Poll on Fiscal Cliff

[cutthemdown]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

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]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

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]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

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]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

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]

Originally Posted by SoCalBronco

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]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

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]

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]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

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]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

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]

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]

Originally Posted by SoCalBronco

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]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

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]

Originally Posted by SoCalBronco

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]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

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]

Originally Posted by SoCalBronco

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]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

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]

Originally Posted by SoCalBronco

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.

[Crushaholic]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

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]

Originally Posted by Crushaholic

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]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

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]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

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]

Originally Posted by houghtam

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]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

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

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