• 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

DVSentinel said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Mr.Nick said:
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..
Click to expand...

Then why did he agree to a trillion in cuts last year. History show it is the Republicans that like to spend money.
 
TaraAnne said:
Then why did he agree to a trillion in cuts last year. History show it is the Republicans that like to spend money.
Click to expand...

In fairness, both parties like to spend.
 
iguanaman said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
iguanaman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
Click to expand...
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.
 
TaraAnne said:
Then why did he agree to a trillion in cuts last year. History show it is the Republicans that like to spend money.
Click to expand...


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.
 
TaraAnne said:
Then why did he agree to a trillion in cuts last year. History show it is the Republicans that like to spend money.
Click to expand...

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/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/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:
iguanaman said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Imnukingfutz said:
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/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/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
View attachment 67139455
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
DVSentinel said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
notquiteright said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.

notquiteright said:
There are many reports, many fixes out there. Some look at the Simpson/Bowles panel as a pretty good start.
Click to expand...

Simpson/Bowles makes, what are, effective cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.

notquiteright said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

notquiteright said:
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... ;)
Click to expand...

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.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
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.
Click to expand...


The key words are "current form."

UHC and perhaps some means testing would go a long way.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Boo Radley said:
The key words are "current form."

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

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.
 
notquiteright said:
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.
Click to expand...

If I remember right, it was Greenspan, under Reagan that saved the projected short fall that SS was going to have.


notquiteright said:
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.
Click to expand...

Bush wasn't for putting all or most SS dollars in private accounts.
That was a lie.

notquiteright said:
And let's be truthful, Social Security has not added one thin dime to the debt.
Click to expand...

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.

notquiteright said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.


notquiteright said:
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.
Click to expand...

It really doesn't matter if you're on board or not.
It is going to happen, because it has to happen.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think I mentioned would reduce costs.
 
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. :doh

Too weak for words, the fix isn't a slow death to the social safety net...
 
rocket88 said:
He's never upset about Republicans doing anything. It's only evil if it's a Dem.
Click to expand...

Well, here's the deal - President Obama won reelection with 332 electoral votes over 206 for the opposition and by more than 4,400,000 popular vote margin. No one has won with those margins since Reagan's second term. When Bush barely squeaked by Kerry in 2004, he claimed a mandate. Sorry, GOP, but you can't have it both ways.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
More of the people want reduced federal spending than a tax increase (even if that tax increase is only on "rich people").
Click to expand...

Yeah, just as long as that 'federal spending' isn't on something that directly benefits them.
 
Wiggen said:
Yeah, just as long as that 'federal spending' isn't on something that directly benefits them.
Click to expand...

Of course! That is precisely the same attitude as for favoring increased taxation.
 
Boo Radley said:
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.
Click to expand...

Again, what evidence supports your point?

And yes, I have been following this kind of stuff for many years. When republicans had both houses of Congress and the Presidency, then, yes, they did not want to give concessions to Dems. Do you have any proof that the Dems acted any differently when they had all the control?

Over the last two years, ever since this current battle began, the Reps have held out on Defense and Taxes. I have seen no other issue that they have stood firm on. They have compromised on depth and breath of cuts to entitlements. The Reps first relented and gave some compromise on Defense. Now they have Relented on Taxes also. First proposing changing tax code to eliminate some deductions/loopholes and then relenting on making tax increases apply across the board instead of targeted. The Dems/Obama have offered up some cuts, but mostly to Rep sponsored programs. They have not given much on entitlement reform or Taxes. The Reps have pretty much given compromises now on everything and the Dems/Obama have compromised pretty much on nothing. Have the Reps caved in on anything, not that I know of, but maybe, but they have compromised. Where is that spirit of compromise from the other side?

Other than completely caving in and giving Obama and Dems everything they want, what other compromises do they have left to give? What concessions have Obama and the Dems given? How much compromise has been given on entitlement reforms? Obama is not only not giving in much on that issue, he is actually proposing another $200 Billion in entitlements. His only concession to cutting entitlements so far, from what has been published and that I have seen, is a $350 Billion cut to Medicare spread out over 10 years.

Where is any plan from Obama or a Dem that is being proposed that will actually address reducing Deficit spending and the debt during a time period where they would actually have some control? Members of the House face elections every 2 years, the Senate every 6 years with 1/3 of them having to run during each election cycle and Presidents serve for 4 year terms. Any law passed by the current congress can be amended or completely thrown out, including budgets, by any future congress. How can he promise anything 10 years in the future when he only has Limited control of it for only the next 4 years? Yes, he can promise it, but any knowledgeable and reasonable person would quickly realize that it is a false promise, because he doesn't have control of the process for the time span given. He wants to spend what he wants to spend and tries to convince other to let him based upon promises that are nothing but suggestions to future Congresses and Presidents.

I for one want to see plans to cut spending, develop revenue and control debt for the time span that he will have some control. I just don't see that from Obama or the Dems.

The future tax burden that is being built up now can and will have economic impact into the future. I wonder, what would a bank tell me if I applied for a very large loan and line of credit with only the promise that my children and grand children would pay it back? That is what the Dems/Obama are doing.
 
DVSentinel said:
Again, what evidence supports your point?

And yes, I have been following this kind of stuff for many years. When republicans had both houses of Congress and the Presidency, then, yes, they did not want to give concessions to Dems. Do you have any proof that the Dems acted any differently when they had all the control?

Over the last two years, ever since this current battle began, the Reps have held out on Defense and Taxes. I have seen no other issue that they have stood firm on. They have compromised on depth and breath of cuts to entitlements. The Reps first relented and gave some compromise on Defense. Now they have Relented on Taxes also. First proposing changing tax code to eliminate some deductions/loopholes and then relenting on making tax increases apply across the board instead of targeted. The Dems/Obama have offered up some cuts, but mostly to Rep sponsored programs. They have not given much on entitlement reform or Taxes. The Reps have pretty much given compromises now on everything and the Dems/Obama have compromised pretty much on nothing. Have the Reps caved in on anything, not that I know of, but maybe, but they have compromised. Where is that spirit of compromise from the other side?

Other than completely caving in and giving Obama and Dems everything they want, what other compromises do they have left to give? What concessions have Obama and the Dems given? How much compromise has been given on entitlement reforms? Obama is not only not giving in much on that issue, he is actually proposing another $200 Billion in entitlements. His only concession to cutting entitlements so far, from what has been published and that I have seen, is a $350 Billion cut to Medicare spread out over 10 years.

Where is any plan from Obama or a Dem that is being proposed that will actually address reducing Deficit spending and the debt during a time period where they would actually have some control? Members of the House face elections every 2 years, the Senate every 6 years with 1/3 of them having to run during each election cycle and Presidents serve for 4 year terms. Any law passed by the current congress can be amended or completely thrown out, including budgets, by any future congress. How can he promise anything 10 years in the future when he only has Limited control of it for only the next 4 years? Yes, he can promise it, but any knowledgeable and reasonable person would quickly realize that it is a false promise, because he doesn't have control of the process for the time span given. He wants to spend what he wants to spend and tries to convince other to let him based upon promises that are nothing but suggestions to future Congresses and Presidents.

I for one want to see plans to cut spending, develop revenue and control debt for the time span that he will have some control. I just don't see that from Obama or the Dems.

The future tax burden that is being built up now can and will have economic impact into the future. I wonder, what would a bank tell me if I applied for a very large loan and line of credit with only the promise that my children and grand children would pay it back? That is what the Dems/Obama are doing.
Click to expand...

I never said democrats acted differently. In fact, I'm saying they are the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom