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

[Avatar4321]

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...

But it's not really charity when it's someone else's money. Charity requires you give of yourself. Your time, your talents, your material posessions. It requires you to, not just feel, but act in a way to bless the lives of others.

 

[MisterBeale]

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.

 

[Darkwind]

How would the division of the nation best be resolved and why does compromise not seem like an option?


I would like to start by suggesting the unthinkable. Raise taxes install a minimum tax rate percentage of let's say 30% as Warren Buffet suggested, lower spending, lessen regulation on trade, put pressure on China and other market-share abusers, drill a little more, etc. Do things that would raise revenues and cut expenses regardless of party. Instead of taking firm stands against the other side and having the other side do the same, why not moderately do what both sides are suggesting and in some cases literally find a middle ground?


The debate should not be about whether dems or reps or tea partiers or greens or libs are right in their stances. Rather, it should be about how to take into account all opinions and draw up a middle ground stance that most people can agree with at least a little bit.

Here is My suggestion.

Stop all spending by Federal Government except Defense, State, and Interior.

Lock box Medicare and Social Security away from the politicans. DO NOT ALLOW THEM ACCESS TO THAT MONEY FOR ANY REASON!

Claymore duels on Boston Commons for all Politicians. Winners are the survivors, those maimed can limp home and take up civilian life.

 

[Avatar4321]

How would the division of the nation best be resolved and why does compromise not seem like an option?


I would like to start by suggesting the unthinkable. Raise taxes install a minimum tax rate percentage of let's say 30% as Warren Buffet suggested, lower spending, lessen regulation on trade, put pressure on China and other market-share abusers, drill a little more, etc. Do things that would raise revenues and cut expenses regardless of party. Instead of taking firm stands against the other side and having the other side do the same, why not moderately do what both sides are suggesting and in some cases literally find a middle ground?


The debate should not be about whether dems or reps or tea partiers or greens or libs are right in their stances. Rather, it should be about how to take into account all opinions and draw up a middle ground stance that most people can agree with at least a little bit.

Here is My suggestion.

Stop all spending by Federal Government except Defense, State, and Interior.

Lock box Medicare and Social Security away from the politicans. DO NOT ALLOW THEM ACCESS TO THAT MONEY FOR ANY REASON!

Claymore duels on Boston Commons for all Politicians. Winners are the survivors, those maimed can limp home and take up civilian life.

Claymores?! Sounds fun.

 

[Darkwind]

How would the division of the nation best be resolved and why does compromise not seem like an option?


I would like to start by suggesting the unthinkable. Raise taxes install a minimum tax rate percentage of let's say 30% as Warren Buffet suggested, lower spending, lessen regulation on trade, put pressure on China and other market-share abusers, drill a little more, etc. Do things that would raise revenues and cut expenses regardless of party. Instead of taking firm stands against the other side and having the other side do the same, why not moderately do what both sides are suggesting and in some cases literally find a middle ground?


The debate should not be about whether dems or reps or tea partiers or greens or libs are right in their stances. Rather, it should be about how to take into account all opinions and draw up a middle ground stance that most people can agree with at least a little bit.

Here is My suggestion.

Stop all spending by Federal Government except Defense, State, and Interior.

Lock box Medicare and Social Security away from the politicans. DO NOT ALLOW THEM ACCESS TO THAT MONEY FOR ANY REASON!

Claymore duels on Boston Commons for all Politicians. Winners are the survivors, those maimed can limp home and take up civilian life.

Claymores?! Sounds fun.

 

[Avatar4321]

What can I say? I like swords.

 

[MisterBeale]

How would the division of the nation best be resolved and why does compromise not seem like an option?


I would like to start by suggesting the unthinkable. Raise taxes install a minimum tax rate percentage of let's say 30% as Warren Buffet suggested, lower spending, lessen regulation on trade, put pressure on China and other market-share abusers, drill a little more, etc. Do things that would raise revenues and cut expenses regardless of party. Instead of taking firm stands against the other side and having the other side do the same, why not moderately do what both sides are suggesting and in some cases literally find a middle ground?


The debate should not be about whether dems or reps or tea partiers or greens or libs are right in their stances. Rather, it should be about how to take into account all opinions and draw up a middle ground stance that most people can agree with at least a little bit.

Here is My suggestion.

Stop all spending by Federal Government except Defense, State, and Interior.

Lock box Medicare and Social Security away from the politicans. DO NOT ALLOW THEM ACCESS TO THAT MONEY FOR ANY REASON!

Claymore duels on Boston Commons for all Politicians. Winners are the survivors, those maimed can limp home and take up civilian life.

That's all well and fine, but when you are exempting Defense from any cuts, seriously?! What on earth is the justification for this?

Government conditioning in government schools telling you it is necessary? Corporate media? You do know that the media is dominated by six major corporations. One of them is G.E. G.E. also happens to be a major defense contractor. It is amazing how they can manipulate both public opinion and politicians. Are you sure your thinking is clear and prescient on this subject. Don't you think maybe we are spending just a wee bit too much on defense already?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY]Eisenhower warns us of the military industrial complex. - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-F5NKAMdFc]9-11 Pentagon missing $2.3 trillion Rumsfeld Exposed 9/10/2001 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[francoHFW]

obama's plan is the best for all concerned- but that would be too EASY....ay caramba, Pubs are a catastrophe since 1994...or 1984.

 

[Darkwind]

What can I say? I like swords.

LOL

I do as well. I have a number of them.....

I just posted a pic because there are liberals here and they may not know what a claymore is.

Anyway, off to bed....lots to do and its late....er....early here..

 

[Darkwind]

How would the division of the nation best be resolved and why does compromise not seem like an option?


I would like to start by suggesting the unthinkable. Raise taxes install a minimum tax rate percentage of let's say 30% as Warren Buffet suggested, lower spending, lessen regulation on trade, put pressure on China and other market-share abusers, drill a little more, etc. Do things that would raise revenues and cut expenses regardless of party. Instead of taking firm stands against the other side and having the other side do the same, why not moderately do what both sides are suggesting and in some cases literally find a middle ground?


The debate should not be about whether dems or reps or tea partiers or greens or libs are right in their stances. Rather, it should be about how to take into account all opinions and draw up a middle ground stance that most people can agree with at least a little bit.

Here is My suggestion.

Stop all spending by Federal Government except Defense, State, and Interior.

Lock box Medicare and Social Security away from the politicans. DO NOT ALLOW THEM ACCESS TO THAT MONEY FOR ANY REASON!

Claymore duels on Boston Commons for all Politicians. Winners are the survivors, those maimed can limp home and take up civilian life.

That's all well and fine, but when you are exempting Defense from any cuts, seriously?! What on earth is the justification for this?

Government conditioning in government schools telling you it is necessary? Corporate media? You do know that the media is dominated by six major corporations. One of them is G.E. G.E. also happens to be a major defense contractor. It is amazing how they can manipulate both public opinion and politicians. Are you sure your thinking is clear and prescient on this subject. Don't you think maybe we are spending just a wee bit too much on defense already?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY"]Eisenhower warns us of the military industrial complex. - YouTube[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-F5NKAMdFc"]9-11 Pentagon missing $2.3 trillion Rumsfeld Exposed 9/10/2001 - YouTube[/ame]

The justification for defending ourselves?

Really? Other than the Constitutional requirement of our government to provide for our defense?

You eliminate all the other spending and defense won't be a problem.

ETA: Oh, I see. You fall into that same trap that the others do. You think we need only spend enough money to defeat the next capable nation.

Do yourself a little research and add up the total number of people the top 10 adversaries of the United States has in their military's.

You will find that we, as nation, are out gunned nearly 150 Million to 2 million....that is 75 to 1.

It is only our spending and superb training that keeps us safe and at the top.

So, no thanks on the the ONLY Constitutionally authorized spending this nation does.

 

[Avatar4321]

How would the division of the nation best be resolved and why does compromise not seem like an option?


I would like to start by suggesting the unthinkable. Raise taxes install a minimum tax rate percentage of let's say 30% as Warren Buffet suggested, lower spending, lessen regulation on trade, put pressure on China and other market-share abusers, drill a little more, etc. Do things that would raise revenues and cut expenses regardless of party. Instead of taking firm stands against the other side and having the other side do the same, why not moderately do what both sides are suggesting and in some cases literally find a middle ground?


The debate should not be about whether dems or reps or tea partiers or greens or libs are right in their stances. Rather, it should be about how to take into account all opinions and draw up a middle ground stance that most people can agree with at least a little bit.

Here is My suggestion.

Stop all spending by Federal Government except Defense, State, and Interior.

Lock box Medicare and Social Security away from the politicans. DO NOT ALLOW THEM ACCESS TO THAT MONEY FOR ANY REASON!

Claymore duels on Boston Commons for all Politicians. Winners are the survivors, those maimed can limp home and take up civilian life.

That's all well and fine, but when you are exempting Defense from any cuts, seriously?! What on earth is the justification for this?


Government conditioning in government schools telling you it is necessary? Corporate media? You do know that the media is dominated by six major corporations. One of them is G.E. G.E. also happens to be a major defense contractor. It is amazing how they can manipulate both public opinion and politicians. Are you sure your thinking is clear and prescient on this subject. Don't you think maybe we are spending just a wee bit too much on defense already?

While I don't doubt that we could cut the waste out of the defense budget, find a way to improve our military, and keep the money we do spend in the DoD more closely monitored, I would think it is obvious why some might propose not cutting Defense. We prefer to 1) not die & 2) Stay free.

 

[Avatar4321]

obama's plan is the best for all concerned- but that would be too EASY....ay caramba, Pubs are a catastrophe since 1994...or 1984.

Yeah, it would be easy to forgo all thought and responsibility and just follow what Herr Leader says without any thought or dissent. But that usually doesn't turn out well.

 

[Synthaholic]

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?

That means stimulus, not austerity.

Tell the wingnut Congresscritters.

 

[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?

That means stimulus, not austerity.

Tell the wingnut Congresscritters.

So cut the taxes and cut the spending. That puts lots of money in the private sector to grow the economy and stops making our money worth less. We fix the budget and the economy with one action.

 

[francoHFW]

Sure, Pubbots lol-- and good night.

 

[Avatar4321]

Sure, Pubbots lol-- and good night.

You know, I really do wish you would start adding some substantive posts. I am confident you could add to the discussion if you write a post that was 1) More than one or two lines long; 2) That wasn't dripping in insults and condescension; & 3) coherently argue substantive points. You might even have more fun posting. Please. Consider it sometime.

 

[tjvh]

Figure out how to live with a tax increase and the dollar decreasing in value.

Well first off a tax increase of any rate that has been talked about would not effect the standard of living as much as people hype it up to. Secondly, I believe that our dollar's value would rise if we were even slightly surplussed.

Higher Taxes combined with $4.00 plus at the pump for starters... You're absolutely right -the middle class is doing just fine, and it's all hype. Sure thing.

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

I don't have your money, you dolt...that's been spent by both political parties in Washington. You really are one of the more clueless people on here, Huggy...and that's saying something!

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

The Democrats turned it down because the Democrats don't really want to cut spending. They believe that government solves problems...not that it sometimes IS the problem.

 

[oreo]

How would the division of the nation best be resolved and why does compromise not seem like an option?


I would like to start by suggesting the unthinkable. Raise taxes install a minimum tax rate percentage of let's say 30% as Warren Buffet suggested, lower spending, lessen regulation on trade, put pressure on China and other market-share abusers, drill a little more, etc. Do things that would raise revenues and cut expenses regardless of party. Instead of taking firm stands against the other side and having the other side do the same, why not moderately do what both sides are suggesting and in some cases literally find a middle ground?


The debate should not be about whether dems or reps or tea partiers or greens or libs are right in their stances. Rather, it should be about how to take into account all opinions and draw up a middle ground stance that most people can agree with at least a little bit.

That has already been answered--something that happened two years ago--by a bi-partisan group that set up the Fiscal Cliff. We're just watching the typical political dog and pony show aka political posturing after it happens to see which party can get the dumb down mass's to believe that the opposite side of the isle is at fault--LOL

What’s in it?
- Taxes
Five tax measures have provisions expiring at year’s end:

- 2001/2003 Bush tax cuts: These cut individual income tax rates, pared back the estate tax, lowered rates for investment income (such a capital gains and dividends) and expanded a number of tax credits, including the child tax credit. According to the Economic Policy Institute, these would cost $203 billion next year if extended.

- 2009 stimulus: This included expansions of the Earned Income Tax Credit, which provides aid to low-income workers, as well as the child credit, and the American Opportunity tax credit, which helps families pay for college tuition. Extending these would cost $10 billion next year.

- Payroll tax holiday: This was included in the December 2010 tax deal and slashed the payroll tax rate on employees from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent. Extending it would cost $115 billion next year.

- Alternative Minimum Tax: Intended as a baseline tax for high earners, the AMT is not indexed for inflation and would hit a lot of middle-class taxpayers if not “patched” before next year. A patch would cost $114 billion.

- Extenders: This is the catch-all term tax wonks use for corporate tax breaks that need to be extended regularly. Doing that again, as per usual, would cost $109 billion.

- Spending cuts
Four types of spending cuts take effect next year:

- The sequester (or, as we sometimes like to call them, the big, dumb spending cuts that no one wants): Mandated by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (better known as the debt ceiling compromise), this institutes a 2 percent cut in physician and other providers’ Medicare payments, and a 7.6 to 9.6 percent across the board cut in all discretionary spending, except programs for low-income Americans. The cuts are evenly divided between defense and nondefense programs, with analysts predicting a crippling effect on all affected departments and agencies.

The sequester can be averted by repealing the portion of the BCA mandating the cuts, which amount to about $110 billion next year.

- Budget caps: Also in the Budget Control Act, these set a firm limit on discretionary spending within which policymakers must operate. They are set to reduce spending by $78 billion next year.

- Doc fix: This policy, passed every Congress for 15 years now but lapsing at the end of 2012, reverses temporarily cuts that Congress passed, and former President Bill Clinton signed, as a deficit reduction measure in 1997. The cuts, known as the “Sustainable Growth Rate” or SGR, require that growth in provider payments not exceed growth in Gross Domestic Product. If the doc fix is not extended, physician payments would fall by almost 30 percent, dwarfing the cuts enacting as part of the debt ceiling deal. That would cut spending by $14 billion next year.

- Unemployment insurance: Unemployment insurance was expanded following the recession, and due to the slow recovery this expansion has been regularly extended. Doing so again would cost $39 billion.

- Debt ceiling
When exactly the debt ceiling is next reached depends on how much the government actually spends and taxes in the coming months. But most analysts think the next debt-ceiling increase will come due around February. The Bipartisan Policy Center estimates we’ll have to raise the debt limit by anywhere between $730 billion and $1.25 trillion to avoid the debt ceiling for all of 2013 (depending on whether the Dec. 31 fiscal changes measures are enacted or not) and between $1.3 trillion and $2.2 trillion in 2014.

The Fiscal Cliff: Absolutely everything you could possibly need to know, in one FAQ