• 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!

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

haymarket said:
I am not aware of any Republican or Boehner proposal on entitlements.

Can anyone produce that?
Click to expand...

Duece said:
That's a strange declaration given that you know virtually no details of the offer.
Click to expand...

Here is my point on this....Obama through Giethner offered a proposal that was really more insult than plan, in that he said he wanted

a. Tax increase on those making over $250K (something he has never revised since day one in 2009)

b. Increase spending through a new stimulus

c. $400 Bilion in spending cuts, to be determined later, (and here is the important part) with NO guarantees...

The republicans should have walked out on that ridiculous presentation. It was designed to insult, and force repubs to negotiate with themselves. Now, repubs have caved on hiking taxes, as a part of social spending reductions that are the real cause of our debt. and Obama knows this, but still rejects it, in fact Iguanaman stated it in this thread....

Iguanaman said:
There will be no Social Insurance reform as part of the tax increases on the wealthy, they are off the table....
Click to expand...

So, just what the heck are we negotiating? Our complete surrender? nah, that's foolish. Vote a bill lowering the bottom 3 tax rates, and keeping the top two the same, putting it back in Obama and company's lap, then bow out, vote present, and let Obama own his BS.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Oh I know plenty, most notably Obama wants a higher tax rate on anyone making $250,000 a year, while republicans argue (and rightly so) it should be $1,000,000 a year.

That is pretty much the meat of the differences.

There are several problems with the 250,000 proposal by Obama. Hell there are dozens of problems with our tax code that make both proposals semi-retarded.
Click to expand...

... so now you're saying that Obama didn't get everything he wanted.
 
Boo Radley said:
Your link disputes you. It says the offer fell short, so it was not everything Obama asked for. But, we still don't have all the details.
Click to expand...

You do realize that a negotiation means that your side must give up some things to right?
 
Insult is a subjective term, meaning that one man's insult is another's opening offer. Partisan hacks love subjective standards.
 
Dezaad said:
You have no idea whatsoever what was offered, so you saying this is just ridiculous.
Click to expand...

What is Obama's plan? Raise taxes, and spend more? Not going to do it friend.
 
Boo Radley said:
Insult is a subjective term, meaning that one man's insult is another's opening offer. Partisan hacks love subjective standards.
Click to expand...


Already calling names eh? Well, you know what you can do then....
 
j-mac said:
You do realize that a negotiation means that your side must give up some things to right?
Click to expand...

Yep. So there must be some cuts. And if Obama holds out and we go over he cliff, there will be some. So reason says that the offer given wasn't better than that. However, we need more details before we can go too far in our evaluation.
 
Dezaad said:
You have no idea whatsoever what was offered, so you saying this is just ridiculous.
Click to expand...

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..
 
j-mac said:
Already calling names eh? Well, you know what you can do then....
Click to expand...

Nope. Pointing out the flawed use of the term. I called no one but partisans anything.
 
Deuce said:
... so now you're saying that Obama didn't get everything he wanted.
Click to expand...

I never implied that he did.

He got almost everything he wanted.
 
j-mac said:
What is Obama's plan? Raise taxes, and spend more? Not going to do it friend.
Click to expand...

Again, you have no idea what was offered, so any assertion that Obama just wants it all his own way is ridiculous.
 
The only reason why we're even having this debate is because the idiot Obama demanded that congress authorize so much spending that will be implemented next month and he has no way to pay for all this spending.

In short, Obama and his congress spent more than they have and are now sticking the US taxpayers with the bill.

The thing is - Obama believes that it is the responsibility of those making 250k or more to foot the bill, while the majority of Americans who have a household income of 60K or less can just live off of those making 250k or more via entitlement programs and other benefits.

With him printing money like its toilet paper (hence devaluing it) and his unwillingness to cut spending and raise taxes on those who have investments (which will surely depreciate with the value of the dollar) our economy could almost certainly collapse. First you will see massive inflation and then you will see people pulling out of the market entirely to save their own ass.

This is the perfect storm for a great-great depression if not an entire financial collapse.
 
I ask again: what is this Boehner proposal on reducing/cutting/reforming (whatever you want to call it) entitlements?

Can someone please present the details on this alleged plan please?
 
In my eyes this makes no sense. Both sides of the table are being childish. Republicans: stop blocking tax hikes on the rich, are you really going to ruin it for everybody to take a stand? Democrats: you get what you want in tax hikes on the top 2%, are you really going to ruin it for everybody because of spending to a program that will be cut if we go off the cliff. This isn't a game of poker this is real people we are talking about. Stop gambling with the future of america and do the right thing.
 
Boo Radley said:
What gather from the article is that we don't know what was offered or why it was rejected. While we may want more transparency, we really don't have enough information to make any judgement beyond that.

BTW j, republicans ave been playing their way or the highway for a long time. I wish you were as upset then as you are now.
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim?
 
Dezaad said:
Again, you have no idea what was offered, so any assertion that Obama just wants it all his own way is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

You do realize what was offered is about just in every major paper in the Western World - not to mention the Congressional Record - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) library of congress official website?

It's no ones fault you didn't bother to take the time to read it.

Oh not to mention we have something called CSPAN (one channel for the house and one for the senate)
 
Someone on another thread posted an article stating that Obama wants means-testing for Social Security but the dems won't give it to him. It isn't like he can negotiate with the GOP when he cannot even control his own party. The "GOP is being unreasonable" is just cover for "Ain't any kind of leadership going on--bold or otherwise"
 
Dezaad said:
Again, you have no idea what was offered, so any assertion that Obama just wants it all his own way is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

The article is clear on the overall package, it says:

"...a new offer from the Republican leader of the U.S. the House of Representatives to raise taxes on top earners in exchange for major cuts in entitlement programs..."

As for specifics, you're right I don't know, just as I don't know what Obama meant when Geithner said "$400 billion in spending cuts, no specifics, and no guarantees."

So, when you say I have no idea what was offered, neither do you. Why shouldn't BOTH sides be held to a standard where they have to offer a detailed plan?
 
Fisher said:
Someone on another thread posted an article stating that Obama wants means-testing for Social Security but the dems won't give it to him. It isn't like he can negotiate with the GOP when he cannot even control his own party. The "GOP is being unreasonable" is just cover for "Ain't any kind of leadership going on--bold or otherwise"
Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, the 'crier of the house' Boehner isn't much better....He sure doesn't seem like he is up to the task of playing hard ball.
 
iacardsfan said:
In my eyes this makes no sense. Both sides of the table are being childish. Republicans: stop blocking tax hikes on the rich, are you really going to ruin it for everybody to take a stand? Democrats: you get what you want in tax hikes on the top 2%, are you really going to ruin it for everybody because of spending to a program that will be cut if we go off the cliff. This isn't a game of poker this is real people we are talking about. Stop gambling with the future of america and do the right thing.
Click to expand...

Republicans aren't "blocking" tax hikes on the rich - republicans TIME AND TIME AGAIN offered the tax hikes just as long as government cut spending. The Obama administration and democrats in Senate REFUSE to cut spending.

You know why democrats refuse to cut spending? because they damn well know they have to pay people to vote for them via entitlements, benefits and government grants. If democrats stopped spending money on their minions their minions (voting base) would stop voting for them. So the only solution democrats have is to continue to spend and continue to raise taxes - which is why we are at this "fiscal cliff" in the first place.

Republicans are trying to save this economy and country while democrats are more worried about pandering and making good on the promises of free entitlements, benefits and "Obama phones" to their voting base, just so they can retain their elitist position and their power...
 
j-mac said:
Well, to be fair, the 'crier of the house' Boehner isn't much better....He sure doesn't seem like he is up to the task of playing hard ball.
Click to expand...

If the President cannot give him anything he has nothing to take back to his caucus. If the two of them came up with a plan jointly, made it public, and then both fought the same battle for the same plan it would push the far left and far right out of the picture and a lot of this non-sense would go away.
 
Fisher said:
Someone on another thread posted an article stating that Obama wants means-testing for Social Security but the dems won't give it to him. It isn't like he can negotiate with the GOP when he cannot even control his own party. The "GOP is being unreasonable" is just cover for "Ain't any kind of leadership going on--bold or otherwise"
Click to expand...

"Means-testing?"

Sounds like Obama to me.... Never mind the fact someone paid social security for 50 years of their life (even when they were young and had nothing) no, no - we must give all that money to the idiots that never held a job in their life and are second/third generation welfare recipients.

I'm glad the democrats shot down his insane thievery proposal.
 
Fisher said:
If the President cannot give him anything he has nothing to take back to his caucus. If the two of them came up with a plan jointly, made it public, and then both fought the same battle for the same plan it would push the far left and far right out of the picture and a lot of this non-sense would go away.
Click to expand...


Except that Obama himself is a weak leader, that is ideologically driven by the far left. Remember the last debt ceiling negotiations? They had a deal, went home for the night to come back the next day and solidify it, and Obama moved the goal posts and sunk the deal, then blamed it on Boehner...

We need leaders on both sides, what we have now is far left partisan, pushing around a wishy washy weakling, willing to compromise principle because he is worried what the Washington press will write....
 
Mr.Nick said:
"Means-testing?"

Sounds like Obama to me.... Never mind the fact someone paid social security for 50 years of their life (even when they were young and had nothing) no, no - we must give all that money to the idiots that never held a job in their life and are second/third generation welfare recipients.

I'm glad the democrats shot down his insane thievery proposal.
Click to expand...

Most people outlive the amount they paid in and the interest that would have accumulated on that money. If we limited it to you get what you paid in with interest, there would never ever be a solvency issue. Whether you like it or not, the reality is that a big chunk of the money people feel they earned and are entitled to is money they did not earn and are not entitled to and eventually the amount going out exceeds the amount coming in. In addition others draw of that same money like spouses and disabled children. It is nothing more than a welfare program hidden behind a separate tax line on your paystub. If we wish to keep it, then it will have to be substantially reformed and means-testing is a more reasonable approach than raising the retirement age to 80.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom