• 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!

Obama's FY 2012 Budget

Conservative said:
How do the rich make their money off the BACKs of everyone else? You have a choice where to spend your money in the private
sector or not to spend it at all. By the way what do those evil rich people do with their money.
Click to expand...

One person makes a business? Who mops the floor? The CEO? Who delivers the packages? Who makes the businesses run that these people make their money off of?

Those numbers come from the IRS and are accurate just like 47% of the income earners paying NO FEDERAL INCOME taxes. The Bush tax cuts are in effect and the rich pay a greater share of the taxes now than they did before and those 47% don't pay any federal income taxes.
Click to expand...

And let's be honest... they can't afford to! Your numbers seem staggering until put into context!

The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data
The top one percent's adjusted gross income was higher than the entire bottom fifty percent combined. So you say 47% don't pay taxes, but if you add all of those people up they don't even combine to make as much as the top 1 percent.

If wages were corrected, this wouldn't be as much of an issue.

The top ten percent, by the way, earned over three times than that of the bottom fifty percent.

So while your numbers may seem shocking, these people are doing just fine. I am not sure what sympathy you are feeling for them, but they are making lots of money and things are just peachy.

Unfortunately Medicare and Social Security were put on budget and thus are part of the general revenue and being spent by Congress and the President ever since LBJ put SS on Budget. Medicare is part of SS.
Click to expand...

This is unfortunate.

The point is what is the role of the Federal Govt? Federal Govt. today is 3.7 trillion dollars and has duplicate departments to the states and the question is why?
Click to expand...

I personally enjoy what the federal government offers. Aside from the fact that I think the military probably has a lot of fat that can be cut, I think most of the nonmilitary discretionary spending has proven to be fairly efficient and worthwhile.

What I fail to understand is why conservatives are so hell bent on keeping things at the state level? If we are going to have the weakest federal government possible, why bother having one at all? Why not just be the States of America instead of the United States?

Give me a reason why? Give me any example of where govt. spending has solved a social problem, cost what it was supposed to cost? Why do you care what someone else pays in taxes?
Click to expand...

I would say socialized medicine abroad. While I have read many studies that say it is inefficient, I have never spoken to a Canadian or an Englishman who wished their services were like ours. Now, my sample size is not huge, but it is certainly big enough for me.

Stop buying what this President tells you because he hasn't told the truth yet on any economic prediction. The GOP didn't have control of the House until January of this year and don't have to submit a budget until April. We are under the Democrat and Obama budgets in 2011 so where are you getting your information?
Click to expand...

What? I am talking about the President's budget vs the budget put forth by the GOP a few months ago and supported by the GOP's top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee (Jeff Sessions). He supports the GOP plan to reduce spending by a billion per year for 10 years, but not Obama's plan for the exact same thing.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_02/027991.php
 
Ockham said:
It certainly is accessible. What you mean is if it's not affordable, it's not OBTAINABLE. It's still accessible and I am not nitpicking.
Click to expand...

You are. It's a way to skip the point. A weak way, but a way. If it is not obtainable, it is not accessable for you.
 
Boo Radley said:
You are. It's a way to skip the point. A weak way, but a way. If it is not obtainable, it is not accessable for you.
Click to expand...

It's a way to identify people still have access. What's weak is your constant insistance that two different things are one thing. You wrong. I've proven you wrong since the first reply. Pick up a dictionary and prove it to yourself.
 
whysoserious;1059291375]One person makes a business? Who mops the floor? The CEO? Who delivers the packages? Who makes the businesses run that these people make their money off of?
Click to expand...

The employees that have a job because the company makes a profit. If you don't like what the CEO makes then don't buy from that company. Take some personal responsibility for a change.

And let's be honest... they can't afford to! Your numbers seem staggering until put into context!]The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data
The top one percent's adjusted gross income was higher than the entire bottom fifty percent combined. So you say 47% don't pay taxes, but if you add all of those people up they don't even combine to make as much as the top 1 percent.
Click to expand...

So what? Why do you care what someone else makes? We live in a country that provided equal opportunity not equal outcome.

If wages were corrected, this wouldn't be as much of an issue.

The top ten percent, by the way, earned over three times than that of the bottom fifty percent.

So while your numbers may seem shocking, these people are doing just fine. I am not sure what sympathy you are feeling for them, but they are making lots of money and things are just peachy.
Click to expand...

So whose job is it to set wages? You really don't understand competition do you and seem to think that all corporations are evil. It really is a shame if this is the education you are receiving thus I fear for our country. This country was built on free enterprise and capitalism which you don't seem to understand. They make more and pay more in taxes. You continue to want to penalize those doing well, why?


I personally enjoy what the federal government offers. Aside from the fact that I think the military probably has a lot of fat that can be cut, I think most of the nonmilitary discretionary spending has proven to be fairly efficient and worthwhile.
Click to expand...

Where do you think the Federal govt. gets the money to provide everything you "enjoy." What did you learn in school as to the role of the Federal Govt? You seem so concerned about what private industry employees make but not the multi millionaire Congressional Representatives spend of our money?

What I fail to understand is why conservatives are so hell bent on keeping things at the state level? If we are going to have the weakest federal government possible, why bother having one at all? Why not just be the States of America instead of the United States?
Click to expand...

Because that is closer to the people and where our Founders put the power. Take a civics and history class to learn what our Founders created. Why do you think a bureacrat in D.C. can solve a social problem in your state or local community?



I would say socialized medicine abroad. While I have read many studies that say it is inefficient, I have never spoken to a Canadian or an Englishman who wished their services were like ours. Now, my sample size is not huge, but it is certainly big enough for me.
Click to expand...

Have you further noticed that European nations are broke and doing their best to get out of that socialized healthcare system they created?


What? I am talking about the President's budget vs the budget put forth by the GOP a few months ago and supported by the GOP's top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee (Jeff Sessions). He supports the GOP plan to reduce spending by a billion per year for 10 years, but not Obama's plan for the exact same thing.

The Washington Monthly
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

There has been no GOP Budget put forth and in fact there is NO 2011 fiscal year budget, just continuing resolutions. the GOP has a plan on the table right now that is being debated for a 61 billion dollar cut in fiscal year 2011 which ends in Sept. 2011. Democrats punted on the budget for this year and were shellacked in November. The GOP will be submitting a 2012 budget in April.
 
Last edited:
ricksfolly said:
It really doesn't matter what the 2011 budget is, or what the so-called deficit is, and the Reps know it. They're just trying alarm the uninformed voters and embarrass Obama.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

The 3.7 trillion budget is for fiscal year 2012, not 2011. The Democrats punted on the 2011 budget and we are operating on a continuing resolution. Do you realize the 2008 budget was 2.9 trillion dollars? Why do we need a 3.7 trillion dollar budget? Obama is embarrassing himself so the GOP doesn't have to make an effort in that area.
 
Ockham said:
It certainly is accessible. What you mean is if it's not affordable, it's not OBTAINABLE. It's still accessible and I am not nitpicking.
Click to expand...

Come on, man...

define:accessible - Google Search
# accessibility - handiness: the quality of being at hand when needed
# accessibility - approachability: the attribute of being easy to meet or deal with
Click to expand...

One of the major definitions of accessibility is not only being able to obtain it, but its relative easiness to get. If you click my link, which is a group of the many definitions of accessibility, you will see that ease is a word that is used many times.

capable of being reached; "a town accessible by rail"
Click to expand...

If something is "not OBTAINABLE", as you put it, then it is not capable of being reached. So therefore, by your definition, it is not accessible either.

easily obtained; "most students now have computers accessible"; "accessible money"
Click to expand...

This is my favorite one. If someone is accessible then it is "easily obtained". You said that if it is unaffordable then it is not obtainable. This is quite the opposite of easily obtained.

Can you quit the nitpicking now?
 
whysoserious said:
Come on, man...

define:accessible - Google Search


One of the major definitions of accessibility is not only being able to obtain it, but its relative easiness to get. If you click my link, which is a group of the many definitions of accessibility, you will see that ease is a word that is used many times.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Try using a Dictionary instead of Google... :roll:

Merriam-Webster said:
: providing access
2
a : capable of being reached <accessible by rail>; also : being within reach <fashions at accessible prices> b : easy to communicate or deal with <accessible people>
3
: capable of being influenced : open <accessible to new ideas>
4
: capable of being used or seen : available <the collection is not currently accessible>
5
: capable of being understood or appreciated <the author's most accessible stories> <an accessible film>
Click to expand...

Accessible - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

whysoserious said:
If something is "not OBTAINABLE", as you put it, then it is not capable of being reached. So therefore, by your definition, it is not accessible either.
Click to expand...
If it's not obtainable, it's not obtainable... it has nothing to do with accessible.

whysoserious said:
This is my favorite one. If someone is accessible then it is "easily obtained". You said that if it is unaffordable then it is not obtainable. This is quite the opposite of easily obtained.
Click to expand...
You're thinking of the word "attainable" not "obtainable". Jezus, it's like I'm teaching English vocabulary.... I'm not arguing what is and is not affordable, nor what is or is not obtainable. I'm arguing the words are not synonymous. Accessible is not a synonym for "obtainable".

whysoserious said:
Can you quit the nitpicking now?
Click to expand...
**** no. Why would I when I right?! :lamo
 
Conservative said:
Have you further noticed that European nations are broke and doing their best to get out of that socialized healthcare system they created?
Click to expand...
Broke, yes, but what singlepayer system in Europe is trying to stop being one?
 
FYI, thank you for the civil discussion.

Conservative said:
The employees that have a job because the company makes a profit. If you don't like what the CEO makes then don't buy from that company. Take some personal responsibility for a change.
Click to expand...

Easier said than done. Tons of money is made off of real estate and already owned assets (one reason cash flows uphill). Also, people don't necessarily have a choice about where to get their services. For instance:

CHS chief gets $3.5M in 2008 | Charlotte Business Journal
The health-care system’s top 10 executives made nearly $14 million in salary, bonuses and other benefits in 2008. Bonuses were for the 2007 year, and the figures account only for compensation paid in 2008.
Click to expand...

The top leaders in our state health care system received 14 million in compensation. These are not the most disgustingly high paid people in our society, but they are well compensated. In fact, these people are averaging over 1 million per year while your average CNA earns between $22-29,000.

So what? Why do you care what someone else makes? We live in a country that provided equal opportunity not equal outcome.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I am saying. I disagree. No one has the same equal opportunity. Opportunity in this country is directly linked to wealth. The more wealth the more opportunity. And wealth does not disappear, it grows.

So whose job is it to set wages? You really don't understand competition do you and seem to think that all corporations are evil. It really is a shame if this is the education you are receiving thus I fear for our country. This country was built on free enterprise and capitalism which you don't seem to understand. They make more and pay more in taxes. You continue to want to penalize those doing well, why?
Click to expand...

I understand competition very well. What is your point about competition and having fair wages?

Where do you think the Federal govt. gets the money to provide everything you "enjoy." What did you learn in school as to the role of the Federal Govt? You seem so concerned about what private industry employees make but not the multi millionaire Congressional Representatives spend of our money?
Click to expand...

Taxes. They also supply treasury bonds. My federal government protects me from big business, unhealthy conditions, and provides the best health care system it can.

Because that is closer to the people and where our Founders put the power. Take a civics and history class to learn what our Founders created. Why do you think a bureacrat in D.C. can solve a social problem in your state or local community?
Click to expand...

The founding fathers also added an amendment system because they knew that things change. The founding fathers do not live in 2010. They did not have real health care, they did not own computers, they did not have global corporations, etc. Times change and we need to adapt.





Have you further noticed that European nations are broke and doing their best to get out of that socialized healthcare system they created?
Click to expand...

Didn't you say we are broke? We don't have socialized medicine. I think everyone is broke right now.

England, France, and Canada want to get rid of their socialized systems?

There has been no GOP Budget put forth and in fact there is NO 2011 fiscal year budget, just continuing resolutions. the GOP has a plan on the table right now that is being debated for a 61 billion dollar cut in fiscal year 2001 which ends in Sept. 2011. Democrats punted on the budget for this year and were shellacked in November. The GOP will be submitting a 2012 budget in April.
Click to expand...

You didn't even click my link did you? The GOP most certainly did propose a budget in the House and it is almost identical to Obama's budget.
 
Ockham said:
You're thinking of the word "attainable" not "obtainable".
Click to expand...

From your source:

Obtainable - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Definition of OBTAIN
to gain or attain usually by planned action or effort
Click to expand...

So, being "unobtainable" would be the same as being "not able to attain". They are synonyms.

**** no. Why would I when I right?! :lamo
Click to expand...

From your definition:

Accessible - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
a : capable of being reached
Click to expand...

If something can be reached, it is attainable. By the definition of obtain, if it can be reached, it can be obtained. Therefore, if it can't be reached, it can't be obtained. If it can't be obtained, then it is not accessible by previous definition.

We can go in circles all day. They are all synonyms.
 
Conservative said:
Great Britain's
Click to expand...

I heard they were making changes, but I didn't know they were switching from single payer.
I couldn't find any articles on this - could you link me to some?
 
whysoserious;1059291500]FYI, thank you for the civil discussion.

Easier said than done. Tons of money is made off of real estate and already owned assets (one reason cash flows uphill). Also, people don't necessarily have a choice about where to get their services. For instance:

CHS chief gets $3.5M in 2008 | Charlotte Business Journal


The top leaders in our state health care system received 14 million in compensation. These are not the most disgustingly high paid people in our society, but they are well compensated. In fact, these people are averaging over 1 million per year while your average CNA earns between $22-29,000.
Click to expand...

There you go again concerned about what private industry pays its CEO's or anyone else, why? There is nothing that prevents you from shopping for insurance companies. That CEO is responsible for all those employees and the shareholders that own stock in that company. The decision on what he makes is for the company and shareholders to decide. You seem more concerned about what they make than how the govt. is spending the 3.7 trillion dollar budget. Wish you had the same passion for the waste of public dollars as you do for the spending of private dollars.


That's exactly what I am saying. I disagree. No one has the same equal opportunity. Opportunity in this country is directly linked to wealth. The more wealth the more opportunity. And wealth does not disappear, it grows.
Click to expand...

Tell that to Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, millions of other self made millionaires all of whom started with a dream, took risk, invested their own money and became wealthy. What is preventing you from doing that?

I understand competition very well. What is your point about competition and having fair wages?
Click to expand...

The single biggest expense in business is payroll including benefits. If a company's employees price themselves out of what the market will support they go out of business and those employees lose their jobs. Who decides what a fair wage is? You? What is your definition of a fair wage?

Taxes. They also supply treasury bonds. My federal government protects me from big business, unhealthy conditions, and provides the best health care system it can.
Click to expand...

What does your state EPA and judicial system do? Your Govt. doesn't provide healthcare, private industry does. Why do you need a 3.7 trillion dollar Federal govt?


The founding fathers also added an amendment system because they knew that things change. The founding fathers do not live in 2010. They did not have real health care, they did not own computers, they did not have global corporations, etc. Times change and we need to adapt.
Click to expand...

Not the Founding Fathers, Politicians added the Amendments with state support. You really don't know a lot about the founding fathers and buy what the liberal elites tell you. You really hate giant corporations, why? Do you realize those corporations employ people, pay taxes, are corporate citizens, and donates billions to charities?

Didn't you say we are broke? We don't have socialized medicine. I think everyone is broke right now.

England, France, and Canada want to get rid of their socialized systems?
Click to expand...

Yep, pay attention to what is going on in France and England.

You didn't even click my link did you? The GOP most certainly did propose a budget in the House and it is almost identical to Obama's budget.
Click to expand...

The 2011 budget went into effect in October 2010 so who was in charge then? the GOP took the House in November and took power in January 2011 so what control did they have over the budget? Read the article again, Sessions made a statement, the GOP is now debating cuts in the 2011 budget. They aren't similar at all so stop buying what you are told. Did you ever wonder why liberals are so passionate about a massive central govt? It is all about power and keeping you dependent.
 
Well, the ABC link didn't say they weren't doing single-payer anymore, just cutting benefits.
The link you posted was just like, oh, socialism is bad. I wasn't really sure what their point was at the end.

They're clearly cutting, but Cameron said 'NHS is part of Britain, part of Britishness' or something like that - it didn't seem like they're plain doing away with single-payer.
 
my pleasure, thank you

but, with all the respect which you deserve, which is substantial, i see you as quibbling again

and i could see it comin when i linked it, oh brother

how could anyone allow himself to be so predictable, passe, cant

truly just a talking point

i think the meaning of the abc story is quite clear---the pm, admittedly but sharer of a coalition govt, has indicated substantive reform

and i think, largely, we all pretty much know which direction he's pointing, thus even pretty predictably his specifics

now, how much pull he has over there, just how far he's gonna be able to push his always extant opposition, i could only speculate

ie, waste everyone's time

it's pretty clear, however, that the entire movement, and its fundamentally massive, in almost all the nations across the pond is in the direction of some radical austerity, anti keynesian, almost paleolithic

thank you for your civility and thoughtfulness

but please start to separate the significant, the observation, from the quibbling

ie, the difference between large and small

stay up
 
whysoserious said:
We can go in circles all day. They are all synonyms.
Click to expand...

Then go on all day. Access to heathcare is available to everyone. Whether they can afford it or not or obtain it or not is something else. End of story.

If you haven't gotten it through your skull yet, I'm not going to change my mind.
 
The Prof said:
my pleasure, thank you

but, with all the respect which you deserve, which is substantial, i see you as quibbling again

and i could see it comin when i linked it, oh brother

how could anyone allow himself to be so predictable, passe, cant

truly just a talking point

i think the meaning of the abc story is quite clear---the pm, admittedly but sharer of a coalition govt, has indicated substantive reform

and i think, largely, we all pretty much know which direction he's pointing, thus even pretty predictably his specifics

now, how much pull he has over there, just how far he's gonna be able to push his always extant opposition, i could only speculate

ie, waste everyone's time

it's pretty clear, however, that the entire movement, and its fundamentally massive, in almost all the nations across the pond is in the direction of some radical austerity, anti keynesian, almost paleolithic

thank you for your civility and thoughtfulness

but please start to separate the significant, the observation, from the quibbling

ie, the difference between large and small

stay up
Click to expand...

I can certainly see the direction in which he's heading.
His words show that he wants to dismantle the single payer system, but in Britain, it seems that doing that is as much political suicide as completely eliminating, say, Defense spending, medicare and medicaid in one go.
He'll take the largest step he can without alienating the public.
 
this kid aint up for gibbs' job

come to think of it, gibbs wasn't up for gibbs' job

and did you hear bill burton quit this week

i appreciate that you've never heard of this major player in the obama administration, but let me tell you, this team is in big trouble

remember the time obama's press secretary and close adviser, an absolutely bizarre combination, revelatory of the insular nature of this white house, mr gibbs, suggested that the journolisting members of the professional left should collectively pee in a cup?

Robert Gibbs says leftwing critics of Obama 'ought to be drug tested' | Richard Adams | World news | guardian.co.uk

that was robert's beginning of his end

anyway, this carney kid is off to a klutzy commencement

RealClearPolitics - Video - WH's Jay Carney: Stimulus "Goals Have Been Met"

ouch

all informed americans remember like a mantra

indeed, barney franks rues the day:

Frank: Obama admin 'dumb' to predict no higher than 8% unemployment - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

that's why no less than time mag graded: Barack Obama's Stimulus Plan: Failing by Its Own Measure - TIME

and that was a year and a half ago

are you exhausted yet?

from defending obama?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHv1ENYAulY

you will be, it's gonna get a LOT tuffer

starting, oh, right about now

stay up
 
Last edited:
even roger simon's journolisters aren't buying it

Familiar ring to Obama's budget cuts - Carrie Budoff Brown - POLITICO.com

the plastic prez promised the same phony cuts last year

and the year before

or so they say

what a joke

the nation is sinking and its elected leader of hope and change PUNTS

he disses his own debt commission, his lily-livered fallback for two years

we're seeing far more leadership outta the house and even THE SENATE these days

embarrassed yet?

you will be

huffpo, wapo, the nyt and the national journal already are---did you read the op eds concerning his budget?

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