Page 12 of 20 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 192

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

  1. #111
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiggen View Post
    So do the american people.

    No. Only a portion does.

  2. #112
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,573

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiggen View Post
    So do the american people.
    More of the people want reduced federal spending than a tax increase (even if that tax increase is only on "rich people").
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  3. #113
    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 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?
    I'm not fear mongering, I'm tell you what is going to happen.

    Obamacare included cuts to Medicare.
    They've been temporarily patched with the doc fix.
    They're kicking the can right now.

    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    There are many reports, many fixes out there. Some look at the Simpson/Bowles panel as a pretty good start.
    Simpson/Bowles makes, what are, effective cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.

    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    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.
    What I want to happen (people being able to get as much medical care, as they want) and what I know is going to happen (Medicare and Medicaid being cut), are two different things.

    Mark my words, elder care programs will be cut.
    Democrats know it, Republicans know it.
    They're both playing musical chairs, hoping that the other is left standing for the voter fall out.

    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    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...
    Sorry, I accept reality for what it is, I don't always like it, but I don't like to lie to myself or others.
    Read the link I posted, it says it all there.
    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

  4. #114
    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 Harry Guerrilla View Post
    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.

    The key words are "current form."

    UHC and perhaps some means testing would go a long way.

    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.

  5. #115
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,620

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

    I didn't say YOU are fearmongering, am saying the Republicans used 'death panels' to create fear amongst the elderly- the same panels you now say will set policy on how much and at what age the elderly get rationed care.

    However there seems to be a 'conservative' push since St. Reagan ascended the throne to diminish rather than beef-up Social Security and Medicare. While the business model is to shed retirement plans for most workers, either by stopping match funds to reducing hours to part-time status the business model doesn't bode well for the average worker.

    Thank Gawd BushII's plan to hand social security money over to the Stock Market as private accounts right before the market tanked. The fix was simple back then, lift the cap on income to be taxed, but resisted by the right for a private account fund instead, but we see that would have devastated many retirees for 3-4 years. You can't say 'on average' with retirement income any more than you can say about rain- you need it in sufficient quantities in timely increments.

    And let's be truthful, Social Security has not added one thin dime to the debt.

    Rather than digging the grave for the social safety net shovelful at a time there are solutions that will extend the solvency of those programs- spending in other areas needs to be concentrated on rather than attack the safety net.

    First allow Gubmint funded medical services to negotiate prices. Everyone but the Gubmint does that.

    Next means test applicants, not deny coverage but have the buy-in based on income.

    If reduction means the above I am on board. If it means less coverage for everyone, higher age to qualify, slowly strangling the programs- then not so much.

    It is like those who want to somehow restrict firearm ownership as a fix the the 'gun' problem.

    Many other ways to deal with the problem and nothing is a 'perfect' solution.

  6. #116
    Sage
    Erod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:37 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,062

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

    Obama has zero intention of making a single entitlement cut. He wants this thing over the cliff so he can then corner Republicans on a vote to cut taxes for the "middle class" next year.

    The end result will be higher taxes on the wealthy - which will be like throwing a bucket of water in the ocean - and no cuts to his teet-sucking electorate.

  7. #117
    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 Boo Radley View Post
    The key words are "current form."

    UHC and perhaps some means testing would go a long way.
    Current form meaning at the current benefit and payment levels.
    Unless cuts are made, to all beneficiaries, there won't be any significant reduction in medicare spending growth.

    People aren't wrapping their heads around this very well.
    Medicare, Medicaid, SS and debt interest will consume 21% of our GDP, which is the entire current federal budget, plus some.

    So I say fine, raise taxes, but we can't afford anymore entitlement growth.
    Cuts to those programs are a necessity.
    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

  8. #118
    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 notquiteright View Post
    I didn't say YOU are fearmongering, am saying the Republicans used 'death panels' to create fear amongst the elderly- the same panels you now say will set policy on how much and at what age the elderly get rationed care.

    However there seems to be a 'conservative' push since St. Reagan ascended the throne to diminish rather than beef-up Social Security and Medicare. While the business model is to shed retirement plans for most workers, either by stopping match funds to reducing hours to part-time status the business model doesn't bode well for the average worker.
    If I remember right, it was Greenspan, under Reagan that saved the projected short fall that SS was going to have.


    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    Thank Gawd BushII's plan to hand social security money over to the Stock Market as private accounts right before the market tanked. The fix was simple back then, lift the cap on income to be taxed, but resisted by the right for a private account fund instead, but we see that would have devastated many retirees for 3-4 years. You can't say 'on average' with retirement income any more than you can say about rain- you need it in sufficient quantities in timely increments.
    Bush wasn't for putting all or most SS dollars in private accounts.
    That was a lie.

    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    And let's be truthful, Social Security has not added one thin dime to the debt.
    That's arguable at best.
    No not directly it hasn't, but indirectly it has.

    Inflated government spending levels have been funded from SS surpluses, which for us to retain now, would require debt.

    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    Rather than digging the grave for the social safety net shovelful at a time there are solutions that will extend the solvency of those programs- spending in other areas needs to be concentrated on rather than attack the safety net.
    You keep missing this whole issue here.
    Those social safety nets will consume the entire federal budget, plus, leaving nothing else for any other programs.

    You could completely eliminate defense spending and every other category of spending and elder care programs + debt interest will consume the entire budget, plus some.


    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    First allow Gubmint funded medical services to negotiate prices. Everyone but the Gubmint does that.

    Next means test applicants, not deny coverage but have the buy-in based on income.

    If reduction means the above I am on board. If it means less coverage for everyone, higher age to qualify, slowly strangling the programs- then not so much.
    It really doesn't matter if you're on board or not.
    It is going to happen, because it has to happen.
    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

  9. #119
    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 Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Current form meaning at the current benefit and payment levels.
    Unless cuts are made, to all beneficiaries, there won't be any significant reduction in medicare spending growth.

    People aren't wrapping their heads around this very well.
    Medicare, Medicaid, SS and debt interest will consume 21% of our GDP, which is the entire current federal budget, plus some.

    So I say fine, raise taxes, but we can't afford anymore entitlement growth.
    Cuts to those programs are a necessity.
    I think I mentioned would reduce costs.

    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. #120
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,620

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

    And we need another Greenspan, not Dr. Kavorkian to work on this.

    I didn't say ALL social security money into 'private accounts' please don't put words into my type...

    Using the word 'lie' is not helpful when you are misusing my words...

    BushII did want to put social security money into private accounts... that is not a lie.

    Social Security has not added one thin dime to the national debt, it is funded by payroll taxes and to date is still solvent. you can argue otherwise but of course you are wrong... (see how I didn't say it is a lie?)

    Blaming Social Security for inflated government spending do to it being solvent? Really? More like the need to fund the end of the Vietnam War without raising taxes and making public the true cost of that war starting the IOU slips put into social security and after that the Gubmint, both parties, have had no real problem with just printing money- as long as THEIR party benefited from it.

    Too weak for words, the fix isn't a slow death to the social safety net...

Page 12 of 20 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... 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
  •