Boehner demands trillions in cuts in exchange for debt vote

[auditor0007]

This is 100% correct, and it is the reason that we must raise the retirement age. I realize that doing so would not work for everyone and we would have to grant early retirement to certain disabled individuals, but overall, the new retirement age needs to move to at least 70.

How about we do aware with the concept of retirement altogether. Through thousands of years of history no one ever retired. We lose a significant part of our work force who can contribute so much to the knowledge and experience of the nation because for some reason 80 years ago a politician arbitrarily decided that people should stop working at 65.

Continue participating in life. Life isn't over just because we reach a certain age.

People didn't retire because if they stopped working, they died. That's a tough sell to the American public.

I do think the age of eligibility for SS should be increased however.

Life expectancy has risen from 67 years to 78 years since the 1950's, give or take a year. Despite this you think we should leave the retirement age at 67, which is the new 65 for anyone born after 1960. What if tomorrow, life expectancy jumps to 100? Should we still leave the retirement age at 67? My argument is not that people should not be permitted to retire at whatever age they want, but it is that the government should not foot their retirement for such a long period of time.

 

[The Rabbi]

No reason to dismantle the military entirely. We are spending a very large amount of our military spending on nation building, something that we cannot afford to do, plain and simple.

As for the rest, how far would you like to roll back taxes? Does zero sound good to you? And let's say we put an end to SS and Medicare, since you seem to like this idea so much. Are you suggesting we pay back every dollar put in by those who have not yet started collecting. I'm not sure what that amount might be, but just by estimating, it should be between $20 to $30 trillion. Or do you suggest we just tell everyone to get fucked and figure it out on their own?

Some of the crap you spew is just that, crap. We've lowered taxes to the lowest in 60 years, yet you want to reduce it more. Sorry, but government does have a role in society. Your idea of cutting it to bare bones is not in the best interest of anyone including yourself. You're just so stuck on your ideology that you can't even see it.

What part of the military is spent on nation building? How much exactly? How do you know this? If we ended the wars in afghanistan and iraq today it would fund the gov't for about a month. That's it.

Taxes are not the lowest they've been. The opposite. The gov't today is taking more of GDP than it ever has since WW2.
The average retiree today gets far more out of SS than he ever put in because the system is based on people dying at about age 70. That isn't true anymore.
If anyone is spewing crap it is you. No one is saying we need no taxes and no government. But it is undeniable that government spends way too much on things that are totally unnecessary or duplicative. How are you going to defend funding "the arts" when it benefits a tiny percentage of the population? Or the Dept of Ed when student performance has gone down every year since the dept was created? You can't.

This is an outright lie. How can anyone take anything you say seriously when you flat out lie? Back up your statement. I will back up mine that federal revenues are their lowest since 1950.

Chart of the day: U.S. taxes | Felix Salmon

Yeah you're right. Iw as thinking of spending as a percentage of GDP.

Do you really want to raise taxes with the economy in the dumps?

 

[Seawytch]

I'll ask again...

How many times was the debt ceiling raised under Bush and how many times was it held hostage by the likes of the Boehner?

None. WHy didn't Democrats block it and insist on spending cuts?

What was the debt as a percentage of GDP in those days?

None what? None is the amount of times the debt ceiling was raised or none is the amount of times that "conservatives" held it hostage for budget cuts?

The TRUTH is that the debt ceiling has been raised 10 times in 10 years and the "conservatives" never once played these silly games with it.

NationalJournal.com - GRAPHIC: 10 Years, 10 Broken U.S. Debt Ceilings - Wednesday, April 13, 2011

It's just more of the GnOP "make sure Obama fails" crap.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'll ask again...

How many times was the debt ceiling raised under Bush and how many times was it held hostage by the likes of the Boehner?

None. WHy didn't Democrats block it and insist on spending cuts?

What was the debt as a percentage of GDP in those days?

None what? None is the amount of times the debt ceiling was raised or none is the amount of times that "conservatives" held it hostage for budget cuts?

The TRUTH is that the debt ceiling has been raised 10 times in 10 years and the "conservatives" never once played these silly games with it.

NationalJournal.com - GRAPHIC: 10 Years, 10 Broken U.S. Debt Ceilings - Wednesday, April 13, 2011

It's just more of the GnOP "make sure Obama fails" crap.

Hint: Neither did the Democrats.

Do you think there is a spending problem in Washington that needs to be addressed or not? A simple yes or no.

 

[rdean]

What part of the military is spent on nation building? How much exactly? How do you know this? If we ended the wars in afghanistan and iraq today it would fund the gov't for about a month. That's it.

Taxes are not the lowest they've been. The opposite. The gov't today is taking more of GDP than it ever has since WW2.
The average retiree today gets far more out of SS than he ever put in because the system is based on people dying at about age 70. That isn't true anymore.
If anyone is spewing crap it is you. No one is saying we need no taxes and no government. But it is undeniable that government spends way too much on things that are totally unnecessary or duplicative. How are you going to defend funding "the arts" when it benefits a tiny percentage of the population? Or the Dept of Ed when student performance has gone down every year since the dept was created? You can't.

