Page 15 of 20 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 192

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

  1. #141
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,180

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Does a "move more to the right" suggest that spending, debt, etc. get under some control?
    I'm saying that if Obama went into negotiations with big cuts to entitlement spending, the GOP would demand the abolition of all entitlement spending and a Constitutional amendment barring Labor Unions.

    Why no outrage over Boehner not rolling over to every one of Obama's proposals? That's not how negotiaions work.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  2. #142
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,180

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post

    Boehner is already done anyway for the concessions he has already given.

    Welcome to negotiation and compromise 101. This sentence alone tells me that you don't give a swut about compromise. It's the same "my way or the highway" thinking that everybody is all up in arms about Obama having.

    You can't have your cake and eat it too.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  3. #143
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,626

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Sorry the reduction on medicare spending, isn't Dr.Kovorkian.



    Well you've made a complete mischaracterization of what the plan was.
    All of which was voluntary.

    For me, I'd of rather of had the private account for all my SS money.
    Now, it's in there air on whether or not my potential SS benefit will be cut.

    I think it's likely a certainty.




    No it's not solvent to date.
    It actually just recently started paying out more than it's collecting.

    Social Security on Pace to be Drained by 2037 - CBS News




    SS surplus funds, has caused excess government spending, yes.
    It's how Clinton created the phony budget surplus.

    The problem here is that you're unable to grasp reality.
    I've given you a direct link to a non partisan article that details the fact that the big 3 elder care programs and the national debt interest will consume out entire national budget.
    Depends on how the 'reductions' are done if it is Greenspan or Dr. Death

    Not so sure the private accounts were voluntary, but even so the result of the stock market crash was not. millions of 'free market' Citizens would have known what was trickling down in that event.

    Become a self employed or small business owner and your retirement can be 100% outside of Social Security, however I doubt you would really want that, the stock market 'recovery' is more of a gamble than your SSI account, a lot depends on if the 'conservative' plan to slow death SSI is approved or the 'socialist' plan to strengthen SSI is.

    Social Security's big problems have been the Republicans dead set against it since it was first created, then capping the income liable to the payroll tax long after the end to do raise the cap limits was recognized as an easy way to save the system- the longer that was delayed the less surplus could be built to ride through the last big problem-

    The Boomer Bubble, yes Social Security has a glut of retirees hitting as boomer retire but only the very blind can say they never saw that coming, and only the very partisan can say that will be a long term SSI trend. Once the Boomer flush through the system SSI will be back on a more 'normal' footing. Some are using the bubble to attack SSI as unworkable.

    You will get your benefit if the politicians decide SSI isn't 'commie' and millions of Citizens count on it as part of their retirement.

    Oh and the Clinton thing is odd, usually 'conservatives' point to his use of the more favorable short term bonds that came due much earlier (but after his administration was out of office) than the more traditional debt floating long term bonds. Fact is Presidents and Congress has used SSI trust fund money since Nixon. The use of SSI money in the general budget causes the Gubmint debt increase but is a SMALL part of the HUGE debt we face now. It is like blaming the Tootsie Roll you ate for your big ass instead of the deep fat frying everything else you ate and a lack of exercise...

  4. #144
    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
    Depends on how the 'reductions' are done if it is Greenspan or Dr. Death

    Not so sure the private accounts were voluntary, but even so the result of the stock market crash was not. millions of 'free market' Citizens would have known what was trickling down in that event.
    How can you say anything about private accounts, when you don't even know the details of the plan?
    How do form an opinion about something you have very little understanding of, why should anyone take your opinion seriously?


    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    Become a self employed or small business owner and your retirement can be 100% outside of Social Security, however I doubt you would really want that, the stock market 'recovery' is more of a gamble than your SSI account, a lot depends on if the 'conservative' plan to slow death SSI is approved or the 'socialist' plan to strengthen SSI is.
    No it's not a gamble.
    This is what non investment people say, when they're entirely ignorant of investing.
    Utter nonsense.


    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    Social Security's big problems have been the Republicans dead set against it since it was first created, then capping the income liable to the payroll tax long after the end to do raise the cap limits was recognized as an easy way to save the system- the longer that was delayed the less surplus could be built to ride through the last big problem-
    Lord here comes the partisanship.
    SS has been progressive designed since it's inception.
    Benefits are paid progressively, meaning that the more you earn over a period of time, the less benefit the program is to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    The Boomer Bubble, yes Social Security has a glut of retirees hitting as boomer retire but only the very blind can say they never saw that coming, and only the very partisan can say that will be a long term SSI trend. Once the Boomer flush through the system SSI will be back on a more 'normal' footing. Some are using the bubble to attack SSI as unworkable.
    Yes and in the meantime, we're going to have very real issues paying for it all.
    Not just SS, but Medicare and Medicaid.

    How you really propose to fix this, beyond scant things like means testing?


    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    You will get your benefit if the politicians decide SSI isn't 'commie' and millions of Citizens count on it as part of their retirement.
    I don't even know why you inserted the "commie" line.
    I don't think SS is "commie."

    Is this how you talk to all people who have different views to yours?

    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    Oh and the Clinton thing is odd, usually 'conservatives' point to his use of the more favorable short term bonds that came due much earlier (but after his administration was out of office) than the more traditional debt floating long term bonds. Fact is Presidents and Congress has used SSI trust fund money since Nixon. The use of SSI money in the general budget causes the Gubmint debt increase but is a SMALL part of the HUGE debt we face now. It is like blaming the Tootsie Roll you ate for your big ass instead of the deep fat frying everything else you ate and a lack of exercise...
    Yep but to state that SS hasn't had an effect on long term borrowing, would be a lie.
    It has artificially raised spending levels when they otherwise would not have existed.
    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

  5. #145
    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 rocket88 View Post
    I'm saying that if Obama went into negotiations with big cuts to entitlement spending, the GOP would demand the abolition of all entitlement spending and a Constitutional amendment barring Labor Unions.

    Why no outrage over Boehner not rolling over to every one of Obama's proposals? That's not how negotiaions work.
    That has nothing to do with the question I asked regarding your earlier statement.

    The question is "Does a "move more to the right" suggest that spending, debt, etc. get under some control?"

  6. #146
    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 rocket88 View Post
    Welcome to negotiation and compromise 101. This sentence alone tells me that you don't give a swut about compromise. It's the same "my way or the highway" thinking that everybody is all up in arms about Obama having.

    You can't have your cake and eat it too.
    There are two areas where Boehner has compromised. Where has Obama compromised?

  7. #147
    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
    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.
    I dont think anyone ever said the spending problem started with Obama. Nice attempt at bringing in the straw man tho.

    Our government has had a spending problem for some time now, since before WW2 and has gotten worse, remarkably worse since 2006 as http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...ssets/hist.pdf table 1.1 located on pages 21-23 show and has only gotten worse in recent years.

    And NO, never in our history has our government ever cut actual spending, the Table 1.1 proves it.

    You cant continue to spend more than you bring in and borrow your way to prosperity. Our government has an addiction problem, it is addicted to spending our money and those of you who keep voting for the same old Republicans and Democrats are its enablers. You all are as much of the problem as they are.
    Know the truth and the truth will make you mad, because the truth has no agenda.

  8. #148
    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
    I dont think anyone ever said the spending problem started with Obama. Nice attempt at bringing in the straw man tho.

    Our government has had a spending problem for some time now, since before WW2 and has gotten worse, remarkably worse since 2006 as http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...ssets/hist.pdf table 1.1 located on pages 21-23 show and has only gotten worse in recent years.

    And NO, never in our history has our government ever cut actual spending, the Table 1.1 proves it.

    You cant continue to spend more than you bring in and borrow your way to prosperity. Our government has an addiction problem, it is addicted to spending our money and those of you who keep voting for the same old Republicans and Democrats are its enablers. You all are as much of the problem as they are.
    Well some people seem to blame Obama for it and utterly deny the fact that Republicans were the party resoncible for a great deal of the debt. As far as cutting spending. The bills were being paid off until Bush 2 gave those big tax cuts so really your rational does not hold water.

  9. #149
    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 TaraAnne View Post
    Well some people seem to blame Obama for it and utterly deny the fact that Republicans were the party resoncible for a great deal of the debt. As far as cutting spending. The bills were being paid off until Bush 2 gave those big tax cuts so really your rational does not hold water.
    There is no historical evidence to back this up, in fact, historical evidence proves just the opposite. U.S. Federal Deficits, Presidents, and Congress and Budget Deficit History

    First, a President cannot hold total blame for the budget or deficit, all spending bills, including the budget, have to originate in the House of Representatives (the House). This is called the Power of the Purse.

    If you want to blame Bush for the wars, that is only somewhat accurate, both times, the use of military force was put before Congress and both times Congress approved it. And both times, the Dems had the majority in the House. So he does not bear full responsibility for them either.

    The first budget under Bush, that a Rep majority in the House approved saw the deficit go from $377.6 to $412.7, the one and only time in 100 years, that a deficit has increased under a budgetary process where the Republicans had full control of the Budget.

    When Bush and the Republicans in the house controlled the full budgetary process, the deficits were $412 billion $319 billion $248.2 billion and $162 billion (figures from the budgetary chart, not the Debt chart). The all Republican control of the Budget was quite clearly bringing the budget under control. At this rate of decrease, 2009 fiscal budget would not of even had a deficit, but a surplus had the Republicans retained a majority. However, the Dems got the majority in the house and the deficit rose from $162 billion to $455 billion in 2008's budget and $1.4 Trillion in 2009's budget (approximately $1 of which was bailouts which were to be repaid to the government). The two highest deficits under Bush all occurred when Dems had control of the House.

    Yes, Under Clinton and, btw, Republicans having a majority in Congress there was a surplus instead of deficit, however, the debt was never reduced. However, Clinton failed to properly maintain the military and a lot of it was in pretty poor shape when Bush took control and we were attacked less than 9 months later. Restoring our military may not been the entire increase in spending, but it certainly was a major factor.

    Obama only had to contend with the wars that were already going and actually pretty much ended Iraq a couple of years ago. He also had the economic decline to deal with. He, with Dems in control of the Congress ran up the highest Deficits in our History. His two lowest Deficits were only after the Reps regained control of the house and once again had some control of the budget. In four years, he and congress have added more to the debt than what Bush added in 8 years.

    So, explain to us again, how the Reps are responsible for a great deal of the debt? And if prior to Bush, the "bills were being paid off", then why did the debt never decrease under Clinton? Do you believe that it was only Clinton, with no input for the Reps that controlled the Power of the Purse and Congress, that created that "Surplus"?
    Last edited by DVSentinel; 12-18-12 at 02:50 PM.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  10. #150
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Denio Junction
    Last Seen
    11-13-14 @ 12:09 AM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,039
    Blog Entries
    4

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

    Latest deal Boehner offered is identical to what Shumar, Pelosi and Reid wanted last spring, the "millionaire" tax, and now its not good enough for them.

    I still wish the Republicans' would walk out and say take your cliff and love it.

Page 15 of 20 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... 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
  •