• 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

Fisher said:
Most people outlive the amount they paid in and the interest that would have accumulated on that money. If we limited it to you get what you paid in with interest, there would never ever be a solvency issue. Whether you like it or not, the reality is that a big chunk of the money people feel they earned and are entitled to is money they did not earn and are not entitled to and eventually the amount going out exceeds the amount coming in. In addition others draw of that same money like spouses and disabled children. It is nothing more than a welfare program hidden behind a separate tax line on your paystub. If we wish to keep it, then it will have to be substantially reformed and means-testing is a more reasonable approach than raising the retirement age to 80.
Click to expand...


I don't think age 80 is anywhere near on the table is it? I thought they were discussing 67...
 
j-mac said:
Except that Obama himself is a weak leader, that is ideologically driven by the far left. Remember the last debt ceiling negotiations? They had a deal, went home for the night to come back the next day and solidify it, and Obama moved the goal posts and sunk the deal, then blamed it on Boehner...

We need leaders on both sides, what we have now is far left partisan, pushing around a wishy washy weakling, willing to compromise principle because he is worried what the Washington press will write....
Click to expand...

Obama isn't ideological except when it suits him. His whole history indicates a need to be accepted by the white conservatives. It was how he got his position on law review; it was why he always voted "present"; and those are the people he wants to be paying him millions of dollars for nothing when he leaves office.
 
Fisher said:
Obama isn't ideological except when it suits him. His whole history indicates a need to be accepted by the white conservatives. It was how he got his position on law review; it was why he always voted "present"; and those are the people he wants to be paying him millions of dollars for nothing when he leaves office.
Click to expand...

I see what you are saying, and that is an argument that could be made I'm sure...However, I don't see it that way, I think he is beyond ideological, to the point of cynical, purposeful, and deceitful despotism. His problem is that this country is too strong so far to allow his real desires to be realized.
 
j-mac said:
This crap out of the Obama lying White House is such Bull **** it is inexcusable. Obama tells you that it is Boehner and repubs holding up the talks because they won't give in to demo demands, yet when repubs do indeed cave, and ask that entitlement reform be tied to the plan Obama balks....

We are negotiating with ourselves people. Obama has NO sign that he is willing to negotiate in good faith at all, it is his way or the highway....I say pass a tax cut on the three bottom tax tiers, and keep the top two the same, pass it in the house, dump it on Reid's desk, and go home.
Click to expand...

That would be awesome. In the past few weeks, if he hadn't already, Obama's demonstrated the fruitfulness of trying to negotiate with a crazy person.
 
j-mac said:
I don't think age 80 is anywhere near on the table is it? I thought they were discussing 67...
Click to expand...

It will be eventually even higher if nothing else is done but that was a number I pulled out of the air to illustrate the point as some think the age should be raised to life expectancy like it was originally. Since my SS statement refers to benefits if I work until I am 70, it is just a matter of time since I presume that is already a foregone conclusion for the time it takes me to get there. I pay my whole chunk in for myself and the employer contribution for my employees. It all comes out of my own pocket. It isn't as if I am advocating for a policy that is likely to benefit me at all unless I have a horrible turn of luck. I am just being realistic. The notch babies nobody ever mentions were not allowed to receive full SS benefits regardless of how much they contributed or how long they worked, but I think most of them are dead by now, so they were not entitled to what others were entitled to by design of the system originally, but it was eventually concluded that they received more than more recently born folks because of the continued dilution of the value of benefits paid to the elderly.
 
Last edited:
Fisher said:
It will be eventually even hire if nothing else is done but that was a number I pulled out of the air to illustrate the point as some think the age should be raised to life expectancy like it was originally. Since my SS statement refers to benefits if I work until I am 70, it is just a matter of time since I presume that is already a foregone conclusion for the time it takes me to get there. I pay my whole chunk in for myself and the employer contribution for my employees. It all comes out of my own pocket. It isn't as if I am advocating for a policy that is likely to benefit me at all unless I have a horrible turn of luck. I am just being realistic. The notch babies nobody ever mentions were not allowed to receive full SS benefits regardless of how much they contributed or how long they worked, but I think most of them are dead by now, so they were not entitled to what others were entitled to by design of the system originally, but it was eventually concluded that they received more than more recently born folks because of the continued dilution of the value of benefits paid to the elderly.
Click to expand...

Which all the more highlights why it was always a ponzi scheme...But I am 50 now, and already know that if I ever get to retire, I will see very little if any of my input to the system. If they really wanted to be fair, they would dissolve the program, and cut a check to each and every participant for what they have put in and allow them to transfer it to an individually controlled IRA.

There problem solved.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Republicans aren't "blocking" tax hikes on the rich - republicans TIME AND TIME AGAIN offered the tax hikes just as long as government cut spending. The Obama administration and democrats in Senate REFUSE to cut spending.

You know why democrats refuse to cut spending? because they damn well know they have to pay people to vote for them via entitlements, benefits and government grants. If democrats stopped spending money on their minions their minions (voting base) would stop voting for them. So the only solution democrats have is to continue to spend and continue to raise taxes - which is why we are at this "fiscal cliff" in the first place.

Republicans are trying to save this economy and country while democrats are more worried about pandering and making good on the promises of free entitlements, benefits and "Obama phones" to their voting base, just so they can retain their elitist position and their power...
Click to expand...

It is typical of every non-democrat to think that every democrat is on welfare, or every one sits on their asses all day and just collects government money. FYI you are wrong.
 
j-mac said:
All while failing to look in a mirror. How ironic.
Click to expand...

Well, you have argued the word wasn't subjective. You could have also addressed the issue that i responded to. But you didn't.
 
j-mac said:
Which all the more highlights why it was always a ponzi scheme...But I am 50 now, and already know that if I ever get to retire, I will see very little if any of my input to the system. If they really wanted to be fair, they would dissolve the program, and cut a check to each and every participant for what they have put in and allow them to transfer it to an individually controlled IRA.

There problem solved.
Click to expand...

In today's market probably not, but I get your point. Realistically people in their 20's and 30's could benefit greatly from that because of the time value of money. At 50, I doubt you would so much because it takes 10-15 years to really start pulling in the bigger relative gains. Even more realistically, most people would spend it or let their kids sucker them out of it and we would have a generation of broke old folks on welfare to pay for yet again. It is becoming a notable issue with reverse mortgages when the owners take it all out as a lump sum, spend it all, and then have no money to pay taxes, insurance, maintenance and have no assets to borrow off of or good income to pay a loan with.
 
iacardsfan said:
It is typical of every non-democrat to think that every democrat is on welfare, or every one sits on their asses all day and just collects government money. FYI you are wrong.
Click to expand...

I don't believe every democrats "sits on welfare" however I do believe every democrat believe it's the governments responsibility to provide for them, and financially provide for them (if needed).

I believe few democrats understand the idea of personal responsibility, individualism and self reliance. I believe democrats believe the solution to every problem is government intervention, and I do believe when democrats are in office they overwhelmingly trust to government to make decisions for them.

If I was wrong democrats wouldn't be arguing for more social programs and higher taxes.

I'll bet that 95% of those living on social welfare are democrats.

I will say there are many trends that are generally exclusive to the democrat party.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
Well, you have argued the word wasn't subjective.
Click to expand...

Really? I did? Where? Are you making stuff up again Joe? :lol:


You could have also addressed the issue that i responded to. But you didn't.
Click to expand...

What issue was that Joe? See, apparently you think you get to saunter in and control the subject, and verbiage. You don't. I started this thread, and set the topic in it, so either respond to that, or do us a favor and take your semantic word games elsewhere....They are boring.
 
DVSentinel said:
That would be:
Click to expand...

Have you not been paying attention? From Bush's false mandate to anything to be against Obama. I admit, you have know something about recent history to see it, that and not be a partisan hack. But there is plenty of evidence if one opens his or her eyes and look.
 
j-mac said:
Really? I did? Where? Are you making stuff up again Joe? :lol:




What issue was that Joe? See, apparently you think you get to saunter in and control the subject, and verbiage. You don't. I started this thread, and set the topic in it, so either respond to that, or do us a favor and take your semantic word games elsewhere....They are boring.
Click to expand...
Should have been could have and not have.


Control? J, that's in your mind. Pointing out that a word is subjective and hardly an objective view based on anything measurable is not controlling anything. And I did respond to in two specific ways. I also noted you ignored them.
 
Boo Radley said:
Have you not been paying attention? From Bush's false mandate to anything to be against Obama. I admit, you have know something about recent history to see it, that and not be a partisan hack. But there is plenty of evidence if one opens his or her eyes and look.
Click to expand...

We have different opinions on the subject. By posting, you volunteered to participate in debate of the subject. So, lets debate. Provide examples and data supporting your view point.

So far, you have only given your opinion, upon what do you base that opinion? I grant that it is indeed your opinion and will not ague that it is not. Apparently because I don't look up the facts of your opinion, you further have the opinion that I am ignorant. Again, that is your opinion, but I don't see from what I have posted that I have demonstrated support of that opinion. And since ignorance is a curable condition, please, educate me on the basis of your opinion, of which, I do plead ignorance since you haven't supported it yet, as to other facts, well, that remains to be demonstrated.

Bush's False Mandate? What the heck are you talking about?
 
Boo Radley said:
Should have been could have and not have.


Control? J, that's in your mind. Pointing out that a word is subjective and hardly an objective view based on anything measurable is not controlling anything. And I did respond to in two specific ways. I also noted you ignored them.
Click to expand...


Yes, I ignored them, because much like many of your misguided postings, they did not address the topic. So, either offer something relevant, or troll somewhere else. Thank you.
 
j-mac said:
This crap out of the Obama lying White House is such Bull **** it is inexcusable. Obama tells you that it is Boehner and repubs holding up the talks because they won't give in to demo demands, yet when repubs do indeed cave, and ask that entitlement reform be tied to the plan Obama balks....

We are negotiating with ourselves people. Obama has NO sign that he is willing to negotiate in good faith at all, it is his way or the highway....I say pass a tax cut on the three bottom tax tiers, and keep the top two the same, pass it in the house, dump it on Reid's desk, and go home.
Click to expand...

Both parties are blowing smoke up our asses.

There are no cuts planned....the ones Republicans speak of as "budget cuts" are only cuts in future spending hikes...rather than raise the spending 5% they want it "cut" to 4%...wtf good is that going to do, its not a friggin cut in actual spending, its lip service.

Taxing the "rich" as Obama wants to do will only fund the government for 3 to 4 additional days a year...an estimated $85 Billion a year....a drop in the bucket when we are overspending $1.3 Trillion a year.

Both parties are a friggin joke and those of you that keep voting them into office are just as much part of the problem as the politicians who are lying through their teeth to us.
 
Imnukingfutz said:
Both parties are blowing smoke up our asses.

There are no cuts planned....the ones Republicans speak of as "budget cuts" are only cuts in future spending hikes...rather than raise the spending 5% they want it "cut" to 4%...wtf good is that going to do, its not a friggin cut in actual spending, its lip service.

Taxing the "rich" as Obama wants to do will only fund the government for 3 to 4 additional days a year...an estimated $85 Billion a year....a drop in the bucket when we are overspending $1.3 Trillion a year.

Both parties are a friggin joke and those of you that keep voting them into office are just as much part of the problem as the politicians who are lying through their teeth to us.
Click to expand...


Well, I didn't vote for Obama brother....So I don't know what you are speaking to there. But I will say that we should all prepare, and learn our history to pass along to future generations, because Obama's 'fundamental change' is coming, and it ain't Kansas Dorthy.
 
iguanaman said:
There will be no Social Insurance reform as part of the tax increases on the wealthy, they are off the table. They have not added one penny to the debt and the Republicans lost the election. Besides I have not heard one Republican propsal to reform SS or Medicare since the Romney/Ryan plan was soundly defeated by the voters. They are afraid even to mention what they want to do to destroy the saftey nets of the middle class. I wonder why?
Click to expand...

Well the GAO say's that if we don't seriously reform entitlement spending, especially Medicare, where gonna be in a world of hurt.

The real debt problem gets lost in fiscal cliff debate - Dec. 11, 2012
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Well the GAO say's that if we don't seriously reform entitlement spending, especially Medicare, where gonna be in a world of hurt.

The real debt problem gets lost in fiscal cliff debate - Dec. 11, 2012
Click to expand...

The way I see it, one thing that would help Medicare would be to fix the whole medical industry which the government started breaking, I think it was in the '70s, might of been '80s. They caused the problem, but they won't admit that because that would mean the way to fix it would be to undo what they did.
 
DVSentinel said:
The way I see it, one thing that would help Medicare would be to fix the whole medical industry which the government started breaking, I think it was in the '70s, might of been '80s. They caused the problem, but they won't admit that because that would mean the way to fix it would be to undo what they did.
Click to expand...

The problem is, you've got a whole hell of a lot of elderly people retiring, combined with a government medical plan, with no restrictions on end of life care.
End of life care, is a huge driver of these medical costs.

Something a lot of people fail to grasp is that, Medicare will be cut, there's no way to avoid it.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The problem is, you've got a whole hell of a lot of elderly people retiring, combined with a government medical plan, with no restrictions on end of life care.
End of life care, is a huge driver of these medical costs.

Something a lot of people fail to grasp is that, Medicare will be cut, there's no way to avoid it.
Click to expand...

I agree pretty much. But I do question what affect Clinton, and I think Bush did some too, of allowing retirement plans to dump people off, the insurance that someone paid for their whole life and onto Medicare. While it was nice and saved some of those retirement plans, I do have to question if in end we shouldn't of let them fail and let those who mismanaged them in the first place suffer along with those they dumped. In the end, we still have to absorb them onto Medicare, but then the idiots that did the mismanaging would be broke and like Enron, possibly spending quality time in prison.
 
DVSentinel said:
I agree pretty much. But I do question what affect Clinton, and I think Bush did some too, of allowing retirement plans to dump people off, the insurance that someone paid for their whole life and onto Medicare. While it was nice and saved some of those retirement plans, I do have to question if in end we shouldn't of let them fail and let those who mismanaged them in the first place suffer along with those they dumped. In the end, we still have to absorb them onto Medicare, but then the idiots that did the mismanaging would be broke and like Enron, possibly spending quality time in prison.
Click to expand...

Well practically everyone gets Medicare if I remember right, even those with supplemental insurance do to.
Medicare was poorly conceived and poorly designed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom