• 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 seeks 'consolidation authority' to merge agencies

AdamT said:
I guess we should tell the press to stop calling it fast track authority then. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Perhaps they should, because they've obviously got at least one person confused.

This is about a specific power, not general Fast Track. That didn't end in 1984.
 
Paschendale said:
So let me see if I have this correct. Republicans are angry because Obama is... not going around the checks and balances system?

At this point, if it turned out that Obama was Jesus, you guys would all become Jews in order to oppose him.
Click to expand...
Odd that a socialist isn't cheering the Republicans on in this case. It's hard to tell who the hypocrites are.
 
Harshaw said:
Perhaps they should, because they've obviously got at least one person confused.

This is about a specific power, not general Fast Track. That didn't end in 1984.
Click to expand...

"General" fast track was also about a specific -- but different power.
 
Libs. As Obama hasn't given a flying **** about shrinking Government, or reducing the deficit, or debt, since he took office, tell us what is different now ?

Might I suggest .... nothing ?
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Libs. As Obama hasn't given a flying **** about shrinking Government, or reducing the deficit, or debt, since he took office, tell us what is different now ?

Might I suggest .... nothing ?
Click to expand...

Uh, he proposed $4.4 trillion in deficit reductions. That remains the largest serious proposal for deficit reduction any party has put forward. The only one that is higher was Ryan's joke plan. The rest of the Republican proposals, and even the other Democrats's proposals have all been smaller. He just the other day proposed cutting the military back to pre-Bush war size. He is pushing to get government out of marriage. Etc.
 
teamosil said:
Uh, he proposed $4.4 trillion in deficit reductions. That remains the largest serious proposal for deficit reduction any party has put forward. The only one that is higher was Ryan's joke plan. The rest of the Republican proposals, and even the other Democrats's proposals have all been smaller. He just the other day proposed cutting the military back to pre-Bush war size. He is pushing to get government out of marriage. Etc.
Click to expand...

I was able to read Ryan's 'Path to Properity' and it took some pretty broad generalizations. It also predicted the debt would breach $20t ultimately. However I have been unable to find a WRITTEN copy of the proposal that included the $4.4t deficit reductions you claim. Please direct me to this if you would.
 
teamosil said:
Uh, he proposed $4.4 trillion in deficit reductions. That remains the largest serious proposal for deficit reduction any party has put forward. The only one that is higher was Ryan's joke plan. The rest of the Republican proposals, and even the other Democrats's proposals have all been smaller. He just the other day proposed cutting the military back to pre-Bush war size. He is pushing to get government out of marriage. Etc.
Click to expand...

Oh Jeez. Ryan (R-WI, House) proposed $6T in reductions. Coburn (R-OK, Senate) proposed $10 T in cuts. Obama proposed fantasy cuts with mega increases in taxes. I would say that only idiots give Obama's proposals credibiity at this point, but also acknowledge that I am extremely disheartened that we have so many idiots, mostly liberal, in the USA.

Obama's deficit projections, through 2020, are such that the lowest one (to include his first three now behind us) is higher that any single deficit by any prior President. And I'll bet you a dollar to a donut that none of those deficits will come under projection while this inept asshole is President, and it won't be close.

I like cinnamon sugar donuts.
 
Last edited:
In this thread, conservatives are upset about downsizing government.

Next up, conservatives complain that the government is too big.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Oh Jeez. Ryan (R-WI, House) proposed $6T in reductions. Coburn (R-OK, Senate) proposed $10 T in cuts. Obama proposed fantasy cuts with mega increases in taxes. I would say that only idiots give Obama's proposals credibiity at this point, but also acknowledge that I am extremely disheartened that we have so many idiots, mostly liberal, in the USA.
Click to expand...

You thought Ryan's budget was a serious proposal? It was opposed more than 2 to 1 by the country. It basically just amounted to dismantling the federal government except for the military. Obviously everybody knew it wouldn't really happen. They just passed it so they could say they did without having to worry that it would actually happen.

What "fantasy cuts" do you mean? That's just something right wingers say because they don't want to acknowledge cuts that Democrats propose... And, yeah, of course it included tax hikes for the super rich. There are three fronts of deficit reduction- domestic spending, military spending and revenues. The Democrats are coming in so much higher because they're willing to tackle all three where the Republicans are only willing to address one of them.

Eighty Deuce said:
Obama's deficit projections, through 2020, are such that the lowest one (to include his first three now behind us) is higher that any single deficit by any prior President. And I'll bet you a dollar to a donut that none of those deficits will come under projection while this inept asshole is President, and it won't be close.
Click to expand...

You know about inflation and the the GDP grows over time, so you tell me- what is wrong with your statement?
 
teamosil said:
Uh, he proposed $4.4 trillion in deficit reductions. That remains the largest serious proposal for deficit reduction any party has put forward. The only one that is higher was Ryan's joke plan. The rest of the Republican proposals, and even the other Democrats's proposals have all been smaller. He just the other day proposed cutting the military back to pre-Bush war size. He is pushing to get government out of marriage. Etc.
Click to expand...

I've already replied to this. You completely ignore the Balanced Budget Amendment included in nearly every single Republican proposal. That remains the most serious proposal combating future deficits. It has been roundly rejected by the Democrats.
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
I've already replied to this. You completely ignore the Balanced Budget Amendment included in nearly every single Republican proposal. That remains the most serious proposal combating future deficits. It has been roundly rejected by the Democrats.
Click to expand...

The balanced budget amendment, as they wrote it, would be a total disaster. If a deficit occurred after passing it, there are two choices- take it out of the middle class or take it out of the super rich. The way they set it up, it would take a super majority to take any of it from the rich, but by default it would all come from the middle class... It was structured so that in a recession our spending would automatically contract, and then be able to expand in a boom- exactly the opposite of what makes sense economically... It was idiotic. Like Ryan's budget, it was just posturing. Obviously they knew it would never even clear the senate, let alone be ratified by the states. In fact, it would almost certainly never even get the supermajority it would need to clear the house. That's what they wasted a week on in the middle of the debt ceiling hostage crisis- a PR stunt.
 
teamosil said:
You thought Ryan's budget was a serious proposal? It was opposed more than 2 to 1 by the country. It basically just amounted to dismantling the federal government except for the military. Obviously everybody knew it wouldn't really happen. They just passed it so they could say they did without having to worry that it would actually happen.

What "fantasy cuts" do you mean? That's just something right wingers say because they don't want to acknowledge cuts that Democrats propose... And, yeah, of course it included tax hikes for the super rich. There are three fronts of deficit reduction- domestic spending, military spending and revenues. The Democrats are coming in so much higher because they're willing to tackle all three where the Republicans are only willing to address one of them.

You know about inflation and the the GDP grows over time, so you tell me- what is wrong with your statement?
Click to expand...

That we have a timeline to end the wars was a "cut" to Obama. It was part of his balance to then raise taxes, as Obama's formula with such cuts was 50-50, btw. End the war, and raise taxes. Tough decisions that Obama fellow makes !!

He's a complete inept jackass.
 
teamosil said:
The balanced budget amendment, as they wrote it, would be a total disaster. If a deficit occurred after passing it, there are two choices- take it out of the middle class or take it out of the super rich. The way they set it up, it would take a super majority to take any of it from the rich, but by default it would all come from the middle class... It was structured so that in a recession our spending would automatically contract, and then be able to expand in a boom- exactly the opposite of what makes sense economically... It was idiotic. Like Ryan's budget, it was just posturing. Obviously they knew it would never even clear the senate, let alone be ratified by the states. In fact, it would almost certainly never even get the supermajority it would need to clear the house. That's what they wasted a week on in the middle of the debt ceiling hostage crisis- a PR stunt.
Click to expand...

So what are you arguing? That the Republicans plan don't agree with your viewpoint or that they aren't as serious about deficit reduction? I know you find any Republican proposal idiotic but to use that to claim the Democrats are more serious about deficit reduction is absurd. Most economist agree that austerity will not help the economy and fix the deficit yet that is what Democrats are pushing for so stop trying to take the high road and act like your party has all the answers and the opposition just doesn't care.

Obviously Democrats knew $1 trillion in new taxes wouldn't pass the super committee and that didn't stop them from pushing it, it was just posturing.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
That we have a timeline to end the wars was a "cut" to Obama.
Click to expand...

No, to end the wars ahead of schedule. Both sides counted that in their proposals because the proposals are measured against the current budget plan.

Eighty Deuce said:
It was part of his balance to then raise taxes, as Obama's formula with such cuts was 50-50, btw.
Click to expand...

No, it was 1/3 revenues, about 1/2 domestic spending cuts and 1/6 military cuts.
 
teamosil said:
Uh, he proposed $4.4 trillion in deficit reductions. That remains the largest serious proposal for deficit reduction any party has put forward. The only one that is higher was Ryan's joke plan. The rest of the Republican proposals, and even the other Democrats's proposals have all been smaller. He just the other day proposed cutting the military back to pre-Bush war size. He is pushing to get government out of marriage. Etc.

Dickieboy said:
I was able to read Ryan's 'Path to Properity' and it took some pretty broad generalizations. It also predicted the debt would breach $20t ultimately. However I have been unable to find a WRITTEN copy of the proposal that included the $4.4t deficit reductions you claim. Please direct me to this if you would.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Should I expect you to provide the written source of this suggested $4.4t or quit asking?
 
teamosil said:
No, to end the wars ahead of schedule. Both sides counted that in their proposals because the proposals are measured against the current budget plan.
Click to expand...

Show me the "schedule" Obama was ahead of ? Further, how is that a cut, even in liberal speak ?

No, it was 1/3 revenues, about 1/2 domestic spending cuts and 1/6 military cuts.
Click to expand...

No. Obama was closer to 50-50. With the bogus war cut you describe. Completely ignorant of his own Simpson Bowles Commission.

Cause Obama and his nanny-state teat-suckers need class warfare above all else.

I like cinnamon donuts.
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
So what are you arguing? That the Republicans plan don't agree with your viewpoint or that they aren't as serious about deficit reduction? I know you find any Republican proposal idiotic but to use that to claim the Democrats are more serious about deficit reduction is absurd.
Click to expand...

I'm saying it was so clearly ridiculous that there is a 0% chance that they thought it would actually pass the constitutional amendment process. There is no way even one of them actually thought that would happen. So why did they waste all that time doing it? Just for politics.

As for whether they are serious about deficit reduction, I think they are serious about reducing domestic spending, but not at all serious about the other 2/3 of deficit reduction- revenues and military spending cuts.

Rhapsody1447 said:
Obviously Democrats knew $1 trillion in new taxes wouldn't pass the super committee and that didn't stop them from pushing it, it was just posturing.
Click to expand...

It isn't mathematically possible to fix the deficit without raising taxes on the rich unless you're willing to completely destroy the country. 75% of people in this country say they support including revenues in a solution to the deficit, including mind you the majority of Republicans. You can't possibly compare that to a ridiculous stunt like the BBA. The GOP needs to accept that their super rich benefactors are going to have to chip in like everybody else or this can't get done. Period.
 
Antiderivative said:
In this thread, conservatives are upset about downsizing government.

Next up, conservatives complain that the government is too big.
Click to expand...

OH NO, conservatives applaud the idea but are just suspicious of the validity of the effort. I mean really, they project this to save $3 billion over 10 years…REALLY? What is that, if averaged annually, like 0.01% reduction in annual cost? Real serious deficit reduction! But heck I guess everything helps.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Show me the "schedule" Obama was ahead of ? Further, how is that a cut, even in liberal speak ?
Click to expand...

They have budgets projections for the next 10 years. Plans are measured against those projections. Those projections included being in Iraq and Afghanistan longer, Obama pulled out earlier, so that is part of what the CBO includes in it's estimate of how much Obama's proposal will reduce the deficit.

The same number is figured in to the Republican proposals. So, if you don't want to count that, whatever, that's fine, it comes out of both and the Democrats' is still higher by just as much as it was before you take it out....

Eighty Deuce said:
No. Obama was closer to 50-50.
Click to expand...

No it was not. Quit making things up. $1.5 trillion in revenues, $2.9 in spending cuts. It's right there in the link I gave you.
 
teamosil said:
I've posted links to it several times... Besides, what's the problem? Is your google broken?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/obama-to-propose-4-4-trillion-deficit-reduction-plan/
Click to expand...

No, I've seen all these posts. Note this one states 'President Obama will announce a deficit reduction plan'. You have proved nothing. I am not looking for an announcement but rather a summary with charts and figures. Anything else is merely useless talking points. My google works just fine. As I said previously, I have yet to find this 4.4t supported with specificity (Hannity's favorite word) and hope you could help.

The question remains, should I continue to expect something?
 
Dickieboy said:
OH NO, conservatives applaud the idea but are just suspicious of the validity of the effort. I mean really, they project this to save $3 billion over 10 years…REALLY? What is that, if averaged annually, like 0.01% reduction in annual cost? Real serious deficit reduction! But heck I guess everything helps.
Click to expand...

It's 0.0085%
 
Obama will not be our end. It will be the idiots that support him.
 
Dickieboy said:
You have proved nothing. I am not looking for an announcement but rather a summary with charts and figures. Anything else is merely useless talking points.
Click to expand...

If you have some conspiracy theory, feel free to produce evidence for it. If you think the full text of the proposal would fuel your conspiracy theory, feel free and find that and use it as you see fit. Good luck with that.
 
teamosil said:
I'm saying it was so clearly ridiculous that there is a 0% chance that they thought it would actually pass the constitutional amendment process. There is no way even one of them actually thought that would happen. So why did they waste all that time doing it? Just for politics.

As for whether they are serious about deficit reduction, I think they are serious about reducing domestic spending, but not at all serious about the other 2/3 of deficit reduction- revenues and military spending cuts.
Click to expand...

So let me understand you correctly. Republican efforts at deficit reduction = irrational, impossible, political, posturing. Democrat efforts at deficit reduction = reasonable, fair, just, effective, correct. Glad you've disavowed the claim that Obama is more concerned with deficit reduction than Republicans, that was starting to get absurd.

It isn't mathematically possible to fix the deficit without raising taxes on the rich unless you're willing to completely destroy the country. 75% of people in this country say they support including revenues in a solution to the deficit, including mind you the majority of Republicans. You can't possibly compare that to a ridiculous stunt like the BBA. The GOP needs to accept that their super rich benefactors are going to have to chip in like everybody else or this can't get done. Period.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, spending cuts = reduction in expenses. Tax hikes = projections of future revenues. Considering our most prized economists can't predict next quarter's GDP accurately, what makes you think our politically motivated federal government can accurately project revenues 10 years into the future?

You claim the GOP postures whenever they propose anything serious yet believe that Democrats proposing equally radical ideas is honest reform. Something tells me you aren't being entirely honest with yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom