So What's the Common Ground Moving Forward

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by Cito Pelon

Well, the Beltway guys are finally facing some realities after the election. They're still posturing of course, but they don't have to posture so close to another election. The midterms don't mean so much now, so the GOP House can relax some, give some ground, which will benefit all of us.

What spending cuts are the dems proposing?

[Blart]

Originally Posted by Pony Boy

Liberals will not be happy until they return to the 1950's. In 1955 roughly a third of American workers were union members. The marginal tax rate for the ultra rich was 91% and taxes on corporate profits were twice as large, relative to national income.

Wow, he called it!

I'd love the 1950's, with minorities and women included this time. Leave it to Beaver with two interracial dads, that's my dream.


Back on topic, I don't know.. common ground, hrm. I always liked this meme,



Let's all push for a separation of corporate and state power. Even Sarah Palin speaks out against crony capitalism, a term coined by Ralph Nader. If those two can agree, can't we all? Does anyone here disagree?

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Blart

Wow, he called it!

I'd love the 1950's, with minorities and women included this time. Leave it to Beaver with two interracial dads, that's my dream.


Back on topic, I don't know.. common ground, hrm. I always liked this meme,



Let's all push for a separation of corporate and state power. Even Sarah Palin speaks out against crony capitalism, a term coined by Ralph Nader. If those two can agree, can't we all? Does anyone here disagree?

It would be nice if the American people all got together on the same page regarding that one, wouldn't it?

[Cito Pelon]

Well, apparently the powers that be are not finding common ground in order to move forward.

It's not really common ground that has to be found, but sacrifices of philosophy by both sides to make some incremental progress. Probably stupid for me to think it's possible. It's not like it's happened all that often before - maybe back when Teddy Roosevelt was POTUS.

[cutthemdown]

it's mostly a joke. Obama trys to count saving from winding down the wars as a spending cut. . Then on top of it he wants congress to give up its right to control the debt limit. Then on top of that he wants another 50 billion to spend as he sees fit, and more money for unemployment.

Fiscal cliff here we come.

[Play2win]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

It would be nice if the American people all got together on the same page regarding that one, wouldn't it?

The Anti-Lobby Party.

???

[Bacchus]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

it's mostly a joke. Obama trys to count saving from winding down the wars as a spending cut. . Then on top of it he wants congress to give up its right to control the debt limit. Then on top of that he wants another 50 billion to spend as he sees fit, and more money for unemployment.

Fiscal cliff here we come.

Fiscal cliff doesn't scare me. Eveyrone's taxes goes up and huge cuts to the military and medicare.... sounds like a good start.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by Bacchus

Fiscal cliff doesn't scare me. Eveyrone's taxes goes up and huge cuts to the military and medicare.... sounds like a good start.

Exactly its what Obama really wants but he lies acting like he wants to avert it. he loves the idea of everyones taxes going up.

[Cito Pelon]

Originally Posted by Bacchus

Fiscal cliff doesn't scare me. Eveyrone's taxes goes up and huge cuts to the military and medicare.... sounds like a good start.

The big deal is market crashes worldwide because of uncertainty that the US can get a handle on their own Federal budget. It's a big deal, something that should be avoided. The world needs a stable US.

[Arkie]

Originally Posted by Blart

Wow, he called it!

I'd love the 1950's, with minorities and women included this time. Leave it to Beaver with two interracial dads, that's my dream.


Back on topic, I don't know.. common ground, hrm. I always liked this meme,



Let's all push for a separation of corporate and state power. Even Sarah Palin speaks out against crony capitalism, a term coined by Ralph Nader. If those two can agree, can't we all? Does anyone here disagree?

That's the common ground for the people, but it's ignored by the 535 people running our government. Their common ground is warfare/welfare spending, appealing to one side, and forcing a vote for lesser of two evils..

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

Exactly its what Obama really wants but he lies acting like he wants to avert it. he loves the idea of everyones taxes going up.

he did campaign on ending the GWB tax cuts,and if rethugs aren't willing to compromise,everyones taxes will go up. its a win/win for obama. let them expire,turn around and push for a 250,000 & below tax cut. rethugs have no leverage.

[Cito Pelon]

Well, the GOP came out with their counter-offer. Still don't want to increase taxes on the top 2%. Want to close loopholes, which is fine. Maybe these knuckleheads will reach a compromise.

[Arkie]

Maybe it would be a lot easier to compromise if we didn't try to make 300 million people happy under one umbrella. It's hard to convince people in Arkansas to fund mass transit in San Francisco. We don't need all the same **** as California.

[SoCalBronco]

Originally Posted by Cito Pelon

Well, the GOP came out with their counter-offer. Still don't want to increase taxes on the top 2%. Want to close loopholes, which is fine. Maybe these knuckleheads will reach a compromise.

See thats the thing. The question in all these proposals are, are they designed to be a temporary fix to get past the fiscal cliff or is it a comprehensive package? The GOP package includes about 800B in revenues without raising rates, but the overall size of the program is only 2.2T. That's not very much. They get there, in part, due to increasing eligibility ages for Medicare over time and also using less generous inflationary formulas for various programs, including SS. That's nice and all, but its nowhere near enough to tackle the program. I think CBO said increasing eligibility ages only nets about 250B over 10 years...not too much, so if this is all they really are askign for, I can see why they wouldn't fork over real concessions on taxes (because they arent asking for a ton in return).

If Dems are willing to accept more aggressive changes than that to SS and Medicare, then they prolly are secretly willing to shelve the over 250k Bush cuts and maybe reorganize the entire tax system Bowles-Simpson style to really raise some serious revenue. If Obama isn't willing to accept something more aggressive (i.e. Ryan-style premium support/vouchers, where some of the costs are shifted onto seniors and they can buy Medicare, but they'll have to put about 6k a year in their own money into their HC), then they aren't going to give the Dems the bigger tax prize they want. It's a negotiation.

There's a way to solve this comprehensively. It involves tremendous political pain for both parties, but conceptually it will solve alot of fiscal problems. Go very aggressive on SS/Med and in return we'll do even better than sunsetting the 250k cuts....a full return to the Clinton tax rates for everyone...raises a ton of revenue (and some haircuts for defense, too). I'm willing to accept a short term recession for this, but it has to have both components. That will make a dramatic difference in our fiscal situation.

I want a grand bargain on the scale of 5T in long term savings.

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by SoCalBronco

See thats the thing. The question in all these proposals are, are they designed to be a temporary fix to get past the fiscal cliff or is it a comprehensive package? The GOP package includes about 800B in revenues without raising rates, but the overall size of the program is only 2.2T. That's not very much. They get there, in part, due to increasing eligibility ages for Medicare over time and also using less generous inflationary formulas for various programs, including SS. That's nice and all, but its nowhere near enough to tackle the program. I think CBO said increasing eligibility ages only nets about 250B over 10 years...not too much, so if this is all they really are askign for, I can see why they wouldn't fork over real concessions on taxes (because they arent asking for a ton in return).

If Dems are willing to accept more aggressive changes than that to SS and Medicare, then they prolly are secretly willing to shelve the over 250k Bush cuts and maybe reorganize the entire tax system Bowles-Simpson style to really raise some serious revenue. If Obama isn't willing to accept something more aggressive (i.e. Ryan-style premium support/vouchers, where some of the costs are shifted onto seniors and they can buy Medicare, but they'll have to put about 6k a year in their own money into their HC), then they aren't going to give the Dems the bigger tax prize they want. It's a negotiation.

There's a way to solve this comprehensively. It involves tremendous political pain for both parties, but conceptually it will solve alot of fiscal problems. Go very aggressive on SS/Med and in return we'll do even better than sunsetting the 250k cuts....a full return to the Clinton tax rates for everyone...raises a ton of revenue (and some haircuts for defense, too). I'm willing to accept a short term recession for this, but it has to have both components. That will make a dramatic difference in our fiscal situation.

I want a grand bargain on the scale of 5T in long term savings.

Why should Social Security -- which are not entitlement programs -- get deep cuts when they aren't the problem? Those two programs are currently $2.6 trillion in the black and have been bankrolling the rest of the government for 30 years.

There are plenty of places we can cut before we start stealing money from people who have been paying into that system all their lives. No better than a CEO that raids the pension fund to increase the stock price of the company.

* Trim defense spending back to 2000 levels (inflation adjusted) over the next 5-10 years: savings of ~$300bn+/YR in current dollars when complete
* Cut all other discretionary spending 2.5%/year for the next 5/10 years: ($~200bn/YR in current dollars when complete)
* Raise revenues to the 60 year historical average (~18% of GDP) instead of the current ~15%. ( ~$450 bn ) (yes, 1/2 of the deficit is currently due to loss of revenue *as a percent of* GDP)

300 + 200 + 450 = $950bn, or the vast bulk of our current deficit, without an "austerity" cliff that will not be in anyone's favor (except the elite). We could talk about timetables, %'s etc but you get the idea.

Of course, I've proposed this 50/50 compromise before and been called a "radial left wing" evil librhul, so *shrug*.

And I'm sure I'll be called a radical pinko commie socialist for proposing that we don't **** over the people who been paying into SS/med all their lives despite the fact those programs are not even remotely part of the current problem.

[SoCalBronco]

Actually, SS/Med are the main drivers of the long term debt (esp Medicare), and that's been admitted by the President and confirmed by both left and right think tanks. There MUST be serious changes there. There's no two ways about it. This doesn't mean that this is the only change, certainly it can be supplemented by increased taxes and cuts in other areas, including defense and discretionaries, but this is the biggest issue.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...largest-defic/

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by SoCalBronco

Actually, SS/Med are the main drivers of the long term debt (esp Medicare), and that's been admitted by the President and confirmed by both left and right think tanks. There MUST be serious changes there. There's no two ways about it. This doesn't mean that this is the only change, certainly it can be supplemented by increased taxes and cuts in other areas, including defense and discretionaries, but this is the biggest issue.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...largest-defic/

That link is talking about Medicare + Medicade. I agree Medicade is a problem, mostly because unlike medicare it doesn't have a legislatively defined tax.

Of course, that's where health care reform is important to the equation.

[Rohirrim]

See post #3. This is exactly what I'm talking about. The politicians are lying to the people and the proposals they make are based on those lies. Like Abraham Lincoln said, "Give the people the facts and the country will be safe." What we are getting, from both sides, is lies. Does anybody ever question our military involvements all over the world? Why not? Are we really in such grave danger, to such an extent that we must spend four times more of our GDP than the entire world combined to protect ourselves? Really? Who is this powerful and grave enemy? There's the massive lie. The elephant in the room.

Why are we having the worst recession in 80 years, and yet the rich are getting richer every day? The people who caused this calamity have not been harmed in the least. In fact, they have profited. What has really happened has been a massive redistribution of wealth. Did the equity in millions of homes disappear? No. It shifted from American homeowners accounts into the hands of the greedy banksters. And on top of that was added piles of taxpayer money, robbed from us by the government to fatten up the banksters even more. There's another big lie.

Why is there no more money in the world economy so that working people of the industrial world are told they must sacrifice their security, their health and education systems, their jobs, and their futures, turning them over to the third world, while the rich hide $32 trillion in offshore accounts? There's another lie.

Who do the people in Washington DC represent? You?

Proposals based on lies will amount to nothing but more lies.

Besides, the Right's "solution" is no solution at all. It's simply another example of their fanatical ideological stance that the only fix is to cut the "size" of government and their rabid devotion to the voodoo economics of, "Tax breaks for the rich fix everything" no matter how much evidence accrues to prove that there is no economic benefit whatsoever, except to the rich. Of course, the naked hypocrisy of the Right is evident to all when they insist that, not only should there be no military cuts, but we should cut more social programs so we can buy even more military. They are like the ghost dancers in this charade.

The liars in Washington have allowed pirates to rob us while accepting kickbacks for themselves. They have allowed greedy bastards to ship our livelihoods overseas for their own, individual profit. They have lied us into wars where our children, not theirs, get killed. They suck the lifeblood out of the public weal and then accuse us of selfishness when we ask for simply a chance to make a living for ourselves and our children. They rob us of our future and then blame us for the crime.

The ideology of America is dead. The mythology that was our greatness is extinguished. The greedy use our continuing belief in that mythology simply to steal our wealth. They no longer believe in it. They simply use it as a tool to manipulate us. They sell the lie that we are all in it together while slowly and surely, stripping us of opportunity and freedom. Thus ever have empires dissolved.

This story goes back to our very roots as humans, in Sumeria, 3000 BC. The upper classes, as they gained wealth and power, used the people's fear of their gods to establish their own "divine right" to rule. They simply used the gods against the people. They used the belief system of the people for their own benefit. We see the same pattern in Greece. Then, in Rome where Augustus is constantly extolling the virtues and values of the Republic for public consumption, long after he has strangled the life out of it and taken supreme power to himself.

Here's the truth: They want it all.

Wake the **** up.

Prepare the guillotines, you dumb suckers!

[Fedaykin]

Another reason our current employer based health care system is insane:

It means that Social Security and Medicare have to remain closely tied as far as eligibility age goes. Any increase in the eligibility age of Medicare is effectively an increase in the eligibility age for Social Security, as you can't afford to retire and lose health coverage.

[Rohirrim]

One of my better rants.

[DAN_BRONCO_FAN]

is obama care gonna give me a few new teeth the ones medicade care i can never remember which is which took from me when i was yunger and went to the dentist to get my teeth fix .shure they did fillings but they also pulled teeth and not replaced em
and shouldn't obama care be for the very poor or those who cant afford health care and only then the essentials .
why does everyone has to be taxed for obama care .

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by DAN_BRONCO_FAN

is obama care gonna give me a few new teeth the ones medicade care i can never remember which is which took from me when i was yunger and went to the dentist to get my teeth fix .shure they did fillings but they also pulled teeth and not replaced em
and shouldn't obama care be for the very poor or those who cant afford health care and only then the essentials .
why does everyone has to be taxed for obama care .

Why do illiterate people try to participate in online forums?

[lonestar]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

Why do illiterate people try to participate in online forums?

So forum use should only be for the elitists..

Was always told on every FOOTBALL forum I've ever been on they were for the dissemination of ideas regardless of the point of view..
That participation is not a right but a privilege.

If all you elitists do not like reading certain posters, do what I have done, use the ignore function..

BTW in case you have forgotten this is still a football forum.. If your that concerned about grammar and spelling I'm sure there are plenty of Mensa and uber liberal forums to attend.. Where you are not offended by less than prefect posts....

[DAN_BRONCO_FAN]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

Why do illiterate people try to participate in online forums?

[DAN_BRONCO_FAN]

im surrounded by idiots .
again why should i pay for Obama care
will obama care replace the teeth my dentist removed from me.
why should everyone pay that obama care Tax
why should the rich have to pay for obama care?
do they not make enough to pay for their own medical expenses
why are some of you soo defensive of ohdumbass i mean ohbummer im sorry ohidiot .
why you have to attempt to insult me ?
if he was soo great im shure you could list me his many accomplishments
now try not to get angry now .
you go right ahead and look down on me as you sit there thinking you are some sort of elite god.
but really you are pathetic and you are beneath me