Obama budget defeated 99-0 in Senate

beerftw said:

the republicans have had thr ryan budget and variations of,the democrats have produced alternatives to ryans plan,and there were probaby some bi partisan plans made in the house as well.

the house has been doing its job,its been the senate thats been obstructionist.but whos to blame?the senate majority leader who blocks all bipartisan and non die hard wingnut liberal bills or the side that refuses to vote on die hard liberal bills?

there are checks and balances in congress,and i think its hard not to be to the opposite party when they dont even support half the crap they push out,or bring up how a bill must be passes so what know what it does,because something must be done,never once saying it must be done right

Click to expand...

The Ryan budget is about the farthest thing you can possibly imagine from bi-partisan. It is a flat out declaration of war on the middle class exclusively for the sake of the rich. It is totally out of control. Cruel, fiscally irresponsible, maybe even economically suicidal. We will fight that hateful vision for the future of this country to our last dying breath, no doubt. We don't need to accept that evil. We can just do reconciliation until cooler heads prevail on the right and something sensible can be worked out. Sooner or later, adults will reclaim control of the GOP. We just need to weather the storm until that day.

teamosil said:

The Ryan budget is about the farthest thing you can possibly imagine from bi-partisan. It is a flat out declaration of war on the middle class exclusively for the sake of the rich. It is totally out of control. Cruel, fiscally irresponsible, maybe even economically suicidal. We will fight that hateful vision for the future of this country to our last dying breath, no doubt. We don't need to accept that evil. We can just do reconciliation until cooler heads prevail on the right and something sensible can be worked out. Sooner or later, adults will reclaim control of the GOP. We just need to weather the storm until that day.

Click to expand...

umm first have you read the ryan budget or are you claiming such because your masters tell you its bad.

second i never said the ryan budget was bipartisan,you already fell into my partisan hack prediction:2razz:

third you only tried to refute the argument by calling republicans evil,not by mentioning any bills that got past dirty harry for a vote.wait all the ones that got past dirty harry were complete crap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!but i know you wont admit this,its easier to blame the republicans than to admit your party has nothing or to actually try and solve a problem

Paul Ryans budget defeated in the Senate also....YAY

lpast said:

Paul Ryans budget defeated in the Senate also....YAY

Click to expand...

yay we are budgetless again!!!!

ow wait what ever happened to all those budgets the house worked on,they must have made some sort of sense and the idiots from both side must have said thats a bad idea to fix a budget during an election cycle,its more productive for votes to point fingers:2razz:

beerftw said:

umm first have you read the ryan budget or are you claiming such because your masters tell you its bad.

Click to expand...

I have read it. It is totally absurd. It cuts $800 billion from medicare over the next 10 years and $1.8 trillion over every 10 years after that. Every dollar removed from medicare means another dollar insurance companies pay which means another dollar retirees need to pay for health insurance. So, say you're currently 10 years away from retirement and you're married. You want to plan on at least 40 years or retirement given how life spans keep increasing and that you don't want to be stuck without enough. So, 2 people, that means 8 decades of retirement between you. There are around 50 million retirees. So, that is $36,000 more you need to spend for insurance per person per decade. So that totals up to another $288,000 on top of what you already thought you needed that you will need to save for retirement. Assuming a reasonable rate of return on your savings, that comes out to something like another $20,000 per year that you need to save up for each of the next 10 years for retirement. $1,666 more per month you need to put away if the Ryan budget were to pass.

And that's just medicare. Many of the other cuts he proposes hit the middle class quite hard (although not that hard) as well. Changes to student loans that would mean the average person socking away more than a thousand more each year for their college or the college of their kids. Things like the elimination of the FAA and FDA and whatnot that are just plain absurd. Cutting virtually every program designed to help people out who are in poverty... It's a crushing blow to the middle class.

And for what? It doesn't pay down any more deficit than Obama's budget does. It just uses all that money it is taking from the middle class to fund massive tax breaks for the rich. Dropping the top income tax bracket from 35% to 25%, lowering capital gains, creating huge exclusions for investors and those who inherit multi million dollar estates....

It IS evil. There isn't any other word for it.

beerftw said:

but i know you wont admit this,its easier to blame the republicans than to admit your party has nothing or to actually try and solve a problem

Click to expand...

Passing a fresh budget doesn't equate to "solving a problem"... Passing a fresh budget or using reconciliation to create the new budget are just two different methods of doing the same thing. They are both equally capable of solving whatever problems.

teamosil said:

I have read it. It is totally absurd. It cuts $800 billion from medicare over the next 10 years and $1.8 trillion over every 10 years after that. Every dollar removed from medicare means another dollar insurance companies pay which means another dollar retirees need to pay for health insurance. So, say you're currently 10 years away from retirement and you're married. You want to plan on at least 40 years or retirement given how life spans keep increasing and that you don't want to be stuck without enough. So, 2 people, that means 8 decades of retirement between you. There are around 50 million retirees. So, that is $36,000 more you need to spend for insurance per person per decade. So that totals up to another $288,000 on top of what you already thought you needed that you will need to save for retirement. Assuming a reasonable rate of return on your savings, that comes out to something like another $20,000 per year that you need to save up for each of the next 10 years for retirement. $1,666 more per month you need to put away if the Ryan budget were to pass.

And that's just medicare. Many of the other cuts he proposes hit the middle class quite hard (although not that hard) as well. Changes to student loans that would mean the average person socking away more than a thousand more each year for their college or the college of their kids. Things like the elimination of the FAA and FDA and whatnot that are just plain absurd. Cutting virtually every program designed to help people out who are in poverty... It's a crushing blow to the middle class.

And for what? It doesn't pay down any more deficit than Obama's budget does. It just uses all that money it is taking from the middle class to fund massive tax breaks for the rich. Dropping the top income tax bracket from 35% to 25%, lowering capital gains, creating huge exclusions for investors and those who inherit multi million dollar estates....

It IS evil. There isn't any other word for it.



Passing a fresh budget doesn't equate to "solving a problem"... Passing a fresh budget or using reconciliation to create the new budget are just two different methods of doing the same thing. They are both equally capable of solving whatever problems.

Click to expand...

my god how much would we lose over dropping the rich to 25%?15 billiona year,omfg that will skyrocket the budget.

look at bush tax cuts,no one to this day has an exact number but its estimated that after 11 years it has cost around 1.3 bil,thats an estimate,and that doesnt keep in mind massive gdp drops,so in truth its probably around 600bil over a decade.not bad though if we raise taxes on the rich we might raise 50 bil a year,that is ofcouse if gdp soesnt plumment from the idea

beerftw said:

my god how much would we lose over dropping the rich to 25%?15 billiona year,omfg that will skyrocket the budget.

look at bush tax cuts,no one to this day has an exact number but its estimated that after 11 years it has cost around 1.3 bil,thats an estimate,and that doesnt keep in mind massive gdp drops,so in truth its probably around 600bil over a decade.not bad though if we raise taxes on the rich we might raise 50 bil a year,that is ofcouse if gdp soesnt plumment from the idea

Click to expand...

$15 billion for lowering the top tax bracket by 10%? No, that would cost many times that much. Enough to eat up all the savings from the slash and burn campaign he proposed against the middle class. Why did you think it was the same on the deficit as Obama's budget?

The CBO estimates that over the next 10 years the Bush tax cuts would cost us $5.4 TRILLION if we extend them all. Over the last 10 they cost us around $2.5 TRILLION. So, over those 20 years, that would equal half of our entire national debt today.

http://ctj.org/pdf/bushtaxcuts2013to2022.pdf

Why didn't the Democrats bring up the President's plan for a vote? Why was it the Republicans? They (the Republicans) wouldn't be able to say their proposal was the President's plan if the democrats raised it.

teamosil said:

$15 billion for lowering the top tax bracket by 10%? No, that would cost many times that much. Enough to eat up all the savings from the slash and burn campaign he proposed against the middle class. Why did you think it was the same on the deficit as Obama's budget?

The CBO estimates that over the next 10 years the Bush tax cuts would cost us $5.4 TRILLION if we extend them all. Over the last 10 they cost us around $2.5 TRILLION. So, over those 20 years, that would equal half of our entire national debt today.

http://ctj.org/pdf/bushtaxcuts2013to2022.pdf

Click to expand...

can you show numbers showing how much would be lost by cutting the top% by10% even though the same plan ends all loppholes to the rich and corporations?????????

wait so a rich guy who effective tax is 14 % but effective is 25% being forced to pay 25% is a tax cut?????nice spin.

but once again can you show that raising and lowering taxes has a massive effect on the budget vs gdp??i had to incule gdp or else everyone would cite clinton then yell what does gdp have to do with it.thats like saying growing crops has to do with how many seed you plant,but if 80% are eaten by parasites its bs statistics.

beerftw said:

can you show numbers showing how much would be lost by cutting the top% by10% even though the same plan ends all loppholes to the rich and corporations?????????

wait so a rich guy who effective tax is 14 % but effective is 25% being forced to pay 25% is a tax cut?????nice spin.

Click to expand...

Oh, maybe you misunderstand. 25% is the MARGINAL tax rate under the Ryan budget, not the EFFECTIVE tax rate. The way it works is that if say we have a 10% tax rate from $0 and a 20% tax rate from $10,000, if somebody makes $20,000, they pay 10% on the first $10,000 and 20% on the second $10,000, so their effective tax rate would be 15%.

The reason the rich pay only 15%, however, is unrelated. That is because they tend to make their income from investments rather than by working and we tax capital gains at only 15%. But, Ryan's plan drops that rate even lower as well, so they would then be paying less than 15%.

The loopholes he eliminates are pretty marginal.

Again, where did you think the money he was squeezing out of the middle class was going?

Here, read this- Shocker: Paul Ryan's budget means more big tax cuts for the rich. - CSMonitor.com

teamosil said:

Oh, maybe you misunderstand. 25% is the MARGINAL tax rate under the Ryan budget, not the EFFECTIVE tax rate. The way it works is that if say we have a 10% tax rate from $0 and a 20% tax rate from $10,000, if somebody makes $20,000, they pay 10% on the first $10,000 and 20% on the second $10,000, so their effective tax rate would be 15%.

The reason the rich pay only 15%, however, is unrelated. That is because they tend to make their income from investments rather than by working and we tax capital gains at only 15%. But, Ryan's plan drops that rate even lower as well, so they would then be paying less than 15%.

The loopholes he eliminates are pretty marginal.

Again, where did you think the money he was squeezing out of the middle class was going?

Here, read this- Shocker: Paul Ryan's budget means more big tax cuts for the rich. - CSMonitor.com

Click to expand...

i dont think you look at facts,you just listen to left wing sites and automatically believe it as truth without fact checking.

ryans plan makes 25% effective not marginal,it elliminates tax breakes.it effictively lowers taxes one those that actually pay,but companies like ge and apple,it raises them.

any attempt to raise taxes while leaving writeoffs off the table helps the rich,by taxing those who dont have millions for lawyers into bankruptcy,and eliminating competition for companies like apple and ge.


but you dont care do you,your masters said it lowers taxes on the wealthy while attacking the middle class,yet no proof has ever been provided by this.by liberal standards anything not taxing the rich to the max is full on assault on the middle class,even if taxin the rich would drop gdp and cause negative federal income,the democrats would still fight for it,because why make people richer???

why would the democrats end poverty,ending poverty ends their vote,while the conservatives removing people from poverty extends their vote.think about that one.

beerftw said:

ryans plan makes 25% effective not marginal

Click to expand...

No, that is completely false. That would be insane. It would mean that if you made $1 less than the cut off for the 25% rate you would lose tons of money by making $1 more... That isn't what he is proposing at all. He does eliminate some deductions- mostly those that help the middle class more mind you, but he certainly does not do away with the whole way tax brackets have always worked. It is the marginal rate.

Just read the article I posted if you don't believe me. That's from the Christian Science Monitor. Universally regarded as one of, if not the, most impartial, objective, and non-partisan source out there.

All your slogan spamming about trickle down is a couple decades behind the times. Obviously that whole theory was debunked. We tried it. To the max. And nothing trickled down. All that happened was that we caused stock bubbles and the market couldn't sustain those inflated stock values because the actual revenues couldn't keep up. Actual revenues are driven by the middle class, not the rich. We need to grow the rich and the middle class together if we want real growth. There is practically no economist left in the world that is still spouting trickle down theory... The only place it still survives is amongst less informed right wingers on the internet.

beerftw said:

i dont think you look at facts,you just listen to left wing sites and automatically believe it as truth without fact checking.

ryans plan makes 25% effective not marginal,it elliminates tax breakes.it effictively lowers taxes one those that actually pay,but companies like ge and apple,it raises them.

any attempt to raise taxes while leaving writeoffs off the table helps the rich,by taxing those who dont have millions for lawyers into bankruptcy,and eliminating competition for companies like apple and ge.


but you dont care do you,your masters said it lowers taxes on the wealthy while attacking the middle class,yet no proof has ever been provided by this.by liberal standards anything not taxing the rich to the max is full on assault on the middle class,even if taxin the rich would drop gdp and cause negative federal income,the democrats would still fight for it,because why make people richer???

why would the democrats end poverty,ending poverty ends their vote,while the conservatives removing people from poverty extends their vote.think about that one.

Click to expand...

The Ryan budget is a sick joke. It lowers marginal tax rates and *suggests* that loopholes would be eliminated ... without specifically naming a SINGLE loophole that would be eliminated. It hands millionaires and billionaires gigantic tax cuts while slashing services for the poor and middle class. Why do you think it's been condemned by Catholic groups?

teamosil said:

No, that is completely false. That would be insane. It would mean that if you made $1 less than the cut off for the 25% rate you would lose tons of money by making $1 more... That isn't what he is proposing at all. He does eliminate some deductions- mostly those that help the middle class more mind you, but he certainly does not do away with the whole way tax brackets have always worked. It is the marginal rate.

Just read the article I posted if you don't believe me. That's from the Christian Science Monitor. Universally regarded as one of, if not the, most impartial, objective, and non-partisan source out there.

All your slogan spamming about trickle down is a couple decades behind the times. Obviously that whole theory was debunked. We tried it. To the max. And nothing trickled down. All that happened was that we caused stock bubbles and the market couldn't sustain those inflated stock values because the actual revenues couldn't keep up. Actual revenues are driven by the middle class, not the rich. We need to grow the rich and the middle class together if we want real growth. There is practically no economist left in the world that is still spouting trickle down theory... The only place it still survives is amongst less informed right wingers on the internet.

Click to expand...

all i can say is strawman,as soon as you said trickle down.

great id you cant beat them insult themor skew their policies into something they are not and know them down.btw the strawman you used was made of black straw,that makes you racist

AdamT said:

The Ryan budget is a sick joke. It lowers marginal tax rates and *suggests* that loopholes would be eliminated ... without specifically naming a SINGLE loophole that would be eliminated. It hands millionaires and billionaires gigantic tax cuts while slashing services for the poor and middle class. Why do you think it's been condemned by Catholic groups?

Click to expand...

its greater than the budget the democrats have proposed,what was it again oh yeah lets spend ourselves out of prosperity,it failed everytime but this time it will work:roll:
i

its like daying if you stick your key in a socket ot will give you a million dollars,and after all failed attempts you still scream it will work while everyone else just shakes their head.

but how about you prove the ryan plan dangerous,and not from thinkprogress or obomacrat.com,i have already ruled those sites out.

beerftw said:

all i can say is strawman,as soon as you said trickle down.

great id you cant beat them insult themor skew their policies into something they are not and know them down.btw the strawman you used was made of black straw,that makes you racist

Click to expand...

What? That's what you are arguing, no? Trickle down. The idea that the key to our GDP is the rich having more money and that taxing the rich kills the economy. That's what the theory is. Are you saying you don't consider that trickle down or that you don't take that stance?

teamosil said:

What? That's what you are arguing, no? Trickle down. The idea that the key to our GDP is the rich having more money and that taxing the rich kills the economy. That's what the theory is. Are you saying you don't consider that trickle down or that you don't take that stance?

Click to expand...

i never said trickle down,you introduced it to knock it down,therefor a massive strawman.

im sorry only the most unintellectual debaters use strawman arguments,and only the most ignorant dont know what they are

beerftw said:

i never said trickle down,you introduced it to knock it down,therefor a massive strawman.

im sorry only the most unintellectual debaters use strawman arguments,and only the most ignorant dont know what they are

Click to expand...

Er, what? A strawman is if I claimed you were arguing something you are not. It appears that the argument you are making IS the trickle down argument, no? If not, what points do you differ from the trickle down theory on?

teamosil said:

Er, what? A strawman is if I claimed you were arguing something you are not. It appears that the argument you are making IS the trickle down argument, no? If not, what points do you differ from the trickle down theory on?

Click to expand...

i never once said tricke down economics,you did,and then tried to defeat an argument i never made,that is a textbook strawman argument,

would you like to debate on real terms now and not logical fallacies??/i got about 30minutes before i go back on diablo 3:2razz:

beerftw said:

i never once said tricke down economics,you did,and then tried to defeat an argument i never made,that is a textbook strawman argument,

would you like to debate on real terms now and not logical fallacies??/i got about 30minutes before i go back on diablo 3:2razz:

Click to expand...

It doesn't seem like you're following. "Trickle down" is the name of the theory that it is crucial that we drive as much money to the rich as possible because they power the GDP. I don't care if you said the title of the theory, that's what you're arguing, no? If not, again, explain where your position differs from that theory.

teamosil said:

It doesn't seem like you're following. "Trickle down" is the name of the theory that it is crucial that we drive as much money to the rich as possible because they power the GDP. I don't care if you said the title of the theory, that's what you're arguing, no? If not, again, explain where your position differs from that theory.

Click to expand...

but again i never once said anything about trickle down economics,you are just painting me as such because of your limited scope of debate.

i brought up the ryan plan not the reagan plan,but nice of you to demonize whats to hard for youto read and fact check.i never even said im a supporter of the ryan plan,im just a supporter of certain parts of it.

you on the other hand accuse others and label them before you even understand them,its easier to point a finger and use strawman arguments that to actually disprove an argument or provide a solution.

teamosil said:

Er, what? A strawman is if I claimed you were arguing something you are not. It appears that the argument you are making IS the trickle down argument, no? If not, what points do you differ from the trickle down theory on?

Click to expand...

FYI, beer has no idea what a strawman argument is. I've tried to explain it to him several times to no avail.

teamosil said:

No, of course it wouldn't have. The House would never have approved it and the Republicans would have filibustered it in the senate.

Click to expand...

You can't filibuster a budget. All budgets are passed through reconciliation, requiring a majority vote only.

So why haven't they taken the President's budget, or one of their own, and voted on it in the Senate?

Samhain said:

You can't filibuster a budget. All budgets are passed through reconciliation, requiring a majority vote only.

So why haven't they taken the President's budget, or one of their own, and voted on it in the Senate?

Click to expand...

Probably the reason is that they know it would never pass the House, and given the partisan divide, the only way to keep the government running at all is through continuing resolutions. Also, current spending is limited by the Budget Control Act. And further, they are playing a political game, which is unfortunate and probably counterproductive.

Samhain said:

You can't filibuster a budget. All budgets are passed through reconciliation, requiring a majority vote only.

So why haven't they taken the President's budget, or one of their own, and voted on it in the Senate?

Click to expand...

Well if you consider reconciliation "passing a budget", then hurrah, we've passed budgets every single year.

What the Republicans mean when they say we haven't passed a budget is that we had to resort to reconciliation to get it done.