U.S. Politics - Page 531 - Cyclingnews Forum

Go Back   Cyclingnews Forum > Cafe > General

General Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #5301  
Old 11-28-12, 21:07
VeloCity's Avatar
VeloCity VeloCity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,096
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Oh, I see.

That is kinda rigid. Sorta like the dems and entitlement cut compromises.

So we have gone full circle (again). Your side is principled, the other side isn't. Got it.
The difference is that the Ds are willing to put it all on the table - spending cuts, entitlements, defense, and taxes. The Rs are not.

Quote:
For many Democrats, these entitlement programs are part of their core identity — aggressively protecting the social safety net programs created by the New Deal and the Great Society is as much a part of the progressive worldview as tax cuts and smaller government are for conservatives. And if President Barack Obama reaches a bipartisan deal with GOP leaders that cuts entitlements, he can expect a rebellion from his allies on the Hill — that is, unless he wins what they consider major concessions from Republicans on taxes.
Ds (and Obama) will talk tough on entitlements but they've made it well know that they're willing to compromise if Rs are willing to compromise on revenues. But Rs have very stupidly painted themselves into a corner with their No New Taxes Evuh! stance. That might be politically expedient when times are good and we have budget surpluses, but now it just looks ridiculous to be that inflexible.
Reply With Quote
  #5302  
Old 11-28-12, 21:07
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,287
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeloCity View Post
Here in the real world, it's striking a fair balance between spending and revenues and always has been.
Surely, if there is hundreds of billions in waste that would not effect the functionality of the DOD then there must be hundreds of billions in wasteful medicare? Hundreds of billions of waste in other discretionary spending, er, welfare? Hundreds of billions in wasteful spending in Social Security?

Even this lousy economy is producing $2.5 trillion in revenue... This lousy economy's revenue would almost balance the budget just going back to the spending levels of 2007.

Yep. It's purely a spending problem. Always has been.
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #5303  
Old 11-28-12, 21:27
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,287
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeloCity View Post
The difference is that the Ds are willing to put it all on the table - spending cuts, entitlements, defense, and taxes. The Rs are not.

Ds (and Obama) will talk tough on entitlements but they've made it well know that they're willing to compromise if Rs are willing to compromise on revenues. But Rs have very stupidly painted themselves into a corner with their No New Taxes Evuh! stance. That might be politically expedient when times are good and we have budget surpluses, but now it just looks ridiculous to be that inflexible.
Quote:
The difference is that the Ds are willing to put it all on the table - spending cuts, entitlements, defense, and taxes. The Rs are not.
Other than talk, where's the President's plan? Where? The short answer is there isn't one, it's all talk and BS and everybody knows it.

Show me the plan.

Quote:
Ds (and Obama) will talk tough on entitlements but they've made it well know that they're willing to compromise if Rs are willing to compromise on revenues.
You are being spun. There's no plan. There's no cut on the table.

Quote:
But Rs have very stupidly painted themselves into a corner with their No New Taxes Evuh! stance.
There will be new revenues from upper middle class and the "wealthy" as defined by AGI over $250k, or $500k... wherever it lands.

Show me where the cuts are? Problem: You can't. There are no entitlement cuts or reforms being discussed.

Quote:
That might be politically expedient when times are good and we have budget surpluses, but now it just looks ridiculous to be that inflexible.
Republican Senator Corker, yesterday:

Quote:
I have shared with House and Senate leaders as well as the White House a 242-page bill that, along with other agreed-upon cuts that are to be enacted, would produce $4.5 trillion in fiscal reforms and replace sequestration. While I know this bill can be improved, it shows clearly that we can do what is necessary, today, with relatively simple legislation. The proposal includes pro-growth federal tax reform, which generates more static revenue — mostly from very high-income Americans — by capping federal deductions at $50,000 without raising tax rates. It mandates common-sense reforms to the federal workforce, which will help bring its compensation in line with private-sector benefits, and implements a chained consumer price index across the government, a more accurate indicator of inflation. It also includes comprehensive Medicare reform that keeps in place fee-for-service Medicare without capping growth, competing side by side with private options that seniors can choose instead if they wish. Coupled with gradual age increases within Medicare and Social Security; the introduction of means testing; increasing premiums ever so slightly for those making more than $50,000 a year in retirement; and ending a massive “bed tax” gimmick the states use in Medicaid to bilk the federal government of billions, this reform would put our country on firmer financial footing and begin to vanquish our long-term deficit.
Quote:
I am encouraged that leaders of both parties have shown openness toward a long-term solution. House Speaker John Boehner has pledged to put raising revenue on the table as long as it is accompanied with fundamental reforms to entitlements, especially Medicare. And President Obama has indicated a willingness to tackle entitlement reforms if accompanied by revenue.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...cc9_story.html

There's a plan. Where's Obama's?
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #5304  
Old 11-28-12, 21:29
VeloCity's Avatar
VeloCity VeloCity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,096
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Surely, if there is hundreds of billions in waste that would not effect the functionality of the DOD then there must be hundreds of billions in wasteful medicare? Hundreds of billions of waste in other discretionary spending, er, welfare? Hundreds of billions in wasteful spending in Social Security?
Of course. No one is disputing that. But the problem is that's all the Rs want to do - cut entitlements. Not defense, not address the revenue issues, just cut entitlements.

Which, of course, will impact the poor, minorities, students, the young, and the elderly the most - not exactly the R constituency, eh? Have you ever noticed that for all of their talk about spending cuts that Rs never ask for any sacrifice from the wealthy, ie the segment of the population that can actually most afford it? Why, it makes one wonder if no-new-taxes-evuh! might just be political posturing and not any real attempt at fiscal responsibility! Huh. Who'da thunk it.

Quote:
Even this lousy economy is producing $2.5 trillion in revenue... This lousy economy's revenue would almost balance the budget just going back to the spending levels of 2007.

Yep. It's purely a spending problem. Always has been.
Without the Bush tax cuts the deficit would be a fraction of what it is (and without the Bush tax cuts in combination with the Bush spending spree - which, I'll point out again, you and other conservatives had no problem with at the time; how many times did the debt ceiling go up under Bush with no fuss from the right? 7? 8? - we might even still have a surplus). It's a spending and revenue problem. Always has been.
Reply With Quote
  #5305  
Old 11-28-12, 22:01
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,287
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeloCity View Post
Of course. No one is disputing that. But the problem is that's all the Rs want to do - cut entitlements. Not defense, not address the revenue issues, just cut entitlements.

Which, of course, will impact the poor, minorities, students, the young, and the elderly the most - not exactly the R constituency, eh? Have you ever noticed that for all of their talk about spending cuts that Rs never ask for any sacrifice from the wealthy, ie the segment of the population that can actually most afford it? Why, it makes one wonder if no-new-taxes-evuh! might just be political posturing and not any real attempt at fiscal responsibility! Huh. Who'da thunk it.

Without the Bush tax cuts the deficit would be a fraction of what it is (and without the Bush tax cuts in combination with the Bush spending spree - which, I'll point out again, you and other conservatives had no problem with at the time; how many times did the debt ceiling go up under Bush with no fuss from the right? 7? 8? - we might even still have a surplus). It's a spending and revenue problem. Always has been.
Quote:
Have you ever noticed that for all of their talk about spending cuts that Rs never ask for any sacrifice from the wealthy, ie the segment of the population that can actually most afford it? Why, it makes one wonder if no-new-taxes-evuh! might just be political posturing and not any real attempt at fiscal responsibility!
Do you think it's smart to keep demanding more and more from fewer and fewer?

Since we've established that it's a spending problem, not a revenue problem then wouldn't logic dictate that we attack spending?

Quote:
Without the Bush tax cuts the deficit would be a fraction of what it is
Absolute utter nonsense.
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #5306  
Old 11-28-12, 22:06
VeloCity's Avatar
VeloCity VeloCity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,096
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Other than talk, where's the President's plan? Where? The short answer is there isn't one, it's all talk and BS and everybody knows it.

Show me the plan.



You are being spun. There's no plan. There's no cut on the table.
The whole point: the Ds (and Obama) are willing to negotiate on spending cuts. It's the Rs who are trapped - they can't even talk about taxes without looking like hypocrites because of their dumb pledges to Grover.

We're not the side that's being spun, Scott - the Rs have gotten themselves into this ideological trap and now they're trying to convince you that the entire problem is on the spending side so that they don't have to break their no-taxes pledge. It's not - it's a spending and revenues issue. Ds are willing to put both on the table. Rs (so far, although they're going to have to bend at some point) are not. Simple as that.

And even then, Rs are only willing to cut entitlements, so how can anyone take them seriously that it's a spending issue when defense is untouchable? So let's call it for what it really is, cherry-picking - it's a " spending issue" when it comes to social programs, not so much an issue when it comes to defense. When Rs (and to be fair, some Ds as well) start talking about significant cuts to defense spending in addition to entitlements (and increasing revenues) then we'll start to get somewhere.

Quote:
Republican Senator Corker, yesterday:





http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...cc9_story.html

There's a plan. Where's Obama's?
"Without raising tax rates". That's not a plan, Scott, that's a dodge.

Last edited by VeloCity; 11-28-12 at 22:12.
Reply With Quote
  #5307  
Old 11-28-12, 22:17
VeloCity's Avatar
VeloCity VeloCity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,096
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Do you think it's smart to keep demanding more and more from fewer and fewer?

Since we've established that it's a spending problem, not a revenue problem then wouldn't logic dictate that we attack spending?
You don't listen very well. It's a spending and revenue problem. There's two sides to every balanced equation. Until you guys start to realize that, we're not going to get anywhere.

Quote:
Absolute utter nonsense.
OK maybe not a fraction. Let's say about half.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...2-11-FINAL.jpg

That's an awful lot of yellow.

Or, let's look at it this way:

Quote:
After 2013, Democrats will be able to tell the following story:

"The Bush tax cuts were in place from 2002 through 2012, ten years. In the first half of the decade, we experienced the weakest economic expansion since the war. In the second half of the decade, we suffered the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

"Then the tax cuts expired. And since 2013, we've seen accelerating economic growth and rapidly decreasing unemployment.

"Tax cuts didn't help. Tax increases didn't hurt."

Republicans will need a better answer to that claim than the pure assertion that tax cuts will lead to 4% growth. Looking back through the IMF charts, I see that US growth exceeded 4% in nine of the past 30 years:

2000
1999
1998
1997
1994
1988
1985
1984
1983

In every one of those years except 1988, the top marginal rate of income tax exceeded the present 35%.

Meanwhile, the years of lowest marginal tax rates are the five years from 1988 through 1993, and the ten years since 2002. Over those 15 years, growth averaged less than 2%.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...rowth-ctd.html

Last edited by VeloCity; 11-28-12 at 22:21.
Reply With Quote
  #5308  
Old 11-28-12, 22:26
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,287
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeloCity View Post
The whole point: the Ds (and Obama) are willing to negotiate on spending cuts. It's the Rs who are trapped - they can't even talk about taxes without looking like hypocrites because of their dumb pledges to Grover.

We're not the side that's being spun, Scott - the Rs have gotten themselves into this ideological trap and now they're trying to convince you that the entire problem is on the spending side so that they don't have to break their no-taxes pledge. It's not - it's a spending and revenues issue. Ds are willing to put both on the table. Rs (so far, although they're going to have to bend at some point) are not. Simple as that.

And even then, Rs are only willing to cut entitlements, so how can anyone take them seriously that it's a spending issue when defense is untouchable? So let's call it for what it really is, cherry-picking - it's a " spending issue" when it comes to social programs, not so much an issue when it comes to defense. When Rs (and to be fair, some Ds as well) start talking about significant cuts to defense spending in addition to entitlements (and increasing revenues) then we'll start to get somewhere.

"Without raising tax rates". That's not a plan, Scott, that's a dodge.
No they are not.

Quote:
It's the Rs who are trapped - they can't even talk about taxes without looking like hypocrites because of their dumb pledges to Grover.
The R's are trapped but not for the reasons you think. Revenue is on the table right now. Where are the reforms? Where are we going to cut?

And you guys were horribly exposed on the defense cuts... The WH begging defense contractors not to hand out pinks slips before the election. It was pathetic. Defense is as much an entitlement as any other program we have.

Gut it already and quit whining.
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #5309  
Old 11-28-12, 22:26
Hugh Januss's Avatar
Hugh Januss Hugh Januss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: socal
Posts: 5,918
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn_Wilson View Post
I don't have a clue but will play along.

How in the hell did y'all let Black Friday across the border?????? WTF?

I was in Canadian Tire the other day getting some tools and the sign said Black Friday sale. I had to stop and stare at it and let it sink in. THEY HAD followed me up here! Capitalist pigs.

Hey man I got a MCP card but have not used it. guess I should try it out.
Glenn, did you move to Canada when Obama was reelected?
__________________
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings."

Proud member of the Clinic 1200
Reply With Quote
  #5310  
Old 11-28-12, 22:32
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,287
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeloCity View Post


"Without raising tax rates". That's not a plan, Scott, that's a dodge.
Are you really going to tell this board that capping personal deductions to $50,000 is not a tax increase? Are you really going to suggest that?

The "wealthy" will bear the brunt of this, isn't that what you want? Did you read the article regarding the British Millionaires disappearing after taxes were raised there? How do you suppose that happened?

Hmmmmm, perhaps they took full advantage of tax loop holes and deductions? Eliminating deductions is a helluva lot more effective than raising rates. Hell, raising the rates COST the Brits 7bn pounds in lost revenue.

Yeah, that's smart.
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:42.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.