LOGO
Reply to Thread New Thread
Old 01-08-2011, 08:43 AM   #1
GoblinGaga

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
475
Senior Member
Default
Do you have a copy of that plan that you say Obama was endorsing. To my knowledge Obama never laid out any plan, nor did the Dem's. In fact the only plan Obama submitted was to raise the debt limit with no strings attached. Just give me all the money I want.
Obama has never been for "Just give me all the money I want", in fact the Gang of 6 plan he backed would have seen $4 trillion or more in savings while the plan they've agreed to is closer to $3 trillion now.

The progressive caucus released their plan months ago, and that one remains the best deal around, with trillions being trimmed here and there but with at least equal parts revenue coming in from the closing of tax loopholes for major corporations and the wealthiest Americans.

The plan that's going to go through at this point basically asks middle class people to pay for everything, which makes hardly any sense whatsoever when there is a whole class of people in America who should be effected by this deal as well but who are not.

So why is the middle class taking it up the ass while the wealthiest Americans get off scott-free? Hasn't the middle class suffered enough in recent years with record job losses and wage stagnation and having to bail out the big banks and the auto industry?

Where the fuck is the people's bailout? The top is only doing better today because of what the middle was asked to do 3 years ago, and now it's only fair that the favor is returned, but alas, the apparent "job creators" are exempt from any kind of sacrifice or patriotic duty to their country, and that's wrong.
GoblinGaga is offline


Old 01-08-2011, 08:54 AM   #2
GoblinGaga

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
475
Senior Member
Default
No, you have politicians SAY they're looking at what they can cut. After all, they've been SO good at actually following up on promises to cut their wayward spending ways in the past haven't they?
Under Democratic Presidents, yes, they have been good at cutting. Jimmy Carter reduced the size of gov't by the end of his term, and Bill Clinton did the same while insisting on having the rich play their part as well.

But this time regular people are being asked to sacrifice yet again while wealthy people are not. It makes no sense. There is no way I should be paying a higher tax rate than a guy like Steve Forbes whose sitting on a fortune of inherited wealth, who pays only the capital gains on that.

The person like me who makes $30k a year should be paying the 15% while the one sitting on $30 million should have to pay a more progressive tax rate. Why? Because I hate the wealthy? No, because in a country that allows you to make as much as you want, it only makes sense that you have to kick a little back in to keep the country in #1 status on many things across the board, and for the sake of keeping the books balanced.

What this debt deal does is raise my taxes in effect, since if they're going to cut Medicare and Social Security, or raise the retirement age or whatever, they're asking me to accept less services but at the same amount I'm being taxed, which is a tax increase on me while Steve Forbes must sacrifice nothing. This is why the US is not #1 anymore, because the accounting trick is to make it so that the middle gets screwed every time there's a big decision to be made. Makes no fucking sense.
GoblinGaga is offline


Old 01-08-2011, 09:00 AM   #3
GoblinGaga

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
475
Senior Member
Default
For those who are interested, here's a detailed summary of the agreement issued by the White House.

And here's the only part that makes any sense at all:



Big thanks for small favors.

But the whole thing is insane. Spending cuts while we have over 9 percent unemployment equals a triumph of zealotry over rational analysis. This just about guarantees unemployment over 8 percent through next year at least. A limp economy also means our fiscal situation stays the same or gets worse. This deal probably actually hurts our fiscal position.
I would have to agree with that.

This basically amounts to a tax increase on middle class, poor people, single mothers and seniors while wealthy people are asked to do nothing yet again.

Pursuing a committee divided into one part Republican and the other Democratic does nothing, since Republicans will never compromise on raising taxes.

I even hate that they're calling this a "debt compromise deal" since what exactly are Republicans "compromising" anyway? Nothing, as usual.

Only a dumbass country like America could elect a left-winger and then get a retread right-wing conservative health care plan from the 90's, continued tax cuts for the rich that the country can't afford, and then cuts in entitlement programs.

Republicans should be quite happy with this President, but they're too fucking blind to notice that he keeps pandering to their requests more than to any other group out there.
GoblinGaga is offline


Old 01-08-2011, 10:58 AM   #4
Bromikka

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
527
Senior Member
Default
A lot of the spending cuts target subsidies to rich corporations, so that's a good thing if you're a progressive, isn't it?
Bromikka is offline


Old 01-08-2011, 11:11 AM   #5
UHlVExs7

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
454
Senior Member
Default
I'm mildly curious to find out out how much they raise the debt ceiling, and how many months or years it will take to reach the new debt ceiling. If there is a balanced budget the debt ceiling wouldn't have to be raised, but if one is talking about cuts in the projected increase in government spending, one is just playing politcal games- politics as usual, and I wouldn't expect anything else from politicians, who have a job to do, and that is to get re-elected. So, I think the good news is that the war-mongering US Empire, which is already morally bankrupt, is still on the fast track to financial bankrupcy as well. Just imagine beautiful North America with out the US bureaucracy or Homeland Security to waste your time at the borders and airports!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b7qaSxuZUg
UHlVExs7 is offline


Old 01-08-2011, 11:45 AM   #6
Unlopssesuj

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
499
Senior Member
Default
so debt goes up but they are cutting $2.4 Trillion over ten years, complete B.S..

They aren't cutting a damned thing, they are agreeing to spend less in the future while extending themselves a larger account...
Unlopssesuj is offline


Old 01-08-2011, 11:49 AM   #7
ORDERCHEAPVIAGRASOFTWARE

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
437
Senior Member
Default
I told my reps to vote against this. It basically cuts defense, leaves everything else alone, and raises the debt by 2 trillion. The cuts are based on future increased spending, so overall spending actually goes UP. The deficit this year and next year will still be over a trillion. And the supercommittee will never make the changes neccesary, so thats all bs.
ORDERCHEAPVIAGRASOFTWARE is offline


Old 01-08-2011, 11:53 AM   #8
ORDERCHEAPVIAGRASOFTWARE

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
437
Senior Member
Default
The President even touts INCREASED spending in the deal.

•Includes Funding to Protect the President’s Historic Investment in Pell Grants: Since taking office, the President has increased the maximum Pell award by $819 to a maximum award $5,550, helping over 9 million students pay for college tuition bills. The deal provides specific protection in the discretionary budget to ensure that the there will be sufficient funding for the President’s historic investment in Pell Grants without undermining other critical investments. and his plan to raise taxes

•The Enforcement Mechanism Complements the Forcing Event Already In Law – the Expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts – To Create Pressure for a Balanced Deal: The Bush tax cuts expire as of 1/1/2013, the same date that the spending sequester would go into effect. These two events together will force balanced deficit reduction. Absent a balanced deal, it would enable the President to use his veto pen to ensure nearly $1 trillion in additional deficit reduction by not extending the high-income tax cuts.
ORDERCHEAPVIAGRASOFTWARE is offline


Old 01-08-2011, 12:50 PM   #9
UHlVExs7

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
454
Senior Member
Default
Here's a beautiful screed on the debt ceiling that make my own sound like "See Spot run! Run, Spot, run!"

Slouching Toward Guatemala by Fred Reed
UHlVExs7 is offline


Old 01-08-2011, 02:02 PM   #10
standaman

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
870
Senior Member
Default
Obama has never been for "Just give me all the money I want", in fact the Gang of 6 plan he backed would have seen $4 trillion or more in savings while the plan they've agreed to is closer to $3 trillion now.
Which he ignored, and in fact Obama asked to increase the debt ceiling with no cuts. Then Obama was so out of touch he was sidelined to be a bench warmer.

The progressive caucus released their plan months ago, and that one remains the best deal around, with trillions being trimmed here and there but with at least equal parts revenue coming in from the closing of tax loopholes for major corporations and the wealthiest Americans. What plan, the only plan that was ever released was one that was voted down unanimously.

The plan that's going to go through at this point basically asks middle class people to pay for everything, which makes hardly any sense whatsoever when there is a whole class of people in America who should be effected by this deal as well but who are not. It basically asks what of the middle class. Please give details.

All you wanted was for tax increases. Let Obama have all the money he wanted to squander with more failed policies.


So why is the middle class taking it up the ass while the wealthiest Americans get off scott-free? Hasn't the middle class suffered enough in recent years with record job losses and wage stagnation and having to bail out the big banks and the auto industry? Again please provide details of how the middle class is taking it up the ass?

Where the fuck is the people's bailout? The top is only doing better today because of what the middle was asked to do 3 years ago, and now it's only fair that the favor is returned, but alas, the apparent "job creators" are exempt from any kind of sacrifice or patriotic duty to their country, and that's wrong. We already had the peoples bailout, with a stimulus that went to state workers and unions, and extended and extended and extended unemployment benefits. You liberals think there is an endless supply of money, just borrow and spend and increase entitlements. Hell, you liberals wanted another stimulus just like the last failed stimulus, repeat the same failures.
standaman is offline


Old 01-08-2011, 02:02 PM   #11
textarchive

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
433
Senior Member
Default
Under Democratic Presidents, yes, they have been good at cutting. Jimmy Carter reduced the size of gov't by the end of his term, and Bill Clinton did the same while insisting on having the rich play their part as well.
Apparently you didn't live during the Carter years. I suppose you like not being able to afford anything, any decrease in the size of government under Carter was purely by accident. And the cuts in government happened over Clinton's objections if you will recall.
But this time regular people are being asked to sacrifice yet again while wealthy people are not. It makes no sense. There is no way I should be paying a higher tax rate than a guy like Steve Forbes whose sitting on a fortune of inherited wealth, who pays only the capital gains on that.
Where is the higher taxes on people who are not wealthy? And you're not paying a higher tax rate that Steve Forbes. You pay exactly the same rate he does on your capital gains. You're just jealous of the fact he has them, and you don't.
The person like me who makes $30k a year should be paying the 15% while the one sitting on $30 million should have to pay a more progressive tax rate. Why? Because I hate the wealthy?
Yep, you hate the wealthy, because you are not wealthy. You paying 15% on 30k means you're paying $4500. Him paying 15% on 30 million means he's paying 4.5 million. He's paying 1000% as much as you are.
No, because in a country that allows you to make as much as you want, it only makes sense that you have to kick a little back in to keep the country in #1 status on many things across the board, and for the sake of keeping the books balanced.
He's kicking in 1000 times what you are. That's a lot more in anyone eyes who has an IQ capable of adding 2+2 and getting 4.
What this debt deal does is raise my taxes in effect, since if they're going to cut Medicare and Social Security, or raise the retirement age or whatever, they're asking me to accept less services but at the same amount I'm being taxed, which is a tax increase on me while Steve Forbes must sacrifice nothing. This is why the US is not #1 anymore, because the accounting trick is to make it so that the middle gets screwed every time there's a big decision to be made. Makes no fucking sense.
Actually putting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in place made no sense, but because people like you will do anything to abdicate their responsibility to themselves and their family want it, and there are a lot of them, you're perfectly willing to bankrupt your children as long as you get yours.
textarchive is offline


Old 01-08-2011, 02:31 PM   #12
Cyncceply

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
495
Senior Member
Default
Yep, just keep borrowing and spending, the Dem's moto. Borrow and spend, oh forgot, and raise taxes, but never cut spending.
You seem fixated on just the Democrats. Let me be clear, both Republicans and Democrats love to "borrow and spend." It just depends on what.

You can now continue with your partisan ways.
Cyncceply is offline


Old 01-08-2011, 02:31 PM   #13
Cyncceply

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
495
Senior Member
Default
The U S could balance it's budget within a 5-8 year timeframe. Wouldn't hurt that much... just have to raise a bit revenue, decrease defence spending to reasonable levels and streamline certain programms... anything but a chaotic default, make the hard measures possible.
Absolutely agreed.
Cyncceply is offline


Old 08-01-2011, 01:05 AM   #14
GoblinGaga

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
475
Senior Member
Default President Announces Debt Ceiling Deal
Obama, Congress strike debt deal - The Oval: Tracking the Obama presidency

President Obama announced at 8:40 pm this evening that a tentative deal to avert a default on Tuesday had been reached, with votes to happen on Monday.

The deal sees nearly $3 trillion in cuts over the next 10 years, and raises the debt ceiling in a two-part process involving a new gov't committee that would be made up of half Democrats and half Republicans.

The plan is essentially a smaller version of the one Obama has been endorsing the last few months.

There is no balanced-budget amendment stipulation attached to it, but there also isn't any firm commitment to raising revenues other than that they would be part of the mix that the committee would consider.

House Speaker Boehner endorses the framework, but calls it "not perfect", for reasons I simply can't understand since the whole of it is a decidedly moderate to conservative plan.

Now it's up to the House and the Senate to pass the plan, where it should pass since the President tends to have a pretty good idea of the numbers he has to work with.
GoblinGaga is offline


Old 08-01-2011, 01:10 AM   #15
KRbGA0Bg

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
485
Senior Member
Default
Thanks Harry Reid and our President Obama for getting the Republicans to finally see that all the 'reign' dancing was getting them nowhere.

Noticed CNN reported that in a poll an overwhelming majority of Americans blame the obstructionist Republicans for stalling the debt ceiling compromise...Hell we knew that way back when didn't we? The best way to deal with a Republican is to keep them running for office and not in office.
KRbGA0Bg is offline


Old 08-01-2011, 01:13 AM   #16
standaman

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
870
Senior Member
Default
Obama, Congress strike debt deal - The Oval: Tracking the Obama presidency

President Obama announced at 8:40 pm this evening that a tentative deal to avert a default on Tuesday had been reached, with votes to happen on Monday.

The deal sees nearly $3 trillion in cuts over the next 10 years, and raises the debt ceiling in a two-part process involving a new gov't committee that would be made up of half Democrats and half Republicans.

The plan is essentially a smaller version of the one Obama has been endorsing the last few months.

There is no balanced-budget amendment stipulation attached to it, but there also isn't any firm commitment to raising revenues other than that they would be part of the mix that the committee would consider.

House Speaker Boehner endorses the framework, but calls it "not perfect", for reasons I simply can't understand since the whole of it is a decidedly moderate to conservative plan.

Now it's up to the House and the Senate to pass the plan, where it should pass since the President tends to have a pretty good idea of the numbers he has to work with.
Do you have a copy of that plan that you say Obama was endorsing. To my knowledge Obama never laid out any plan, nor did the Dem's. In fact the only plan Obama submitted was to raise the debt limit with no strings attached. Just give me all the money I want.
standaman is offline


Old 08-01-2011, 01:14 AM   #17
GoblinGaga

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
475
Senior Member
Default
I'm thankful that President Obama is the kind of politician who does listen to all sides, but once again, this is a deal that favors the right far more than it does the left in almost every aspect.

The shame of the Obama presidency will be if 4 years pass and Democratic policies don't ever take shape, because like health care reform, this is very much a conservative plan.

In the end, the middle class bailed out the rich 3 years ago, and now they're being asked to accept practically all of the responsibility for getting the books back in order while asking the rich for nothing. There is nothing liberal about this deal, but watch for teabagging fucktards and other Obama haters to find fault with this no matter what.
GoblinGaga is offline


Old 08-01-2011, 01:18 AM   #18
standaman

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
870
Senior Member
Default
Thanks Harry Reid and our President Obama for getting the Republicans to finally see that all the 'reign' dancing was getting them nowhere.

Noticed CNN reported that in a poll an overwhelming majority of Americans blame the obstructionist Republicans for stalling the debt ceiling compromise...Hell we knew that way back when didn't we? The best way to deal with a Republican is to keep them running for office and not in office.
Of course CNN would report that. Their one of your own.

As for Obama and Reid, they never put up a plan, what they said they wanted was tax increases which they did not get. Thanks to the Pubs. They also did not want to cut anything, they wanted the debt ceiling raised with no strings attached, now we got cuts, thanks to the Pubs. Without the Pubs and the T Party you liberals would be raising the debt ceiling with more borrow and spend policies and enacting more entitlements for the people to suck on. However, thanks to the mid-terms, for turning that around.
standaman is offline


Old 08-01-2011, 01:22 AM   #19
Vemnagelignc

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
538
Senior Member
Default
America got just what it needs*, another credit card.

*needed like we need a hole in the head.
Vemnagelignc is offline


Old 08-01-2011, 01:25 AM   #20
standaman

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
870
Senior Member
Default
I'm thankful that President Obama is the kind of politician who does listen to all sides, but once again, this is a deal that favors the right far more than it does the left in almost every aspect.
Yeah like how he listened to the people over Obamacare. Give me a break, he listened to no one. He got what he could and that's it.

The shame of the Obama presidency will be if 4 years pass and Democratic policies don't ever take shape, because like health care reform, this is very much a conservative plan. Thank you for realizing that. Obama's policies are all failures, remember the mid-terms, they spoke out then, and things are worse than ever. Obamacare is loved so much 30 states are suing to get ride of it.

In the end, the middle class bailed out the rich 3 years ago, and now they're being asked to accept practically all of the responsibility for getting the books back in order while asking the rich for nothing. There is nothing liberal about this deal, but watch for teabagging fucktards and other Obama haters to find fault with this no matter what. Of course they will, cuts were not deep enough, however for you liberals you wanted no cuts, just tax increases, in the middle of a recession.
standaman is offline



Reply to Thread New Thread

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:17 PM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity