• 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's FY 2012 Budget

even if all the kennedys got all their cash from daddy, joseph p still had to "earn" it

(well, actually, the nazi symp ambassador to the court of st james, back here in the states, made most of his fortune illegally)

either way, someone had to earn all that money to give to john f kerry's wife

and whoever earned it should have the right to determine whichever lazy ingrate he or she wants to give it to

ie, it's not yours

even if the lazy deadbeat turns out to be jay rockefeller
 
Last edited:
diablo45 said:
"earned"?....either sat on their asses figuring oil futures or got it from daddy
Click to expand...

What you're saying is incredibly ignorant. I got to where I am today through hard work. The only things my parents ever gave me was encouragement.
 
Boo Radley said:
If I thought you had no sense j, I wouldn't ride you about the American non-Thinker. it is because you're capable that I mess with you.
Click to expand...

Thanks, but man, the American Thinker, for being an opinion web site, they really get under your skin.

Not sure anyone could get any simplier. If you are really concerned with the deficit, and I'm not convinced anyone in government is, you have to tackle the big three: medicare, SS and the military, which would include but not be limited to fighting needless wars. And you would have to address revenue, taxes.
Click to expand...


Let's address these simply, and one at a time.

1. Address the big three - I couldn't agree more with you on this. The cutting around the edges with earmarks, and discretionary spending is laughable, and an insult to America's intelligence. What would you do with these?

2. Fighting in Afghanistan, and Support roles in Iraq - It is easy, and makes for a nice talking point to just throw that out there as if there are no repercussions for just packing up and leaving these places. If it were that easy, would not Obama have done that? Instead he adopted almost to the letter the Bush strategy in the region. You can say that as the founders would have said that our involvement in foreign entanglement is at the heart of some of our problems today that they did foresee, however we are in the here and now, and with bases in I think its something like 172 countries, and those places in some instances counting on us for their very survival, not to mention that whatever the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost over the past 10 years, it is peanuts compared to Obama spending over the past two.

3. My taxes rose by an effective rate of 2% this year, and I made $5000.00 less than last year. Now I am middle class. Tell me why? and tell me what you would do to increase revenue. My suggestion would be the fair tax.

With that in mind, I noted, as it is important, everyone always points to someone else needing to cut their programs, their spending, while maintaining their piece of the pie. Pick your group that benefits from government dollars, and this would include everyone from the very poor to the very wealthy, and each will say the other needs to cut. I don't think this is shocking, but once we start with this acknowledgement, we can agree that it is expected that everyone will fight to hold on to what they have now, if not more.
Click to expand...

I think that the generation of Americans that are now taking the center stage as far as the country goes, are shedding this NIMBY attitude concerning the hard choices. It is the Baby Boomers that are holding on with both hands. I forget who said it but the quote goes something like 'Once the population learns that they can vote themselves riches from the treasury, the republic dies." We ALL have to sacrifice, and it ain't gonna be pretty. So let's get on with it.


I hope I have started a good dialogue.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Thanks, but man, the American Thinker, for being an opinion web site, they really get under your skin.
Click to expand...

Supidity always does. Wild, inaccurate, silly opinions should jot be worth anyone's time to read. That some not only read them, but take them seriously is a large part of what is wrong with us as a people.

Let's address these simply, and one at a time.

1. Address the big three - I couldn't agree more with you on this. The cutting around the edges with earmarks, and discretionary spending is laughable, and an insult to America's intelligence. What would you do with these?
Click to expand...

The Big three? I would also argue a more efficient system, like a single payer system woudl do away with Medicare and increase the base, premiums. I think that would be the best solution. We won't see it, so like always we have to go with less effective measures. Rasing the age of being elegiable would be one such method, and we could means test those who don't need it (myth about it being a trust fund needs to be put to rest).

The military is easier. Make it fit what we face as a threat now and in the future, which is largely smaller forces, which a large bulky military is less effective at fighting. Stop needlessly invading countries. Stop nation building.

2. Fighting in Afghanistan, and Support roles in Iraq - It is easy, and makes for a nice talking point to just throw that out there as if there are no repercussions for just packing up and leaving these places. If it were that easy, would not Obama have done that? Instead he adopted almost to the letter the Bush strategy in the region. You can say that as the founders would have said that our involvement in foreign entanglement is at the heart of some of our problems today that they did foresee, however we are in the here and now, and with bases in I think its something like 172 countries, and those places in some instances counting on us for their very survival, not to mention that whatever the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost over the past 10 years, it is peanuts compared to Obama spending over the past two.
Click to expand...

Leaving is not easy. No one suggests it would be. If you can remember back, long before Bush left office, I said the only easy fix to those countries was to not have invaded in the first place. That was true for Bush and it is true for Obama. The situation created by invading makes leaving much more difficult than having not gone in in the first place. It will be painful and risky for everyone.

So, that being said, and with the understanding that it has to be slowly as to endanger fewer (none) people, we still need to procede toward ending the wars. And stop nation building. This is important ot our fiscal well being. We have hurt ourselves much more than helped by being imperialistic and reckless.

3. My taxes rose by an effective rate of 2% this year, and I made $5000.00 less than last year. Now I am middle class. Tell me why? and tell me what you would do to increase revenue. My suggestion would be the fair tax.
Click to expand...

I think a progressive tax is a fair tax. I make more than many, and I don't mind at all paying more than those who make less. I benefit more as well, and having been poor (even homeless), I know the difference.

As for increasing your revenue? I do it by working more. Advancing in my profession. But much of America could learn to live within their means (including myself).

I think that the generation of Americans that are now taking the center stage as far as the country goes, are shedding this NIMBY attitude concerning the hard choices. It is the Baby Boomers that are holding on with both hands. I forget who said it but the quote goes something like 'Once the population learns that they can vote themselves riches from the treasury, the republic dies." We ALL have to sacrifice, and it ain't gonna be pretty. So let's get on with it.


I hope I have started a good dialogue.


j-mac
Click to expand...

I hope you're right, but I don't believe you are. All the polls and opinions I read and find seem to indicate that the same disconnects are present. They want services, but don't want to pay for them. Thsi disconnect has been around as long as I can remember.

As for discourse, I always try to talk reasonable with you j. We've been around awhile, you and me. Perhaps one day we can even sit down to a cup of coffee and talk face to face. ;) :coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
Supidity always does. Wild, inaccurate, silly opinions should jot be worth anyone's time to read. That some not only read them, but take them seriously is a large part of what is wrong with us as a people.



The Big three? I would also argue a more efficient system, like a single payer system woudl do away with Medicare and increase the base, premiums. I think that would be the best solution. We won't see it, so like always we have to go with less effective measures. Rasing the age of being elegiable would be one such method, and we could means test those who don't need it (myth about it being a trust fund needs to be put to rest).

The military is easier. Make it fit what we face as a threat now and in the future, which is largely smaller forces, which a large bulky military is less effective at fighting. Stop needlessly invading countries. Stop nation building.



Leaving is not easy. No one suggests it would be. If you can remember back, long before Bush left office, I said the only easy fix to those countries was to not have invaded in the first place. That was true for Bush and it is true for Obama. The situation created by invading makes leaving much more difficult than having not gone in in the first place. It will be painful and risky for everyone.

So, that being said, and with the understanding that it has to be slowly as to endanger fewer (none) people, we still need to procede toward ending the wars. And stop nation building. This is important ot our fiscal well being. We have hurt ourselves much more than helped by being imperialistic and reckless.



I think a progressive tax is a fair tax. I make more than many, and I don't mind at all paying more than those who make less. I benefit more as well, and having been poor (even homeless), I know the difference.

As for increasing your revenue? I do it by working more. Advancing in my profession. But much of America could learn to live within their means (including myself).



I hope you're right, but I don't believe you are. All the polls and opinions I read and find seem to indicate that the same disconnects are present. They want services, but don't want to pay for them. Thsi disconnect has been around as long as I can remember.

As for discourse, I always try to talk reasonable with you j. We've been around awhile, you and me. Perhaps one day we can even sit down to a cup of coffee and talk face to face. ;) :coffeepap
Click to expand...

You seem to have great passion for a single payer system and the question is why? Please name for me one govt. program that has ever saved money on any issue?
 
Boo Radley said:
Supidity always does. Wild, inaccurate, silly opinions should jot be worth anyone's time to read. That some not only read them, but take them seriously is a large part of what is wrong with us as a people.
Click to expand...
Uh huh. And your opinions fall into this same category. The irony is strong with this one.

The difference between AT and your posts Boo, is that AT actually links their claims to media, government and informational sites. For example, in this article from today, (American Thinker: Cooking the Intelligence Books) there are no less than 14 or so links to provide reference within the article which isn't very long at all. Yet you provide very little reference backup to your opinions, yet you want people reading your posts to believe AT is some radical propoganda forum and your posts aren't?

I'll take over referenced materials which I can read and review for myself (ie. AT) over someone who very rarely references their opinion with referenced evidence.


Boo Radley said:
The Big three?
Click to expand...
Yes, often called the "Three rails of politics" or "sacred cows of politics".

Boo Radley said:
I would also argue a more efficient system, like a single payer system woudl do away with Medicare and increase the base, premiums. I think that would be the best solution. We won't see it, so like always we have to go with less effective measures. Rasing the age of being elegiable would be one such method, and we could means test those who don't need it (myth about it being a trust fund needs to be put to rest).
Click to expand...
We don't see it because it goes against the tenets of which this nation is built - competition, free market and liberty. Efficiency at the price of everything else isn't efficient, it's detrimental and ultimately destructive.

Boo Radley said:
The military is easier. Make it fit what we face as a threat now and in the future, which is largely smaller forces, which a large bulky military is less effective at fighting. Stop needlessly invading countries. Stop nation building.
Click to expand...
Certainly a smaller military is needed, but "less effective at fighting"? :lamo Only if we can also have a less effective government at adjudicating and legislating.

Boo Radley said:
Leaving is not easy. No one suggests it would be. If you can remember back, long before Bush left office, I said the only easy fix to those countries was to not have invaded in the first place. That was true for Bush and it is true for Obama. The situation created by invading makes leaving much more difficult than having not gone in in the first place. It will be painful and risky for everyone.
Click to expand...
Leaving isn't easy politically... it may not be easy militarily, but it certainly is economically especially when a country can no longer afford that occupation.

Boo Radley said:
So, that being said, and with the understanding that it has to be slowly as to endanger fewer (none) people, we still need to procede toward ending the wars. And stop nation building. This is important ot our fiscal well being. We have hurt ourselves much more than helped by being imperialistic and reckless.
Click to expand...
Certainly that's an option ... however, we tried that in the 20th century and the result was 2 world wars, a cold war and the positioning of the U.S. as the police force of the world, in order to AVOID another all encompassing war. The risk assessment that comes with your view is what increases the likelihood of another all encompassing war in the future, or, some other country or countries have to take over the policing activities when the U.S. stops.

Boo Radley said:
I think a progressive tax is a fair tax. I make more than many, and I don't mind at all paying more than those who make less. I benefit more as well, and having been poor (even homeless), I know the difference.

As for increasing your revenue? I do it by working more. Advancing in my profession. But much of America could learn to live within their means (including myself).
Click to expand...
You don't need the government to force you to pay more taxes via a Progressive Tax. If you feel you make more money than many and don't mind paying more to those who make less, you can provide on this years tax forms a gift to the U.S. Government as part of your taxes, the higher % a progressive tax would require. The fact is, if you believed in it, you would have done that already, but I suspect you haven't. :shrug:
 
Ockham said:
Uh huh. And your opinions fall into this same category. The irony is strong with this one.

The difference between AT and your posts Boo, is that AT actually links their claims to media, government and informational sites. For example, in this article from today, (American Thinker: Cooking the Intelligence Books) there are no less than 14 or so links to provide reference within the article which isn't very long at all. Yet you provide very little reference backup to your opinions, yet you want people reading your posts to believe AT is some radical propoganda forum and your posts aren't?

I'll take over referenced materials which I can read and review for myself (ie. AT) over someone who very rarely references their opinion with referenced evidence.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but you can't link silliness. Seriously. There is no link for evil liberals are destorying the world and kicking puppies. :roll:

Yes, often called the "Three rails of politics" or "sacred cows of politics".
Click to expand...

Yep.

We don't see it because it goes against the tenets of which this nation is built - competition, free market and liberty. Efficiency at the price of everything else isn't efficient, it's detrimental and ultimately destructive.
Click to expand...

I quite disagree. Care to go back and find when last the market was completely free? Or how about showing how comeptition has helped make medicine accessable, ever. And nothing about this hinders liberty.

Certainly a smaller military is needed, but "less effective at fighting"? :lamo Only if we can also have a less effective government at adjudicating and legislating.
Click to expand...

Yes, less effective. It can subdue a country, but can't end the endless struggle terrorism presents us with.

Leaving isn't easy politically... it may not be easy militarily, but it certainly is economically especially when a country can no longer afford that occupation.
Click to expand...

I think that is what I said. Yes.


Certainly that's an option ... however, we tried that in the 20th century and the result was 2 world wars, a cold war and the positioning of the U.S. as the police force of the world, in order to AVOID another all encompassing war. The risk assessment that comes with your view is what increases the likelihood of another all encompassing war in the future, or, some other country or countries have to take over the policing activities when the U.S. stops.
Click to expand...

I think you're misreading history. No one is talking about isolationsim. Simply not being the police, not building nations, pumping in our money to remake any nation. Not being imperialistic. The choice is not between either being imperialistic or being isolationistic. We can trade, work with, participate, and still nto invade or nation build.

You don't need the government to force you to pay more taxes via a Progressive Tax. If you feel you make more money than many and don't mind paying more to those who make less, you can provide on this years tax forms a gift to the U.S. Government as part of your taxes, the higher % a progressive tax would require. The fact is, if you believed in it, you would have done that already, but I suspect you haven't. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I don't think I used the word need. However, you can do that with a progressive tax as well. But as I have said, I don't mind paying my fair share, in a progressive manner, and don't begrudge those make less, benefit less, paying less.
Click to expand...
 
Boo Radley said:
Supidity always does. Wild, inaccurate, silly opinions should jot be worth anyone's time to read. That some not only read them, but take them seriously is a large part of what is wrong with us as a people.
Click to expand...


:lol: Oh come on...There are opinion sites on both sides of the isle, and it could easily be pointed out that many on the liberal side of many issues rely much more on sites like DailyKOS, MediaMatters, and MoveOn.org for their information, not to mention getting their news from Jon Stewart than that of the right. It shows that something must be correct with AT when thou doth protest too much.

The Big three? I would also argue a more efficient system, like a single payer system woudl do away with Medicare and increase the base, premiums. I think that would be the best solution. We won't see it, so like always we have to go with less effective measures. Rasing the age of being elegiable would be one such method, and we could means test those who don't need it (myth about it being a trust fund needs to be put to rest).
Click to expand...

Medicare has an unfunded liability somewhere in the hundreds of Trillions of dollars now, how would essentially expanding that model to cover everyone result in anything but failure of the system in true Cloward and Piven fashion, and bankruptcy?

The military is easier. Make it fit what we face as a threat now and in the future, which is largely smaller forces, which a large bulky military is less effective at fighting. Stop needlessly invading countries. Stop nation building.
Click to expand...

Stop Nation Building, I agree, although in the past I defended strongly what we did in Iraq, it is clearly now a losing situation, and a money pit.

Leaving is not easy. No one suggests it would be. If you can remember back, long before Bush left office, I said the only easy fix to those countries was to not have invaded in the first place. That was true for Bush and it is true for Obama. The situation created by invading makes leaving much more difficult than having not gone in in the first place. It will be painful and risky for everyone.
Click to expand...

You can't turn back the clock, so can we talk about the here and now please?

So, that being said, and with the understanding that it has to be slowly as to endanger fewer (none) people, we still need to procede toward ending the wars. And stop nation building. This is important ot our fiscal well being. We have hurt ourselves much more than helped by being imperialistic and reckless.
Click to expand...

Ok, and as we do that, who fills the vacuum? And with downsizing the military, are you suggesting only an isolationist stance toward our security?

I think a progressive tax is a fair tax. I make more than many, and I don't mind at all paying more than those who make less. I benefit more as well, and having been poor (even homeless), I know the difference.
Click to expand...

I've been there too friend, so let's not think for a minute that I don't understand what it is to worry how to keep a roof over my head, or food on the table. With that said all I can see that the "progressive tax" has done is create the zero liability voter, and caused one side to ruin this country for that voter.

As for increasing your revenue? I do it by working more. Advancing in my profession. But much of America could learn to live within their means (including myself).
Click to expand...

I have worked 70 to 90 per week for the past 30 years, and taken three actual vacations. Shall we compare balance sheets?

I hope you're right, but I don't believe you are. All the polls and opinions I read and find seem to indicate that the same disconnects are present. They want services, but don't want to pay for them. Thsi disconnect has been around as long as I can remember.
Click to expand...

Well, then rather than outlets like MSNBC devoting much of their time looking for the next way to bash Sarah Palin, they should start getting the facts out there so people can make an educated opinion.

As for discourse, I always try to talk reasonable with you j. We've been around awhile, you and me. Perhaps one day we can even sit down to a cup of coffee and talk face to face.
Click to expand...

I'd like that if it could ever happen. In fact should you find yourself ever near the Greenville SC area, let me know, and my home is open.

j-mac
 
Boo Radley said:
Ockham said:
I'm sorry, but you can't link silliness. Seriously. There is no link for evil liberals are destorying the world and kicking puppies. :roll:
Click to expand...
So you're retracting that AT is wild and inaccurate. Good. You're view of what is silly or not is assigned to you only - and you've got a right to that opinion. It's MY opinion that I'll take AT's accuracy and wild views over yours, because they at least link to resources and evidence, whereas you rarely do.


Boo Radley said:
I quite disagree. Care to go back and find when last the market was completely free?
Click to expand...
Where is it written that the market must be "completely free" - if that's what you base your disagreement on, it's flawed.

Boo Radley said:
Or how about showing how competition has helped make medicine accessible, ever. And nothing about this hinders liberty.
Click to expand...
No one is claiming a connection between competition and availability of medicine - that's a very nice Strawman. Regarding liberty: A single payer system provides yet more government control and bureaucracy which as history teaches us, is NEVER more efficient than the private sector. As well, making physicians salaried government employees will restrict the freedom and liberty of doctors making more money and specializing. What we also see in the Canadian and UK models are very long waiting times for procedures - years at times. Since a single payer systems is government controlled health care, the government directs and controls health care, instead of the market. Such things lead to favoritism and the bureaucrats running things - and yes is a loss of liberty as I cannot leave such a system once put in place. Now, I can choose other insurance, other providers, etc.

Boo Radley said:
Yes, less effective. It can subdue a country, but can't end the endless struggle terrorism presents us with.
Click to expand...
You wish to be subjugated apparently. I however wish for a smaller military with a much greater ability to fight and win. You were talking about efficiency needs in health-care, but then turn around and want IN-efficiency in the military that will defend the sovereignty of your own country.

Boo Radley said:
I think you're misreading history.
Click to expand...
And I think you're reality is one you've made up to suit your political beliefs.

Boo Radley said:
No one is talking about isolationsim.
Click to expand...
Right. No one is talking about it.

Boo Radley said:
Simply not being the police, not building nations, pumping in our money to remake any nation. Not being imperialistic. The choice is not between either being imperialistic or being isolationistic. We can trade, work with, participate, and still nto invade or nation build.
Click to expand...
And that is what our country did in the 20th century - so everything I previously posted still applies. Your view risks another world war in the future.

Boo Radley said:
I don't think I used the word need. However, you can do that with a progressive tax as well.
Click to expand...
The question isn't "can you" the question is "why don't you"?

Boo Radley said:
But as I have said, I don't mind paying my fair share, in a progressive manner, and don't begrudge those make less, benefit less, paying less.
Click to expand...
So why aren't you paying more voluntarily?
Click to expand...
 
Ockham said:
Boo Radley said:
So you're retracting that AT is wild and inaccurate. Good. You're view of what is silly or not is assigned to you only - and you've got a right to that opinion. It's MY opinion that I'll take AT's accuracy and wild views over yours, because they at least link to resources and evidence, whereas you rarely do.
Click to expand...

I'm retracting nothing. At, like NRO, often link valid sources, but are inaccurate in their conclusions. We have an example of the Weekly Standard doing that on another thread.

Where is it written that the market must be "completely free" - if that's what you base your disagreement on, it's flawed.
Click to expand...

No where I know of, which makes your market comment questionable, not mine. The fact is we have always regulated and bent, and adjusted to the changing times, from day one. Nothing with a single payer goes against this.

No one is claiming a connection between competition and availability of medicine - that's a very nice Strawman. Regarding liberty: A single payer system provides yet more government control and bureaucracy which as history teaches us, is NEVER more efficient than the private sector. As well, making physicians salaried government employees will restrict the freedom and liberty of doctors making more money and specializing. What we also see in the Canadian and UK models are very long waiting times for procedures - years at times. Since a single payer systems is government controlled health care, the government directs and controls health care, instead of the market. Such things lead to favoritism and the bureaucrats running things - and yes is a loss of liberty as I cannot leave such a system once put in place. Now, I can choose other insurance, other providers, etc.
Click to expand...

To be honest, based on this response by you, I'm not sure what you are claiming or what you think I'm claiming. To claim that competition makes things better, we must look and see things better. Being accessable, be it medicine or access to care, is something that is better than not having those things. Competition here has not improved access. If you don't have access, you don't have quality care. So, the amrket, and compeititon have failed those who cannot access it.

You wish to be subjugated apparently. I however wish for a smaller military with a much greater ability to fight and win. You were talking about efficiency needs in health-care, but then turn around and want IN-efficiency in the military that will defend the sovereignty of your own country.
Click to expand...

You make another leap. I have no such wish and nothing I speak of subjugates me in any way. And no where have I asked for in efficient military. I've actually asked for the opposite. Using a hammer when a scalpel is needed is ineffecient.

And I think you're reality is one you've made up to suit your political beliefs.
Click to expand...

What you think is meaning less to history. I stand by what I said.

Right. No one is talking about it.
Click to expand...

Right. we agree then.

And that is what our country did in the 20th century - so everything I previously posted still applies. Your view risks another world war in the future.
Click to expand...

No, you misread it. that is not what happened. We intered into things like VN that we did not have to enter into.

The question isn't "can you" the question is "why don't you"?
Click to expand...

I do pay a progressive tax and I'm fine with it.

So why aren't you paying more voluntarily?
Click to expand...



How do you know I don't? we can say anything on the internet, but how would you ever know?
Click to expand...
 
As I read through this thread, I wonder if those who oppose Pres. Obama really "listened" to his press conference and not take their cue from the Fox News article from the OP alone. The President made a few things very clear:

Pell Grants. Ending summer class financing since the award level for this education grant program had already been raised and the sole purpose for implementing the summer education expenditures was to provide financial aid to under privelaged college students during the economic downturn. Since the economy is improving, funding for summer education programs under Pell Grants is no longer necessary.

Entitlement Programs.

Social Security. Doesn't have a funding problem, but a spending problem mostly due to federal legislators constanting "robbing Peter to pay Paul". Since apparently Social Security isn't in crisis at the moment, he'll leaving this for Congress to tackle in the coming months/years down the road. A wise decision considering his budget is only for FY2012.

Medicare/Medicaid. Since these issues have largely been address in the PPAC, there's really no need to address further budget cuts to these programs via his budget proposal.

Community Investment Programs. Local organization will now have to pickup the charge where federal dollars leave off. And since the economy is improving, local residents and businesses will need to start making charitable contributions to these programs again. It's about "neighbors helping neighbors". Do the "neighborly thing" and start looking after your own communities again.

Presidental Veto. You wanted him to get tough! We'll looks like he's getting there only Conservatives don't like it because he has vowed to veto any bill that includes earmarks. The irony here is Conservatives have been complaining about earmarks and pork barrel spending for years and the one time a Liberal/Centrist President stands firm against earmarks, now it's a bad thing to stand firm against?

Balancing the budget. He said at least 3 times that the government needs to spend what it takes in relation to GDP. You spend only up to what revenues you take in. Ummm...makes sense to me.... (And if you were truly paying attention, this man was calling for a balanced budget amendment!)

Interest on the debt. Here I'm alittle fuzzy, but if I understand the situation fairly accurately, what the President is saying is the first interest payment on our current loans won't come due for a few years. Therefore, there's little his budget can do to address that problem now. Congress will have to deal with that issue when the time comes.

Taxes and the Tax Code. You want to stop much of the wasteful spending, changing the tax code is perhaps the best way to do it especially where eliminating wasteful tax subsidies is concerned. Entitlements are not the only deficit problem. So, if you (Conservatives) are really serious about reducing same, you have to honestly address this particular problem soon...like 2012 soon!
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
As I read through this thread, I wonder if those who oppose Pres. Obama really "listened" to his press conference and not take their cue from the Fox News article from the OP alone. The President made a few things very clear:

Pell Grants. Ending summer class financing since the award level for this education grant program had already been raised and the sole purpose for implementing the summer education expenditures was to provide financial aid to under privelaged college students during the economic downturn. Since the economy is improving, funding for summer education programs under Pell Grants is no longer necessary.

Entitlement Programs.

Social Security. Doesn't have a funding problem, but a spending problem mostly due to federal legislators constanting "robbing Peter to pay Paul". Since apparently Social Security isn't in crisis at the moment, he'll leaving this for Congress to tackle in the coming months/years down the road. A wise decision considering his budget is only for FY2012.

Medicare/Medicaid. Since these issues have largely been address in the PPAC, there's really no need to address further budget cuts to these programs via his budget proposal.

Community Investment Programs. Local organization will now have to pickup the charge where federal dollars leave off. And since the economy is improving, local residents and businesses will need to start making charitable contributions to these programs again. It's about "neighbors helping neighbors". Do the "neighborly thing" and start looking after your own communities again.

Presidental Veto. You wanted him to get tough! We'll looks like he's getting there only Conservatives don't like it because he has vowed to veto any bill that includes earmarks. The irony here is Conservatives have been complaining about earmarks and pork barrel spending for years and the one time a Liberal/Centrist President stands firm against earmarks, now it's a bad thing to stand firm against?

Balancing the budget. He said at least 3 times that the government needs to spend what it takes in relation to GDP. You spend only up to what revenues you take in. Ummm...makes sense to me.... (And if you were truly paying attention, this man was calling for a balanced budget amendment!)

Interest on the debt. Here I'm alittle fuzzy, but if I understand the situation fairly accurately, what the President is saying is the first interest payment on our current loans won't come due for a few years. Therefore, there's little his budget can do to address that problem now. Congress will have to deal with that issue when the time comes.

Taxes and the Tax Code. You want to stop much of the wasteful spending, changing the tax code is perhaps the best way to do it especially where eliminating wasteful tax subsidies is concerned. Entitlements are not the only deficit problem. So, if you (Conservatives) are really serious about reducing same, you have to honestly address this particular problem soon...like 2012 soon!
Click to expand...

What this President doesn't seem to understand is that much of his budget is also funded at the state and local levels thus duplicated a few times over and that makes no sense. As I have posted many times before the individual line items in the Federal budget but those are ignored by the Obama supporters. This President doesn't seem to ahve a clue as to how the private sector works and the actual role of the federal govt.

SS and Medicare have been "borrowed" for decades starting with LBJ putting it on budget to fund the Vietnam War and Great Society. There are over 2.5 trillion in IOU's that are coming due and have to be funded. Where is the money coming from?

Since when does GDP have any role in what the govt. should or should not spend? Comparing govt spending as a percent of GDP is absolutely irresponsible and ignorant. This is a private sector economy and much of the GDP(2/3) is consumer spending. What role does the Federal govt. play in consumer spending? That argument makes zero sense, explain it please?

Interest in the debt is a yearly expense. Countries that loan us money expect to be paid, You can postpone payments to American bond holders by stretching out the bonds but not foreign countries. We have a lot of debt for a long period of time so there is always debt coming due.

Oh the fear of Obama vetoing the GOP budgets! I assure you those budgets will not have earmarks but will have bigger spending cuts that Obama wants.
 
Boo Radley said:
Ockham said:
I'm retracting nothing. At, like NRO, often link valid sources, but are inaccurate in their conclusions.
Click to expand...
Inaccurate according to your opinion. As far as inaccurate, you've provided no evidence they're inaccurate nor "wild" whatever that means, therefore your accusation is irrelevant.

Boo Radley said:
No where I know of, which makes your market comment questionable, not mine.
Click to expand...
You asked a question with a qualifier - there's no reason nor any requirement for a totally free market, therefore your question was also irrelevant.

Boo Radley said:
To be honest, based on this response by you, I'm not sure what you are claiming or what you think I'm claiming. To claim that competition makes things better, we must look and see things better.
Click to expand...
What does that mean?

Boo Radley said:
Being accessable, be it medicine or access to care, is something that is better than not having those things. Competition here has not improved access.
Click to expand...
And competition is still not connected to availability.

Boo Radley said:
If you don't have access, you don't have quality care.
Click to expand...
Access does not guarantee quality care, and the single payer model as it has applied in other countries identifies a loss of quality care at the expense of accessibility to all as well as longer waiting times.

Boo Radley said:
So, the amrket, and compeititon have failed those who cannot access it.
Click to expand...
That's like saying food and nutrition have failed to those who cannot eat. Isn't that obvious? It's not the foods fault, it's not the nutrition's fault.

Boo Radley said:
You make another leap. I have no such wish and nothing I speak of subjugates me in any way.
Click to expand...
I can only assume such a thing as your do not want an effective military.

Boo Radley said:
And no where have I asked for in efficient military.
Click to expand...
You claimed you wanted a "less effective military" did you not?
Boo Radley said:
I've actually asked for the opposite. Using a hammer when a scalpel is needed is ineffecient.
Click to expand...
Less effective meaning more effective????? When it comes to military - a sledge hammers is all that is ever needed, the scaple nonsense you lifted from Obama who personally knows little of the military other than what his Generals tell him.

Boo Radley said:
What you think is meaning less to history. I stand by what I said.
Click to expand...
It's only as meaningless as applied to what your standing by.

Boo Radley said:
No, you misread it. that is not what happened. We intered into things like VN that we did not have to enter into.
Click to expand...
VN was not a world war. WWI and WWII were world wars and I'm not misreading anything, the risk is greater in your scenario.

Boo Radley said:
I do pay a progressive tax and I'm fine with it.
Click to expand...
You don't pay more as you claim.

Boo Radley said:
How do you know I don't? we can say anything on the internet, but how would you ever know?
Click to expand...
Because I know human nature, and people don't pay more if they aren't forced to. If you do, please post evidence of it - removing all of your personal information of course. :wink:
Click to expand...
 
Ockham said:
Inaccurate according to your opinion. As far as inaccurate, you've provided no evidence they're inaccurate nor "wild" whatever that means, therefore your accusation is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I was speaking to a perason with a history. We've gone down the road many times before, but I did give you an example where there is a thread, and a link.

You asked a question with a qualifier - there's no reason nor any requirement for a totally free market, therefore your question was also irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Try taking all the sentences together and making meaning. It helps when you do that.

What does that mean?
Click to expand...

It means what it said. You've lost me completely, but if you sing the praises of competition and the free market, related to health care, you must show that they make things better. Access is a place to start. Starting there, the market and competition have failed. This is not rocket science.

And competition is still not connected to availability.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. There is nothing for those who do not have access.

Access does not guarantee quality care, and the single payer model as it has applied in other countries identifies a loss of quality care at the expense of accessibility to all as well as longer waiting times.
Click to expand...

You're right it doesn't. But those who have access have more quaility than those who don't have access. ideally, we want quality and access. BTW, competition doesn't assure quality either. Mass production has at times brought about inferior products, not to mention cut rate efforts for poorer markets.

That's like saying food and nutrition have failed to those who cannot eat. Isn't that obvious? It's not the foods fault, it's not the nutrition's fault.
Click to expand...

No, more like saying those who are starving are OK because rich folks eat very well. No matter how good their food is, those who aren't able to afford to eat won't care.

I can only assume such a thing as your do not want an effective military.
Click to expand...

Again, no such thing has been argued or stated by me. You are clearly arguing with someone else, or perhaps a strawman.

You claimed you wanted a "less effective military" did you not?
Click to expand...

No I never did. There may be a typo someone where, but I'm sure any reading for comprehension woudl knwo I did not argue for any such thing.

Less effective meaning more effective????? When it comes to military - a sledge hammers is all that is ever needed, the scaple nonsense you lifted from Obama who personally knows little of the military other than what his Generals tell him.
Click to expand...

That would be in correct. Different jobs require different tools. having the right tools for the right situation is called being effective.

It's only as meaningless as applied to what your standing by.
Click to expand...

????? Well, as I explained why, this sounds you agree with me. ;)

VN was not a world war. WWI and WWII were world wars and I'm not misreading anything, the risk is greater in your scenario.
Click to expand...

If you understand that, you may come to understand your error.

You don't pay more as you claim.
Click to expand...

Of course I pay more than some. Our tax is progressive and some make less than I do.

Because I know human nature, and people don't pay more if they aren't forced to. If you do, please post evidence of it - removing all of your personal information of course. :wink:
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced you do. ;)
 
Objective Voice said:
Social Security. Doesn't have a funding problem, but a spending problem mostly due to federal legislators constanting "robbing Peter to pay Paul". Since apparently Social Security isn't in crisis at the moment, he'll leaving this for Congress to tackle in the coming months/years down the road.
Click to expand...

social security went upside down a few weeks ago, years ahead of schedule

My Way News - Social Security now seen to run permanent deficits

it had been expected to sink under-red in 2016, with the baby boomers

why do you think bowles-simpson, the president's cowardly default for 2 years, makes such draconian recommendations to soc sec?

Fiscal Commission Co-Chairs Simpson And Bowles Release Eye-Popping Recommendations | TPMDC

raising the retirement age, cutting benefits, means testing, raising the ceiling---they're ALL there

a program in that massive a need of fix---tens of T's---is a jovian sized failure

soc sec is a total flop, the biggest boondoggle this side of red china

A wise decision considering his budget is only for FY2012.
Click to expand...

budget writers are also required to look at the outyears, specifically how our current borrowing will impact future blueprints

obama's budget relies on completely unrealistic growth rates and unsustainable interest rates to jimmy his projections down, even geithner called him out

President Obama's budget kicks the hard choices further down the road

obama's 2012 budget projects an increase in deficit spending of thirty percent over last year's rueful record

Medicare/Medicaid. Since these issues have largely been address in the PPAC, there's really no need to address further budget cuts to these programs via his budget proposal.
Click to expand...

oh, please

i'd have too many links to burden this thread with

let's just say---tell it to bowles and simpson

Community Investment Programs. Local organization will now have to pickup the charge where federal dollars leave off. And since the economy is improving, local residents and businesses will need to start making charitable contributions to these programs again. It's about "neighbors helping neighbors". Do the "neighborly thing" and start looking after your own communities again.
Click to expand...

we're gonna defund planned parenthood and the cpb, we're gonna strip and emasculate the epa

get ready for it

Presidental Veto. You wanted him to get tough! We'll looks like he's getting there only Conservatives don't like it because he has vowed to veto any bill that includes earmarks.
Click to expand...

he aint gonna veto squat, he's entirely too weak and isolated

in other words, way too many democrats are gonna back CUTS

Balancing the budget. He said at least 3 times that the government needs to spend what it takes in relation to GDP.
Click to expand...

he said?

LOL!

you're way too nice a person, life is gonna take advantage of you

And if you were truly paying attention, this man was calling for a balanced budget amendment!
Click to expand...

make our day

we'll do it in exchange for letting him raise the debt ceiling (so long as it cuts pp, cpb, epa, implemenation...)

Interest on the debt. Here I'm alittle fuzzy, but if I understand the situation fairly accurately, what the President is saying is the first interest payment on our current loans won't come due for a few years.
Click to expand...

a big problem the fed is having is trying to "refinance short term debt at higher interest rates for the long term"

http://www.nuwireinvestor.com/articles/us-debt-problems-continue-to-grow-54335.aspx

Taxes and the Tax Code. You want to stop much of the wasteful spending, changing the tax code is perhaps the best way to do it especially where eliminating wasteful tax subsidies is concerned. Entitlements are not the only deficit problem. So, if you (Conservatives) are really serious about reducing same, you have to honestly address this particular problem soon...like 2012 soon!
Click to expand...

try us
 
Obamas 2012 budget is 13% more than Bush's 2009 budget.
 
The real joke is that the GOP has not shown any real budget proposal. This means, while they have stated that they are not willing to raise revenues (more likely to lower it), they have shown no path to decreasing expenditures.

How can anyone be mad at raising taxes on the rich and then cry about the deficit?
 
Boo Radley said:
I was speaking to a perason with a history. We've gone down the road many times before, but I did give you an example where there is a thread, and a link.
Click to expand...
No thread - no link, and you mentioned the Weekly Standard which is not AT. So again, irrelevant.

Boo Radley said:
Try taking all the sentences together and making meaning. It helps when you do that.
Click to expand...
In what other language because it doesn't work in English.

Boo Radley said:
It means what it said. You've lost me completely, but if you sing the praises of competition and the free market, related to health care, you must show that they make things better. Access is a place to start. Starting there, the market and competition have failed. This is not rocket science.
Click to expand...
Wrong. You're singing the praises of a Single Payer health system, so it's incumbent on YOU to show it makes things better. I'm simply stating the obvious falsehoods of a Single Payer health system and have provided the reasons why a bureaucratic system will fail and have failed. You brought up free markets not me. You've not bothered to defend the obvious failure of a single payer system so I can only assume there is no defense, therefore your red herring about competition and accessibility is a complete failure. I'm not biting on the obvious distraction.

Boo Radley said:
Yes, it is. There is nothing for those who do not have access.
Click to expand...
All people have access today. There is no law, no force preventing access.

Boo Radley said:
You're right it doesn't. But those who have access have more quaility than those who don't have access.
Click to expand...
See prior post.

Boo Radley said:
BTW, competition doesn't assure quality either. Mass production has at times brought about inferior products, not to mention cut rate efforts for poorer markets.
Click to expand...
Competition provides quality, as those private businesses who do not perform are not used, and go out of business. As well, the more competition there is, the higher the quality of said products, and the less likely for mediocre products. But this is old news... from 2006:

Quality and Competition: An Empirical Analysis Across Industries said:
Using ordinal quality rankings from Consumer Reports and controlling for price
dispersion, industry, firm, and product type effects, we find that, in general, as the level of
concentration within an industry increases, the probability of observing a poor, fair, or good
quality product decreases and the probability of observing a very good or excellent product
increases.
Click to expand...
http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/18426/1/wp060420.pdf


Boo Radley said:
Again, no such thing has been argued or stated by me. You are clearly arguing with someone else, or perhaps a strawman...
No I never did. There may be a typo someone where, but I'm sure any reading for comprehension woudl knwo I did not argue for any such thing.
Click to expand...

Look back at post #207, middle of the page, it's right there.

Boo Radley said:
Yes, less effective. It can subdue a country, but can't end the endless struggle terrorism presents us with.
Click to expand...
Apparently you have short term memory loss.

Boo Radley said:
That would be in correct. Different jobs require different tools. having the right tools for the right situation is called being effective.
Click to expand...
So going back to your previous statement, you then believe a less effective military is the right tool? Yet, I still have to go back to your single payer statement --- you want healthcare to be more efficient, but the military to be less effective, and you don't deny saying that....

Boo Radley said:
????? Well, as I explained why, this sounds you agree with me. ;)
Click to expand...
Yes I agree your statment was meaningless.

Boo Radley said:
If you understand that, you may come to understand your error.
Click to expand...
My error was assuming you could carry on a conversation. You apparently didn't know Vietnam was not a World War, yet you ignore WWI and WWII and you do not address the risk as I've pointed it out. Therefore not only are incorrect but you've been misled - and tragically so. I hope you've learned your lesson.

Boo Radley said:
Of course I pay more than some.
Click to expand...
I never asked if you pay more than some.
Boo Radley said:
Our tax is progressive and some make less than I do.
Click to expand...
Who is stating the current tax system is NOT progressive?

Boo Radley said:
I'm not convinced you do. ;)
Click to expand...
I'm convinced you cannot debate a point without ignoring facts. So I guess we're not going to see an evidence then?

I'm shocked... really... just shocked.
 
Last edited:
whysoserious said:
I agree! I havea no idea what they were thinking when they agreed to extend the tax cuts! Who cares if the GOP stuck together and filibuster future bills? They'll just look like idiots who hurt the country by stopping progress because they lost control of the executive and legislative branch.
Click to expand...

Just another liberal that doesn't understand that spending causes debt, not tax cuts. Allowing people to keep more of what they earn allows them to need LESS of that so called liberal help that everyone talks about. Suggest you try applying your own personal finances to the Federal Govt. You have less money coming in you cut spending. Why should the govt. be different? Instead of worrying about who pays what in taxes why aren't you concerned about how the govt. spends the money they get or the 47% of the income earners that don't pay any Federal Income taxes. Are you one of those?
 
republicans were elected in record numbers last november precisely to stop all the "progress"

republicans were rewarded for their united, principled and professional repetition of NO

american politics is not about wishes coming true, it's about MUSCLE

obama is emasculated

embarrassed yet?
 
Conservative said:
Just another liberal that doesn't understand that spending causes debt, not tax cuts. Allowing people to keep more of what they earn allows them to need LESS of that so called liberal help that everyone talks about. Suggest you try applying your own personal finances to the Federal Govt. You have less money coming in you cut spending. Why should the govt. be different? Instead of worrying about who pays what in taxes why aren't you concerned about how the govt. spends the money they get or the 47% of the income earners that don't pay any Federal Income taxes. Are you one of those?
Click to expand...

Actually, having less income than expenditure causes debt. Income - Expenses = Net Income/Net Loss. :)

There is a relationship there, bud.
 
whysoserious said:
Actually, having less income than expenditure causes debt. Income - Expenses = Net Income/Net Loss. :)

There is a relationship there, bud.
Click to expand...

Right, so let's just assume that tax cuts cut govt. revenue which the Treasury shows didn't happen but if it did and you had less revenue coming in than you expected what would you do to spending? Why is it that liberals never question how the money is spent but instead worry about how much more money the govt. can get?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom