This Is All I Want...

[auditor0007]

I can easily balance the budget without raising taxes.

1. Raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70, with the eligibility age indexed to 9 percent of the population going forward. We are living decades longer than our ancestors, we should be working longer.

2. Ban all tax expenditures. Deductions, credits, subsidies, boondoggles, carve-outs, whatever you want to call them. Ban them. Every dollar of credit, subsidy, deduction given to someone has to come out of someone else's pocket or be borrowed from China, Japan, the Fed, etc.

3. Bring Defense spending back to Cold War levels. We have not spent this much on Defense since WWII. We are not in a World War, and we are not facing an existential threat as we did during the Cold War.


There. Not only would you not have to raise taxes, you could actually lower tax rates. For everyone.

Raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70

hey G....what if you just happen to have a physical job that takes a toll on your body and doing it up till 70 just may not be very realistic?.....not everyone sits behind a desk all day....

Actually, 70 may be a bit low.

70 is actually a very good number. For those who are physically unable to work to age 70, their is disability. The biggest problem with raising the eligibility age for Medicare is that employers are not going to want to foot the healthcare bill for those 65 to 70. This is why employer based health insurance is a bad idea. Employers pay their rates based on the average age of their employees. Having an older work force within a given company raises those rates considerably. Wanting to raise the retirement age and actually making it workable are two completely different things. If this is the route we are looking at, then something will have to change with employer based health coverage.

 

[auditor0007]

Ya ok..so what happened last time??why did she NOT win last time??

She wasn't prepared for the blindside attack from Obama. Nothing against Obama, he had a great strategy and those heading up Hillary's campaign did not take him seriously from the beginning. By the time they did it was too late. She won't make that mistake a second time.

She was taken out by a miserable lightweight like Obama.

If she could be eliminated by Obama, she'll be easy fodder for even the most anaemic Republican.

She has name recognition, because of her tomcatting husband, but she has no positive accomplishments of her own.

Yeah, let her run.

The biggest problem with cons is that they fail to understand the electorate. In 2012, Republicans not only lost the White House but also lost the generic congressional ballot as Dems took 49.2% of the total vote to the Republicans 48.0%. Now, Republicans won the majority of seats due to good gerrymandering of districts, but the fact is that more people voted for Democratic candidates. We are going to see the same thing in 2016, but it's likely to be much worse for Republicans as Hillary is not Black. Without a doubt, Obama won despite a certain percentage of voters not voting for him strictly due to his race. Many of those voters will vote for Hillary though, so this puts the Republican candidate at an even bigger disadvantage. Last of all, Hillary is likely to add Julian Castro to the ticket, and that is going to solidify the Hispanic vote, which is going to be bigger in 2016 than it was in 2012.

I will tell you this; the odds of a landslide victory for Hillary where she even takes Texas is much more believable than any Republican candidate winning period.

 

[auditor0007]

An believe me it will divide this country even more. We don't need that.

I doubt she will allow Republicans to be as obstructionist as they have been under Obama. Of course, there is very good chance that Dems will take back the House and have control of the Senate after 2016. It is likely to be a very ugly year for Republicans.

I expect the GOP to win some more seats in the House, and maybe take the Senate. And make themselves so obnoxious that they lose both in 2016.

That is exactly the picture I am seeing. It would not surprise me if Republicans take the Senate in November, but it won't be long lasting.

 

[auditor0007]

No and dont raise taxes either because its really really important to have a balanced...I mean, happy rich guys.

But what he will do is something bold and something only a true leader with balls can do. Kick the poors ass! Yeah!!!!

I can easily balance the budget without raising taxes.

1. Raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70, with the eligibility age indexed to 9 percent of the population going forward. We are living decades longer than our ancestors, we should be working longer.

2. Ban all tax expenditures. Deductions, credits, subsidies, boondoggles, carve-outs, whatever you want to call them. Ban them. Every dollar of credit, subsidy, deduction given to someone has to come out of someone else's pocket or be borrowed from China, Japan, the Fed, etc.

3. Bring Defense spending back to Cold War levels. We have not spent this much on Defense since WWII. We are not in a World War, and we are not facing an existential threat as we did during the Cold War.


There. Not only would you not have to raise taxes, you could actually lower tax rates. For everyone.

All good ideas except making sure everyone works longer.

Why shouldn't people work longer if they can? My father is 76 and was working full-time until my mother became sick. He is still working as much as he can while he takes care of her. I have no intention of retiring before I'm 70. Shit, then I'd really have to find something to do.

 

[auditor0007]

I can easily balance the budget without raising taxes.

1. Raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70, with the eligibility age indexed to 9 percent of the population going forward. We are living decades longer than our ancestors, we should be working longer.

2. Ban all tax expenditures. Deductions, credits, subsidies, boondoggles, carve-outs, whatever you want to call them. Ban them. Every dollar of credit, subsidy, deduction given to someone has to come out of someone else's pocket or be borrowed from China, Japan, the Fed, etc.

3. Bring Defense spending back to Cold War levels. We have not spent this much on Defense since WWII. We are not in a World War, and we are not facing an existential threat as we did during the Cold War.


There. Not only would you not have to raise taxes, you could actually lower tax rates. For everyone.

Raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70

hey G....what if you just happen to have a physical job that takes a toll on your body and doing it up till 70 just may not be very realistic?.....not everyone sits behind a desk all day....

That was just as true in 1935 as it is today. White collar workers have always outlived blue collar workers.

But what is also true today is that the physical laborer is living longer than the physical laborer of yesterday.

We are living longer, we should be working longer.

Without a doubt, I agree with this, but there are problems with it. The biggest problem is getting employers to foot the healthcare bill for their older employees. Most will lay off older workers rather than cover them.

 

[auditor0007]

Hillary Clinton will NOT be our next president.
Why is it you believe she is so superior to every other possible candidate?

If she runs, she will be the next POTUS. You know it; I know it; everyone knows it.

Just like in 2008 when she was newer and fresher!! Now that she's older and more tired, and after the massive success of her "Russian Reset".....yep ..she's a lock!!!

You guys couldn't come up with a candidate who could beat a black man with the worst unemployment record since the Great Depression. Seriously, all of a sudden you think you will find one that is going to defeat a white woman with a probably Hispanic running mate? Odds are not only that she is going to win but that she is going to carry Dems on her coattails so they take back the House and increase their majority in the Senate. BTW, Dems may lose the Senate at the midterms, but it will be short lived.

 

[auditor0007]

Hillary Clinton will NOT be our next president.
Why is it you believe she is so superior to every other possible candidate?

There's no Republican that can beat her.

What swallow means is Dems currently have no other candidate. She has a name "Clinton" and a Vagina, that's all most Dem voters need.

I'm sure you will be casting your vote for Jesse Ventura.

 

[auditor0007]

Coke-Busted GOP Congressman Just Voted to Drug-Test Food Stamp Users

Typical.

 

[auditor0007]

Raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70

hey G....what if you just happen to have a physical job that takes a toll on your body and doing it up till 70 just may not be very realistic?.....not everyone sits behind a desk all day....

That was just as true in 1935 as it is today. White collar workers have always outlived blue collar workers.

But what is also true today is that the physical laborer is living longer than the physical laborer of yesterday.

We are living longer, we should be working longer.

you are not answering the question are ya?.....in 1935 a guy who had a job that wore his knees,back and shoulders down did not have to work until he was 70.....if the same dam thing is happening to the guys doing the same type of work.....why would they be expected to work another 10 years if the same thing is breaking them down?...whats different about today as compared to the past?....

We would need to expand disability for these people. That would be a given. You are correct that there are some out there who cannot physically work to 70, whether it be due to their career choice or for any other reason.

 

[FA_Q2]

Whereas a Republican President wouldn't.

I'm a uniter!

No. They might not. The assumption that you have made (incorrectly) is that she would divide the nation because she is a democrat. That is incorrect – she would divide the nation because she is divisive rather than a unifier. Obama and Bush are guilty of the exact same thing.

In your haste to label another as putting a partisan comment out, you have just went partisan.

There are a few that would defiantly be unites (something that we desperately need) but I don’t think any can win at this moment. Ryan is always put out there by the right but he is as divisive as Hillary. Christie would defiantly be a uniter but is unelectable because he made some monumentally asinine decisions.

Honestly, more than Obama and Bush being divisive, I think Congress has been much more divisive, and that goes for when the Dems had control as well as the current nightmare with the Republican held House.

Congress is divisive in nature. It is a constant. I consider it one of the core responsibilities of the president to bring congress together and make deals. That is why I place the blame squarely on their shoulders. The presidents that whine congress is not working have failed to understand that is because they have failed to make it so.

 

[FA_Q2]

Cut taxes for the wealthy and blame the poor ***** for collecting food stamps, even if they are already working two jobs trying to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads. One of the biggest pissers for me is these assholes blaming poor people for being poor. I can understand the argument for smaller government and less spending, but bashing poor people is too much. It just shows what sick ***** some of these people are.

Then who has the responsibility for them being poor?

That really is the most asinine think that I think you have ever stated here. OF COURSE IT IS THE POOR’S ‘FAULT’ THEY ARE POOR. They are the ones that made the decisions and choices that put them there. No one else. You have the capability and the tools in this nation to succeed. We do not have classes and we are not locked into our socioeconomic status EVER.

That does not mean that social programs are unworkable or should not exist but the idea that ‘poor’ needs a patsy to blame outside of the individual is utterly asinine. More than anything they need to man up (or woman up), admit where they went wrong and fix it or they will forever be dependent on government handouts and in poverty.

See, this is where you are so very wrong. The poor begin with a huge disadvantage, and statistics bear this out. The poor stay poor. Yes, a small percentage do find their way out and improve their lives, but the fact is that most do not, even if they work. Secondly, we are actually seeing more people join the ranks of the poor rather than the other way around. You are very confused as to the reality of the situation. We have many employees who work full-time jobs who despite that still need help with public assistance, and this isn't even limited completely to the private sector; it also includes some members of our military.

That is irrelevant. The cold hard fact is that people are never going to start out equal. That is how life works – it is most certainly NOT fair. You have only yourself to blame, however, if you failed to take what you have and excel with it. There is no getting around that.

That does not mean that we should not be working to better people’s opportunity though. Education needs to be improved and opportunity for those that are impoverished increased BUT to state that the condition that you are in is NOT a direct result, responsibility and fault of yourself is asinine in the extreme. No one is to blame for your situation other than you. Further, and far worse, the idea that it is not your fault only exacerbates the problem a thousand fold. People that sit and complain that they have not been afforded opportunity stay poor and NEVER excel. People that pick themselves up and recognize that they have failed and need to do better will succeed.


Asserting that those who are poor are not responsible for their current situation makes the situation worse.

 

[Howey]

I'm blown away... there's no libtard in here yet with any moronic sass...

Could it be that even the left agrees with most of that?

Interesting list since you're an immigrant, huh? If only they had shut the borders before you showed up.

 

[FA_Q2]

She wasn't prepared for the blindside attack from Obama. Nothing against Obama, he had a great strategy and those heading up Hillary's campaign did not take him seriously from the beginning. By the time they did it was too late. She won't make that mistake a second time.

She was taken out by a miserable lightweight like Obama.

If she could be eliminated by Obama, she'll be easy fodder for even the most anaemic Republican.

She has name recognition, because of her tomcatting husband, but she has no positive accomplishments of her own.

Yeah, let her run.

The biggest problem with cons is that they fail to understand the electorate. In 2012, Republicans not only lost the White House but also lost the generic congressional ballot as Dems took 49.2% of the total vote to the Republicans 48.0%. Now, Republicans won the majority of seats due to good gerrymandering of districts, but the fact is that more people voted for Democratic candidates. We are going to see the same thing in 2016, but it's likely to be much worse for Republicans as Hillary is not Black. Without a doubt, Obama won despite a certain percentage of voters not voting for him strictly due to his race. Many of those voters will vote for Hillary though, so this puts the Republican candidate at an even bigger disadvantage. Last of all, Hillary is likely to add Julian Castro to the ticket, and that is going to solidify the Hispanic vote, which is going to be bigger in 2016 than it was in 2012.

I will tell you this; the odds of a landslide victory for Hillary where she even takes Texas is much more believable than any Republican candidate winning period.

Without a doubt, Obama won with a certain percentage of people who voted for him strictly because he was the first black presidential candidate...

I would say that your premises are somewhat flawed. I highly doubt that 2016 is going to be worse for republicans than the 2008 by a long shot. 2012 was STILL reeling from 2008. Basically, the last two elections were based of the fact that the republicans fucked up so terribly in Bush's last term.

I think that the real difference in 2016 is going to come out of how the republicans are able to deal with that. If Bush is still haunting them - lose. If they manage to kick that off then they will do well. Really, it comes down to Obama and weather or not he screws it up for the dems IMHO.

 

[auditor0007]

Then who has the responsibility for them being poor?

That really is the most asinine think that I think you have ever stated here. OF COURSE IT IS THE POOR’S ‘FAULT’ THEY ARE POOR. They are the ones that made the decisions and choices that put them there. No one else. You have the capability and the tools in this nation to succeed. We do not have classes and we are not locked into our socioeconomic status EVER.

That does not mean that social programs are unworkable or should not exist but the idea that ‘poor’ needs a patsy to blame outside of the individual is utterly asinine. More than anything they need to man up (or woman up), admit where they went wrong and fix it or they will forever be dependent on government handouts and in poverty.

See, this is where you are so very wrong. The poor begin with a huge disadvantage, and statistics bear this out. The poor stay poor. Yes, a small percentage do find their way out and improve their lives, but the fact is that most do not, even if they work. Secondly, we are actually seeing more people join the ranks of the poor rather than the other way around. You are very confused as to the reality of the situation. We have many employees who work full-time jobs who despite that still need help with public assistance, and this isn't even limited completely to the private sector; it also includes some members of our military.

That is irrelevant. The cold hard fact is that people are never going to start out equal. That is how life works – it is most certainly NOT fair. You have only yourself to blame, however, if you failed to take what you have and excel with it. There is no getting around that.

That does not mean that we should not be working to better people’s opportunity though. Education needs to be improved and opportunity for those that are impoverished increased BUT to state that the condition that you are in is NOT a direct result, responsibility and fault of yourself is asinine in the extreme. No one is to blame for your situation other than you. Further, and far worse, the idea that it is not your fault only exacerbates the problem a thousand fold. People that sit and complain that they have not been afforded opportunity stay poor and NEVER excel. People that pick themselves up and recognize that they have failed and need to do better will succeed.


Asserting that those who are poor are not responsible for their current situation makes the situation worse.

Any idea how many college educated people are currently out of work or working minimum wage or near minimum wage jobs? This is not their failure.

 

[Harry Dresden]

You are making an incorrect assumption that Hillary is a weak woman. She is not.

oh i have no doubt she can be a *****..... but she aint the politician her husband was either.....she will utilize him as often as possible...

She may, but I imagine it will be much more subtly than you are thinking. Remember when everyone told us Cheney was calling the shots and not Bush? That was based on a perception supported by the left, but it wasn't true. That is why there was so much friction between Cheney and Bush at the end, because Cheney thought he had more power than he actually did.

well i believe Bush listened to the wrong people and Cheney was one of them....

 

[Avatar4321]

May as well ask for world peace too because we are as likely to get that as all those with our current culture and government of corruption

 

[Harry Dresden]

That was just as true in 1935 as it is today. White collar workers have always outlived blue collar workers.

But what is also true today is that the physical laborer is living longer than the physical laborer of yesterday.

We are living longer, we should be working longer.

you are not answering the question are ya?.....in 1935 a guy who had a job that wore his knees,back and shoulders down did not have to work until he was 70.....if the same dam thing is happening to the guys doing the same type of work.....why would they be expected to work another 10 years if the same thing is breaking them down?...whats different about today as compared to the past?....

We would need to expand disability for these people. That would be a given. You are correct that there are some out there who cannot physically work to 70, whether it be due to their career choice or for any other reason.

thanx for answering Aud.....something G apparently was incapable of doing.....no doubt because he sits behind a desk all day and cant comprehend what physical work is....

 

[Ava]

Hillary Clinton will NOT be our next president.
Why is it you believe she is so superior to every other possible candidate?

If she runs, she will be the next POTUS. You know it; I know it; everyone knows it.

Just like in 2008 when she was newer and fresher!! Now that she's older and more tired, and after the massive success of her "Russian Reset".....yep ..she's a lock!!!

Plus her health may challenge any ambitions she may have. She's had health scares: a blood clot behind her right knee in 1998 and another in her skull in December 2012.

 

[Zander]

If she runs, she will be the next POTUS. You know it; I know it; everyone knows it.

Just like in 2008 when she was newer and fresher!! Now that she's older and more tired, and after the massive success of her "Russian Reset".....yep ..she's a lock!!!

Plus her health may challenge any ambitions she may have. She's had health scares: a blood clot behind her right knee in 1998 and another in her skull in December 2012.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Very simple... here is the list... this would take care of 90% of what's wrong with America...

Things would be much better around the country if all of this could be made to happen.