• 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!

White House won't accept new tax offer from Republican leader

There are two areas where Boehner has compromised. Where has Obama compromised?

Why should Obama compromise? There's widespread support for tax increases on the wealthy and little support for major entitlement reform.

Why should the views of a minority on both accounts be the starting of any negotiation?

The views for lower taxes or no tax increase and entitlement reform was center stage in the election. The view lost. When either policy is asked Americans overwhelmingly disagree even moreso than the spread in the election.
 
Latest deal Boehner offered is identical to what Shumar, Pelosi and Reid wanted last spring, the "millionaire" tax, and now its not good enough for them.

I still wish the Republicans' would walk out and say take your cliff and love it.

Yeah..it's called a major change in bargaining position. As of now, all tax cuts will expire and spending cuts will happen over 2 years at the "fiscal cliff" including major defense cuts. If you wanna go over the cliff let's go!
 
Latest deal Boehner offered is identical to what Shumar, Pelosi and Reid wanted last spring, the "millionaire" tax, and now its not good enough for them.

I still wish the Republicans' would walk out and say take your cliff and love it.

I know I view it different from some, but I see major compromises from one side and only minor compromises on the other.

I believe that the government should not be allowed deficit spending except in time of war. But then, my only active credit is my house and car, so I don't live on credit. I even pay my car insurance in lump sum every 6 months instead of monthly payments.

One thing I did find interesting though, looking over that deficit history, Under Johnson, with the Vietnam war going on, he and congress managed to reduce the deficits of the Kennedy years and also cut the highest tax rate. I am, by no means, a fan of LBJ, but damn, what did they do then that we can learn from now?
 
I'm 100% all for it; told my congressman as such (Republican), lets roll ! Enough of this over spending crap. People need to pay their bill and the cliff ends the tax cuts for everyone not just the rich. I like it - I hope obama holds too it - but he won't.


Yeah..it's called a major change in bargaining position. As of now, all tax cuts will expire and spending cuts will happen over 2 years at the "fiscal cliff" including major defense cuts. If you wanna go over the cliff let's go!
 
I'm 100% all for it; told my congressman as such (Republican), lets roll ! Enough of this over spending crap. People need to pay their bill and the cliff ends the tax cuts for everyone not just the rich. I like it - I hope obama holds too it - but he won't.

Sure at least now there would be some certainty rather than constantly kicking the can down the road and having some disasterous last minute negotiation every 9 months.
 
Then we are ****ed as a nation.

You're just now realizing that? We have been on the Highway to Hell for a longtime now. No way to really fix it because the fixes would be too unpopular, which in an open democracy pretty much translates into "we ain't never gonna fix it".
 
You're just now realizing that? We have been on the Highway to Hell for a longtime now. No way to really fix it because the fixes would be too unpopular, which in an open democracy pretty much translates into "we ain't never gonna fix it".

Call me a harbinger of hope..
 
Liberal Boehner is trying as hard as he can to surrender as quickly as possible. Hopefully he will be voted out of his speaker's post before he succeeds in his mission.
 
Well some people seem to blame Obama for it and utterly deny the fact that Republicans were the party resoncible for a great deal of the debt. As far as cutting spending. The bills were being paid off until Bush 2 gave those big tax cuts so really your rational does not hold water.

I call Bull squeeze on your statement, if you would have bothered to check out the link I gave in the previous post, you would see your statement is completely false, backed by the governments own records.
False to the point that it shows you have absolutely no clue as to what you speak. Either you dont have a clue or you are a bold faced liar....either way you are wrong.

Are you expecting us to believe 2 things....
1) Democrats are fiscally responsible...facts prove this not to be true
2) The deficit didnt exist until Bush 2...facts also prove this not to be true.

Please stop your partisan hackery, by attempting to push blame for this fiasco of an economy on one side or the other plainly shows your unwillingness to see the truth of the matter. Keep those partisan rose colored glasses on...reality might scare you.
 
I call Bull squeeze on your statement, if you would have bothered to check out the link I gave in the previous post, you would see your statement is completely false, backed by the governments own records.
False to the point that it shows you have absolutely no clue as to what you speak. Either you dont have a clue or you are a bold faced liar....either way you are wrong.

Are you expecting us to believe 2 things....
1) Democrats are fiscally responsible...facts prove this not to be true
2) The deficit didnt exist until Bush 2...facts also prove this not to be true.

Please stop your partisan hackery, by attempting to push blame for this fiasco of an economy on one side or the other plainly shows your unwillingness to see the truth of the matter. Keep those partisan rose colored glasses on...reality might scare you.


Such is the life of a drone.
 
Latest deal Boehner offered is identical to what Shumar, Pelosi and Reid wanted last spring, the "millionaire" tax, and now its not good enough for them.

I still wish the Republicans' would walk out and say take your cliff and love it.

Yep, sending the economy back into a recession (which most economists agree would be the result) is OK as long as you can blame it on the other party.
 
Liberal Boehner is trying as hard as he can to surrender as quickly as possible. Hopefully he will be voted out of his speaker's post before he succeeds in his mission.

It's the TP's way or the highway! Damn that Obama for not caving in to thwir demands.
 
You're just now realizing that? We have been on the Highway to Hell for a longtime now. No way to really fix it because the fixes would be too unpopular, which in an open democracy pretty much translates into "we ain't never gonna fix it".

So, we should be anti-democracy?
 
Raising taxes on certain people while continuing to spend like maniacs is not going to get us anywhere. Foreign aid and military spending is where I would start to make cuts followed by lowering salaries of government officials.

We are not supposed to work for the government, the government is supposed to work for us.
 
So, we should be anti-democracy?

I support a limited democracy. A dictatorship is the most efficient, however, history has shown us that Benevolent and Dictatorship are oxymorons. It also requires that one person to have way more knowledge about too many things than a single person is capable of. Thus, though efficient, not very welcoming.

I think Heinlein, in Starship Troopers, had a good idea. Although, I think the demonstration of being able to society above self by military service is a good start, I would also include law enforcement and FireFighters. But if I remember right, only citizens were allowed to be law enforcement and only those who had served could be citizens.

If not that, then at least some form of demonstration of worthiness to be a citizen should be a requirement and handle the responsibility of voting and governance.

Although I don't like it as much, John Ringo and David Weber, in March to the Sea, had the idea that in order to vote and participate in government, one had to pay a given percentage of their wealth, no matter what the amount. I don't remember the exact percentage they used, but basically, everyone had to give 10%, so if had 100 million, you paid 10 million for the privilege of voting, if you only had 10, then you gave 1.

Another Idea that I also liked, from another book don't remember title and author atm, was that in order to hold public office, one had to give up all personal wealth and the citizens got to vote for public pay, not their version of congress. Once in office, public pay and retirement only, no other income.
 
I support a limited democracy. A dictatorship is the most efficient, however, history has shown us that Benevolent and Dictatorship are oxymorons. It also requires that one person to have way more knowledge about too many things than a single person is capable of. Thus, though efficient, not very welcoming.

I think Heinlein, in Starship Troopers, had a good idea. Although, I think the demonstration of being able to society above self by military service is a good start, I would also include law enforcement and FireFighters. But if I remember right, only citizens were allowed to be law enforcement and only those who had served could be citizens.

If not that, then at least some form of demonstration of worthiness to be a citizen should be a requirement and handle the responsibility of voting and governance.

Although I don't like it as much, John Ringo and David Weber, in March to the Sea, had the idea that in order to vote and participate in government, one had to pay a given percentage of their wealth, no matter what the amount. I don't remember the exact percentage they used, but basically, everyone had to give 10%, so if had 100 million, you paid 10 million for the privilege of voting, if you only had 10, then you gave 1.

Another Idea that I also liked, from another book don't remember title and author atm, was that in order to hold public office, one had to give up all personal wealth and the citizens got to vote for public pay, not their version of congress. Once in office, public pay and retirement only, no other income.

I understand that thinking to some degree. But just as the dictator can't be expected benevolent, a government acting without the voices of the least amongst us can't be expected to count them among their number. This would benefit society on the whole.

Your last idea holds more promise, though likely to rule out the best and brightest. But money needs to become how removed from the equation.
 
I understand that thinking to some degree. But just as the dictator can't be expected benevolent, a government acting without the voices of the least amongst us can't be expected to count them among their number. This would benefit society on the whole.

Your last idea holds more promise, though likely to rule out the best and brightest. But money needs to become how removed from the equation.

Those were thoughts taken from others. My addition would be to create professional politicians also, instead of just career ones.

I think that anyone that wants to run for public office should be required to complete a "human management" degree. Really, that is what government boils down to, how to manage human societies. The degree with focus upon political, economic and sociological history (an idea partly drawn from Isaac Asimov and his idea of phycho-history from Foundation series and also, the Naked Sun). Basically, a program that teaches what political, social and economic decision in the past were and what was the result of them, to the best of our available knowledge. That includes the history of all societies, not just the US. All socio-political philosophies should be taught, examined and the pros and cons of each evaluated. Also through in a reasonable dose of leadership.
 
Those were thoughts taken from others. My addition would be to create professional politicians also, instead of just career ones.

I think that anyone that wants to run for public office should be required to complete a "human management" degree. Really, that is what government boils down to, how to manage human societies. The degree with focus upon political, economic and sociological history (an idea partly drawn from Isaac Asimov and his idea of phycho-history from Foundation series and also, the Naked Sun). Basically, a program that teaches what political, social and economic decision in the past were and what was the result of them, to the best of our available knowledge. That includes the history of all societies, not just the US. All socio-political philosophies should be taught, examined and the pros and cons of each evaluated. Also through in a reasonable dose of leadership.

Now, that part I would agree to.
 
Raising taxes on certain people while continuing to spend like maniacs is not going to get us anywhere. Foreign aid and military spending is where I would start to make cuts followed by lowering salaries of government officials.

We are not supposed to work for the government, the government is supposed to work for us.

In a country where everyone is supposed to be equal, you can not penalize one group more than others just because of the size of their bank account.

The only way this class envy works is to portray the wealthy as evil fat cat businessmen who want to rape everyone of their money when reality is the majority of the top 1% of Americans are athletes & actors....the Hollywood elite.

The Wall St banker is evil because he made a $3 million dollar bonus while we are all suffering through this economy...thats wrong

BUT

The Athlete got $5 million signing bonus just sign a piece of paper to play for a team...nothing said
The Hollywood actor got $20 million for working 8 weeks on a new movie...nothing said

I dont care how much a person makes, more power to them for making as much as they can with the talents God gave them, just dont penalize them for it.
 
It's the TP's way or the highway! Damn that Obama for not caving in to thwir demands.

Why should their position be any different than Obama's?

His negotiating style is to give me everything I want and more...and if you dont give me everything I want, me and my willing associates in the media will blame you for everything that goes wrong...and if you DO give me everything I want, me and my willing associates in the media will blame you for everything that goes wrong too.
 
Why should their position be any different than Obama's?

His negotiating style is to give me everything I want and more...and if you dont give me everything I want, me and my willing associates in the media will blame you for everything that goes wrong...and if you DO give me everything I want, me and my willing associates in the media will blame you for everything that goes wrong too.


This is the problem, the people or at least a slight majority of them that showed out do indeed think like this and not rationally, or with any historical knowledge. For example, read through the exchange above between DV, and Boo...Progressives like Boo don't use "democracy" in the sense that our founders envisioned in our constitution, but rather in some warped vision where this country is overseen by quasi dictators, and measures that put them in office are direct democracy...Iran has this sort of system that they want, and how does that work? Corrupt votes that give Ahminajihad 97% of the the vote (yeah right) or Venezuela that does the same for Chavez? Where is the opportunity in those places? Their equality of outcome is impossible in a free society, so their vision for America naturally needs to make us less free.

And the sad part is at least one of those people teaches our kids with our permission.
 
This is the problem, the people or at least a slight majority of them that showed out do indeed think like this and not rationally, or with any historical knowledge. For example, read through the exchange above between DV, and Boo...Progressives like Boo don't use "democracy" in the sense that our founders envisioned in our constitution, but rather in some warped vision where this country is overseen by quasi dictators, and measures that put them in office are direct democracy...Iran has this sort of system that they want, and how does that work? Corrupt votes that give Ahminajihad 97% of the the vote (yeah right) or Venezuela that does the same for Chavez? Where is the opportunity in those places? Their equality of outcome is impossible in a free society, so their vision for America naturally needs to make us less free.

And the sad part is at least one of those people teaches our kids with our permission.

Our founders never intended this country to be a democracy....a democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.

Our founders designed this nation to be a Constitutional Republic....sadly, most dont have a clue what that means or the difference between the two.
 
Back
Top Bottom