Page 11 of 20 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 192

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

  1. #101
    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
    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.
    Much of what is missing in your analysis, is that the debt can't realistically be paid off faster. Instead, we balance the budget. Continue to pay,and work our way down. It took a long tiem to get here, more than a few presidents, and will take a long time to get out of debt, if ever.

    Now, as to your proposal. I'm OK with republicans doing as you suggest. I suspect they don't because they don't believe it work as you believe it will. I think they poll poorly and are seen by the public as a larger part of the problem.

    Republicans losing blame game on fiscal cliff

    (snip)

    While 53 percent of those surveyed say the GOP would (and should) lose the fiscal cliff blame game, just 27 percent say President Obama would be deserving of more of the blame. Roughly one in 10 (12 percent) volunteer that both sides would be equally to blame.

    Republicans losing blame game on fiscal cliff

    I suggest this is one reason why republicans are reluctant to let out details as well. They were reluctant during the election as well. I don't think they are stupid, so I think they know better. But I could be wrong.

    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.

  2. #102
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Fort Worth, Tx
    Last Seen
    01-27-13 @ 12:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    439

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    I've only posted several times what Obama wants...

    He wants anyone who is even "moderately" rich to pay more in taxes (those making 250k a year).

    Republicans want to raise taxes on anyone who makes a million a year or more.

    Obama has no desire to cut any spending whatsoever (he even wants to spend more) and raise taxes for his excess spending.

    Republicans want to cut spending and raise taxes on those who make a million or more.

    What Obama wants to do is stick the "rich" with the financial responsibility to get us off the fiscal cliff while he continues to financially support his voting base with free government entitlements and benefits, all the while pandering to ridiculous union demands.

    Republicans want to cut spending and raise taxes on the super wealthy..
    Then why did he agree to a trillion in cuts last year. History show it is the Republicans that like to spend money.

  3. #103
    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 TaraAnne View Post
    Then why did he agree to a trillion in cuts last year. History show it is the Republicans that like to spend money.
    In fairness, both parties like to spend.

    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.

  4. #104
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

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

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    There will be no Social Insurance reform as part of the tax increases on the wealthy, they are off the table. They have not added one penny to the debt and the Republicans lost the election. Besides I have not heard one Republican propsal to reform SS or Medicare since the Romney/Ryan plan was soundly defeated by the voters. They are afraid even to mention what they want to do to destroy the saftey nets of the middle class. I wonder why?
    The Romney/Ryan plan was soundly defeated by the voters? Those goofy voters were thinking about Obamaphones, free condoms, the War on Women, 'free healthcare', etc. These are not serious people.

    The United States is the brokest nation in world history, despairingly in debt and yet have reelected a man with no managerial or financial experience whatsoever. Americans can blame it on the Republicans or the Democrats or any other leaders they've had but, eventually, they will have to blame this hopeless and inevitable collapse on themselves.

  5. #105
    Educator

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Kingdom of Nigh
    Last Seen
    10-13-17 @ 11:25 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,152

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

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    Fine. We raise the cap on SS and that's done. Medicare is a little stickier but means testing would help, those that can afford it can pay more. Stiil does nothing about the deficit though since these progams are paid for. What is off the table is reneging on our promise to the millions that have paid into the programs their whole lives. That is unthinkable.
    Is that the Liberals answer to everything? Tax more to cover the cost?

    Why not root out the waste and abuse of the system?
    Why not eliminate some of the internal costs & waste?
    Why not eliminate wasteful spending on pet projects?
    Why not only spend what you can afford? The interest on the money we borrow is crippling us.

    One of the fastest growing sections of the budget is interest payments on the national debt. It was just 6.5% of total spending, but that's $248 billion -- enough to pay for ten Justice Departments. However, by 2022, interest payments on the debt is projected to quadruple to $826 billion, double all non-security discretionary spending. It will also be the fourth largest budget item, after Social Security ($1.361 trillion), Medicare ($908 billion), and defense spending ($856 billion).
    US Federal Budget Spending Summary and Highlights

    And those systems are paid for and does nothing to the deficit? Really?
    Those funds come out of the same yearly budget as everything else does (in the case of this administration its budget extensions because they havent passed a budget in 3 years).

    The only difference between SS / Medicare and some other budgetary items is SS / Medicare are non-discretionary spending.

    Our government does not have a revenue generating issue, they have a spending issue.
    Know the truth and the truth will make you mad, because the truth has no agenda.

  6. #106
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,274

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TaraAnne View Post
    Then why did he agree to a trillion in cuts last year. History show it is the Republicans that like to spend money.

    I can only assume you are talking about the sequester agreement...That was agreed to because it was supposed to be so onerous that it would be a deterrent to letting it go through. After Obama reneged on a deal he and Boehner had to move the debt ceiling negotiation of the time forward, they put this in place as a bargain. The sequester was devised by the administration and agreed to in good faith in order for Obama to get his increased spending last year, and now you and other demo's put that forth dishonestly as though that was a spending cut that he always planned to happen?

    Good Grief demo's are really pathological liars.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  7. #107
    Educator

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Kingdom of Nigh
    Last Seen
    10-13-17 @ 11:25 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,152

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TaraAnne View Post
    Then why did he agree to a trillion in cuts last year. History show it is the Republicans that like to spend money.
    No he didnt. No where ever did Obama agree to any cuts in spending what so ever...the only supposed "cuts" were the ones that fall into place because they couldnt come up with an agreement on what spending cuts needed to be made...and they are "cuts" in future spending hikes, not cuts in actual spending.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...ssets/hist.pdf
    Look at table 1.1 located on page 21-23, note the outlays (Federal government spending) - not once has our government ever spent less than the previous year. The governments spending addition per year is WAY more than the average 3% rate of growth, so the argument that government spending is equal that to the rate of "inflation" is thrown out the window.


    USGovernmentSpending.com Past Spending Briefing
    usgs_chart2p21.png
    Government Spending started out at the beginning of the 20th century at 6.9 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). As you can see from Chart 2.21, the federal share of that spending was modest. Spending got a big kick in World War I and ended up at about 12 percent of GDP in the 1920s.
    Then came the Great Depression, in which President Roosevelt and the New Deal cranked up federal spending, and total government spending rose up to 20 percent of GDP. World War II really showed how the United States could commandeer its national resources for all out war. Government spending peaked at just under 53 percent of GDP in 1945.

    President Clinton said, in 1995, that the era of big government was over. But he was wrong. The post World War II era has been a golden age of government spending, and it shows no sign of ending. Although spending dropped back to 21 percent of GDP immediately after WWII, it steadily climbed thereafter until it hit a peak of 36 percent of GDP in the bottom of the recession of 1980-82. Thereafter government spending chugged along in the mid 30s until the mortgage meltdown of 2008. In the aftermath of bank and auto bailouts, government spending surged to wartime levels at 45 percent of GDP. The mortgage emergency seems to have ratcheted out-year spending up a notch. Near term government spending in the future is pegging at 40 percent of GDP.

    spending key;
    Blue - Transfer to state and local governments
    Red - Federal direct spending
    Green - State direct spending
    Grey - Local direct spending
    Last edited by Imnukingfutz; 12-17-12 at 08:44 AM. Reason: Spending key
    Know the truth and the truth will make you mad, because the truth has no agenda.

  8. #108
    Sage



    Jack Fabulous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    midwest
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    10,707
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    There will be no Social Insurance reform as part of the tax increases on the wealthy, they are off the table. They have not added one penny to the debt and the Republicans lost the election. Besides I have not heard one Republican propsal to reform SS or Medicare since the Romney/Ryan plan was soundly defeated by the voters. They are afraid even to mention what they want to do to destroy the saftey nets of the middle class. I wonder why?
    Why? Because telling the public the truth about the state of these programs is a loser with voters as you have already correctly pointed out. The better strategy, in terms of gaining the support of the electorate, is to hoodwink them into believing that increasing taxes on the wealthy will solve all of the problems.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have pooped in public, even in public neighborhoods.

  9. #109
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Fort Worth, Tx
    Last Seen
    01-27-13 @ 12:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    439

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Imnukingfutz View Post
    No he didnt. No where ever did Obama agree to any cuts in spending what so ever...the only supposed "cuts" were the ones that fall into place because they couldnt come up with an agreement on what spending cuts needed to be made...and they are "cuts" in future spending hikes, not cuts in actual spending.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...ssets/hist.pdf
    Look at table 1.1 located on page 21-23, note the outlays (Federal government spending) - not once has our government ever spent less than the previous year. The governments spending addition per year is WAY more than the average 3% rate of growth, so the argument that government spending is equal that to the rate of "inflation" is thrown out the window.


    USGovernmentSpending.com Past Spending Briefing
    usgs_chart2p21.png
    Government Spending started out at the beginning of the 20th century at 6.9 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). As you can see from Chart 2.21, the federal share of that spending was modest. Spending got a big kick in World War I and ended up at about 12 percent of GDP in the 1920s.
    Then came the Great Depression, in which President Roosevelt and the New Deal cranked up federal spending, and total government spending rose up to 20 percent of GDP. World War II really showed how the United States could commandeer its national resources for all out war. Government spending peaked at just under 53 percent of GDP in 1945.

    President Clinton said, in 1995, that the era of big government was over. But he was wrong. The post World War II era has been a golden age of government spending, and it shows no sign of ending. Although spending dropped back to 21 percent of GDP immediately after WWII, it steadily climbed thereafter until it hit a peak of 36 percent of GDP in the bottom of the recession of 1980-82. Thereafter government spending chugged along in the mid 30s until the mortgage meltdown of 2008. In the aftermath of bank and auto bailouts, government spending surged to wartime levels at 45 percent of GDP. The mortgage emergency seems to have ratcheted out-year spending up a notch. Near term government spending in the future is pegging at 40 percent of GDP.

    spending key;
    Blue - Transfer to state and local governments
    Red - Federal direct spending
    Green - State direct spending
    Grey - Local direct spending
    Yes he did last year in the grand bargin with Republicans. The spending problem did not start with Obama, everyone knows who, when, and where it started. The sad part is there is a minority that is simply delusion enough to deny it.

  10. #110
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    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.
    Even if you cut all other entitlements to 0, removed the education department, the epa, foreign aid, etc.
    There wouldn't be enough money to keep funding our elder care programs in their current form.

    That's why I'm saying they are going to be cut.
    It's a forgone conclusion.
    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

Page 11 of 20 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... 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
  •