How do you feel the standoff in Washington would best resolved?

[Immanuel]

President Obama has promised the progressive wing of his party that taxes will be raised on the wealthy. It's more of a symbolic thing now than any type of coherent fiscal policy. If we're really looking to address the problems with the deficit then we need to shrink the size of government spending. We've reached the point where taking 100% of the income of the "wealthy" won't even come close to paying for what we've obligated ourselves to shell out in entitlement programs. It's a no brainer what happens at that point, CD...taxes go up on the Middle Class. They have to...there's no other way it can go down.

I wonder if this promise will be as good as his promise not to raise one dime of any kind of taxes on those making less than $250k/year... a promise that he broke in his first month of office when he raised cigarette taxes. For some reason, I believe he intends to keep this promise just as he intended to keep that promise.

I suspect he will increase taxes on the middle class and in four years we will still be debating ending the "Bush Tax Cuts".

Immie

If you crunch the numbers it simply doesn't work...even under the most optimistic scenarios. We simply can't pay for what we're obligating ourselves to unless we put in place massive tax increases on the Middle Class as well as the wealthy. Anyone who says that won't happen is either extremely deficient in mathematics or they're lying to you.

Look, if we really want to fix this thing before it get too far out of control then the way to go is automatic across the board cuts to ALL government programs. They're all inherently wasteful...that goes for Defense...that goes for Medicare. Cut the cost of government as well. Why does every politician in Washington now require 10 "aides" to read the damn legislation that they wrote and they are voting on? Maybe if they had to read it themselves it wouldn't be the epic "gobbledegook" that it now always is!

Wait a minute? Do you really think Obama wants to "fix this thing"? You're joking, right?

I know it won't work, but the problem is that we will continue to borrow until the roof caves in. Honestly, no one in politics is willing to bite the bullet and do what needs to be done... raise taxes (wealthy and middle class at least) and cut spending. Also, I have been saying cut defense as well for a long long time.

That's the problem OS, Obama has no intention of fixing the problem. He's paying lip service to the progressives that want to raise taxes only on the rich. In the end, it will be the middle class that gets the shaft and like I said, four years from now, we will still be fighting over whether or not to let the Bush Tax Cuts expire and we will be a hell of a lot deeper in debt than we are today. Nothing will be fixed. It simply is not in the cards as they say.

Immie

 

[saveliberty]

When it comes to the deficit, Cody...I always fall back on the analogy of a bucket of water...the bucket being our government structure and the water being our tax dollars. As time had gone by our "bucket" had developed huge gaping holes in it that the water...ie our tax dollars...is gushing out of.

Now what would be the logical thing to do if you were faced with that leaking bucket? Would you search for more sources of water to try and keep the bucket full...or would you simply patch up the holes?

Simplistic, I know...but at heart I'm still the boy who grew up on a dairy farm and sees things in a simplistic fashion. I'd patch up the bucket. What do you think?

I'm a city kid, I use a dam analogy...

 

[HUGGY]

Can we at least agree that we're spending way too much and need to make cuts?

Can we also agree that the Federal Government by it's very nature is incredibly wasteful and will remain so unless it is forced to change?

Can we also agree that for the millions of Americans who are out of work right now that the number one priority should be growing the economy and creating jobs?

No. We cannot "agree" to lies and theft. SS is not an expense the government can just change at a whim. It is an obligation to those that payed into it with terms that were known to all at the time they started participating. If the government wants to change the format for a replacement of SS that would be something different. They can cut off Americans paying in all together and from the start of that no one gets any SS in their future old age.

BUT everyone that has been paying into the current SS system is owed what they put into it WHEN they have been gauranteed they would recieve it. Anything else is theft and fraud.

If the repubs start stealing some 50 year olds retirements out in the open like you are talking I wouldn't be suprised to see some elected representatives have some "accidents" if ya know what I mean. It's a good thing I am well into the age the pubes wouldn't dare screw with. Why don't you(the pubes) try and steal my hard earned SS you thieving pigs and let's see what happens? I don't plan to live a hell of a long time longer anyway...I'd love to take a few traitorous thieves out with me.

Ah, Huggy? The Government has been stealing out of the SS system for years now. The reason that it's in so much trouble is that they HAVE been raiding the general fund to pay for OTHER things. You never cease to amuse...

I don't care. I am not the forgiving type. Your "amusement" means nothing to me. Pay me what I put in when it is due and we won't have any trouble.

 

[Unkotare]

"How do you feel the standoff in Washington would best be resolved?"


Best two out of three falls.

 

[saveliberty]

Three time zones from CP and a day job means I'm out of here.

 

[Papageorgio]

In fairness CP is learning all his history from a liberal learning institution. His inability to note bias is rooted in his belief his professors are neutral politically and just state fact.

In fairness, saveliberty to jumping to conclusions about me and how I think based on the fact that I am in college. Never did I say I did NOT attend a liberal institution and never did I state that my professors are neutral politically. I find it a little disrespectful that you are judging as heavily as you are. I am merely suggesting that we should do everything we can to bring us to revenue neutral. I see taxing the wealthy a little more (like the rate we saw in the early 1900s perhaps?) to be a viable option. Maybe not the middle and lower classes, but the point is that I see the goal as getting to revenue neutral.

Speaking of which I don't know who you were addressing percy, but if you were addressing me, I know very well the difference between tax rates and tax revenues, thank you.

You are sounding liberal, that's for sure, your professors are about 80-90% liberal, so if it hurts, then you need to change it, otherwise...it is what it is.

 

[blackhawk]

I suggest having the members of both parties arrive outside of Congress at high noon armed with the hand gun of their choice remove all civilians to a safe location and let them settle it gunfight at the O.K corral style.

 

[cpcreativity]

Oldstyle and DiamondDave, you both make great points and make a lot of sense to me. As for the government spending on things it has no right to be spending on and the bucket analogy, both are clear as can be.

I would agree with patching it obviously. I am understanding more of the points made earlier as well. I do still hold on the notion that the rich could pay a little higher a percentage (maybe it's just the charitable side of me) because I think I would. Only slightly though. I was never under the influence of a liberal agenda however and am still not now.

The Republican budget plan they pitched cutting spending and getting rid of deductions and loopholes, does anyone have a coherent reason the Democrats turned it down? Besides the lack of the tax increase on the wealthy.

 

[MisterBeale]

Can we at least agree that we're spending way too much and need to make cuts?

Can we also agree that the Federal Government by it's very nature is incredibly wasteful and will remain so unless it is forced to change?

Can we also agree that for the millions of Americans who are out of work right now that the number one priority should be growing the economy and creating jobs?

No. We cannot "agree" to lies and theft. SS is not an expense the government can just change at a whim. It is an obligation to those that payed into it with terms that were known to all at the time they started participating. If the government wants to change the format for a replacement of SS that would be something different. They can cut off Americans paying in all together and from the start of that no one gets any SS in their future old age.

BUT everyone that has been paying into the current SS system is owed what they put into it WHEN they have been gauranteed they would recieve it. Anything else is theft and fraud.

If the repubs start stealing some 50 year olds retirements out in the open like you are talking I wouldn't be suprised to see some elected representatives have some "accidents" if ya know what I mean. It's a good thing I am well into the age the pubes wouldn't dare screw with. Why don't you(the pubes) try and steal my hard earned SS you thieving pigs and let's see what happens? I don't plan to live a hell of a long time longer anyway...I'd love to take a few traitorous thieves out with me.

Boo Hoo. According to the Constitution, you are supposed to be guaranteed a bunch of "rights" as well. WTH?! Where did those go. The income tax is unconstitutional to begin with. The IRS is not even a legitimate government agency. Who cares. The government will do what ever it wants. You are lving in a fantasy world if you don't think they will continue to shift around money, increase the retirement age, and withhold payouts to those retirees that have no monetary need for Social Security. Eventually, they will have a law that if they deem that your own individual IRA account is sufficient for you to live off of, you will not be entitled to a full pay out. . . just wait.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=acLW1vFO-2Q#!]George Carlin ~ The American Dream - YouTube[/ame]

 

[HUGGY]

Can we at least agree that we're spending way too much and need to make cuts?

Can we also agree that the Federal Government by it's very nature is incredibly wasteful and will remain so unless it is forced to change?

Can we also agree that for the millions of Americans who are out of work right now that the number one priority should be growing the economy and creating jobs?

No. We cannot "agree" to lies and theft. SS is not an expense the government can just change at a whim. It is an obligation to those that payed into it with terms that were known to all at the time they started participating. If the government wants to change the format for a replacement of SS that would be something different. They can cut off Americans paying in all together and from the start of that no one gets any SS in their future old age.

BUT everyone that has been paying into the current SS system is owed what they put into it WHEN they have been gauranteed they would recieve it. Anything else is theft and fraud.

If the repubs start stealing some 50 year olds retirements out in the open like you are talking I wouldn't be suprised to see some elected representatives have some "accidents" if ya know what I mean. It's a good thing I am well into the age the pubes wouldn't dare screw with. Why don't you(the pubes) try and steal my hard earned SS you thieving pigs and let's see what happens? I don't plan to live a hell of a long time longer anyway...I'd love to take a few traitorous thieves out with me.

Boo Hoo. According to the Constitution, you are supposed to be guaranteed a bunch of "rights" as well. WTH?! Where did those go. The income tax is unconstitutional to begin with. The IRS is not even a legitimate government agency. Who cares. The government will do what ever it wants. You are lving in a fantasy world if you don't think they will continue to shift around money, increase the retirement age, and withhold payouts to those retirees that have no monetary need for Social Security. Eventually, they will have a law that if they deem that your own individual IRA account is sufficient for you to live off of, you will not be entitled to a full pay out. . . just wait.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=acLW1vFO-2Q#!]George Carlin ~ The American Dream - YouTube[/ame]

Then let the "Boo Hooing" begin. We will see who has the last laugh and the last cry.

 

[Freewill]

The POTUS should be a true leader in reaching a settelment in Congress on what in the hell to do. He sould be the nations cheerleader. He should be the one that sees that things get done, and not just the easy stuff he can cram down our throats.

We need a Reagan, what we go is Carter.

 

[cpcreativity]

Does anyone know the reason the Republican budget plan they pitched cutting spending and getting rid of deductions and loopholes got denied by the Dems? Besides the lack of the tax increase on the wealthy.

 

[DiamondDave]

Oldstyle and DiamondDave, you both make great points and make a lot of sense to me. As for the government spending on things it has no right to be spending on and the bucket analogy, both are clear as can be.

I would agree with patching it obviously. I am understanding more of the points made earlier as well. I do still hold on the notion that the rich could pay a little higher a percentage (maybe it's just the charitable side of me) because I think I would. Only slightly though. I was never under the influence of a liberal agenda however and am still not now.

The Republican budget plan they pitched cutting spending and getting rid of deductions and loopholes, does anyone have a coherent reason the Democrats turned it down? Besides the lack of the tax increase on the wealthy.

Charity is personal.. and nothing prevents anyone from paying more into the tax system if they so choose...

And remember that you are advocating for and setting the precedent for unequal treatment by government for a subjective reason.. so there would be no way you could honestly scream or complain about unequal treatment in another aspect when it does not benefit you or your cause

 

[cpcreativity]

Oldstyle and DiamondDave, you both make great points and make a lot of sense to me. As for the government spending on things it has no right to be spending on and the bucket analogy, both are clear as can be.

I would agree with patching it obviously. I am understanding more of the points made earlier as well. I do still hold on the notion that the rich could pay a little higher a percentage (maybe it's just the charitable side of me) because I think I would. Only slightly though. I was never under the influence of a liberal agenda however and am still not now.

The Republican budget plan they pitched cutting spending and getting rid of deductions and loopholes, does anyone have a coherent reason the Democrats turned it down? Besides the lack of the tax increase on the wealthy.

Charity is personal.. and nothing prevents anyone from paying more into the tax system if they so choose...

And remember that you are advocating for and setting the precedent for unequal treatment by government for a subjective reason.. so there would be no way you could honestly scream or complain about unequal treatment in another aspect when it does not benefit you or your cause

Very true... I suppose I have just never felt forced to participate in something that I felt I shouldn't be. I am not easily offended and I usually can see the logic behind things that don't go my way. But I can see your point of having it turned around on me.

 

[MisterBeale]

Very true... I suppose I have just never felt forced to participate in something that I felt I shouldn't be. I am not easily offended and I usually can see the logic behind things that don't go my way. But I can see your point of having it turned around on me.

That's bullshit. Every child has at one point or another, in second grade or third grade, when the weather has been extremely nice toward the beginning of spring, or toward the end of Christmas Vacation when they have had that toy or video game they just couldn't put down, pondered the logic and reasoning of why they needed to be directed in their education. Seriously. At least most do. My son is in fifth grade, and he has lamented upon this topic at least once a year since third grade.

I tell him, it's the law. . . .

I dread the day he asks me, "Why is it the law?"

In my state, there is all ready rumors of privatizing the whole education system now that the supreme court has ruled that fascism is legal. I am horrified that I should be forced to send my child to a for profit entity to be mentally conditioned in corporate group think. Quite frankly, for a State that was just taken by the Obama campaign, it terrifies the liberals as well. I'm more concerned about the fascists that are owned by Devos' family and Romney's Family and Ford's Family. Like I have said, there is no such thing as liberals or conservatives, they are all owned by the corporations, and in the end, fascists. They'll even use your kids to make a buck. First it was the military. You know that the war in Iraq never ended, right? It was only privatized. We have more mercenaries now then ever before in US history. Then it was the prisons. This is why, despite popular support for decriminalization, the government maintains it's monopoly over the production and distribution of drugs, through the borders to the south, and by it's protection of opium producers in Afghanistan. Next it was the healthcare system. And now it is the privatization and corportizaion of education. Soon, there will be a replacement of your public school too. You will be forced to send your kid to a corporate school, that is what this supreme court ruling has done. Just wait. . . . .

 

[DiamondDave]

Oldstyle and DiamondDave, you both make great points and make a lot of sense to me. As for the government spending on things it has no right to be spending on and the bucket analogy, both are clear as can be.

I would agree with patching it obviously. I am understanding more of the points made earlier as well. I do still hold on the notion that the rich could pay a little higher a percentage (maybe it's just the charitable side of me) because I think I would. Only slightly though. I was never under the influence of a liberal agenda however and am still not now.

The Republican budget plan they pitched cutting spending and getting rid of deductions and loopholes, does anyone have a coherent reason the Democrats turned it down? Besides the lack of the tax increase on the wealthy.

Charity is personal.. and nothing prevents anyone from paying more into the tax system if they so choose...

And remember that you are advocating for and setting the precedent for unequal treatment by government for a subjective reason.. so there would be no way you could honestly scream or complain about unequal treatment in another aspect when it does not benefit you or your cause

Very true... I suppose I have just never felt forced to participate in something that I felt I shouldn't be. I am not easily offended and I usually can see the logic behind things that don't go my way. But I can see your point of having it turned around on me.

It is really easy to feel generous in charity when it is someone else's money.. and in a free society, people have the right to be generous with their riches just as they have a right to be greedy... and even if you don't like people being miserly, you don't have the right to force them to be charitable...

 

[Avatar4321]

Can we at least agree that we're spending way too much and need to make cuts?

Can we also agree that the Federal Government by it's very nature is incredibly wasteful and will remain so unless it is forced to change?

Can we also agree that for the millions of Americans who are out of work right now that the number one priority should be growing the economy and creating jobs?

No. We cannot "agree" to lies and theft. SS is not an expense the government can just change at a whim. It is an obligation to those that payed into it with terms that were known to all at the time they started participating. If the government wants to change the format for a replacement of SS that would be something different. They can cut off Americans paying in all together and from the start of that no one gets any SS in their future old age.

BUT everyone that has been paying into the current SS system is owed what they put into it WHEN they have been gauranteed they would recieve it. Anything else is theft and fraud.

If the repubs start stealing some 50 year olds retirements out in the open like you are talking I wouldn't be suprised to see some elected representatives have some "accidents" if ya know what I mean. It's a good thing I am well into the age the pubes wouldn't dare screw with. Why don't you(the pubes) try and steal my hard earned SS you thieving pigs and let's see what happens? I don't plan to live a hell of a long time longer anyway...I'd love to take a few traitorous thieves out with me.

Huggy, they lied to you. You didn't pay into the system. You paid for other people to enjoy the fruits of your labor. They expect you to enjoy the fruits of someone elses labor now and so on and so on until the ponzi scheme collapses.

You've been decieved.

 

[Avatar4321]

Then let the "Boo Hooing" begin. We will see who has the last laugh and the last cry.

If anyone is laughing when this is all over, it will be a miracle.

 

[Avatar4321]

The POTUS should be a true leader in reaching a settelment in Congress on what in the hell to do. He sould be the nations cheerleader. He should be the one that sees that things get done, and not just the easy stuff he can cram down our throats.

We need a Reagan, what we go is Carter.

I disagree. we don't have someone as good as Carter.

 

[Avatar4321]

Does anyone know the reason the Republican budget plan they pitched cutting spending and getting rid of deductions and loopholes got denied by the Dems? Besides the lack of the tax increase on the wealthy.

They never had any intention of compromising. Which is extremely telling since Obama essentially proposed the same deal the last time we went through this.