunately, the Tea Party nuts in Congress are just as ignorant as you on that point.



LOL Is that you, Mitt?

Having paid off several million dollars in real estate loans in my lifetime I understand how debt works dude.

Maybe I'm just old school and don't believe in running life or in this case our government off a credit card. Cutting costs to you and our government isn't a concept that is understood or practiced.

Ok you win. Everything is fine.

BroncoInferno
01-02-2013, 01:43 PM
Having paid off several million dollars in real estate loans in my lifetime I understand how debt works dude.

Maybe I'm just old school and don't believe in running life or in this case our government off a credit card. Cutting costs to you and our government isn't a concept that is understood or practiced.

Ok you win. Everything is fine.

I didn't say everything is fine, just pointing out that holding the debt ceiling hostage doesn't have any impact on spending. The debt ceiling gets raised to honor spending commitments that have already been made, often years earlier. In other words, failure to raise the debt ceiling won't prevent spending, it will prevent us from paying our bills. It's a dead-beat move, not a fiscally responsible one.

Rascal
01-02-2013, 03:28 PM
You're doing pretty damn well then. Either you're making $400,000 or better as an idividual or $450,000 or better as a family? I think you'll weather the storm.

I'm not making near that.

Social Security tax rate hit.

peacepipe
01-02-2013, 03:35 PM
I'm not making near that.

Social Security tax rate hit.
SS is simply going back to its normal rate. It isn't as if it's some new tax hike.

Fedaykin
01-02-2013, 04:06 PM
If I was getting a government check I wouldn't be lobbying for spending cuts either.

Lazy bull****, as always.

Fedaykin
01-02-2013, 04:08 PM
You can thank the GOP for that, FYI. Obama wanted to extend the payroll tax (the 2% increase Rascal mentioned), but it was dropped as a concession to Republicans. Shows once again that they'll fight to the mat to protect the wealthy, but they don't give a damn about the working class.

The Republicans never met a tax cut that didn't like -- as long as it mostly benefits the rich. A tax cut that actually helps the working and middle class? **** that!

Arkie
01-02-2013, 05:20 PM
You do realize that the purpose of increasing the debt limit is to fullfill commitments that have already been made, not to increase future spending, right? Because it would be stupid NOT to increase the debt ceiling under that proper understanding. This was an uncontroversial issue until the Tea Party lunatics got into Congress.

They use the debt limit to play the public as fools. The debt limit should be discussed before they hike spending. They're already acknowledging the limit will have to be raised to finance their spending. So what's the purpose of having a debt limit? It gets raised every time anyway.

cutthemdown
01-02-2013, 05:22 PM
Anyone who thinks this is the last time Obama tries to raise taxes are crazy. Also at least repubs got the debt limit out of this deal. They can maybe fight for some cuts when Obama has to ask for it to be raised in a couple months.

peacepipe
01-02-2013, 06:00 PM
Anyone who thinks this is the last time Obama tries to raise taxes are crazy. Also at least repubs got the debt limit out of this deal. They can maybe fight for some cuts when Obama has to ask for it to be raised in a couple months.

Obama didn't raise taxes,these tax cuts had an expiration date the moment they were signed into law 10 yrs ago. Obama kept the tax cuts for those that actually need it.

peacepipe
01-02-2013, 06:01 PM
They use the debt limit to play the public as fools. The debt limit should be discussed before they hike spending. They're already acknowledging the limit will have to be raised to finance their spending. So what's the purpose of having a debt limit? It gets raised every time anyway.

The debt limit will be raised so we can pay our bills.

peacepipe
01-02-2013, 06:02 PM
They use the debt limit to play the public as fools. The debt limit should be discussed before they hike spending. They're already acknowledging the limit will have to be raised to finance their spending. So what's the purpose of having a debt limit? It gets raised every time anyway.

Exactly why the debt limit needs to be done away with,but more importantly,because the debt limit is unconstitutional.

Meck77
01-02-2013, 06:11 PM
The debt limit will be raised so we can pay our bills.

LOL

So I'm starting to realize that these guys think paying with a credit card is paying one's bills. Visa and Mastercard love these type of "bill payers".

They probably love you so much they are raising your debt limit so you can cover your "obligations" right?

No need to cut spending! :)

TonyR
01-02-2013, 06:22 PM
Anyone who thinks this is the last time Obama tries to raise taxes are crazy. Also at least repubs got the debt limit out of this deal. They can maybe fight for some cuts when Obama has to ask for it to be raised in a couple months.

The expiration of the temporary income tax break on higher tax brackets (above $400,000 for individuals, $450,000 for couples) impacted you how, exactly? Considering you don't make remotely that kind of money? In your wildest dreams?

Play2win
01-02-2013, 07:42 PM
I just wonder how many congressmen and women are in the $250,000 to $400,000 bracket for their total income.

Requiem
01-02-2013, 07:56 PM
I just wonder how many congressmen and women are in the $250,000 to $400,000 bracket for their total income.

~ 47 percent of Congress is composed of Millionaires. (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2Fblogs%2Fpolitics %2F2011%2F11%2F47-of-congress-members-millionaires-a-status-shared-by-only-1-of-americans%2F&ei=N_PkUNipIKeO2AW56IGwDw&usg=AFQjCNH3J4con2SAT2FHjhRhNSAd1umPKQ&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.b2I)

"About 47 percent of Congress, or 249 current members are millionaires. … In 2010, the estimated median net worth of a current U.S. senator stood at an average of $2.56 million,” according to the Center’s research."

. . . but I see where you are going. ^5

frerottenextelway
01-02-2013, 08:02 PM
LOL

So I'm starting to realize that these guys think paying with a credit card is paying one's bills. Visa and Mastercard love these type of "bill payers".

They probably love you so much they are raising your debt limit so you can cover your "obligations" right?

No need to cut spending! :)

So if you buy something on a credit card it's best not to pay when you get the bill?

Rascal
01-02-2013, 08:25 PM
SS is simply going back to its normal rate. It isn't as if it's some new tax hike.

True or False, I'm paying more in taxes in 2013 than 2012? True.

Meck77
01-02-2013, 08:35 PM
So if you buy something on a credit card it's best not to pay when you get the bill?

If you pay in full yes. The problem is we are stacking up a trillion a year on our "credit card".

Let me make this more clear. Look we can argue what should be cut or who should be taxed more until 2014. Obama and Congress most certainly will.

In the meantime I'd recommend you guys protect your purchasing power of your dxys http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Dollar_Index Here is the trend. The trend is your friend if you understand it.
http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/6122/unitedstatescurrency.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/708/unitedstatescurrency.png/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

peacepipe
01-02-2013, 08:46 PM
LOL

So I'm starting to realize that these guys think paying with a credit card is paying one's bills. Visa and Mastercard love these type of "bill payers".

They probably love you so much they are raising your debt limit so you can cover your "obligations" right?

No need to cut spending! :)
I am starting to realize you don't understand the concept of paying your bills. There is a difference.

peacepipe
01-02-2013, 08:47 PM
True or False, I'm paying more in taxes in 2013 than 2012? True.

Yes,you can thank a Republican for not making the gwb tax cuts permanent.

cutthemdown
01-02-2013, 09:00 PM
I agree for the most part this tax almost symbolic in that it won't make a dent in anything. I was really pleased they raised it out of the 250 grand for couples territory. That gets all the attorneys at the office cleared so now they won't fire me. It was really a pretty big victory for the upper middle class to have that threshold raised.

But if you think that medical device tax, and a bunch of the other ones meant to pay for healthcare aren't going to change things for everyone you are crazy. Another 14 billion in tax breaks for wind, we get that back in higher electrcity for everyone. So there are so many things Obama doing that will make things more expensive over the next 10-20 yrs.

Arkie
01-02-2013, 11:16 PM
I am starting to realize you don't understand the concept of paying your bills. There is a difference.

There is a difference between "paying" your bills and financing them. You wouldn't rack up $7000 on your $5000 credit card and tell them to just raise the limit to get paid. That's not really paying your bills. It's just covering earlier debt with new debt. Nothing is getting paid down. It's the direct opposite.

Pony Boy
01-03-2013, 08:52 AM
I agree for the most part this tax almost symbolic in that it won't make a dent in anything. I was really pleased they raised it out of the 250 grand for couples territory. That gets all the attorneys at the office cleared so now they won't fire me. It was really a pretty big victory for the upper middle class to have that threshold raised.
But if you think that medical device tax, and a bunch of the other ones meant to pay for healthcare aren't going to change things for everyone you are crazy. Another 14 billion in tax breaks for wind, we get that back in higher electrcity for everyone. So there are so many things Obama doing that will make things more expensive over the next 10-20 yrs.

Yes getting the tax threshold raised from 250 TO 450 was awesome ........^5


If you look around at the next Bronco game you attend, you will realize that most of the season ticket holders are probably in the 300K income range for a family, definitely not considered millionaires and billionaires and they already pay taxes out the ass.

DenverBrit
01-03-2013, 09:57 AM
Yes getting the tax threshold raised from 250 TO 450 was awesome ........^5


If you look around at the next Bronco game you attend, you will realize that most of the season ticket holders are probably in the 300K income range for a family, definitely not considered millionaires and billionaires and they already pay taxes out the ass.

You don't know many season ticket holders. ;D

With an income of 300k, most would be millionaires, and all would be if that's investment income........and taxed at 15%

Meck77
01-03-2013, 10:13 AM
There is a difference between "paying" your bills and financing them. You wouldn't rack up $7000 on your $5000 credit card and tell them to just raise the limit to get paid. That's not really paying your bills. It's just covering earlier debt with new debt. Nothing is getting paid down. It's the direct opposite.

Well put. Perhaps peacepipe understands now.

If not watch this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMRLQF8TFmQ

TonyR
01-03-2013, 11:51 AM
The core thing [the fiscal deal] says about [the Republicans] is that they want to reform entitlements and cut spending, but they can’t actually propose any plans to do these things because it would be politically unpopular. This is a terrible problem for them.
- David Brooks.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/02/the-fiscal-riff/?ref=opinion

TonyR
01-03-2013, 11:54 AM
Do keep in mind that Obama pretty much rolled the Republicans, and he has left them in disarray. Did that mean he was "desperate" to cut a deal? I don't think so. It means he knew that getting credit for avoiding the cliff was better than letting the Republicans get blamed for going over it--especially if he could portray them as simultaneously craven and incompetent. He did both.
Obama plays a long game, much longer than any of us realize. I suggest thinking about him with a little more nuance. - a commenter responding to Paul Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/02/that-bad-ceiling-feeling/?comments#permid=113

Arkie
01-03-2013, 12:12 PM
- David Brooks.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/02/the-fiscal-riff/?ref=opinion

Kicking the can down the road sure was popular in the post-WWII era when the burden was light and everybody could reap the benefits while avoiding the costs. Now politicians are having to deal with the politically unpopular decisions kicked to them from earlier politicians. The politically popular thing to do is try and kick it a little further, but the road is coming to an end.

Bronco Yoda
01-03-2013, 12:13 PM
Why do we get stuck on finding ways to deny americans health coverage (our parents, family, friends, & neighbors) instead of finding better ways to cover them.

I recently was reviewing an older relatives prescriptions. It was shocking what her medications cost and was billed to Medicare. Just one asthma med was nearly $500 alone per month. That was just one of many prescriptions.

But let's not stop the pharmaceutical companies from robbing us in this country blind.... oh no. Let's just deny medical coverage eligibility instead.

btw, she use to use over the counter Primetine Mist. instead. $20.00 and would last three months. But because of the ban on cfc's (not kidding here) they took it off the shelves lthis year after being used for nearly 50 years. Now instead of an $8.00 a month over the counter solution medicare will now be billed nearly $500.00 a month.

Does **** like this not piss anyone else off?


Amazing how much of this mess we could fix if we would just use common sense.

Rohirrim
01-03-2013, 01:10 PM
Why do we get stuck on finding ways to deny americans health coverage (our parents, family, friends, & neighbors) instead of finding better ways to cover them.

I recently was reviewing an older relatives prescriptions. It was shocking what her medications cost and was billed to Medicare. Just one asthma med was nearly $500 alone per month. That was just one of many prescriptions.

But let's not stop the pharmaceutical companies from robbing us in this country blind.... oh no. Let's just deny medical coverage eligibility instead.

btw, she use to use over the counter Primetine Mist. instead. $20.00 and would last three months. But because of the ban on cfc's (not kidding here) they took it off the shelves lthis year after being used for nearly 50 years. Now instead of an $8.00 a month over the counter solution medicare will now be billed nearly $500.00 a month.

Does **** like this not piss anyone else off?


Amazing how much of this mess we could fix if we would just use common sense.

The legislature of the U.S. is designed to respond to the needs and directives of special interests, not the American people. Common sense has nothing to do with it. It's your basic quid pro quo system.

TonyR
01-04-2013, 12:18 PM
It is easy to understand why even the most generous person might be averse to paying taxes: Our legislative process has been hostage to short-term political interests and other perverse incentives for as long as anyone can remember. Consequently, our government wastes an extraordinary amount of money. It also seems uncontroversial to say that whatever can be best accomplished in the private sector should be. Our tax code must also be reformed—and it might even be true that the income tax should be lowered on everyone, provided we find a better source of revenue to pay our bills.

But I can’t imagine that anyone seriously believes that the current level of wealth inequality in the United States is good and worth maintaining, or that our government’s first priority should be to spare a privileged person like myself the slightest hardship as this once great nation falls into ruin. - Sam Harris
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/a-new-years-resolution-for-the-rich

Rohirrim
01-04-2013, 12:57 PM
- Sam Harris
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/a-new-years-resolution-for-the-rich

Excellent article. Thanks. I've been reading many things in this vein lately. It's a shame, really, because I no longer believe anything will happen to change our accelerating spiral down into the toilet of history. Like Yeats said, "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." Greed has taken over. It's like watching a bunch of junkies. They either hit bottom and wake the **** up, or die. Unfortunately, they're determined to drag everybody else down with them.

Drunken.Broncoholic
01-04-2013, 01:16 PM
The expiration of the temporary income tax break on higher tax brackets (above $400,000 for individuals, $450,000 for couples) impacted you how, exactly? Considering you don't make remotely that kind of money? In your wildest dreams?

Wrong. I'm downsizing my business and laying off employees(who all of them saw their paycheck shrink this week). So do you think it's affected them too? What about all those employees who will see less hours or a pink slip? None of them make 450,000 yet they will be directly affected

Drunken.Broncoholic
01-04-2013, 01:20 PM
Excellent article. Thanks. I've been reading many things in this vein lately. It's a shame, really, because I no longer believe anything will happen to change our accelerating spiral down into the toilet of history. Like Yeats said, "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." Greed has taken over. It's like watching a bunch of junkies. They either hit bottom and wake the **** up, or die. Unfortunately, they're determined to drag everybody else down with them.

Where you see greed taking over I see laziness and dependence taking over.

This country is pitiful. Im so glad I'm not a kid having to grow up in this shyt hole of a country. Gone are the days of true liberty and pursuit of happiness.

TonyR
01-04-2013, 01:36 PM
Wrong. I'm downsizing my business and laying off employees. So do you think it's affected them too? What about all those employees who will see less hours or a pink slip? None of them make 450,000 yet they will be directly affected

I have a hard time believing that such a small tax increase on income above $400,000 could so radically impact a business. Maybe you don't understand what these changes really mean? Let's do an example (oversimplified):

Let's say your taxable income was $500,000 last year (2012). Your tax would be $151,762 for an effective rate of 30.35%.

Let's say your taxable income will be $500,000 this year (2013). Your tax would be $155,763 for an effective rate of 31.15%.

So your tax increased $4,001, and your effective rate 0.80%.

How many "pink slips" is $4,001 causing at your business?

peacepipe
01-04-2013, 01:45 PM
Where you see greed taking over I see laziness and dependence taking over.

This country is pitiful. Im so glad I'm not a kid having to grow up in this shyt hole of a country. Gone are the days of true liberty and pursuit of happiness.

I hear syria is nice this time of yr,almost no gov to speak of,low taxes, no gun control.what's not to like. You're always welcome to get out of the US if you have such a poor opinion of it.

DenverBrit
01-04-2013, 03:04 PM
Wrong. I'm downsizing my business and laying off employees(who all of them saw their paycheck shrink this week). So do you think it's affected them too? What about all those employees who will see less hours or a pink slip? None of them make 450,000 yet they will be directly affected

Why? Is business so bad that you have to lay off emploees now??

The tax increase for the 450k and above bracket certainly isn't the reason.

Rohirrim
01-04-2013, 09:22 PM
Where you see greed taking over I see laziness and dependence taking over.

This country is pitiful. Im so glad I'm not a kid having to grow up in this shyt hole of a country. Gone are the days of true liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Human beings have the capacity to convince themselves of anything. That's one of the problems. Try reading the article.

cutthemdown
01-04-2013, 10:46 PM
I have a hard time believing that such a small tax increase on income above $400,000 could so radically impact a business. Maybe you don't understand what these changes really mean? Let's do an example (oversimplified):

Let's say your taxable income was $500,000 last year (2012). Your tax would be $151,762 for an effective rate of 30.35%.

Let's say your taxable income will be $500,000 this year (2013). Your tax would be $155,763 for an effective rate of 31.15%.

So your tax increased $4,001, and your effective rate 0.80%.

How many "pink slips" is $4,001 causing at your business?

what if the business also getting hit with Obamacare cost increases? Also capital gains went up 5% on that same bracket so it all adds up.

houghtam
01-05-2013, 07:53 AM
what if the business also getting hit with Obamacare cost increases? Also capital gains went up 5% on that same bracket so it all adds up.

If you make that much money and respond to higher taxes by laying people off, you're morally and intellectually no better than the professional athlete who makes millions of dollars a year and ends up declaring bankruptcy. The amount taxes are going up is negligible, and you'd have to be making millions in order for your taxes to go up enough to have to fire someone to make up that money.

Learn maths. It's taxing income above $400k at that higher rate, not the entire sum.

DenverBrit
01-05-2013, 09:04 AM
what if the business also getting hit with Obamacare cost increases? Also capital gains went up 5% on that same bracket so it all adds up.

It wasn't that long ago when cap gains was 25% and income taxes were higher......the economy was booming and we had a surplus.

The effects of adding health care will vary from business to business, and in many cases, long overdue. The only time I recall not providing healthcare to employees was when we had part time employees in a service industry. For the country to move forward, we really need to 'unhitch' healthcare as an employer obligation and allow individuals to obtain coverage on their own account.

That will require some 'progressive thinking' by both parties. So it will be a while. :)

Arkie
01-05-2013, 11:44 AM
Progressive thinking brought us constitutional change, the Federal Reserve, the IRS, and a powerful federal government. Centralized power leads to more corruption. Like Bush said, a dictatorship would make it a lot easier for him to get what he wants. It's true, spreading the power out creates more checks and balances. We have more centralized power today than any other time in American history.

DenverBrit
01-05-2013, 11:53 AM
Progressive thinking brought us constitutional change, the Federal Reserve, the IRS, and a powerful federal government. Centralized power leads to more corruption. Like Bush said, a dictatorship would make it a lot easier for him to get what he wants. It's true, spreading the power out creates more checks and balances. We have more centralized power today than any other time in American history.

It's never a bad thing to update thinking from the 18th Century........though for some, it's still a work in progress. ;D


pro·gres·sive
[pruh-gres-iv] Show IPA
adjective
1.
favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters: a progressive mayor.

Arkie
01-05-2013, 12:03 PM
It's never a bad thing to update thinking from the 18th Century........though for some, it's still a work in progress. ;D


pro·gres·sive
[pruh-gres-iv] Show IPA
adjective
1.
favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters: a progressive mayor.

It's the centralized power that needs reformed, and I give more credit to the people themselves for any of America's progress and improvement despite the federal government.

DenverBrit
01-05-2013, 12:11 PM
It's the centralized power that needs reformed, and I give more credit to the people themselves for any of America's progress and improvement despite the federal government.

Indeed it does. The system is bloated, intrusive, corrupt, wasteful and deadlocked.

Rohirrim
01-05-2013, 01:26 PM
It's the centralized power that needs reformed, and I give more credit to the people themselves for any of America's progress and improvement despite the federal government.

Maybe we could split the union up into a states run operation? Kind of like the EU? That seems to work well. ;D

It's not the centrality of the power that is the problem, it's the fact that the entire government is for sale to the highest bidders.

Meck77
01-11-2013, 09:26 AM
Just talked to a friend of mine (democrat). He was all fired up this morning because he got his first pay check of the year. Guess he didn't understand the feds were coming after his 40k a year. Well you guys voted for it. You got it.

BroncoInferno
01-11-2013, 09:40 AM
Just talked to a friend of mine (democrat). He was all fired up this morning because he got his first pay check of the year. Guess he didn't understand the feds were coming after his 40k a year. Well you guys voted for it. You got it.

The only tax increase your friend would have seen was the payroll tax holiday expired and returned to 6.1% from 4.2%. First off, it was called a "holiday" because it was never intended as a permanent decrease, just temporary relief during the recession. Second, it wasn't Obama's idea to let the "holiday" expire...he wanted to extend it another year. It was a consession to Republicans...the same GOPers who supposedly don't want to raise taxes on anyone. So, your friend can pin that one on the GOP. Try to educate yourself before you open your mouth on a topic on which you're clearly ignorant.

W*GS
01-11-2013, 09:50 AM
Try to educate yourself before you open your mouth on a topic on which you're clearly ignorant.

Oh, but Meck can't do that - he'd have to quit being a conservative.

Meck77
01-11-2013, 10:35 AM
Obama uses an executive order to raise the pay of congress. Meanwhile the sheeple defend them and accept a pay cut. Fools.

BroncoInferno
01-11-2013, 10:52 AM
Obama uses an executive order to raise the pay of congress. Meanwhile the sheeple defend them and accept a pay cut. Fools.

Yeah, you just completely ignored the fact that the "pay cut" was thanks to the GOP. As usual, the facts don't support your position.

Requiem
01-11-2013, 11:48 AM
Obama uses an executive order to raise the pay of congress. Meanwhile the sheeple defend them and accept a pay cut. Fools.

Why do you have to lie about what actually happened? Inferno has already made this pretty clear.

First:

The EO stopped the pay freeze on federal employees that has been going on for over two years. It wasn't just a raise for people in Congress, it was for all federal workers. The average amount ended up being $700 per person. Yay! I know what you are attempting to do by talking about Congress getting a raise, but you are really missing the point. It ends up being roughly (after you factor in certain things) a marginal .5% to 1% increase in wage, which is extraordinarily low compared to a raise an average private sector employee makes.

Second:

The payroll tax rates are going back to what they were before they were temporarily lowered. As Inferno mentioned, it was a temporary measure to let people have a little bit more in their paycheck during the recession. The Democrats (for the most part) wanted the holiday extended, the Republicans did not.

So. . .

Yeah. BLACK GUYS FAULT!

Meck77
01-11-2013, 01:10 PM
I'm not trying to do anything other than pointing out the government (Executive Branch) is giving themselves raises and cutting the people's pay. The sheeple are asleep and bamboozled by the idea "It's only a small percent to them. It's only a 2% cut to the people". "We are just living the freeze". "That was only temporary relief". Call it what you want.

They GET MORE MONEY AND YOU GOT LESS.

As far as the color of the president. Could give a rats ass. I've met him. He punts his pants on like I do. His are just dry cleaned by our tax dollars.;D

The sheeple have a rude awakening coming sadly enough when the cuts really come their way. But hey the federal employees are taken care of. You mentioned the word recession. That word isn't even understood in DC. Have some friends who lived out there and it was business as usual the last 4 years. They all got their government cheese during the recession. Now they get the bump.

Requiem
01-11-2013, 01:50 PM
I'm not trying to do anything other than pointing out the government (Executive Branch) is giving themselves raises and cutting the people's pay. The sheeple are asleep and bamboozled by the idea "It's only a small percent to them. It's only a 2% cut to the people". "We are just living the freeze". "That was only temporary relief". Call it what you want.

They GET MORE MONEY AND YOU GOT LESS.

As far as the color of the president. Could give a rats ass. I've met him. He punts his pants on like I do. His are just dry cleaned by our tax dollars.;D

The sheeple have a rude awakening coming sadly enough when the cuts really come their way. But hey the federal employees are taken care of. You mentioned the word recession. That word isn't even understood in DC. Have some friends who lived out there and it was business as usual the last 4 years. They all got their government cheese during the recession. Now they get the bump.

In reality, nobody is really getting more. The minimal increase in wages for federal employees (700$ per year, based on the half percent increase) is pretty much washed out with payroll taxes going back to their normal levels because in all likelihood, that amount will easily be withheld from their checks in a 12 month span.

I could give two ****s less that Obama ended the pay freeze. There are a lot of people who work long hours and do a good job, yet didn't get a raise in over two years. As far as I know, most people in the private sector get reviewed for raises at the end of each year. When I was in the private sector after school, I received a raise after 6 months excellent performance on the job. It is hardly the issue and logical mind should be approaching to start discussing government waste, abuse and the Big Men getting a bigger piece of the pie.

It would have been nice to have the payroll holiday extended, but it was a concession made by Democrats to Republicans who didn't want that, nor unemployment benefits (which IIRC, did get extended) to continue. I think they understand what "recession" means, but necessarily don't have a clue about how to get things done effectively. I didn't work a full 80 hours last week because of a doctors appointment, but it will be interesting to see effectively how much less I am taking home when I get my next paycheck.

Not scared of the Gubmint Boogeyman. Not that paranoid, never will be.

And FWIW, I know you don't give a hoot about Obama's skin color. T'was a joke. A little teenie tiny joke.

houghtam
01-11-2013, 07:05 PM
I do quite enjoy it when Meck opens his yap about something that he overheard at the water cooler but doesn't really understand the facts about it and gets abused like a 250lb DT, and then the only response he can muster is "We'll but all I'm sayin' is da gubmint baaaaad. Ya'll sheeple."

Sorry chum, we're not the ones without a clue here.

peacepipe
01-16-2013, 08:53 AM
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/16/1179401/-House-GOP-sends-clear-message-with-Hurricane-Sandy-vote-They-re-ready-to-cave-on-debt-limit

Yesterday, the House of Representatives finally voted to approve long overdue relief aid for the victims of Hurricane Sandy. That's good news, and it's a story in and of itself, but there's another important story about vote—the measure passed despite overwhelming Republican opposition.

Here are the raw numbers:

Yeas: 241 (192 Democrats, 49 Republicans) Nays: 180 (Rep. Jim Cooper + 179 Republicans)

This sort of thing isn't supposed to happen when Republicans control the house. Unlike Democrats, Republicans have a longstanding informal rule that no legislation will come up for a vote unless a majority of Republicans support it. That rule—dubbed the Hastert Rule after former GOP House Speaker Dennis Hastert—is supposed to prevent outcomes like the one last night, where a united Democratic Party teams up with a divided GOP to pass legislation overwhelmingly opposed by Republicans.

But last night they ignored the rule—and it was the second time they ignored it this year. The first time was on New Year's Day, when 85 Republicans joined 172 Democrats in passing the tax cliff deal despite opposition from 151 Republicans.

Until 2013, the Hastert Rule had only been broken once before under John Boehner's speakership, and that was on an obscure measure dealing with weights and measurements. Moreover, on that vote Republicans were actually nearly evenly divided, with 118 Republicans supporting the bill and 122 opposing it. (Boehner didn't vote, so it was really 119 to 122.)

Now, however, Republicans have done it twice—and they've done it twice in two weeks. Not only that, but yesterday the fifth-ranking House Republican refused to rule out doing it again with the debt limit. Altogether, it's as clear a sign as you could possibly get that Republican leaders aren't going to block a debt limit increase. Instead, they'll let their members create as much drama as possible, but will in the end allow the a debt limit increase to come to the floor where it will pass with the backing of all or nearly all Democrats.

Yes, it's true that far-right groups like Club for Growth, The Family Research Council, and The Heritage Foundation are still saber rattling about the debt limit. But these are the same clowns that were saber rattling about the Hurricane Sandy vote—and they lost. As Brian Beutler exhaustively outlines, every major sign points to a lack of resolve on the part of House Republican leadership to block an increase in the debt limit. And it's not just talking heads showing a lack of interest in brinksmanship. As Greg Sargent reported yesterday, there two Republican Senators have now gone on the record opposing a debt limit crisis.

And now that House Republicans have conducted back-to-back major votes in which they've basically ceded power to a coalition of Democrats and the handful of responsible Republicans, they've set a precedent—on major issues facing the nation, a minority of the House doesn't get veto power just because it happens to be a majority of the GOP. That precedent provides the only viable path forward on the debt limit and it is almost certainly the path that will ultimately be followed. The big question is whether it will tear apart the GOP in the process.


With two gop Senators breaking with their party & more likely will break with their party over the next couple of weeks. The debt limit should get raised cleanly.