RE: Boner walks out, it must be the weekend

RE: Boner walks out, it must be the weekend (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Lucylastic -> RE: Boner walks out, it must be the weekend (7/23/2011 8:21:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity THAT was fucking HILARIOUS Hypocrisy, thy name is Democrat [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: DomImus quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic John Boehner walks away from debt talks (golf is too important to miss I guess.....) How quickly we forget.... but then you and all the other bleeding hearts are so myopic you can't see any fault in your dear leaders. Why dont you read my response to him..... I posted about Obama walking out myself last week. And pointed out that he was acting like Cantor, remember him?? the one who flounced out the week before???

Sanity -> Shifty White House Shifts Again (7/23/2011 8:23:43 AM)
Spun even slightly the other way this AP article could be titled *"Amateur, Incompetent, Deceitful and Boorish - Obama White House Sinks Even Deeper Into Chaos"* Instead it gives him a very favorable spin, even while presenting many very damning facts: quote: White House shifts in unpredictable debt debate WASHINGTON (AP) -- The roller-coaster debate over raising the nation's debt limit has forced the White House to explain away, brush aside or even ignore declarations by President Barack Obama and aides that no longer served much purpose in the unpredictable negotiations. First, the White House wanted a congressional vote separated from spending cuts. Now the administration likes them linked. Obama said he would reject any short-term deal to raise the borrowing limit. Now the White House says he could make an exception. He pledged to meet with congressional leaders every day until a deal was reached. But the daily meetings stopped or at least disappeared from his schedule. He did summon lawmakers to the White House for talks Saturday after the top House Republican walked out Friday night. The White House shifts have been less a matter of flip-flops and more a case of unforeseen twists forcing the administration to reposition as the Aug. 2 deadline to prevent the U.S. from defaulting on its financial obligations draws closer. Anticipation of a deal had built all week, then came crashing down Friday evening when House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, abruptly broke off the talks. The White House's willingness to change course underscores efforts to cast Obama as a reasonable and flexible compromiser in the face of Republican intransigence. Perhaps the most notable shift has been on whether an increase should be linked to spending cuts. The president's opening position: a resounding no. "We do not need to play chicken with our economy by linking the raising of the debt ceiling to anything," White House spokesman Jay Carney said April 11. But a few days later, Obama told The Associated Press in an interview that raising the debt ceiling wasn't going to happen without some cuts. Three months later, the White House has bowed to that political reality, acknowledging Republicans would block an increase without the cuts and promoting the benefits of linking the two.... Full article here

mnottertail -> RE: Shifty White House Shifts Again (7/23/2011 8:29:45 AM)
The Article should be headlined: Teabaggers are inept, incompetent and ruining this country, they want only to steal money from Americans to appease corporations, and to suck each other off in the Minneapolis Airport and make others pay for their prosecution, borrow and spend, borrow and spend. That's what I got out of the Article. But of course the right as always will engage in namecalling and hateful speech attacking the left, since they are incapable of advancing sound ideas and dealing in fact.

Musicmystery -> RE: Shifty White House Shifts Again (7/23/2011 8:32:50 AM)
Who cares anymore? Lock both bozos in a room and don't feed them until they hammer out an agreement or die of starvation. Debt reduction, in fact, just balancing the budget, is going to take revenue increases and spending cuts. The House wants all cuts. However, you could eliminate ALL discretionary spending and eliminate medicare completely---and you STILL wouldn't have a balanced budget. You could eliminate all discretionary spending and completely cut social security--and you STILL wouldn't have a balanced budget. You could slash defense, social security, medicare, medicaid, and discretionary spending by a third--and you STILL wouldn't have a balanced budget. You could eliminate all discretionary spending and slash defense spending 80%--and you STILL wouldn't have a balanced budget. Spending cuts alone are NOT going to do this! The House is in Disneyland. Spending cuts alone, even as severely overstated as above, as NOT going to balance the budget. Plans to rely on cuts alone, even severe ones, are going to STILL leave us with climbing debt, year after year after year. Argue about what KIND of revenue increases, which taxes, on what, on whom, fine. Eliminate the Bush tax cuts--for everyone. Add a VAT. Raise payroll taxes a half a percent (after eliminating the one year cut). Because without revenue increases---and not the fantasy "Oh we'll just grow our way out of a $1.27 trillion deficit" (let alone reducing the debt)--debt will continue to grow, year after year, and interest rates and inflation in its wake. And the notion of default is just ridiculous. We'd throw away all confidence in our markets. Beyond irresponsible.

NeedToUseYou -> RE: Shifty White House Shifts Again (7/23/2011 9:29:22 AM)
I'm really close to literally hating both sides on this one. This isn't rocket science. There is room to cut, and obviously some taxes will have to be "temporarily" added. Here would be a good start. We will let one side decide where to cut 500 Billion a year, and we let the other side decide where to increase taxes by 500 billion a year. There dems get one job Repubs get the other job. I'd suggest 250 Billion cut in offense first year. Now, all that is left is the other 250 billion. Hrmmm, I can do that pretty easy, Raise SS Age, Raise Medicare Age, eliminate all subsidies for corps and individuals. Oh, and remove HUD, they are incompetent, I just bought a foreclosed house from them, and they are not impressive. Anyway, Surely after the Offense cut, either party can find 250 billion a year. Then the other party gets to determine where the tax rate increase comes from I'd suggest first target would be capital gains tax (after 0 tax up to 15000 a year on any capital gains). Second target would be an additional tax bracket for those making over 1 million a year. If you want you can impose a universal tariff on imports at some low level. Anyway, IMO, any tax increase should not effect anyone making up to 250K a year(minimum, 250K is not rich, that is the income of someone humping it hard, and they are probably investing it in a business or something). The corporate tax rate could be rewritten. I'd probably change that to 15% tax up to 500,000, then after that a flat 38% tax. But that might end up just being a flat change, but it'd still promote smaller businesses better. Oh, and I'd have little problems with accepting a stock trading tax of some sort. Anyway, either side will have to give more than they are willing to give thus far for a meaningful solution. These are not what I'd personally want to see happen in my perfect vision of the government, as that would be eliminate SS over time, Eliminate Medicare over time, Eliminate all government interaction in the housing market, Eliminate a bunch of federal departments. Cut the Offense budget down to a 1/3rd. So, that is me compromising. LOL. The point however is that a simple solution is equal cuts for equal tax increases. I say we deal with the initial 1 trillion dollars in deficit, and let the remaining 500 Billion ride for now and then raise the debt ceiling.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Shifty White House Shifts Again (7/23/2011 10:18:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou The point however is that a simple solution is equal cuts for equal tax increases. I say we deal with the initial 1 trillion dollars in deficit, and let the remaining 500 Billion ride for now and then raise the debt ceiling. For the economic impact to be the same spending cuts need to be 2 to 2.5 times any tax increases.

Musicmystery -> But the House isn't even going there. (7/23/2011 11:07:25 AM)
Not that it matters. The House has no intention of balancing the budget, as it's not going to raise taxes, even as debt grows ever larger, and even as they know spending cuts alone won't do it. Instead, they'll cry "We couldn't get the cuts we wanted," as if that would have done it, and try to ride that into 2012. It's going to take revenue enhancement as well. They know this. They just aren't going to do it.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: But the House isn't even going there. (7/23/2011 11:11:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Not that it matters. The House has no intention of balancing the budget, as it's not going to raise taxes, even as debt grows ever larger, and even as they know spending cuts alone won't do it. Instead, they'll cry "We couldn't get the cuts we wanted," as if that would have done it, and try to ride that into 2012. It's going to take revenue enhancement as well. They know this. They just aren't going to do it. Once again, there are many paths to revenue enhancement. A balanced budget amendment that targets reducing the projected deficit in 10 years to 2008 levels by itself would be enough to stimulate the economy enough to make a huge dent. Releasing $1 trillion in pent up investments by itself would be a huge revenue enhancer.

lockedaway -> RE: But the House isn't even going there. (7/23/2011 11:12:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Not that it matters. The House has no intention of balancing the budget, as it's not going to raise taxes, even as debt grows ever larger, and even as they know spending cuts alone won't do it. Instead, they'll cry "We couldn't get the cuts we wanted," as if that would have done it, and try to ride that into 2012. It's going to take revenue enhancement as well. They know this. They just aren't going to do it. No it doesn't. You can try to sell that shit all day long, pal. It takes broadening the tax base. The U.S. government takes in approximately 170 billion per month. It spends approximately 310 billion per month. How much do our armed forces consume in Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq per day? How many millions of people pay NOTHING in taxes? How many programs can be terminated altogether? How many other things can be cut? The fact is, MM, you WANT a tax increase. You WANT one because you are as much into this class warfare bullshit as the other libs on this board. People earned what they earned, some got rich, some got filthy rich and in your mind, it was done at your expense. You are a class warfare guy and so is your president.

Musicmystery -> RE: But the House isn't even going there. (7/23/2011 11:14:56 AM)
I'm sorry you find simple mathematics so....taxing. But reality is reality. You have opinion and attitude. I have the numbers. Because that's what a deficit is---negative numbers. Revenue as a percentage of GDP has dropped and dropped from the moment of the Bush tax cuts. They were reckless and irresponsible then, as Greenspan warned, and they continue to do their damage.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: But the House isn't even going there. (7/23/2011 11:16:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery But reality is reality. You have opinion and attitude. I have the numbers. You have the wrong numbers. STATIC numbers and projections are total bullshit. Thats why the stochastic modeling my company does is becoming more and more mainstream in business. One of these days the CBO will catch up. On second thought, maybe not, since the "non-partisan" group is just a propoganda tool that both sides use to justify untenable positions.

lockedaway -> RE: But the House isn't even going there. (7/23/2011 11:16:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Not that it matters. The House has no intention of balancing the budget, as it's not going to raise taxes, even as debt grows ever larger, and even as they know spending cuts alone won't do it. Instead, they'll cry "We couldn't get the cuts we wanted," as if that would have done it, and try to ride that into 2012. It's going to take revenue enhancement as well. They know this. They just aren't going to do it. Once again, there are many paths to revenue enhancement. A balanced budget amendment that targets reducing the projected deficit in 10 years to 2008 levels by itself would be enough to stimulate the economy enough to make a huge dent. That isn't what he wants, Willbe, know your enemy. If enemy is too strong a word for you, that's fine. But know your opposition. Here is a question...MM feels it is imperative to raise taxes, right? Why not do the balanced budget amendment, do the cuts, do a flat tax, do a federal income tax and see where it goes for one year? At the end of that one year, you might have to do a graduated flat tax where over $500,000 per year pay 12.5% and over 2 million per year pay 15%. Whatever! We aren't talking in absolutes. MM wants everyone on this board to THINK we are...it is either THIS or its THAT! But it doesn't work that way. :) :) :) We can always raise taxes. It is a last ditch response that can have a very negative impact but the fact remains it is an option that can be exercised any time. MM doesn't want people to think that way...it makes them too open to suggestions.

Musicmystery -> RE: But the House isn't even going there. (7/23/2011 11:18:46 AM)
quote: Once again, there are many paths to revenue enhancement. A balanced budget amendment that targets reducing the projected deficit in 10 years to 2008 levels by itself would be enough to stimulate the economy enough to make a huge dent. And once again, you can't grow your way out of this---it's how we got INto it. Ten more years of growing debt--that's your plan. A balanced budget amendment when you can't even balance THIS budget (or the 2008 one) with cuts and the "revenue enhancement" that's dropped as a percentage of GDP since Bush took office. You're dreaming, and you're ignoring simple objective reality. You haven't got the numbers. You're for continuing to add to the debt in hopes the Deficit Fairy will come in a decade and make it all better.

Musicmystery -> RE: But the House isn't even going there. (7/23/2011 11:20:33 AM)
quote: Why not do the balanced budget amendment, do the cuts Because you can't even balance THIS year's budget. What a fricking fantasy world you guys live on. See where it goes--that's your plan. Hope. Good luck with the Deficit Fairy. Dump your bonds now.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: But the House isn't even going there. (7/23/2011 11:21:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lockedaway quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Not that it matters. The House has no intention of balancing the budget, as it's not going to raise taxes, even as debt grows ever larger, and even as they know spending cuts alone won't do it. Instead, they'll cry "We couldn't get the cuts we wanted," as if that would have done it, and try to ride that into 2012. It's going to take revenue enhancement as well. They know this. They just aren't going to do it. Once again, there are many paths to revenue enhancement. A balanced budget amendment that targets reducing the projected deficit in 10 years to 2008 levels by itself would be enough to stimulate the economy enough to make a huge dent. That isn't what he wants, Willbe, know your enemy. If enemy is too strong a word for you, that's fine. But know your opposition. Here is a question...MM feels it is imperative to raise taxes, right? Why not do the balanced budget amendment, do the cuts, do a flat tax, do a federal income tax and see where it goes for one year? At the end of that one year, you might have to do a graduated flat tax where over $500,000 per year pay 12.5% and over 2 million per year pay 15%. Whatever! We aren't talking in absolutes. MM wants everyone on this board to THINK we are...it is either THIS or its THAT! But it doesn't work that way. :) :) :) We can always raise taxes. It is a last ditch response that can have a very negative impact but the fact remains it is an option that can be exercised any time. MM doesn't want people to think that way...it makes them too open to suggestions. Honestly, despite the last few days I dont think MM is a tax increase idealogue or into "class warfare". He just relies on pop-economics because getting deeper than that is extremely time consuming and does mean abandoning liberal writers that he happens to agree with on other issues.

Sanity -> RE: But the House isn't even going there. (7/23/2011 11:23:03 AM)
Why does that sound familiar quote: that's your plan. Hope.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: But the House isn't even going there. (7/23/2011 11:23:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Dump your bonds now. First correct thing youve said today. But not because of the deficit itself, but because if Obama even manages to force a temporary increase in the cap and there arent drastic spending reductions the days of inflation get that much closer.

mnottertail -> RE: But the House isn't even going there. (7/23/2011 11:25:23 AM)
Because your party will not change, and quit borrowing, change and face reality, change and do the job you were elected to do, and so on.

lockedaway -> RE: But the House isn't even going there. (7/23/2011 11:27:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: Why not do the balanced budget amendment, do the cuts Because you can't even balance THIS year's budget. What a fricking fantasy world you guys live on. See where it goes--that's your plan. Hope. Good luck with the Deficit Fairy. Dump your bonds now. Wrong, MM. With or without the August 2 deadline, we STILL have revenue that will come in. Guess what!!!!! On August 3, I will go to work and court like I always do. The sky will not have fallen, the earth won't be off of its axis...nothing. Your cocksucker president has done nothing but mire us in debt. You think I'm worried about Aug 2? I'm not. I have no credit card debt anymore. I have no variable interest liability whatsoever. So...is it time for a remarkable slash and burn of a federal government that has been hopelessly globalist and corrupt for the past 22 years? Sure...why not. A balanced budget amendment, an overhaul of the tax system that would certainly be REVENUE POSITIVE! Read those words again, MM, REVENUE POSITVE would have an immediate beneficial impact. Let's get one thing straight folks. MM somehow believes that taxing 150 million or so people who don't pay taxes would not be revenue positive. Get it? That is his position.

Musicmystery -> RE: But the House isn't even going there. (7/23/2011 11:28:58 AM)
quote: You have the wrong numbers. STATIC numbers and projections are total bullshit. Thats why the stochastic modeling my company does is becoming more and more mainstream in business. One of these days the CBO will catch up. On second thought, maybe not, since the "non-partisan" group is just a propoganda tool that both sides use to justify untenable positions. Fine. Let's see your numbers.......you only have allusions to them. It's the projected budget. It's what we're going to spend. And both sides have nothing close to a balanced budget. It will take cuts, it will take taxes. Except in Wonderland.

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875