• 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!

Harry Reid: "We're going over the cliff"

Try this simple experiment with your boss. Explain that you now spend 40% more than your salary supports, yet have carefully studied your budget and can make no cuts. The only "fair" solution, that you can come up with, is to receive an immediate salary increase of 10%, in return for which you will do nothing extra, at all, on the job, but will spend it quickly, as you will still have a budget deficit of 36%, and be back next year (month?) to ask for even more compensation as a just reward for your fine work and personal spending habits.

When your boss stops laughing, and then suggests that a substance abuse test may be in order, you will get the explanation that you deserve. ;)
Your attempt at an "example" doesn't work because it misconstrues the President's plans. See......analogies only work when they are accurate...otherwise they just come across as silly tripe.
 
Its a start in the right direction and helps stem what would otherwise be huge cuts to the defense department. The bottom line is....why is the gop willing to hold the middle class and working classes hostage in order to keep huge tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Luckily....the overwhelming majority of the American people see what is going on and get it. I don't believe that the GOP could play this any worse that they have. The must want to become a regional party for the forseeable future.

What's really a start is an across the board reduction in so-called 'entitlements. An idea quite foreign to you and your fellow travelers. I have no problem with allowing the more successful keeping more of their money. The overwhelming majority of the American people don't have a clue beyond reality shows and Monday Night Football.
 
Your attempt at an "example" doesn't work because it misconstrues the President's plans. See......analogies only work when they are accurate...otherwise they just come across as silly tripe.

What exactly are the 'President's plans' beyond more deficit spending? Be specific.
 
Your attempt at an "example" doesn't work because it misconstrues the President's plans. See......analogies only work when they are accurate...otherwise they just come across as silly tripe.

Would this be the same president that has presided over a 20% increase in federal spending (comparing federal spending in 2007/8 to that of 2008/9), has run $1 trillion+ deficits each year in office and plans to continue to do so? The analogy used is just, as the "compromise" offered contains no serious reductions in current spending (in fact, spending increases over the "cliff" levels), but does contain (somewhat smaller) current increases in revenue.
 
What's really a start is an across the board reduction in so-called 'entitlements. An idea quite foreign to you and your fellow travelers. I have no problem with allowing the more successful keeping more of their money. The overwhelming majority of the American people don't have a clue beyond reality shows and Monday Night Football.

LOL....with you people it is always about people "keeping more of their money". Whatever happened to the America where people actually cared about the great good of the community? Too many people like you think that everything in America is free and that there is no responsibility to pay back into a nation that allowed those wealthy to "get their money" in the first place. Freedom and America are not free. They come with responsibilities.
 
Would this be the same president that has presided over a 20% increase in federal spending (comparing federal spending in 2007/8 to that of 2008/9), has run $1 trillion+ deficits each year in office and plans to continue to do so? The analogy used is just, as the "compromise" offered contains no serious reductions in current spending (in fact, spending increases over the "cliff" levels), but does contain (somewhat smaller) current increases in revenue.

Image Detail for - obama-federal-spending - Obama has slowed federal spending more than ...
 
LOL....with you people it is always about people "keeping more of their money". Whatever happened to the America where people actually cared about the great good of the community? Too many people like you think that everything in America is free and that there is no responsibility to pay back into a nation that allowed those wealthy to "get their money" in the first place. Freedom and America are not free. They come with responsibilities.

Responsibilities like dropping out of HS, having children out of wedlock, with no means to support them, and demanding that the huge nanny state support them at a level that they never once attained for themselves? That kind of responsibility? Get real!
 
LOL....with you people it is always about people "keeping more of their money". Whatever happened to the America where people actually cared about the great good of the community? Too many people like you think that everything in America is free and that there is no responsibility to pay back into a nation that allowed those wealthy to "get their money" in the first place. Freedom and America are not free. They come with responsibilities.

Keep spinning comrade. Fact is until recently successful people were looked up to. Now many, supported by you and your fellow travelers, view those who support them as evil. Most of us have had an opportunity to 'get their money'. The problem is you want to get theirs also. BTW, I'm a disabled vet having spent 17 months in a naval hospital. I paid a portion of my debt to this society.
 
Responsibilities like dropping out of HS, having children out of wedlock, with no means to support them, and demanding that the huge nanny state support them at a level that they never once attained for themselves? That kind of responsibility? Get real!

No....I don't support that lack of responsibility either. But...the reality is that those of you who so often cry about the rich being able to keep "more of their money"....do exactly the same thing. You don't want to accept any responsibility for people paying back into a system that allowed them to accumulate their wealth.
 
Keep spinning comrade. Fact is until recently successful people were looked up to. Now many, supported by you and your fellow travelers, view those who support them as evil. Most of us have had an opportunity to 'get their money'. The problem is you want to get theirs also. BTW, I'm a disabled vet having spent 17 months in a naval hospital. I paid a portion of my debt to this society.

LOL.....back to that failed "Class warfare" line? The reality is....you people like to use the term when tax rates negatively affect the wealthy....but surprisingly...or maybe not....when tax rates adversely affect the middle/working classes....then....its just "paying taxes". You guys are too much.
 

Note the budget years used in my post, and those used in your post's "source". To say that the "baseline" for Obama federal spending is using the year containing the "one time" (crisis/emergency?) TARP and ARRA (stimulus I) spending bump is indeed a clever accounting ruse. Naturally if given a 20% emergency bonus, one may wish to allow that to be carried on forever as the new "normal" (baseline?) by never submitting a new "budget"; simply by having prince Harry Reid keep using "continuing resloutions" to keep up that inflated level of federal spending forever. The oh so frugal Obama, has indeed managed to incur annual federal deficts at 40% of total spending (at $1 trillion+) in each of those "thrifty" spending years.
 
Note the budget years used in my post, and those used in your post's "source". To say that the "baseline" for Obama federal spending is using the year containing the "one time" (crisis/emergency?) TARP and ARRA (stimulus I) spending bump is indeed a clever accounting ruse. Naturally if given a 20% emergency bonus, one may wish to allow that to be carried on forever as the new "normal" (baseline?) by never submitting a new "budget"; simply by having prince Harry Reid keep using "continuing resloutions" to keep up that inflated level of federal spending forever. The oh so frugal Obama, has indeed managed to incur annual federal deficts at 40% of total spending (at $1 trillion+) in each of those "thrifty" spending years.

You have been listening to way too much right-wing propaganda. If you look at real stats, you will see that the federal government has SHRUNK under Obama in term of actual numbers.
 
The bottom line is that the GOP will pay a huge political price by holding the middle class and working classes hostage....and I, for one...am happy to let them dig their own grave
 
No....I don't support that lack of responsibility either. But...the reality is that those of you who so often cry about the rich being able to keep "more of their money"....do exactly the same thing. You don't want to accept any responsibility for people paying back into a system that allowed them to accumulate their wealth.

Here is MY "compromise" deal, you stop the out of control welfare/entitlement spending nonsense and THEN ask me for more money to support that, new and improved, "responsible" federal spending. ;)
 
Here is MY "compromise" deal, you stop the out of control welfare/entitlement spending nonsense and THEN ask me for more money to support that, new and improved, "responsible" federal spending. ;)

What "entitlements" are you talking about? Social security? Medicare?
 
You have been listening to way too much right-wing propaganda. If you look at real stats, you will see that the federal government has SHRUNK under Obama in term of actual numbers.

Name one year of Obama federal spending that was less than that of 2007. Adding 20 and then subtracting 2 is not a net reduction.
 
No....I don't support that lack of responsibility either. But...the reality is that those of you who so often cry about the rich being able to keep "more of their money"....do exactly the same thing. You don't want to accept any responsibility for people paying back into a system that allowed them to accumulate their wealth.

You are taking a lot of shortcuts in your analysis. it is a false choice that people who oppose the tax increases do so for corporate CEO's. You might want to consider that they oppose them because they oppose what the money is being spent on.
 
What "entitlements" are you talking about? Social security? Medicare?

Yes, but beyond that to the OTHER 80 federal "public assistance" (poverty?) programs based on income level as well. You do realize the we the sheeple now spend about $60K per family per year for "welfare" (in all of its many forms), while the US median family income is below that level.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/over-60000-welfare-spentper-household-poverty_657889.html

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/

http://www.alipac.us/f19/welfare-cl...30-60-median-income-per-hour-$25-03-a-268887/
 
Last edited:
Its a start in the right direction and helps stem what would otherwise be huge cuts to the defense department. The bottom line is....why is the gop willing to hold the middle class and working classes hostage in order to keep huge tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Luckily....the overwhelming majority of the American people see what is going on and get it. I don't believe that the GOP could play this any worse that they have. The must want to become a regional party for the forseeable future.
The Bush tax cuts went to the people who pay the taxes. Democrats are the ones who put us here. Democrats insisted that the Bush tax rates would have to expire. There are not cuts in tax rates. There are current rates, the ones we have been paying for years, and there are the Clinton rates that we will begin paying tomorrow.

I am delighted. I have been hearing for a very long time from the liberal-progressive-socialist types that the path to prosperity comes through steeply progressive income taxes. An early estimate on my taxes shows they will go up by around $10K. That money used to pay for an occasional worker who helped out for a few hours every week. I told him I would no longer be able to pay him as I needed to pay the government instead. He complained that he did not vote for Obama. Nor did I. But enough takers did that we are stuck with the worst excesses of a government bent toward tyranny. He and I will both be worse off. The money will disappear in Washington.
 
The Bush tax cuts went to the people who pay the taxes. Democrats are the ones who put us here. Democrats insisted that the Bush tax rates would have to expire. There are not cuts in tax rates. There are current rates, the ones we have been paying for years, and there are the Clinton rates that we will begin paying tomorrow.

I am delighted. I have been hearing for a very long time from the liberal-progressive-socialist types that the path to prosperity comes through steeply progressive income taxes. An early estimate on my taxes shows they will go up by around $10K. That money used to pay for an occasional worker who helped out for a few hours every week. I told him I would no longer be able to pay him as I needed to pay the government instead. He complained that he did not vote for Obama. Nor did I. But enough takers did that we are stuck with the worst excesses of a government bent toward tyranny. He and I will both be worse off. The money will disappear in Washington.

I think you must suffer from the typical GOP mindset...i.e.....if it failed the first 20 times, do it again, because maybe it will work the 21st time. You talk about Clinton and Bush. Just take a look at the economy under Clinton vs. the economy under Bush. If the answer isn't glaring to you than you will never see the errors of your thinking.
 
I think you must suffer from the typical GOP mindset...i.e.....if it failed the first 20 times, do it again, because maybe it will work the 21st time. You talk about Clinton and Bush. Just take a look at the economy under Clinton vs. the economy under Bush. If the answer isn't glaring to you than you will never see the errors of your thinking.

I think you are making the mistake of taking the last 3 months out of an 8 year term, and projecting that out to the entirety of the 8 years, for partisan purposes. But a comprehensive look at facts don't support your view of what Bush's term was.
 
I think you must suffer from the typical GOP mindset...i.e.....if it failed the first 20 times, do it again, because maybe it will work the 21st time. You talk about Clinton and Bush. Just take a look at the economy under Clinton vs. the economy under Bush. If the answer isn't glaring to you than you will never see the errors of your thinking.
My guess is that you have simplified all of history sufficient to put it on a bumper sticker. And that is why you fail.
 
I think you are making the mistake of taking the last 3 months out of an 8 year term, and projecting that out to the entirety of the 8 years, for partisan purposes. But a comprehensive look at facts don't support your view of what Bush's term was.

LOL.....only in the eyes of a true Bush apologist. GWB was an utter failure....for a hell of a lot more than his last 3 months.
 
LOL.....only in the eyes of a true Bush apologist. GWB was an utter failure....for a hell of a lot more than his last 3 months.

GWB was not a failure, Obama is a amateur and a failure, no experience, just a headstrong donkey ass.
 
GWB was not a failure, Obama is a amateur and a failure, no experience, just a headstrong donkey ass.

LOL....you must be one of the 28% who think so. GWB was the Herbert Hoover of the 21st Century and will always be remembered as such.
 
Back
Top Bottom