This is an outright lie. How can anyone take anything you say seriously when you flat out lie? Back up your statement. I will back up mine that federal revenues are their lowest since 1950.

Chart of the day: U.S. taxes | Felix Salmon

Yeah you're right. Iw as thinking of spending as a percentage of GDP.

Do you really want to raise taxes with the economy in the dumps?

Yes. Raise taxes on the wealthiest. Since they are paying the least amount in taxes in over 60 years, CEO pay is skyrocketing and companies are making "historic profits". It's estimated that business is sitting on over 2 trillion.

Where are the jobs? What more can you do for these companies? Remember, "Historic" profits. Obviously, our policy is NOT hurting these companies.

 

[uscitizen]

I still think the dems should call boners bluff. The repubs may threaten to shut down govt but sure do not want to with the election coming up and all.

What they say is often the opposite of what they actually do.

 

[The Rabbi]

This is an outright lie. How can anyone take anything you say seriously when you flat out lie? Back up your statement. I will back up mine that federal revenues are their lowest since 1950.

Chart of the day: U.S. taxes | Felix Salmon

Yeah you're right. Iw as thinking of spending as a percentage of GDP.

Do you really want to raise taxes with the economy in the dumps?

Yes. Raise taxes on the wealthiest. Since they are paying the least amount in taxes in over 60 years, CEO pay is skyrocketing and companies are making "historic profits". It's estimated that business is sitting on over 2 trillion.

Where are the jobs? What more can you do for these companies? Remember, "Historic" profits. Obviously, our policy is NOT hurting these companies.

You realize if you took all the wealth of the wealthiest 400 individuals in this country it would run the gov't for about 3 days, right?
No of course not. You are wrong BECAUSE you are RDean.

 

[rdean]

Boehner demands trillions in cuts in exchange for debt vote

Democrats called their bluff.

Democrats said the first thing to go should be the tens of billions in subsidies to the most profitable companies the world has ever seen.

Now Republicans are "freaking out". They've put their masters right into the "line of sight".

Sensing Weakness, Senate Dems Up Their Assault On Oil Subsidies | TPMDC

Tue., 1:30pm: Democrats target subsidies for 'Big Oil' - TribToday.com - News, Sports, Jobs, Community Information - Tribune Chronicle - Warren, OH

Democrats target tax breaks for oil firms - Boston.com

 

[rdean]

Yeah you're right. Iw as thinking of spending as a percentage of GDP.

Do you really want to raise taxes with the economy in the dumps?

Yes. Raise taxes on the wealthiest. Since they are paying the least amount in taxes in over 60 years, CEO pay is skyrocketing and companies are making "historic profits". It's estimated that business is sitting on over 2 trillion.

Where are the jobs? What more can you do for these companies? Remember, "Historic" profits. Obviously, our policy is NOT hurting these companies.

You realize if you took all the wealth of the wealthiest 400 individuals in this country it would run the gov't for about 3 days, right?
No of course not. You are wrong BECAUSE you are RDean.

What the fuck is wrong with you fool. You can't make something up and then insist it's MY position. Do you practice stupid or does it just come "naturally"?

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes. Raise taxes on the wealthiest. Since they are paying the least amount in taxes in over 60 years, CEO pay is skyrocketing and companies are making "historic profits". It's estimated that business is sitting on over 2 trillion.

Where are the jobs? What more can you do for these companies? Remember, "Historic" profits. Obviously, our policy is NOT hurting these companies.

You realize if you took all the wealth of the wealthiest 400 individuals in this country it would run the gov't for about 3 days, right?
No of course not. You are wrong BECAUSE you are RDean.

What the fuck is wrong with you fool. You can't make something up and then insist it's MY position. Do you practice stupid or does it just come "naturally"?

So confiscating all the wealth of the wealthiest Americans won't solve the budget problem but raising taxes which won't produce as much revenue, will solve the problem.
And you call me stupid????

 

[Too Tall]

House Speaker John A. Boehner said Monday that Republicans wanted trillions in budget cuts in exchange for their vote to increase the nation's borrowing limit and avoid default, adopting a hard line on the party's position in a speech before major players on Wall Street.

Playing chicken with default – these rightists truly have no shame. It’s as if the House is populated by a bunch of spoiled brats, throwing a fit to get their way. Revolting.

But only when a Democrat is in office. How many times was the debt ceiling held hostage when Bush was President? How many times did they vote to raise it?

4 times under Clinton (total increase of $2,480 bln), 7 times under Bush (total increase of $4,785 bln), and three times under Obama already (for a total of over $3,000 bln) -- in just 2 years:

And, the community organizer voted AGAINST raising it as a Senator,

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is an outright lie. How can anyone take anything you say seriously when you flat out lie? Back up your statement. I will back up mine that federal revenues are their lowest since 1950.

Chart of the day: U.S. taxes | Felix Salmon

Yeah you're right. Iw as thinking of spending as a percentage of GDP.

Do you really want to raise taxes with the economy in the dumps?

Yes. Raise taxes on the wealthiest. Since they are paying the least amount in taxes in over 60 years, CEO pay is skyrocketing and companies are making "historic profits". It's estimated that business is sitting on over 2 trillion.

Where are the jobs? What more can you do for these companies? Remember, "Historic" profits. Obviously, our policy is NOT hurting these companies.

Do you know who falls into the top 10% of wage earners? Do you know that includes the middle class?

 

[Steelplate]

First off... to the Rabbi... You're an idiot. What was called for was a return to the Pre-Bush era TAX CUTS(while fighting a war on two fronts, I might add). It certainly wasn't to... how did you put it???

"confiscating all the wealth of the wealthiest Americans", We are talking a modest 4%.


Windbag...Hey, I'm in probably the top 15%(nationwide) and even my wife and I would be Ok with a graduated increase(4% being for the top 1%) to help others in this tough time and reduce the deficit.

 

[Zona]

This is all crap. Boner, if obama said no, I will not cut anything youare trying to cut, you will still give your vote to raise the debt ceiling. u know it.

Obama, man up, dont give them shit. You know he will cave. You know he has to, he has no choice. For those who doubt me, look it up...and see what would happen if they didnt raise it.

 

[Zona]

First off... to the Rabbi... You're an idiot. What was called for was a return to the Pre-Bush era TAX CUTS(while fighting a war on two fronts, I might add). It certainly wasn't to... how did you put it???

"confiscating all the wealth of the wealthiest Americans", We are talking a modest 4%.


Windbag...Hey, I'm in probably the top 15%(nationwide) and even my wife and I would be Ok with a graduated increase(4% being for the top 1%) to help others in this tough time and reduce the deficit.

Regan is their hero...we should go back to his tax rates.

 

[candycorn]

Here's the question I'll be asking the next time I vote:

Did you vote for more debt?

If the answer is "yes," you're not getting my vote.

The answer will likely be "Yes but my opponent wanted to spend even more!" That is the choice we get left with all too often.

 

[Zona]

You realize if you took all the wealth of the wealthiest 400 individuals in this country it would run the gov't for about 3 days, right?
No of course not. You are wrong BECAUSE you are RDean.

What the fuck is wrong with you fool. You can't make something up and then insist it's MY position. Do you practice stupid or does it just come "naturally"?

So confiscating all the wealth of the wealthiest Americans won't solve the budget problem but raising taxes which won't produce as much revenue, will solve the problem.
And you call me stupid????

This has to be one of the dumber things you have posted dude. Seriously....damn.

 

[The Rabbi]

First off... to the Rabbi... You're an idiot. What was called for was a return to the Pre-Bush era TAX CUTS(while fighting a war on two fronts, I might add). It certainly wasn't to... how did you put it???

"confiscating all the wealth of the wealthiest Americans", We are talking a modest 4%.


Windbag...Hey, I'm in probably the top 15%(nationwide) and even my wife and I would be Ok with a graduated increase(4% being for the top 1%) to help others in this tough time and reduce the deficit.

So you want to raise taxes on the middle class? Is that the idea?
Even Obama didnt want to do that. That is a non-starter.
Besides, Obama promised not to raise taxes on anyone making under 250k.

You know you can always write a check to the Treasury to reduce the deficit. No one is stopping you.

 

[The Rabbi]

What the fuck is wrong with you fool. You can't make something up and then insist it's MY position. Do you practice stupid or does it just come "naturally"?

So confiscating all the wealth of the wealthiest Americans won't solve the budget problem but raising taxes which won't produce as much revenue, will solve the problem.
And you call me stupid????

This has to be one of the dumber things you have posted dude. Seriously....damn.

Please explain how raising taxes on the wealthy will solve this problem when confiscating all their wealth won't make a dent in it.
I'll be waiting.

 

[jillian]

That is for sure and someday those who govern will realize that they can't just keep spending like there is no tomorrow.

Of course, by then it will be too late.

Although I get the feeling you meant the Republicans and you were not talking about our debt.

Immie

i mean them undermining the full faith and credit of this country is imbecilic.

and while i agree that the debt has to be addressed, one shouldn't cut one's income when one has bills to pay. so you'll forgive me if i'm not all torn up about it.

Indeed, instead, we should tax the hell out of those who have achieved the higher incomes, and drive them offshore so that all we have left are dependents of the Nanny State.

people are paying the lowest tax rates now that they've paid in 50 years. it's stupid. how 'bout going back to the rates under clinton. THAT is a rational response that isn't intentionally intended to bankrupt government.