Dem Budget: 2 TRILLION in NEW TAX HIKES, Deep Cuts at Pentagon

[candycorn]

I hope you know that an Ad hominem argument does NOT prove one's point.
Facts are facts

Truth is hard for the Left, in fact, it is their worst enemy


The TARP money that was paid back?
Sure, Bush had to go to it because of the failed liberal policies of Freddie mac and Fannie mae that created a housing bubble
Gee, everybody knows that.....

Liberal policies. Duck-dodge-dive--and dodge again...right Patches?

He had 8 years to fix the "liberal policies". He did nothing. I know...he was busy fighting Osama bin Hussein or right?

So here are the facts:

Bush passes Tax cuts. Spends $700B. And you're okay with that.

Obama preserves the Tax Cuts. Spends $1000B. And you're not okay with that.

Too fucking funny.

The TARP money that Papa Obama voted for and extended as President which has been paid back, counts as debt?
Lib math, no wonder we are in such trouble

Papa Obama's Pork Bill is spent - gone

When it became an issue they did try to fix it.
But Barney Frank told us everything was OK

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63siCHvuGFg]YouTube - ‪McCain's Early Recognition of Fannie/Freddie Crisis‬‏[/ame]


Truth is hard for liberals, it is their worst enemy

The bail outs are okay now...lets get that straight. You were all for the bail outs of GM and Chrysler. Let me get a straight yes or no on that. Your "conservative" President set aside the $700B for bail outs, Obama spent some of that on GM and Chrysler and you were fine with that. Yes or No?

We'll get to the rest of your post after this...I would like for you to admit that Obama spent some money responsibly first. If you do, you'll be the first conservative in the history of USMB to make such an admission.

Lets hear it...yes or no.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Liberal policies. Duck-dodge-dive--and dodge again...right Patches?

He had 8 years to fix the "liberal policies". He did nothing. I know...he was busy fighting Osama bin Hussein or right?

So here are the facts:

Bush passes Tax cuts. Spends $700B. And you're okay with that.

Obama preserves the Tax Cuts. Spends $1000B. And you're not okay with that.

Too fucking funny.

The TARP money that Papa Obama voted for and extended as President which has been paid back, counts as debt?
Lib math, no wonder we are in such trouble

Papa Obama's Pork Bill is spent - gone

When it became an issue they did try to fix it.
But Barney Frank told us everything was OK

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63siCHvuGFg]YouTube - ‪McCain's Early Recognition of Fannie/Freddie Crisis‬‏[/ame]


Truth is hard for liberals, it is their worst enemy

The bail outs are okay now...lets get that straight. You were all for the bail outs of GM and Chrysler. Let me get a straight yes or no on that. Your "conservative" President set aside the $700B for bail outs, Obama spent some of that on GM and Chrysler and you were fine with that. Yes or No?

We'll get to the rest of your post after this...I would like for you to admit that Obama spent some money responsibly first. If you do, you'll be the first conservative in the history of USMB to make such an admission.

Lets hear it...yes or no.

You are very demanding....


Well, he was our President just like Papa Obama is as well
I believe the money spent on drone attacks by Papa Obama was good and responsible.


For me, I think the bailouts for GM and such were a bad idea and Bush Medicare D was dumb too.

But it all pales in comparison to what is going on now, does it not?
Besides, two wrongs don't make a right, three lefts do

 

[candycorn]

The TARP money that Papa Obama voted for and extended as President which has been paid back, counts as debt?
Lib math, no wonder we are in such trouble

Papa Obama's Pork Bill is spent - gone

When it became an issue they did try to fix it.
But Barney Frank told us everything was OK

YouTube - ‪McCain's Early Recognition of Fannie/Freddie Crisis‬‏


Truth is hard for liberals, it is their worst enemy

The bail outs are okay now...lets get that straight. You were all for the bail outs of GM and Chrysler. Let me get a straight yes or no on that. Your "conservative" President set aside the $700B for bail outs, Obama spent some of that on GM and Chrysler and you were fine with that. Yes or No?

We'll get to the rest of your post after this...I would like for you to admit that Obama spent some money responsibly first. If you do, you'll be the first conservative in the history of USMB to make such an admission.

Lets hear it...yes or no.

You are very demanding....


Well, he was our President just like Papa Obama is as well
I believe the money spent on drone attacks by Papa Obama was good and responsible.


For me, I think the bailouts were a bad idea and Bush Medicare D was dumb too.

But it all pales in comparison to what is going on now, does it not?
Besides, two wrongs don't make a right, three lefts do

Whoa...wait a second.

The $700B was a bail out right?

You were fine with it a few minutes ago; or at least you are not holding Bush with the same amount of contempt you have for "Papa" Obama. Funny how you call him President sometimes and "Papa" other time.

What happened? Oh yeah...thats right. Now that Obama is spending the moeny...you're suddenly against the bail outs and all spending is bad.

Maybe I can get some of the $700B and purchase you a mirror so you can debate yourself. You seem confused on where you stand on this issue.

Bush spending--great.
Obama spending--bad.

Pretty much sums up your "argument" right?

How does it pale? The government needed some money to spend...we have these tax cuts while fighting 2 wars--NO NATION ON EARTH HAS EVER CUT TAXES WHILE FIGHTING A WAR; MUCH LESS TWO OF THEM-- and the chickens came home to roost after Bush's term was over.

Gee, and now we're talking about raising the debt ceiling so we can borrow some more money instead of letting the tax cuts expire. It will get done by the way (one way or the other--the borrowing) and I'm sure that will be bad too. Until Obama is out of office. Then...why do I get the feeling that you'll be all of the sudden all for the expansion of the debt ceiling to bail out more companies...you know...the same thing you're against right now? LOL.

Anyway....

So the Dems want to cut some of the Defense spending...we are light years ahead of every other civilization on the planet in the air, on the sea, under the sea, and in outer space. We spend approximately $0.48 of every dollar spent on Defense worldwide. We outspend all other nations by WIDE margins.

You don't think theres any room to cut? If so, what would you like to cut?

I'd start with the F22 and the Virginia Class sub.

Your turn.

 

[Conservative]

If they worked, why did Bush ram through a $700B stimulus package in the waning days of his administration....are you going to blame that on Obama too?



Well?

I know, when the liberal spends billions, it's pork.
When the allegedly conservative spends billions, it's a wise investment.

I assume You are talking about TARP. Which of course was not a Stimulus Bill. It was a Bail out LOAN. And is being paid back.

And Bush Hardly Rammed it through. Unlike the Obama Stimulus which was passed on Nearly all Democrat Votes. Tarp Enjoyed Bi-Partisan Support. Rammed through? Really.

Do you ever get any facts right?

Is the nearly 1 Trillion dollar Obama Stimulus, or the .5 Trillion Omnibus bill going to be Paid back?

Fucking idiots.

Papa Obama voted for TARP so it must have been good and he agreed with Bush


If fact Papa Obama liked it so much, his administration extended it to keep the Bush policy going

Obama Administration Extending TARP Until 2010

Come to think of it

Papa Obama has kept a lot of Bush polices going
Well, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery

Looks like whomever runs against Obama can act like they are running against Bush... just like Obama did in 2008.

 

[Neotrotsky]

The bail outs are okay now...lets get that straight. You were all for the bail outs of GM and Chrysler. Let me get a straight yes or no on that. Your "conservative" President set aside the $700B for bail outs, Obama spent some of that on GM and Chrysler and you were fine with that. Yes or No?

We'll get to the rest of your post after this...I would like for you to admit that Obama spent some money responsibly first. If you do, you'll be the first conservative in the history of USMB to make such an admission.

Lets hear it...yes or no.

You are very demanding....


Well, he was our President just like Papa Obama is as well
I believe the money spent on drone attacks by Papa Obama was good and responsible.


For me, I think the bailouts were a bad idea and Bush Medicare D was dumb too.

But it all pales in comparison to what is going on now, does it not?
Besides, two wrongs don't make a right, three lefts do

Whoa...wait a second.

The $700B was a bail out right?

You were fine with it a few minutes ago; or at least you are not holding Bush with the same amount of contempt you have for "Papa" Obama. Funny how you call him President sometimes and "Papa" other time.

What happened? Oh yeah...thats right. Now that Obama is spending the moeny...you're suddenly against the bail outs and all spending is bad.

Maybe I can get some of the $700B and purchase you a mirror so you can debate yourself. You seem confused on where you stand on this issue.

Bush spending--great.
Obama spending--bad.

Pretty much sums up your "argument" right?

How does it pale? The government needed some money to spend...we have these tax cuts while fighting 2 wars--NO NATION ON EARTH HAS EVER CUT TAXES WHILE FIGHTING A WAR; MUCH LESS TWO OF THEM-- and the chickens came home to roost after Bush's term was over.

Gee, and now we're talking about raising the debt ceiling so we can borrow some more money instead of letting the tax cuts expire. It will get done by the way (one way or the other--the borrowing) and I'm sure that will be bad too. Until Obama is out of office. Then...why do I get the feeling that you'll be all of the sudden all for the expansion of the debt ceiling to bail out more companies...you know...the same thing you're against right now? LOL.

Anyway....

So the Dems want to cut some of the Defense spending...we are light years ahead of every other civilization on the planet in the air, on the sea, under the sea, and in outer space. We spend approximately $0.48 of every dollar spent on Defense worldwide. We outspend all other nations by WIDE margins.

You don't think theres any room to cut? If so, what would you like to cut?

I'd start with the F22 and the Virginia Class sub.

Your turn.

If you back up I changed the line to say GM portion. You posted after the change.
The point of TARP is that if it is paid back, does it really count as spending?

I have criticized Bush spending and Papa Obama spending

Whatever "template" you are trying to impose on me does not work
but, it is your story and you can tell any way you want

But, the reality remains, Papa Obama has out spent everyone.
The majority of our debt comes from this administration

For example:

Obama Will Spend More on Welfare Than Bush Spent on Entire Iraq War

More questions? really why, so you can keep accusing me of things-

Here I will leave you with this video to think about things

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsrFa9jrpv8]YouTube - ‪Child's Pay 2‬‏[/ame]

 

[candycorn]

I assume You are talking about TARP. Which of course was not a Stimulus Bill. It was a Bail out LOAN. And is being paid back.

And Bush Hardly Rammed it through. Unlike the Obama Stimulus which was passed on Nearly all Democrat Votes. Tarp Enjoyed Bi-Partisan Support. Rammed through? Really.

Do you ever get any facts right?

Is the nearly 1 Trillion dollar Obama Stimulus, or the .5 Trillion Omnibus bill going to be Paid back?

Fucking idiots.

Papa Obama voted for TARP so it must have been good and he agreed with Bush


If fact Papa Obama liked it so much, his administration extended it to keep the Bush policy going

Obama Administration Extending TARP Until 2010

Come to think of it

Papa Obama has kept a lot of Bush polices going
Well, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery

Looks like whomever runs against Obama can act like they are running against Bush... just like Obama did in 2008.

I think Obama found out that governing is much harder than campaigning. Welcome to the real world Mr. Obama. he he he

I think he would have lowered expectations a lot more than he did had he known then what he knows now.

But still, so far I haven't heard anything from this crop of GOP candidates that makes me say, wow, they have a better idea. The problem the GOP candidates are going to have is that when you see Boehner and McConnell (I think I spelled them right) out there saying flatly...no new taxes; they are painting their candidates into a pretty tight corner. Sooner or later these guys have to come up with a budget and when they do the horror show begins.

Americans want lower taxes but they also want more government than they are willing to pay for.

Romney, Powlent...zzzz (I can't say the name without falling asleep), Bachman, and company are going to have to outline some pretty drastic cuts if they can't get anything from the income side of the books. So unwittingly Obama may have 2 powerful allies in Boehner and McConnell. They are really saddling Mitt, Michell and Timmy with an almost insurmountable feat where they have to cut very popular programs OR go after Republican Red Meat of Defense. Not too appetizing.

 

[candycorn]

You are very demanding....


Well, he was our President just like Papa Obama is as well
I believe the money spent on drone attacks by Papa Obama was good and responsible.


For me, I think the bailouts were a bad idea and Bush Medicare D was dumb too.

But it all pales in comparison to what is going on now, does it not?
Besides, two wrongs don't make a right, three lefts do

Whoa...wait a second.

The $700B was a bail out right?

You were fine with it a few minutes ago; or at least you are not holding Bush with the same amount of contempt you have for "Papa" Obama. Funny how you call him President sometimes and "Papa" other time.

What happened? Oh yeah...thats right. Now that Obama is spending the moeny...you're suddenly against the bail outs and all spending is bad.

Maybe I can get some of the $700B and purchase you a mirror so you can debate yourself. You seem confused on where you stand on this issue.

Bush spending--great.
Obama spending--bad.

Pretty much sums up your "argument" right?

How does it pale? The government needed some money to spend...we have these tax cuts while fighting 2 wars--NO NATION ON EARTH HAS EVER CUT TAXES WHILE FIGHTING A WAR; MUCH LESS TWO OF THEM-- and the chickens came home to roost after Bush's term was over.

Gee, and now we're talking about raising the debt ceiling so we can borrow some more money instead of letting the tax cuts expire. It will get done by the way (one way or the other--the borrowing) and I'm sure that will be bad too. Until Obama is out of office. Then...why do I get the feeling that you'll be all of the sudden all for the expansion of the debt ceiling to bail out more companies...you know...the same thing you're against right now? LOL.

Anyway....

So the Dems want to cut some of the Defense spending...we are light years ahead of every other civilization on the planet in the air, on the sea, under the sea, and in outer space. We spend approximately $0.48 of every dollar spent on Defense worldwide. We outspend all other nations by WIDE margins.

You don't think theres any room to cut? If so, what would you like to cut?

I'd start with the F22 and the Virginia Class sub.

Your turn.

If you back up I changed the line to say GM portion. You posted after the change.
The point of TARP is that if it is paid back, does it really count as spending?

I have criticized Bush spending and Papa Obama spending

Whatever "template" you are trying to impose on me does not work
but, it is your story and you can tell any way you want

But, the reality remains, Papa Obama has out spent everyone.
The majority of our debt comes from this administration

For example:

Obama Will Spend More on Welfare Than Bush Spent on Entire Iraq War

More questions? really why, so you can keep accusing me of things-

Here I will leave you with this video to think about things

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsrFa9jrpv8]YouTube - ‪Child's Pay 2‬‏[/ame]

Okay fair enough guy...I think if you're going to spend a lot of money, spending in the 50 states is absolutely preferable to spending it re-building Iraq and Afghanistan. Especially considering the 8 years of disdain President Bush showed toward the infrastructure.

Any thoughts on whether we have any room to cut when we're spending 48 cents of every dollar spent on defense?

 

[Neotrotsky]

Whoa...wait a second.

The $700B was a bail out right?

You were fine with it a few minutes ago; or at least you are not holding Bush with the same amount of contempt you have for "Papa" Obama. Funny how you call him President sometimes and "Papa" other time.

What happened? Oh yeah...thats right. Now that Obama is spending the moeny...you're suddenly against the bail outs and all spending is bad.

Maybe I can get some of the $700B and purchase you a mirror so you can debate yourself. You seem confused on where you stand on this issue.

Bush spending--great.
Obama spending--bad.

Pretty much sums up your "argument" right?

How does it pale? The government needed some money to spend...we have these tax cuts while fighting 2 wars--NO NATION ON EARTH HAS EVER CUT TAXES WHILE FIGHTING A WAR; MUCH LESS TWO OF THEM-- and the chickens came home to roost after Bush's term was over.

Gee, and now we're talking about raising the debt ceiling so we can borrow some more money instead of letting the tax cuts expire. It will get done by the way (one way or the other--the borrowing) and I'm sure that will be bad too. Until Obama is out of office. Then...why do I get the feeling that you'll be all of the sudden all for the expansion of the debt ceiling to bail out more companies...you know...the same thing you're against right now? LOL.

Anyway....

So the Dems want to cut some of the Defense spending...we are light years ahead of every other civilization on the planet in the air, on the sea, under the sea, and in outer space. We spend approximately $0.48 of every dollar spent on Defense worldwide. We outspend all other nations by WIDE margins.

You don't think theres any room to cut? If so, what would you like to cut?

I'd start with the F22 and the Virginia Class sub.

Your turn.

If you back up I changed the line to say GM portion. You posted after the change.
The point of TARP is that if it is paid back, does it really count as spending?

I have criticized Bush spending and Papa Obama spending

Whatever "template" you are trying to impose on me does not work
but, it is your story and you can tell any way you want

But, the reality remains, Papa Obama has out spent everyone.
The majority of our debt comes from this administration

For example:

Obama Will Spend More on Welfare Than Bush Spent on Entire Iraq War

More questions? really why, so you can keep accusing me of things-

Here I will leave you with this video to think about things

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsrFa9jrpv8]YouTube - ‪Child's Pay 2‬‏[/ame]

Okay fair enough guy...I think if you're going to spend a lot of money, spending in the 50 states is absolutely preferable to spending it re-building Iraq and Afghanistan. Especially considering the 8 years of disdain President Bush showed toward the infrastructure.

Any thoughts on whether we have any room to cut when we're spending 48 cents of every dollar spent on defense?

Because of entitlement spending, we have long term issue coming soon.
Any real change is going to be after the election and if there is one party in power in both houses and the Presidency.
It is my opinion that any real good change would come with the Republicans. Believe, I do not believe they are better; but it is highly
unlikely that a party that is dependent on gov't programs is going to make any real change, except for more taxes and more gov't programs.

We saw what happened with the last congress being all under Democratic control. They created such a back lash, they got kicked out of the House.
Mind you, Bush and his Republican congress had the opportunity as well and they blew it too. But at this point, with our backs against the wall and
the choice of only two parties, they are the only choice to even be likely to make the necessary changes,

The best we will probably get now is some cuts in spending with the increase in the debt ceiling. This will allow the issue to go to the next election.

I do believe that a major restructure of the tax code that is revenue neutral and encourages savings and investments combined
with entitlement reform and other spending cuts, is the best way to go. Of course, ObamaCare will have to be replaced with
something that is more market driven and fiscally viable in the long run.

Mind you, I do find the idea of a Negative Income Tax interesting; but, I need to do more research on it.

see:
Former CBO Director: Obamacare Deficit will be $562 Billion over 10 years

 

[candycorn]

If you back up I changed the line to say GM portion. You posted after the change.
The point of TARP is that if it is paid back, does it really count as spending?

I have criticized Bush spending and Papa Obama spending

Whatever "template" you are trying to impose on me does not work
but, it is your story and you can tell any way you want

But, the reality remains, Papa Obama has out spent everyone.
The majority of our debt comes from this administration

For example:

Obama Will Spend More on Welfare Than Bush Spent on Entire Iraq War

More questions? really why, so you can keep accusing me of things-

Here I will leave you with this video to think about things

YouTube - ‪Child's Pay 2‬‏

Okay fair enough guy...I think if you're going to spend a lot of money, spending in the 50 states is absolutely preferable to spending it re-building Iraq and Afghanistan. Especially considering the 8 years of disdain President Bush showed toward the infrastructure.

Any thoughts on whether we have any room to cut when we're spending 48 cents of every dollar spent on defense?

Because of entitlement spending, we have long term issue coming soon.
Any real change is going to be after the election and if there is one party in power in both houses and the Presidency.
It is my opinion that any real good change would come with the Republicans. Believe, I do believe they are better; but it is highly
unlikely that a party that is dependent on gov't programs is going to make any real change, except for more taxes.

The best we will probably get now is some cuts in spending with the increase in the debt ceiling. This will allow the issue to go to the next election.

I do believe that a major restructure of the tax code that is revenue neutral and encourages savings and investments combined
with entitlement reform and other spending cuts, is the best way to go. Of course, ObamaCare will have to be replaced with
something that is more market driven and fiscally viable in the long run.

Mind you, I do find the idea of a Negative Income Tax interesting; but, I need to do more research on it.

see:
Former CBO Director: Obamacare Deficit will be $562 Billion over 10 years

I'm guessing thats a "no"?

 

[Neotrotsky]

Okay fair enough guy...I think if you're going to spend a lot of money, spending in the 50 states is absolutely preferable to spending it re-building Iraq and Afghanistan. Especially considering the 8 years of disdain President Bush showed toward the infrastructure.

Any thoughts on whether we have any room to cut when we're spending 48 cents of every dollar spent on defense?

Because of entitlement spending, we have long term issue coming soon.
Any real change is going to be after the election and if there is one party in power in both houses and the Presidency.
It is my opinion that any real good change would come with the Republicans. Believe, I do believe they are better; but it is highly
unlikely that a party that is dependent on gov't programs is going to make any real change, except for more taxes.

The best we will probably get now is some cuts in spending with the increase in the debt ceiling. This will allow the issue to go to the next election.

I do believe that a major restructure of the tax code that is revenue neutral and encourages savings and investments combined
with entitlement reform and other spending cuts, is the best way to go. Of course, ObamaCare will have to be replaced with
something that is more market driven and fiscally viable in the long run.

Mind you, I do find the idea of a Negative Income Tax interesting; but, I need to do more research on it.

see:
Former CBO Director: Obamacare Deficit will be $562 Billion over 10 years

I'm guessing thats a "no"?

Oh on the defense, sorry missed it.
Defense cuts- sure.
Which ones, I would have to see the cuts and the military take on them.
Across the board might be good provided the essential services are maintained.
I rather see a cut in some military program before a cut in a soldier's benefit; I feel they earned it.

Note: I did add changes to prior post above.

 

[bripat9643]

Like it

EVERYTHING on the table....shared sacrifice for all

No, everything is not on the table. Is Medicare on the table? Social Security? The salaries of government workers? The EPA budget?

 

[martybegan]

I don't agree. If the money is loaned out of SS to the general fund, then SS has bought treasuries,

they loan the money, they collect interest, the full faith and credit of the US is behind paying the money back.

Whatever the differences between that and, say, you or me buying a treasury bond are, are not differences that make a difference,

and if a difference doesn't make any difference, it's not a difference. I think I heard that last night

I could be completely wrong, but that's not my understanding of how the trusts work. I thought that all assets in the trusts were nonmarketable liabilities, i.e. no Treasury bonds.

The reason why people say that the trust fund doesn't really exist, or that it is all IOUs, or an accounting gimmick, is because, in the true tangible sense, that is correct. The trusts don't buy and sell US Treasury bonds. Instead, the government debits and credits the accounts within the trusts as if they really were buying and selling bonds, with the cash flowing through the government in the same manner as it would have had the bonds really existed. If there is a surge in SS receipts, the government debits the SS trust accounts and credits the Treasury, which has the exact same affect as the Treasury issuing a bond to the trusts for that amount of funds. The economics are exactly the same as issuing a bond to the trust, but they don't and instead just skip the middleman and issue nonmarketable government bonds to the trust, which don't "really" exist in the tangible sense.

Special-issue securities, Social Security trust funds

Well, if you had 100,000 in your IRA and it was all in US treasuries, it would essentially all be in IOU's, i.e., the government would have your money but they would owe you interest over time as well as your principal.

I'm not sure what the meaningful difference between that SS is.

The relevant point is that the payroll tax is real money and it belongs to Social Security. The surplus is invested in US govt. obligations by mandate. If the US government NOW wants to make drastic cuts in Social Security, whose fault is that?

The difference is not on the SS side, its on the government side, and add the fact that they are basically BOTH the same organization. It is basically similar to an accounting trick used by companies if one division of the company loaned money to the other.

Here is another way to look at it. Say every year 300 billion in treasuries in the SS fund matures. When they mature all the government does with the money is re-invest it. It also added any surplus from FICA taxes after paying out benefits. So say year X it cashed in 300 billion and bought 330 billion.

Now there is no surplus, there is a deficit. Say 30 billion. So now when those 300 billion of treasuries mature, SS only buys 270 billion worth. THAT is how the government is now out 30 billion dollars. Furthermore it is not only out 30 billion, it didnt get its usual X billion dollars in additonal treasuries bought by SS.

The gap will get worse and worse every year as SS has no surpluses, and has to call on more and more principal on the treasuries to pay for benefits. The government then has to pay more and more to SS in principal, not just interest.

 

[rightwinger]

Like it

EVERYTHING on the table....shared sacrifice for all

No, everything is not on the table. Is Medicare on the table? Social Security? The salaries of government workers? The EPA budget?

Everything means everything

Why have sacred cows? Like "You can't raise taxes to get out of debt"

 

[NYcarbineer]

Like it

EVERYTHING on the table....shared sacrifice for all

No, everything is not on the table. Is Medicare on the table? Social Security? The salaries of government workers? The EPA budget?

why should those items be on the table if revenues aren't?

If the GOP can take taxes off the table, what should the Democrats be able to take off the table?

In the interests of FAIRNESS, and in the interests of the simple fact that the Democrats are actually in the majority, all things considered.

 

[Trajan]

Like it

EVERYTHING on the table....shared sacrifice for all

No, everything is not on the table. Is Medicare on the table? Social Security? The salaries of government workers? The EPA budget?

why should those items be on the table if revenues aren't?

If the GOP can take taxes off the table, what should the Democrats be able to take off the table?

In the interests of FAIRNESS, and in the interests of the simple fact that the Democrats are actually in the majority, all things considered.

ahhh, so majorities count now?


so if we are to cut what IS on the table?

last I checked it as medicare and Medicaid ( and SS a third) that as blowing up the budget by 2020 or so, so e don't touch2 main drivers of the debt.? I see.

60% of the budget they don't even vote on,w ell guess what, time to vote on it and do something about it, the ponzi schemes are falling part.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Like it

EVERYTHING on the table....shared sacrifice for all

No, everything is not on the table. Is Medicare on the table? Social Security? The salaries of government workers? The EPA budget?

why should those items be on the table if revenues aren't?

If the GOP can take taxes off the table, what should the Democrats be able to take off the table?

In the interests of FAIRNESS, and in the interests of the simple fact that the Democrats are actually in the majority, all things considered.

Not for long.. not for long.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

No, everything is not on the table. Is Medicare on the table? Social Security? The salaries of government workers? The EPA budget?

why should those items be on the table if revenues aren't?

If the GOP can take taxes off the table, what should the Democrats be able to take off the table?

In the interests of FAIRNESS, and in the interests of the simple fact that the Democrats are actually in the majority, all things considered.

ahhh, so majorities count now?


so if we are to cut what IS on the table?

last I checked it as medicare and Medicaid ( and SS a third) that as blowing up the budget by 2020 or so, so e don't touch2 main drivers of the debt.? I see.

60% of the budget they don't even vote on,w ell guess what, time to vote on it and do something about it, the ponzi schemes are falling part.

How about a 25% tax on Unions?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Dem Budget: 2 TRILLION in NEW TAX HIKES, Deep Cuts at Pentagon

More taxes, more taxes, more taxes, more taxes, more taxes, more taxes... that is the liberals answer to EVERYTHING! Damn these fucking MORONS to HELL.

Gee.....what would Lil' Dumbya do??

​

 

[Toro]

Like it

EVERYTHING on the table....shared sacrifice for all

No, everything is not on the table. Is Medicare on the table? Social Security? The salaries of government workers? The EPA budget?

Aren't they? I thought they were. I thought Obama said that we will look at cutting everything.

 

[Wiseacre]

Like it

EVERYTHING on the table....shared sacrifice for all

No, everything is not on the table. Is Medicare on the table? Social Security? The salaries of government workers? The EPA budget?

Aren't they? I thought they were. I thought Obama said that we will look at cutting everything.

Looking at and actually cutting spending are two different things. Which maybe is your point, but let's just say I got my doubts the pres has his holiest of holies on the line, whatever that might be.

The Bush tax cuts on the rich that are set to expire next year are pretty high up on his list of things that are non-negotiable, or so I would think. Can he give that up and not lose his base? Not without something else to show for it, IMHO.

Same deal on the GOP side, they can't cave on those tax cuts either. Many would lose their jobs next year if they did, and I don't think they're going to budge on that. The question is whether they can or should give elsewhere, getting rid of tax breaks or subsidies that would in fact raise taxes without an actual increase in tax rates. Maybe even a lowering of rates that still results in higher revenue. As in, lower the marginal rate down to 27% but also drop some deductions that more than makes up the difference.

And it ain't just the repubs either, what will the far left do, will they support an agreement that doesn't raise the tax rates on the wealthy? I suspect the political risk isn't as high for them, many come from ultra blue districts and they'll get re-elected no matter what.