Page 10 of 20 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 192

Thread: White House won't accept new tax offer from Republican leader

  1. #91
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: White House won't accept new tax offer from Republican leader

    Here is the article again, for those who want to know.

    The real debt problem gets lost in fiscal cliff debate - Dec. 11, 2012
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  2. #92
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,274

    Re: White House won't accept new tax offer from Republican leader

    Earlier Boo accused me of not knowing details of what was turned down by Obama, and he was right, but more is coming out...Check this out...

    House Speaker John A. Boehner has offered to push any fight over the federal debt limit off for a year, a major concession that would deprive Republicans of leverage in the budget battle but is breathing new life into stalled talks over the year-end “fiscal cliff.”

    The offer came Friday, according to people in both parties familiar with the talks, as part of the latest effort by Boehner (R-Ohio) to strike a deal with President Obama to replace more than $500 billion in painful deficit-reduction measures set to take effect in January.

    Boehner offers to take debt limit off the table - The Washington Post
    This President is intent on neutering congress' ability to oversee the spending...Another constitutional grab.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  3. #93
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: White House won't accept new tax offer from Republican leader

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I did provide examples. Some people confuse links with examples. Is that what you're doing?

    Bush said he could do what ever he wanted when he won his second term because he had a mandate. Now, you don't really need me t link that, do you? See, in debate, you don't need to link common knowledge. And as you decided to participate in debate, it is expected that you know what is commonly known.

    You should also be aware of how politics have been played for some time. You should know both the comment made by a republican that republicans main job was to stop Obama from any success, and the complaints by liberals that democrats repeatedly caved into republicans. These are commonly known. I can link them when I get to a computer, but really you should be aware.
    Ok, I see a reference to the OP Article. However I see no other "evidence" supporting your claim nor do I see an relation between the article and the statement you made about Reps. I have reviewed all your post in this thread and not, in a single post have you provided any intelligible or substantial support of our position. The best you have done so far is play semantics, contend that article did not provide enough information (I give you this, as I also found it incomplete, but I did find that it focused on just how much compromise was proposed on the issue that Reps were balking at, but not much on other issues) and other than that, give nothing but poorly referenced, unclear partisan statements, apparently unfounded since you, so far, have failed to support them.

    I see a lot of "you should know", everyone knows, etc. but not a thing telling me what you know that you think everyone knows. And yes, I have been paying attention. The Reps have offered up some compromises even before the election. They tried to protect tax hikes, but that is only on objective. And recently they have gone from no tax hikes, to tax reform to ok, higher taxes on those making more than a million. Where are the compromises from Obama and the Dems?

    What I get from the OP article.

    Cut $600 billion over 10 years, $350 billion of which is Medicare, when he/Dems ran up a deficit of $1.3 trillion last year and $1.6 Trillion the year before that, so in two years, he has overspent a bit short of an annual budget, then plans to balance that out by not spending 20% of that amount over 10 years. BS, they need to cut over $600 Billion in this fiscal year, not spread out over 10 years. I call this BS because in two years, the House comes up for re-election and he cannot even promise today what he can get that congress to agree to and in 4 years, he is gone and the House is re-elected again. There is no way he can promise those cuts will be made any further than two years from now. And how many of those "cuts" are actually just promises not to spend projected growth and how many are really cuts?

    Is anyone else confuse on how $600 Trillion in 10 years is supposed to pay back over 4 Trillion in the last 4 years? At his current average, his entire proposed cuts won't even cut in half current deficits if it were cut in 1 year. Exactly how much revenue is his tax hikes supposed to bring in, assuming of course all the rich people don't just loophole out of it, since, at least not mentioned in this article, he is not interested in actually reforming the tax code to stop it? This last is based upon the fact that he previously rejected a proposal to reform the code.

    Even as he promises in one breath to cut $600 billion over ten years, he asks for an extra $200 billion for this year.

    At this point, Boehner and the republicans should draw up a balanced budget with all the cuts they want, publicly publish all the details and then let Obama take us over the cliff. If all the compromising done so far is not enough for Obama, then to hell with him and the republicans should go back to their original stance.

    As to the Bush "false referendum", I am still not clear on what you are trying to say about it, why it was false, or for that matter, what the hell it has to do with the discussion of this thread.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  4. #94
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: White House won't accept new tax offer from Republican leader

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Medicare and Medicaid together are incredibly unsustainable in their current form.
    To "fix" we're going to have to create the ever feared "death panels."
    Or we can start throwing gang bangers out the front door and tell them to patch themselves up when they get shot instead of us paying for it. Maybe tell the welfare queens to pay up or go elsewhere when they come in with their next "welfare check" pregnancy. Or maybe even telling the whole Medicaid crowd to go down the street to the free clinic and take what is given instead of bending over backwards to kiss their ass so that they can "have a choice in care." The next time someone comes in with "No Habla", fine, explain to him/her they have medical care in Mexico or wherever else the snuck in from.

    It's time to stop all the BS spending, go back to bare necessities and pay off the debt. No more welfare, no more adult Medicaid, no more HUD, no more funding for Arts, no more PBS, etc. Is it going to hurt people, yes, but the number hurt is going to be far higher when the whole damned mess collapses because it is unsustainable and then it won't just be the lazy and stupid, it will be everyone.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  5. #95
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,620

    Re: White House won't accept new tax offer from Republican leader

    Again, what do you think is reasonable? Not spending money on people after a certain age? I'd like to see more money spent before going onto medicare so the problems are addressed early on.

    So your fix for the system are the very death panels that were invoked by fearmongering Republicans? The panels were used to scare folks away from Obamacare but you'd bring them in as a fix to Medicare?

    There are many reports, many fixes out there. Some look at the Simpson/Bowles panel as a pretty good start.

    I don't know how old you are now, but betting you will change your mind as you get older and there is a problem we should address, the voters will not tolerate too much restrictions on the quality of their retirement to include serious medical conditions even if the chance of success is low. Better to fight for a faint hope than lay back and passively await death.

    Or, that you don't see your comments as marching the elderly to the ice flows- I didn't say off a cliff- I'll bet you a shiny Texas RepublicII nickle the elderly do...

  6. #96
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: White House won't accept new tax offer from Republican leader

    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    Again, what do you think is reasonable? Not spending money on people after a certain age? I'd like to see more money spent before going onto medicare so the problems are addressed early on.

    So your fix for the system are the very death panels that were invoked by fearmongering Republicans? The panels were used to scare folks away from Obamacare but you'd bring them in as a fix to Medicare?

    There are many reports, many fixes out there. Some look at the Simpson/Bowles panel as a pretty good start.

    I don't know how old you are now, but betting you will change your mind as you get older and there is a problem we should address, the voters will not tolerate too much restrictions on the quality of their retirement to include serious medical conditions even if the chance of success is low. Better to fight for a faint hope than lay back and passively await death.

    Or, that you don't see your comments as marching the elderly to the ice flows- I didn't say off a cliff- I'll bet you a shiny Texas RepublicII nickle the elderly do...
    Whom were you directing this towards or in argument against? You didn't quote anyone, so not really clear. It is clear that you are responding to something someone said however.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  7. #97
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: White House won't accept new tax offer from Republican leader

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    What is your point of saying this?:



    And don't you see that it is exactly, and I mean exactly what you claim here:



    But to address your opinion here:



    You're right neither side is giving us transparency, and Boehner is horrible at messaging on this. Obama's, and the demo's blather on this is at best juvenile. Which is why I said what I think the offer should be. As for leap's made, you are doing this as well, as I pointed out, and I only wish you could see that this isn't about me, although I am flattered that you are so obsessed that you think it is, it isn't...You'd do better to stick to the topic, instead of constantly trying to lecture me as if you could.
    You actually linked two different points and suggest they are the same. The first one is that you don't seem to clearly that republicans did what you accuse Obama Olof doing. The second one is that you don't have all he information, yet leap to a conclusion.

    As for your final effort, Obama's efforts are no more juvenile than Boehner's and republicans. I don't know why you think pointing out the flaw in what you're doing is lecturing you, but to address the issue, anyone who addresses it, must begin with the flaw before them. What is going on is negotiation. Both have to appear strong and firm, leveraging whatever they can use. Both will likely have to give in. But they will try to make it seem that the other is to blame for whatever happens. Seeing this doesn't requiring calling any if them names.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  8. #98
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,620

    Re: White House won't accept new tax offer from Republican leader

    My bad, these threads move pretty fast. Harry was the poster with whom I was speaking.

    To extend my response, I don't see any fix as long term and to be written in stone. I do see many options to extend all the social services further down the road so the changes are not draconian to any one generation. Some fixes are going to make both sides squeal but most of the squealing is for show toward their bases.

  9. #99
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: White House won't accept new tax offer from Republican leader

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    Ok, I see a reference to the OP Article. However I see no other "evidence" supporting your claim nor do I see an relation between the article and the statement you made about Reps. I have reviewed all your post in this thread and not, in a single post have you provided any intelligible or substantial support of our position. The best you have done so far is play semantics, contend that article did not provide enough information (I give you this, as I also found it incomplete, but I did find that it focused on just how much compromise was proposed on the issue that Reps were balking at, but not much on other issues) and other than that, give nothing but poorly referenced, unclear partisan statements, apparently unfounded since you, so far, have failed to support them.

    I see a lot of "you should know", everyone knows, etc. but not a thing telling me what you know that you think everyone knows. And yes, I have been paying attention. The Reps have offered up some compromises even before the election. They tried to protect tax hikes, but that is only on objective. And recently they have gone from no tax hikes, to tax reform to ok, higher taxes on those making more than a million. Where are the compromises from Obama and the Dems?

    What I get from the OP article.

    Cut $600 billion over 10 years, $350 billion of which is Medicare, when he/Dems ran up a deficit of $1.3 trillion last year and $1.6 Trillion the year before that, so in two years, he has overspent a bit short of an annual budget, then plans to balance that out by not spending 20% of that amount over 10 years. BS, they need to cut over $600 Billion in this fiscal year, not spread out over 10 years. I call this BS because in two years, the House comes up for re-election and he cannot even promise today what he can get that congress to agree to and in 4 years, he is gone and the House is re-elected again. There is no way he can promise those cuts will be made any further than two years from now. And how many of those "cuts" are actually just promises not to spend projected growth and how many are really cuts?

    Is anyone else confuse on how $600 Trillion in 10 years is supposed to pay back over 4 Trillion in the last 4 years? At his current average, his entire proposed cuts won't even cut in half current deficits if it were cut in 1 year. Exactly how much revenue is his tax hikes supposed to bring in, assuming of course all the rich people don't just loophole out of it, since, at least not mentioned in this article, he is not interested in actually reforming the tax code to stop it? This last is based upon the fact that he previously rejected a proposal to reform the code.

    Even as he promises in one breath to cut $600 billion over ten years, he asks for an extra $200 billion for this year.

    At this point, Boehner and the republicans should draw up a balanced budget with all the cuts they want, publicly publish all the details and then let Obama take us over the cliff. If all the compromising done so far is not enough for Obama, then to hell with him and the republicans should go back to their original stance.

    As to the Bush "false referendum", I am still not clear on what you are trying to say about it, why it was false, or for that matter, what the hell it has to do with the discussion of this thread.
    You seem lost.

    The point was republicans have over years also played my way or the highway. This requires not looking at the article, but the posters words in op. then measuring his words and mine against history.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  10. #100
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,274

    Re: White House won't accept new tax offer from Republican leader

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    Ok, I see a reference to the OP Article. However I see no other "evidence" supporting your claim nor do I see an relation between the article and the statement you made about Reps. I have reviewed all your post in this thread and not, in a single post have you provided any intelligible or substantial support of our position. The best you have done so far is play semantics, contend that article did not provide enough information (I give you this, as I also found it incomplete, but I did find that it focused on just how much compromise was proposed on the issue that Reps were balking at, but not much on other issues) and other than that, give nothing but poorly referenced, unclear partisan statements, apparently unfounded since you, so far, have failed to support them.

    I see a lot of "you should know", everyone knows, etc. but not a thing telling me what you know that you think everyone knows. And yes, I have been paying attention. The Reps have offered up some compromises even before the election. They tried to protect tax hikes, but that is only on objective. And recently they have gone from no tax hikes, to tax reform to ok, higher taxes on those making more than a million. Where are the compromises from Obama and the Dems?

    What I get from the OP article.

    Cut $600 billion over 10 years, $350 billion of which is Medicare, when he/Dems ran up a deficit of $1.3 trillion last year and $1.6 Trillion the year before that, so in two years, he has overspent a bit short of an annual budget, then plans to balance that out by not spending 20% of that amount over 10 years. BS, they need to cut over $600 Billion in this fiscal year, not spread out over 10 years. I call this BS because in two years, the House comes up for re-election and he cannot even promise today what he can get that congress to agree to and in 4 years, he is gone and the House is re-elected again. There is no way he can promise those cuts will be made any further than two years from now. And how many of those "cuts" are actually just promises not to spend projected growth and how many are really cuts?

    Is anyone else confuse on how $600 Trillion in 10 years is supposed to pay back over 4 Trillion in the last 4 years? At his current average, his entire proposed cuts won't even cut in half current deficits if it were cut in 1 year. Exactly how much revenue is his tax hikes supposed to bring in, assuming of course all the rich people don't just loophole out of it, since, at least not mentioned in this article, he is not interested in actually reforming the tax code to stop it? This last is based upon the fact that he previously rejected a proposal to reform the code.

    Even as he promises in one breath to cut $600 billion over ten years, he asks for an extra $200 billion for this year.

    At this point, Boehner and the republicans should draw up a balanced budget with all the cuts they want, publicly publish all the details and then let Obama take us over the cliff. If all the compromising done so far is not enough for Obama, then to hell with him and the republicans should go back to their original stance.

    As to the Bush "false referendum", I am still not clear on what you are trying to say about it, why it was false, or for that matter, what the hell it has to do with the discussion of this thread.
    Outstanding post!
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

Page 10 of 20 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •