• 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 to GOP: I’m done negotiating with myself

I think we need to remember that the "entitlement spending" being referred to is entitled because we've paid it. The real entitlements are subsidies and preferential tax treatment. Those "entitlements" were not specifically paid for in the past and present. The only reason the debt is impacted by social security is because Congress borrowed from the social security trust and now us it (us) its money back.

Horse crap. many of the entitlements are NOT Paid for. Especially not by those who are receiving them.
 
And they ought to stand pat.

So in the meantime, the debt increases with no real substantial plan to stop it. The automatic cuts are a bandaid to the debt problem and don't solve it in any case.

The only thing the Dems gain by standing pat is continuing to put us into more debt. Is that a real gain for the country?

Pointing fingers is not going to solve the debt problem.
 
So in the meantime, the debt increases with no real substantial plan to stop it. The automatic cuts are a bandaid to the debt problem and don't solve it in any case.

The only thing the Dems gain by standing pat is continuing to put us into more debt. Is that a real gain for the country?

Yes, absolutely - "though the heavens fall".
 
Yes, absolutely - "though the heavens fall".

How is putting us into more debt good for the country?

What I'm getting from your comments is you don't care that the country suffers as long as the Dems win.
 
How is putting us into more debt good for the country?

Because it forces the Republicans out of their anti-tax absolutism. You cannot pay off the Federal debt with the revenue from a Laffer curve you've long since broached the other side of. Point blank. Tax increases are absolutely essential to paying it off. Little 'reforms' ala 1986 will not suffice to generate even a fraction of the revenue necessary to pay off the debt. But the House is unwilling to do what is necessary. So they must be whipped politically until they become so amenable to it.
 
About how heavy was that goal post?...:lamo

I reiterate: for four years you people have acted like petulant children. No more. The time has come to take you to the woodshed for your lashing.
 
Because it forces the Republicans out of their anti-tax absolutism. You cannot pay off the Federal debt with the revenue from a Laffer curve you've long since broached the other side of. Point blank. Tax increases are absolutely essential to paying it off. Little 'reforms' ala 1986 will not suffice to generate even a fraction of the revenue necessary to pay off the debt. But the House is unwilling to do what is necessary. So they must be whipped politically until they become so amenable to it.

You cannot simply tax us out of debt either. Again, BOTH sides have to solve the issue.
 
I reiterate: for four years you people have acted like petulant children. No more. The time has come to take you to the woodshed for your lashing.

And in the process hurt the country even more, probably beyond repair. But as long as your revenge is satisfied right?
 
And in the process hurt the country even more, probably beyond repair. But as long as your revenge is satisfied right?

It's very easy to pretend to be a high-minded paragon of morality when you're on the side of the lash.

The solution to this problem - the only long-term, structural solution to this problem - is a combination of tax cuts and spending increases. The Democrats have accepted the former, with reservation. The Republicans are still cowing about the latter. They must be beaten into submission.
 
You cannot simply tax us out of debt either. Again, BOTH sides have to solve the issue.

Again: the Democrats have already agreed to spending cuts.
The Republicans will never agree to tax increases until they are made to.
 
It's very easy to pretend to be a high-minded paragon of morality when you're on the side of the lash.

I'm not on the side of the lash, I'm on the side that wants this country out of debt.

The solution to this problem - the only long-term, structural solution to this problem - is a combination of tax cuts and spending increases. The Democrats have accepted the former, with reservation. The Republicans are still cowing about the latter. They must be beaten into submission.

I'm assuming you meant spending "decreases" instead of increases. And what pray tell are the spending cuts the Dems have agreed to? The GOP provided some and the Dems demonized them for it as "killing big bird" for one example. How is the Dems demonizing any cuts the GOP proposed helping?
 
Again: the Democrats have already agreed to spending cuts.
The Republicans will never agree to tax increases until they are made to.

Which spending cuts have the Dems agreed to?
 
Ah feels like 1930's Germany all over again doesn't it?


It's very easy to pretend to be a high-minded paragon of morality when you're on the side of the lash.

The solution to this problem - the only long-term, structural solution to this problem - is a combination of tax cuts and spending increases. The Democrats have accepted the former, with reservation. The Republicans are still cowing about the latter. They must be beaten into submission.
 
I'm assuming you meant spending "decreases" instead of increases. And what pray tell are the spending cuts the Dems have agreed to? The GOP provided some and the Dems demonized them for it as "killing big bird" for one example. How is the Dems demonizing any cuts the GOP proposed helping?

They agreed to defense cuts, which the Republicans immediately rejected, as defense is a sacred cow (and you'll doubtless defend them on that, in your role as Republican court apologist). They agreed on infrastructural cuts in Erskine-Bowles, but because it wasn't exactly what the Republicans wanted, Boehner torpedoed it.

Oh, but the poor, victimized GOP!
 
They agreed to defense cuts, which the Republicans immediately rejected, as defense is a sacred cow (and you'll doubtless defend them on that, in your role as Republican court apologist). They agreed on infrastructural cuts in Erskine-Bowles, but because it wasn't exactly what the Republicans wanted, Boehner torpedoed it.

Oh, but the poor, victimized GOP!


ROFL, I have to admit, given my entire time on this board I have yet to be called a Republican court apologist, so thanks for that. Its clear you don't know me nor my views on things to erroneously peg me as that.

No, I'm simply pointing out that the Dems proposing tax increases and agreeing to only the GOP sacred cow spending cuts is not working together to solve the problem nor is it bi-partisnship.

It's clear you are quite paritsan in that you think compromise is the GOP should sacrifice both tax increases and spending cuts to the GOP sacred cows yet the Dems shouldn't have to cut spending to any of their sacred cows.
 

what does the average working pay into social security, medicare and medicaid vs what they take out?
 
ROFL, I have to admit, given my entire time on this board I have yet to be called a Republican court apologist, so thanks for that. Its clear you don't know me nor my views on things to erroneously peg me as that.

No, I'm simply pointing out that the Dems proposing tax increases and agreeing to only the GOP sacred cow spending cuts is not working together to solve the problem nor is it bi-partisnship.

It's clear you are quite paritsan in that you think compromise is the GOP should sacrifice both tax increases and spending cuts to the GOP sacred cows yet the Dems shouldn't have to cut spending to any of their sacred cows.

The Republicans ought to feel lucky that they're getting cuts anywhere from the Democrats. They wouldn't in a parliamentary system.
 
The Republicans ought to feel lucky that they're getting cuts anywhere from the Democrats. They wouldn't in a parliamentary system.

Well there is no reasoning with you as you somehow believe the GOP having to sacrifice tax increases and spending cuts in the GOP sacred cows is working together while the Dems have to sacrifice nothing. Have a nice day!
 
Again, the Republicans haven't proposed anything.

No, that's not correct. They have passed several proposals through the House, and then there's the Simpson Bowles plan.

There are several proposals on the table. The President needs to indicate what he will support.

Our Lord and Savior Barack Obama is not a serious leader. He won his election, but so did each and every Republican in the House. House Republicans have to have something substancial in the way of spending cuts to show their constituents if they agree to vote for tax increases. Otherwise they should walk away and get the spending cuts that way. Then they should deny a debt ceiling increase and force a shut down. In other words, spending cuts one way or another. Liberals are convinced that Republicans would pay a price for that. I'm convinced that this would not be the case, except in terms of bad press.
 
Back
Top Bottom