• 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

This is called political theater. Politicians works in two very separate worlds: the world of public relations, what they do in the open, what they present to their electorate; and the world behind closed doors, where frank discussions occur, lobbying takes place, teams of analysts determine the effects of certain policy, etc.

Boehner and Obama are playing a political dance where in the former they are opposing compromise to pander to their base. They put a strong front up to maintain support of their base and prevent opposition on the grounds that they are betraying their fundamental principles. In reality, politicians are all opportunists. Behind closed doors they are having frank discussions with their teams. Each side has a small army of analysts who are crunching numbers on various different scenarios to see how they would play out economically. These reports are reviewed and most likely will be decided on based on how well they can sell the best one to their base.

In the mean time, they must also come together and review these proposals behind closed doors to see which would be most realistically passed with minimal impact to their own political reputations. I imagine this is what Boehner and Obama are doing in their "frank" discussions behind closed doors.

Now, with Boehner releasing his "concession" on increasing tax rates for earners over $1M (yet still disagreeing with Obama who wants the rate at $250,000), he is putting out feelers to see how his base and the American public will react to his compromising. Obama is doing the same thing with increasing his statements about spending cuts. They most likely have already settled on a plan on which they both agree but just do not think it is the appropriate time, politically, to sell to the public or to their base.

In the mean time, we are seeing a shift to the center on the republican side in both houses of congress, which is paving the way for such a compromise. The tea party has lost considerable support, many either being voted out or outright quitting congress. All of this is for the purpose of passing a deal which compromises on both sides, that congress and the American public can stomach.

So this really is all a smokescreen. We'll see a deal reached at the 11th hour.
 
First of all, this concession by boehner was no concession. Over 70% of americans said they wanted tax hikes and the majority said if theres no deal they will blame republicans. This was a move by boehner to try and wiggle out of the corner the GOP has put themselves..
Second, no one knows what kind of cuts boehner will accept, they may be outrageous.
Third and this is the big one, Obama has called for tax increases on anyone making 250,000 and up from the start, boehner wants a million and up...Obama has not changed his position at all...yet.
 
Boo Radley said:
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.
Click to expand...

:applaud You actually provide clear understandable support this time.

Now. How many of those people polled actually have very much knowledge of the subject? Yes, I understand that politics can really be a popularity contest. However, I don't see how the most popular can be of any benefit to us if the solutions are not based upon sound principles and logic. I never doubted that real, working solutions would be unpopular. I believe that is one reason we rarely if ever see them, it would cost a politician re-election, and many, myself included, believe that that is the only or primary concern of a Politician.

Few, if any, are actually knowledgeable in the various facets of Politics. Many here try to be knowledgeable, but few, if any, actually know all the facts relating to any particular issue. Even here on this forum, were everyone participating can be assumed to be at least interested in issues, we see very little "facts" and quite a bit of supposition and unwillingness to actually revue and consider what facts are presented. Almost everyone is entrenched their believes and are emotionally tied to them. No one likes to admit being wrong. This, perhaps, is the reason, despite all the debate, views and information passed in this forum we see very few who actually change their political outlook. And this is a very small, interested segment of society, not society as a whole.

So your basing arguments on popular opinion really doesn't prove anything, one way or the other. Popular opinion can only affect who gets elected, and I for one, have seen very little evidence that the general public is even knowledgeable on issues nor that they have a very long memory of issues. In two years, unless this is still going on or resurfaces, it will likely not have much of an affect upon voting, other issues will arise that will supplant it. Public popularity of any political issue is a very fickle thing nor does it prove accuracy of a viewpoint on any issue.

People once thought the universe and the sun revolved around the earth, the vast majority was wrong then. The majority of people once thought the world was flat, they were wrong. Just a couple of examples of just how wrong a popular opinion can be.
 
DVSentinel said:
:applaud You actually provide clear understandable support this time.

Now. How many of those people polled actually have very much knowledge of the subject? Yes, I understand that politics can really be a popularity contest. However, I don't see how the most popular can be of any benefit to us if the solutions are not based upon sound principles and logic. I never doubted that real, working solutions would be unpopular. I believe that is one reason we rarely if ever see them, it would cost a politician re-election, and many, myself included, believe that that is the only or primary concern of a Politician.

Few, if any, are actually knowledgeable in the various facets of Politics. Many here try to be knowledgeable, but few, if any, actually know all the facts relating to any particular issue. Even here on this forum, were everyone participating can be assumed to be at least interested in issues, we see very little "facts" and quite a bit of supposition and unwillingness to actually revue and consider what facts are presented. Almost everyone is entrenched their believes and are emotionally tied to them. No one likes to admit being wrong. This, perhaps, is the reason, despite all the debate, views and information passed in this forum we see very few who actually change their political outlook. And this is a very small, interested segment of society, not society as a whole.

So your basing arguments on popular opinion really doesn't prove anything, one way or the other. Popular opinion can only affect who gets elected, and I for one, have seen very little evidence that the general public is even knowledgeable on issues nor that they have a very long memory of issues. In two years, unless this is still going on or resurfaces, it will likely not have much of an affect upon voting, other issues will arise that will supplant it. Public popularity of any political issue is a very fickle thing nor does it prove accuracy of a viewpoint on any issue.

People once thought the universe and the sun revolved around the earth, the vast majority was wrong then. The majority of people once thought the world was flat, they were wrong. Just a couple of examples of just how wrong a popular opinion can be.
Click to expand...

Never Said it proved the right or wrong of anything. Only suggest this is why they are not transparent.

BTW I told once I got to a computer, I could prove links on anything you needed. I just didn't understand why you need links on common knowledge and logic. :shrug:
 
Boo Radley said:
BTW I told once I got to a computer, I could prove links on anything you needed. I just didn't understand why you need links on common knowledge and logic. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Links are only need to give proper credit to those who generated the information presented. If a quote or information is from a Book/movie/TV broadcast., no link is required, however, Author and Title, as a minimum, should be given. Besides giving proper credit to originators of works, it also allows those who view your post, and desire to, to look up the full context that it was taken from.

Because, as some have noticed, common knowledge and logic are even more rare than common sense. Also, what I believe to be common knowledge and logic may not be what you understand to be common knowledge and logic. Without knowing what facts are "common knowledge" to you, I cannot compare them to facts that may be considered "common knowledge" to me. No two people have the same total sum of knowledge. And no two people apply "logic" in exactly the same way on political issues.

Boo Radley said:
Never Said it proved the right or wrong of anything. Only suggest this is why they are not transparent.
Click to expand...

Then why didn't you say that? I, for one, obviously, did not get that meaning from what you posted.
 
DVSentinel said:
Links are only need to give proper credit to those who generated the information presented. If a quote or information is from a Book/movie/TV broadcast., no link is required, however, Author and Title, as a minimum, should be given. Besides giving proper credit to originators of works, it also allows those who view your post, and desire to, to look up the full context that it was taken from.

Because, as some have noticed, common knowledge and logic are even more rare than common sense. Also, what I believe to be common knowledge and logic may not be what you understand to be common knowledge and logic. Without knowing what facts are "common knowledge" to you, I cannot compare them to facts that may be considered "common knowledge" to me. No two people have the same total sum of knowledge. And no two people apply "logic" in exactly the same way on political issues.



Then why didn't you say that? I, for one, obviously, did not get that meaning from what you posted.
Click to expand...

I did say that. In conjunction with j's comment, I added to it. You leap in.

As for links, you're not telling me something I don't know. But I spelled out fairly clearly what I was speaking about, and it was commonly known and my logic not hard to follow. I keep it simple as I can at times as I'm doing a couple to hinges at once and I'm practicing on an iPad I haven't mastered yet.
 
danarhea said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are leaving out a vital and key difference. In '04, Bush and the Reps were also given a Majority in Both Houses of Congress. Despite the popular vote for President, the Senate only changed by 2 seats and the Reps still have a majority in the House. So, although he won the popular vote and was reelected and his party did increase in both houses, him and his party was not given full control as the Reps were in '04.

Having said that, I don't believe either Bush or Obama, or anyone in politics for that matter, was given a "mandate". If there was a drastic change in the make up of Congress like what happened in 2010, and that party got the Presidency, I might, that is might, swallow rhetoric about mandates.
 
TaraAnne said:
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.
Click to expand...

Who started it can go on forever and each political party can blame the other but the real question is, what do you do about it now? Do you have any ideas?
 
danarhea said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but Romney won those geograpically huge counties in Nevada that have more ghost towns than actual people.
 
Mr.Nick said:
No, this is a perfect example of how the media lies and claims republicans come up with nothing, when they do all the time but Obama just shoots down the proposals.

Obama's not willing to compromise on anything - it's his way or no way.

Hell the republicans could probable draw up a plan identical to his own and he would still deny it because it was presented by republicans. What Obama wants is for the democrats to draft proposals and wants republicans to say "yes master."

Obama is seriously a psychopath. "you don't offer me a cookie - I offer you a cookie" that is pretty much his pathology. He want's to look like a great savior and when his stupid plans fail he goes blaming everyone but his own remedial self.
Click to expand...

Have you ever negotiated anything? You don't walk in and take the first offer on the table. And in anything this public, nobody's going to say in a press conference that they accept the other side's offer with no changes.

You guys are all in a tizzy because Obama won't do it Boehner's way. I'm glad to see Obama is finally learning how to negotiate instead of walking in with a compromise and letting the GOP move more to the right (see healthcare reform).
 
rocket88 said:
Have you ever negotiated anything? You don't walk in and take the first offer on the table. And in anything this public, nobody's going to say in a press conference that they accept the other side's offer with no changes.

You guys are all in a tizzy because Obama won't do it Boehner's way. I'm glad to see Obama is finally learning how to negotiate instead of walking in with a compromise and letting the GOP move more to the right (see healthcare reform).
Click to expand...

Does a "move more to the right" suggest that spending, debt, etc. get under some control?
 
TaraAnne said:
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.
Click to expand...

I wonder if they really know.

U.S. Federal Deficits, Presidents, and Congress

Since 1911, A century ago, Woodrow Wilson, 1913-1921, was the first to have a deficit, However it only appears during war years of WW I. Herbert Clark Hoover, 1929-1933 was the next president to have a deficit, but only one year of his budget alone, the next year did have a deficit also, but was split between Hoover and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1933-1945. FDR had a Deficit every year of his Presidency, and only 4 of those were war years. So, deficit spending, other than war years, was started by H.C. Hoover, with Republicans controlling the House and dems controlling the Senate. The next years budget, also a deficit, the budget appears to be split, with Republicans controlling the Presidency and House part of the time and Dems having control in all three for part of that time.

The first President to use Deficit spending repeatedly during peacetime was FDR and Dems controlled both houses. The highest tax bracket started at 63% and rose to 94% during his Presidency. High Taxes on the rich did not prevent or cure deficit spending.

Since FDR, this chart only shows 5 years without deficits (Clinton did have a budgetary "surplus" however subtracting one years debt from the next years debt shows there was actually a small deficit.) and never when Dems had full control of the budgetary process.

Dwight David Eisenhower, 1953-1961, is the only President prior to G.W. Bush to have a deficit while Republicans full controlled the Budget. Of course, that was also the last year until G.W. Bush that Republicans had full control. All of GW Bushes years were war years, whether you agreed with the wars or not, they were war years. So has Obama's, so far.

Also, notice that under JFK and Dem control, the deficit took a huge jump, an almost 8x increase in a single year. Not even Obama made that significant of a jump.

Even with the wars, GW Bush had a total of $4,350,543 millions of that, only $1,723,741 was during budgetary years where the Republicans controlled both houses and the Presidency for the budget. In 4 years, Obama has run a total deficit of $5,990,405 millions at total of 1,639,862 above Bush's 8 year total. The first year of Obama and Dem control, they exceed, in a single year, the total deficit run up by Bush and Republicans during 3 years of control. Since the Reps took control of the House, under Obama, their first year in full control of budget reduced the deficit by $427,004 millions vs the last budget with Obama and the Dems in full control. Wow, they reduced Obama/Dems deficit spending by only $1,688.17 billion less than the maximum deficit ever run by Bush.

During the Bush years, the Debt grew by $3,796,489 millions (I left off 2001, since that budget was partially Bush, Partially Clinton) while Obama has so far increased it by $2,453,508 (not counting 2009 which had split control of budget). Since the Dems took control of Congress (full control starting 2009 and only Senate for part of 2011 and all of 2012), our debt has increased by $5,990,407 millions. Since the Dems first came into the budgetary process in 2007, the Debt has risen from $8.5 Trillion to $16 Trillion.

Who introduced Deficit spending during peacetime as policy, FDR with Dems controlling both houses.

Who started the current trend of deficit spending, D.D Eisenhower with the Dems in control of both houses.

In a Century, only 7 times has a Congress controlled by the Dems not ran up a deficit. While the Reps did it 12 times. Only 12 times have the Dems actually reduced the deficit, 8 times for Republicans (maybe would of been more, the one time the reduced, they eliminated it and it didn't come back for 10 years). For more than half that Century, Dems had control of both Housed for full budgetary process, while the Republicans only had full control for 15 of those 100 years. In those 19 years, they reduced the Deficit 8 times and didn't run a deficit 11 times the didn't even run a deficit (1 year the did run one but it was a also a year that was a reducing year, so it gets in there twice). 1 time (when they had full control) has a Rep run congress increased the deficit. 1 time out of 100.

Who made the largest significant jump in deficit spending (by multiples of previous deficit, not actual dollars), JFK, with Dems in control of both Houses.

Who made the largest single monetary jump in deficit spending, Obama with Dems in control of both Houses. (Actually, I skipped the year prior when the budget was mixed and used the last Bush Budget where it was not mixed control, Obama's first full control was actually a reduction from the split control year with the split control year being the largest actual monetary jump).

While I don't particularly trust the Reps, this short Budgetary history really makes me more supportive of Reps in Control than Dems.
 
DVSentinel said:
I wonder if they really know.

U.S. Federal Deficits, Presidents, and Congress

Since 1911, A century ago, Woodrow Wilson, 1913-1921, was the first to have a deficit, However it only appears during war years of WW I. Herbert Clark Hoover, 1929-1933 was the next president to have a deficit, but only one year of his budget alone, the next year did have a deficit also, but was split between Hoover and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1933-1945. FDR had a Deficit every year of his Presidency, and only 4 of those were war years. So, deficit spending, other than war years, was started by H.C. Hoover, with Republicans controlling the House and dems controlling the Senate. The next years budget, also a deficit, the budget appears to be split, with Republicans controlling the Presidency and House part of the time and Dems having control in all three for part of that time.

The first President to use Deficit spending repeatedly during peacetime was FDR and Dems controlled both houses. The highest tax bracket started at 63% and rose to 94% during his Presidency. High Taxes on the rich did not prevent or cure deficit spending.

Since FDR, this chart only shows 5 years without deficits (Clinton did have a budgetary "surplus" however subtracting one years debt from the next years debt shows there was actually a small deficit.) and never when Dems had full control of the budgetary process.

Dwight David Eisenhower, 1953-1961, is the only President prior to G.W. Bush to have a deficit while Republicans full controlled the Budget. Of course, that was also the last year until G.W. Bush that Republicans had full control. All of GW Bushes years were war years, whether you agreed with the wars or not, they were war years. So has Obama's, so far.

Also, notice that under JFK and Dem control, the deficit took a huge jump, an almost 8x increase in a single year. Not even Obama made that significant of a jump.

Even with the wars, GW Bush had a total of $4,350,543 millions of that, only $1,723,741 was during budgetary years where the Republicans controlled both houses and the Presidency for the budget. In 4 years, Obama has run a total deficit of $5,990,405 millions at total of 1,639,862 above Bush's 8 year total. The first year of Obama and Dem control, they exceed, in a single year, the total deficit run up by Bush and Republicans during 3 years of control. Since the Reps took control of the House, under Obama, their first year in full control of budget reduced the deficit by $427,004 millions vs the last budget with Obama and the Dems in full control. Wow, they reduced Obama/Dems deficit spending by only $1,688.17 billion less than the maximum deficit ever run by Bush.

During the Bush years, the Debt grew by $3,796,489 millions (I left off 2001, since that budget was partially Bush, Partially Clinton) while Obama has so far increased it by $2,453,508 (not counting 2009 which had split control of budget). Since the Dems took control of Congress (full control starting 2009 and only Senate for part of 2011 and all of 2012), our debt has increased by $5,990,407 millions. Since the Dems first came into the budgetary process in 2007, the Debt has risen from $8.5 Trillion to $16 Trillion.

Who introduced Deficit spending during peacetime as policy, FDR with Dems controlling both houses.

Who started the current trend of deficit spending, D.D Eisenhower with the Dems in control of both houses.

In a Century, only 7 times has a Congress controlled by the Dems not ran up a deficit. While the Reps did it 12 times. Only 12 times have the Dems actually reduced the deficit, 8 times for Republicans (maybe would of been more, the one time the reduced, they eliminated it and it didn't come back for 10 years). For more than half that Century, Dems had control of both Housed for full budgetary process, while the Republicans only had full control for 15 of those 100 years. In those 19 years, they reduced the Deficit 8 times and didn't run a deficit 11 times the didn't even run a deficit (1 year the did run one but it was a also a year that was a reducing year, so it gets in there twice). 1 time (when they had full control) has a Rep run congress increased the deficit. 1 time out of 100.

Who made the largest significant jump in deficit spending (by multiples of previous deficit, not actual dollars), JFK, with Dems in control of both Houses.

Who made the largest single monetary jump in deficit spending, Obama with Dems in control of both Houses. (Actually, I skipped the year prior when the budget was mixed and used the last Bush Budget where it was not mixed control, Obama's first full control was actually a reduction from the split control year with the split control year being the largest actual monetary jump).

While I don't particularly trust the Reps, this short Budgetary history really makes me more supportive of Reps in Control than Dems.
Click to expand...

No matter what different administrations have done in the past the important thing now is to get government spending under control. The Republicans have promised to do that, which makes them at least aware that there are serious fiscal problems. while the Democrats have not even passed a budget for the past several years.

The question really is what to do now regarding the economy and only one party appears to be taking the issue seriously.
 
rocket88 said:
Have you ever negotiated anything? You don't walk in and take the first offer on the table. And in anything this public, nobody's going to say in a press conference that they accept the other side's offer with no changes.

You guys are all in a tizzy because Obama won't do it Boehner's way. I'm glad to see Obama is finally learning how to negotiate instead of walking in with a compromise and letting the GOP move more to the right (see healthcare reform).
Click to expand...

What is Boehner's way?

Tim Geithner wants absolute executive control over the federal debt limit indefinitely into the future. Do you really believe that's a good idea for the country and for the precedent it sets?

Boehner is already done anyway for the concessions he has already given.
 
notquiteright said:
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... ;)
Click to expand...

Sorry the reduction on medicare spending, isn't Dr.Kovorkian.

notquiteright said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.


notquiteright said:
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?)
Click to expand...

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


notquiteright said:
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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
Grant said:
Does a "move more to the right" suggest that spending, debt, etc. get under some control?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Grant said:
Boehner is already done anyway for the concessions he has already given.
Click to expand...


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

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... :peace
 
notquiteright said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?


notquiteright said:
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.
Click to expand...

No it's not a gamble.
This is what non investment people say, when they're entirely ignorant of investing.
Utter nonsense.


notquiteright said:
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-
Click to expand...

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.

notquiteright said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?


notquiteright said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?

notquiteright said:
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... :peace
Click to expand...

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.
 
rocket88 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?"
 
rocket88 said:
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.
Click to expand...

There are two areas where Boehner has compromised. Where has Obama compromised?
 
TaraAnne said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Imnukingfutz said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
TaraAnne said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom