Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 81

Thread: Obama Officially Threatens to Veto "Cut, Cap, Balance"

  1. #31
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,973

    Re: Obama Officially Threatens to Veto "Cut, Cap, Balance"

    Moderator's Warning:
    Obama Officially Threatens to Veto "Cut, Cap, Balance"Thread bans have been issued and further action will be taken if others decide they want to continue to make personal attacks

  2. #32
    Advisor SlackMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Last Seen
    02-02-12 @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    598

    Re: Obama Officially Threatens to Veto "Cut, Cap, Balance"

    This talk reminded me of this clip from The Daily Show.

  3. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    07-19-12 @ 07:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    72

    Re: Obama Officially Threatens to Veto "Cut, Cap, Balance"

    I am new here, but I find a mod banning posters in a discussion they are participating in to be a gross misuse of power.

  4. #34
    Holy Crap!
    Red Crow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Hawaii, USA
    Last Seen
    12-06-15 @ 11:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,429

    Re: Obama Officially Threatens to Veto "Cut, Cap, Balance"

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    Nobama strikes again.

    No, I don't want spending capped...
    No, I don't want to cut anything meaningful, and
    No, I don't want to balance the budget!

    And you're not touching my trains either!
    And he tells everybody to COMPROMISE and forget about politics and their views.

  5. #35
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Obama Officially Threatens to Veto "Cut, Cap, Balance"

    Cut, Cap and Balance is a joke. Nobody on either side of the aisle is under any delusions of it passing into law and they never were. It was never intended as an actual policy, just a political soapbox for them to get up on. It would, clearly, break the US down to third world status in a matter of a decade or less. Every economist, even very conservative ones, is saying just that. The Republicans in the House know that. That's why they picked this approach- because they knew it was far too crazy to actually pass. It's a convenient way for them to get some press for being strongly against spending without actually having to cut spending right before an election.

  6. #36
    Bring us a shrubbery!
    tessaesque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Plano, Texas
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 06:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    15,910

    Re: Obama Officially Threatens to Veto "Cut, Cap, Balance"

    Quote Originally Posted by The Rev Kros View Post
    I am new here, but I find a mod banning posters in a discussion they are participating in to be a gross misuse of power.
    Personal attacks, baiting, or flaming other users are all actions which are clearly against the rules. I would read them if I were you. I believe there's something in there about what you just did....
    "Hmmm...Can't decide if I want to watch "Four Houses" or give myself an Icy Hot pee hole enema..." - Blake Shelton


  7. #37
    Bring us a shrubbery!
    tessaesque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Plano, Texas
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 06:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    15,910

    Re: Obama Officially Threatens to Veto "Cut, Cap, Balance"

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Cut, Cap and Balance is a joke. Nobody on either side of the aisle is under any delusions of it passing into law and they never were. It was never intended as an actual policy, just a political soapbox for them to get up on. It would, clearly, break the US down to third world status in a matter of a decade or less. Every economist, even very conservative ones, is saying just that. The Republicans in the House know that. That's why they picked this approach- because they knew it was far too crazy to actually pass. It's a convenient way for them to get some press for being strongly against spending without actually having to cut spending right before an election.
    Okay, I did some googling, and can't find anything to back up that statement. I found a few opinion articles in opposition to the plan, but those are relying on the same old fear tactics ("it will hurt seniors and poor children") without providing any evidence, estimates, or statistics to back up the claim. In fact, the plan itself does not touch Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security at all.
    "Hmmm...Can't decide if I want to watch "Four Houses" or give myself an Icy Hot pee hole enema..." - Blake Shelton


  8. #38
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: Obama Officially Threatens to Veto "Cut, Cap, Balance"

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    What? Did you read what I even typed?

    My analysis of the poll is as such...

    The Democrat's in congress's support is within a small percent variation from the total amount of the population that are Democrats, which makes sense since the Democrats have been generally consistent within their party on what to do with this. This is backed up in part due to the relatively mild (only 30%) number of Democrats that disapproved of their congressional representitives.

    The Republicans in congress's support is a fair bit lower than their total amount in the population, which also makes sense because the Republicans are largely split within their party on what to do with regards to raising the debt limit or not so its more likely that members of their own base will be unhappy. This is backed up in part due to the rather high (Over 50%) number of Republicans disapproving of the Republicans in Congress.

    The President having the largest amount of support also is not that surprising since its a long believed trend within political science that an individual congressman, senator, or President is likely to have a better approval rating than an entire body of congress because of human nature to be more understanding of "their guy" over a group where they can convince themselves others are at fault. This is why even when Bush was having horrendous, monumental negatives as President he still was far higher than congress's approval.

    If the Republicans, despite the split in the base, had a 40 to 50% approval rating I would've said that would be shocking or telling. If the Democrats had a 20% or below rating I would've said that was telling. If either party had half of their base disapproving of them and yet had totals about on par with their total percentage of people in the population, I would've said that would be a surprise (would've shown significant independent pickup). Had the President been lower than either house of congress, that would've been surprising. If Obama had been over 50% approval, I would've been mildly surprised.

    However...all three having sub 50% approval ratings, with Republicans recording the lowest and Obama recording the highest? No, that's what I would've predicted had you told me what the poll would be looking at in the first place. Its what makes sense from a political science perspective when looking at the entire landscape.
    Approval ratings, in general or on the issue, don't really matter in any case, as America's disenchantment with Washington politics inclines most people toward negativity regardless of any other factor.

    The most important thing is whether or not Americans support raising taxes or not.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  9. #39
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Obama Officially Threatens to Veto "Cut, Cap, Balance"

    Quote Originally Posted by tessaesque View Post
    Okay, I did some googling, and can't find anything to back up that statement. I found a few opinion articles in opposition to the plan, but those are relying on the same old fear tactics ("it will hurt seniors and poor children") without providing any evidence, estimates, or statistics to back up the claim. In fact, the plan itself does not touch Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security at all.
    One of the main problems is that currently our government (like every first world government) counteracts fluctuations in the economy. When the economy booms, taxes automatically go up (because people's incomes go up) and spending goes down (people come off welfare and food stamps, means tested stuff drops off, etc). Then when the economy is in a slump, taxes automatically go down and spending automatically goes up. It is basically a way to move money from the peaks to the valleys, which stabilizes the economy.

    It is also a problem to cap spending at such a low percentage of GDP. No first world country spends that little on maintaining it's societal foundations. We're talking about a lot of people who today would turn into productive taxpaying workers being unable to get out of poverty, falling even further in education, senior citizens having to work much longer which takes up jobs, etc.

    Economists are almost universally against the idea. For example, here is a letter signed by six nobel prize winning economists expressing strong opposition to it- Press Release: Nobel Laureates and Leading Economists Oppose Constitutional Balanced Budget Amendment — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

    The statement that the plan itself doesn't touch social security or medicare is misleading. It requires cuts so massive, and forbids the raising of revenues or closing of tax loopholes, that it would be impossible not to make huge cuts to social security and medicaid. Also, it is especially problematic for social security. Social security has over $2 trillion in its trust. The projections are that it will burn that down over the next 35 years or so. The cut, cap and balance thing would actually prevent social security from dipping into its own trust because that would be considered a deficit. Obviously they didn't mean to do that, but it's one of many major oversights in the bill. Honestly, it isn't the kind of policy anybody actually intends to become law, it's the sort of bill designed to grab headlines and appear on campaign posters, but never pass. Which isn't so odd. A huge percentage of bills proposed by either party fall in that category. But to be doing that with an issue this important with a clock this short, that's not cool.
    Last edited by teamosil; 07-19-11 at 06:34 PM.

  10. #40
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: Obama Officially Threatens to Veto "Cut, Cap, Balance"

    Quote Originally Posted by Badmutha View Post
    ....because your a Socialist who votes Democrat.......a culmination of stupid.
    Right you call me "stupid"... Right.. Good one! Coming from the guy who does not know the basics of the English language. After every few words it is not correct to but multiple periods. Only one is necessary after each sentence.


    .....because The Kenyan Tyrant wanted the Bush Tax Cuts and didnt want a Public Option?.......you have to be high on MarijObama or Hopium.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    He obviously didnt want it after he took office. Notice how he dropped both of those promises after lobbyists got to him..


Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •