• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'Gang of Six' revives hope for big deal in stalled debt-ceiling talks

What it does challenge and refute is the non stop rhetoric that Republicans have no plan, are the party of "NO"... etc.etc.etc..... It also forces Democrats into a position of having to now do something.

Yes, the plan is to pass stuff designed to fail in the senate so you can claim you did stuff.
 
Yes, the plan is to pass stuff designed to fail in the senate so you can claim you did stuff.

The plan is to pass "stuff" that makes sense and will solve the situation that nObama put the nation in, but the problem is that nObama and the democrats are not willing to solve the problem since they are used to spend, spend, spend, spend, they are spendcoholics, like drug users that can't stop. Reps. are trying to FINALLY pass the budget that Dems. should have done 2 years ago, instead.. they went on a spending spree and passed policies that are hurting the country.

lester.jpg
 
Last edited:
Fortunately, there is still time for the Republicans to just walk away. They passed a bill in the House. Now it is the democratically-controlled Senate's turn. And the one term Marxist president Obama has yet to offer any real plan. Republicans should tell him they will return to discuss his plan, once he actually has one.

And if nothing happens then the government will be forced to live on what it already compels us to pay.

Fortunately, the financial sector, who would be the biggest losers in a government default, are not going to allow their lackeys, the GOP, to follow through with a default.
So I have no worries the about the government defaulting on its obligations. :sun
 
Even more basically, the US government needs to stop spending money it does not have. It is pretty simple really.

Its not possible to cut enough to reduce our debt without also eliminating some of the tax breaks for the wealthiest. It took both spending and tax cuts to create the debt and reversing that is the only way to reduce our debt.

We also should cut the most wasteful spending first, and that would be our bloated military spending that is almost as much as the rest of the world COMBINED!

Until these things happen, I don't take seriously efforts by either party to reduce the deficit! :sun
 
Last edited:
So I have no worries the about the government defaulting on its obligations. :sun
Nor do I. But for different reasons than you. There is plenty of walking around money. I am sure the one term Marxist president Obama will use some of it.
 
Its not possible to cut enough to reduce our debt without ...
Of course it is. And we just might see it in August.
We also should cut the most wasteful spending first, and that would be our bloated military spending that is almost as much as the rest of the world COMBINED!
Okay. I suggest we look to the Constitution and begin with the departments whose functions are not enumerated. Education, and the EPA could be closed with absolutely no harm to anyone except liberals. They are extra-constitutional busybody groups. Toss them onto the ash heap of history.
 
"The Gang's revised plan proposes deep cuts in Medicare and other health spending"

Will Marshall: Welcome Back, Gang of Six

Your HuffLink has this on Medicare:

The Gang's revised plan proposes deep cuts in Medicare and other health spending, while -- sorry Rep. Ryan -- apparently maintaining the structure of Medicare and Medicaid. It would achieve about $1 trillion in savings by capping domestic spending, including defense, over the next decade. These cuts are way beyond cosmetic.

Here's something Huff missed, which I believe more directly addresses your concern:

Under this plan, the Senate Finance Committee would be required to find $500 billion in healthcare spending cuts over 10 years, though it carries the proviso that cuts cannot come at the expense of services that the poor and elderly rely upon.

Healthcare Finance News
 
Fortunately, there is still time for the Republicans to just walk away. They passed a bill in the House. Now it is the democratically-controlled Senate's turn. And the one term Marxist president Obama has yet to offer any real plan. Republicans should tell him they will return to discuss his plan, once he actually has one.

And if nothing happens then the government will be forced to live on what it already compels us to pay.

They didn't walk away, they were driven away.

"The White House moved the goal post," Boehner said Friday evening in a news conference, claiming that the talks broke down when the White House demanded an additional $400 billion in new revenues, on top of the $800 billion that had been agreed on -- "which was going to be nothing more than a tax increase on the American people," Boehner said. "They refused to get serious about cutting spending and making the tough choices that are facing our country on entitlement reform," he added.

Obama, for his part, had this:

"It's hard to understand why Speaker Boehner would walk away from this deal," a visibly irritated Obama said. "This was an extraordinarily fair deal.

Boehner Ends Debt-Limit Talks With White House, Turns to Senate Leaders - FoxNews.com

Yeah, it's a real head scratcher, isn't it? How long would you dicker with a car salesman who keeps raising the price?
 
Actually, CNN is reporting Boehner asked to roll back a bunch of provisions in healthcare reform and the Whitehouse said "Fine, but we want to roll back the bush tax cuts on the richest Americans."

End of convo.
 
Your HuffLink has this on Medicare:



Here's something Huff missed, which I believe more directly addresses your concern:



Healthcare Finance News

We will have to wait for further details on the Medicare cuts vs Military cuts. And what about the additional tax cuts proposed, totaling over 1.5 trillion?
 
We will have to wait for further details on the Medicare cuts vs Military cuts. And what about the additional tax cuts proposed, totaling over 1.5 trillion?

See #186, to wit

The Gang's plan elminates the AMT and claims by doing so it saves $660 billion in middle class tax payments over the next 10 years. Problem is, the middle class never pays the AMT, because each year a "patch" is legisated exempting them from the tax.

It factors in another $750 billion over 10 years by counting tax credits now set to expire. Trouble there is many will almost certainly be renewed. Same with many of the Bush cuts. Allowing all of them to expire would lead to a middle class tax increase. That's why BO renewed them in December, then vowed never to make that mistake again. Considering he'll either be gone or reelected next time they come up, I believe him.


It's phony baloney funny money savings.

Are you willing to cut any entitlements at all? Any?
 
See #186, to wit




It's phony baloney funny money savings.

Are you willing to cut any entitlements at all? Any?

Yes, I am for cutting all waste or fraud that exist in them, and I am willing to cut military spending by 60% and end both of our wars immediately. Which tax cuts are you prepared to end?
 
Yes, I am for cutting all waste or fraud that exist in them, and I am willing to cut military spending by 60% and end both of our wars immediately. Which tax cuts are you prepared to end?

You didn't answer my question, but I'll answer yours.

None.
 
You didn't answer my question, but I'll answer yours.

None.

We match the national scene exactly then, one side willing to cut spending as a concession and the other side is unwilling to concede cutting any tax breaks for the wealthiest among us.

We'll just leave it up to the voters to decide in 2012. :sun
 
We match the national scene exactly than one side willing to cut spending as a concession and the other side is unwilling to concede cutting any tax breaks for the wealthiest among us.

We'll just leave it up to the voters to decide in 2012. :sun

didn't we hear tonight that the speaker had agreed to $800 billion in revenue increases? If so, why continue this falsehood.
 
We match the national scene exactly then, one side willing to cut spending as a concession and the other side is unwilling to concede cutting any tax breaks for the wealthiest among us.

We'll just leave it up to the voters to decide in 2012. :sun

You still haven't named an entitlement you are willing to cut. Let me try once more.

Will you accept any spending cuts in healthcare?
 
didn't we hear tonight that the speaker had agreed to $800 billion in revenue increases? If so, why continue this falsehood.

Last I heard, Boehner had walked away from the talks with Obama over insistence that some of the temporary tax cuts to the wealthiest be ended.
 
not really. they had hammered out a deal on a $800 Bn tax increase, and then Obama tried to throw another $400 Bn in at the last moment. Hence Boehners repetition of the "jello" analogy - you can't stand on anything the White House gives you. So Boehner told him he wasn't going to swing 1.2 Trillion in tax increases, and the undercurrent is that he sure as hell won't destroy his own career and party trying to swing 1.2 trillion in tax increases for someone who can't be trusted to hold to the deal.
 
You still haven't named an entitlement you are willing to cut. Let me try once more.

Will you accept any spending cuts in healthcare?

I am not willing to cut any of the funding for our seniors, at least until we get our wasteful government spending under control and end the temporary tax cuts to the wealthiest. After we address the waste, then we can look at modifying our health care system that is driving the high cost of health care in this country (for both private insurance and medicare).

Why would you not want to cut wasteful spending before undercutting our seniors?
 
BO has fundamentally transformed the concept of negotiation.
 
I am not willing to cut any of the funding for our seniors, at least until we get our wasteful government spending under control and end the temporary tax cuts to the wealthiest. After we address the waste, then we can look at modifying our health care system that is driving the high cost of health care in this country (for both private insurance and medicare).

Why would you not want to cut wasteful spending before undercutting our seniors?

Hang on... I'm in an argument in another thread with a guy who asked me when will I stop beating my wife...
 
I am not willing to cut any of the funding for our seniors, at least until we get our wasteful government spending under control and end the temporary tax cuts to the wealthiest. After we address the waste, then we can look at modifying our health care system that is driving the high cost of health care in this country (for both private insurance and medicare).

Why would you not want to cut wasteful spending before undercutting our seniors?

well, for one, much of our wasteful spending is in those programs.
 
well, for one, much of our wasteful spending is in those programs.

Not that has been demonstrated to me as of yet. All I hear about is cutting benefits to our seniors who have paid into the system their whole lives so we can continue to spend almost as much on military spending as the rest of the world combined, and tax breaks for people that do not even need them. When get to the point where we spend almost as much as the rest of the world combined on our seniors, and we eliminate the temporary tax cuts to the wealthy, then we can talk about cutting spending for our seniors.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom