Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: tonymctones on December 09, 2012, 09:49:53 AM
-
From what many ppl on this board are saying no Reps want to compromise.
Now what do you guys think the Dems "compromise" will be on his proposal?
Things that make you go, hmmmmm.......
http://news.yahoo.com/sen-tom-coburn-im-willing-accept-tax-increases-163152570--abc-news-politics.html
Republican Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) told me Sunday on ABC News' "This Week" that he is willing to accept tax rate increases as a component of a fiscal cliff deal, as long as Democrats put "significant entitlement reform" on the table.
"What we ought to be working on is the other 93 percent, because even if you do what [Obama] wants to do on tax rates, you only affect 7 percent of the deficit," Coburn said. "What we have done is spend ourselves into a hole, and we're not going to raise taxes and borrow money and get out of it."
I wonder if obama will compromise at all....
-
Raising taxes alone wont do shit.
-
From what many ppl on this board are saying no Reps want to compromise.
Now what do you guys think the Dems "compromise" will be on his proposal?
Things that make you go, hmmmmm.......
http://news.yahoo.com/sen-tom-coburn-im-willing-accept-tax-increases-163152570--abc-news-politics.html
Republican Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) told me Sunday on ABC News' "This Week" that he is willing to accept tax rate increases as a component of a fiscal cliff deal, as long as Democrats put "significant entitlement reform" on the table.
"What we ought to be working on is the other 93 percent, because even if you do what [Obama] wants to do on tax rates, you only affect 7 percent of the deficit," Coburn said. "What we have done is spend ourselves into a hole, and we're not going to raise taxes and borrow money and get out of it."
I wonder if obama will compromise at all....
So we can fix 7% of the deficit just by raising taxes?
Thats a lot. Do it.
-
So we can fix 7% of the deficit just by raising taxes?
Thats a lot. Do it.
::) ::)
No wonder we are on the verge of collapse
-
::) ::)
No wonder we are on the verge of collapse
We are on the verge of collapse because we dont pay our bills.
Im surprised a guy who runs a business cant grasp this concept.
-
We are on the verge of collapse because we dont pay our bills.
Im surprised a guy who runs a business cant grasp this concept.
I want to reduce overhead chief
-
So we can fix 7% of the deficit just by raising taxes?
Thats a lot. Do it.
LOL 7% is alot to you?
so that means the other 93% that needs to come from either spending cuts or increased taxes on the middle class is gigantic to you then?
so why do you spend all your time concentrating on the 7% instead of the 93%?
How does that make any kind of sense?
-
LOL 7% is alot to you?
so that means the other 93% that needs to come from either spending cuts or increased taxes on the middle class is gigantic to you then?
so why do you spend all your time concentrating on the 7% instead of the 93%?
How does that make any kind of sense?
to a leftist democrat it makes perfet sense
-
LOL 7% is alot to you?
so that means the other 93% that needs to come from either spending cuts or increased taxes on the middle class is gigantic to you then?
so why do you spend all your time concentrating on the 7% instead of the 93%?
How does that make any kind of sense?
Of course it is.
Its a start. This problem doesnt disappear over night.
-
Of course it is.
Its a start. This problem doesnt disappear over night.
why not work on the 93% as that has a much bigger impact on it first before taking the hard earned money away from ppl who it rightfully belongs?
If you feel like the "rich" should be punished thats fine just come out and say it. There isnt any reason to want tax hikes over spending cuts that cut out waste and inefficiency.
They have bigger impacts on the bottom line and you dont have to condone taking more money from ppl who it belongs to fund a wasteful and inefficient govt.
So why do you want tax hikes first and then spending cuts instead of the other way around?
-
why not work on the 93% as that has a much bigger impact on it first before taking the hard earned money away from ppl who it rightfully belongs?
If you feel like the "rich" should be punished thats fine just come out and say it. There isnt any reason to want tax hikes over spending cuts that cut out waste and inefficiency.
They have bigger impacts on the bottom line and you dont have to condone taking more money from ppl who it belongs to fund a wasteful and inefficient govt.
So why do you want tax hikes first and then spending cuts instead of the other way around?
Can you name some specifik spending cuts?
-
why not work on the 93% as that has a much bigger impact on it first before taking the hard earned money away from ppl who it rightfully belongs?
If you feel like the "rich" should be punished thats fine just come out and say it. There isnt any reason to want tax hikes over spending cuts that cut out waste and inefficiency.
They have bigger impacts on the bottom line and you dont have to condone taking more money from ppl who it belongs to fund a wasteful and inefficient govt.
So why do you want tax hikes first and then spending cuts instead of the other way around?
Did the rich feel punished when their rates were 50% and 90% decades ago? Did they just say "Well im going to turn down the million dollars because i dont want leeches like tonymc and 33333 getting govt cheese off my dime. Is that what happened?? Why you dumbasses protect people that think your scum is beyond me.....but go ahead and fall on your sword.....
-
Can you name some specifik spending cuts?
If they do. they willl take another stomping in 2014.
-
Can you name some specifik spending cuts?
As Ive said before, how about 10% cuts in the operating expenses for all programs across the board?
Do you believe the govt is run so efficiently and without waste that there isnt anything that can be cut that wont effect the services they provide?
-
Did the rich feel punished when their rates were 50% and 90% decades ago? Did they just say "Well im going to turn down the million dollars because i dont want leeches like tonymc and 33333 getting govt cheese off my dime. Is that what happened?? Why you dumbasses protect people that think your scum is beyond me.....but go ahead and fall on your sword.....
LMAO leaches?
you dont seem to understand but thats not suprising given your previous posts.
Im not defending the rich, Im defending private citizens from having to give more of their hard earned money to a wasteful and inefficient govt.
Do you not understand that we cant tax the rich and get out of this?
Do you not understand that the next place they will look for money is to US???
how the morons ranting and raving for higher taxes dont see this is beyond me.
-
As Ive said before, how about 10% cuts in the operating expenses for all programs across the board?
Do you believe the govt is run so efficiently and without waste that there isnt anything that can be cut that wont effect the services they provide?
There is plenty of waste in the government but its not easy to fix. It needs a giant overhaul buts not gonna be done any time soon.
What do you mean operating expences?
-
There is plenty of waste in the government but its not easy to fix. It needs a giant overhaul buts not gonna be done any time soon.
What do you mean operating expences?
This right here tells me why you dont understand the problem we are in and continue to buy into the propaganda of the bloated, wasteful and inefficient govt.
::) just plain wow that you have the ability to vote.....
-
LMAO leaches?
you dont seem to understand but thats not suprising given your previous posts.
Im not defending the rich, Im defending private citizens from having to give more of their hard earned money to a wasteful and inefficient govt.
Do you not understand that we cant tax the rich and get out of this?
Do you not understand that the next place they will look for money is to US???
how the morons ranting and raving for higher taxes dont see this is beyond me.
F*ck your a dense one. NO ONE said the rich will take care of all the debt dumbass. Its the first part of a plan.....(Which the gop doesnt have)
And by caring about citizens.....you mean middle class right. HAHAHAHAHAHA the wealthy will be fine without you trying to schmoe then tony
-
F*ck your a dense one. NO ONE said the rich will take care of all the debt dumbass. Its the first part of a plan.....(Which the gop doesnt have)
And by caring about citizens.....you mean middle class right. HAHAHAHAHAHA the wealthy will be fine without you trying to schmoe then tony
I mean all citizens, do you not understand that we are next on teh chopping block for raising taxes?
and the middle class will be fucked if you continue to support propaganda from bloated, wasteful and inefficient govt.
what spending cuts have the dems proposed war-horse?
The rep in the article I posted said entitlements like medicare...
-
I mean all citizens, do you not understand that we are next on teh chopping block for raising taxes?
and the middle class will be fucked if you continue to support propaganda from bloated, wasteful and inefficient govt.
what spending cuts have the dems proposed war-horse?
The rep in the article I posted said entitlements like medicare...
ending cuts in Obama deficit plan would spread the pain
By Richard Wolf and Kelly Kennedy, USA TODAY Updated 9/20/2011 1:05 AM
Comments
Reprints & Permissions
WASHINGTON – Upper-income beneficiaries could pay more for Medicare. Farmers could lose federal payments. Federal workers could pay more into their retirement plans. Airline passengers could pay higher security fees.
By Nicholas Kamm, AFP/Getty Images
President Obama details his deficit-cutting plan at a Monday briefing in the White House Rose Garden.
Enlarge
By Nicholas Kamm, AFP/Getty Images
President Obama details his deficit-cutting plan at a Monday briefing in the White House Rose Garden.
Sponsored Links
President Obama's full plan to slash upward of $3 trillion from federal budget deficits over 10 years may be dead on arrival in Congress, but don't be surprised if some elements survive.
Although Obama's proposed $1.5trillion in tax increases on upper-income Americans and corporations are getting most of the attention — and opposition — his spending cuts are more likely to win Republicans' support, budget experts say.
STORY: Deficit plan not class warfare, Obama insists
"I'm proposing real, serious cuts in spending," Obama said Monday. "These savings are not only counted as part of our plan, but as part of the budget plan that nearly every Republican in the House voted for."
So, although the reaction from Republicans was overwhelmingly negative, they are likely to accept some of Obama's proposed spending cuts, particularly in Medicare and Medicaid — and then add to them.
Those twin health care programs for seniors, the poor and people with disabilities serve nearly one in three Americans, and they are at the heart of the debate over cutting federal deficits. Together, they will cost the federal government about $750 billion this year, roughly 20% of the budget.
Much of the debate Monday focused on Obama's retreat from an earlier willingness to consider raising Medicare's retirement age, gradually, from 65 to 67. That could save $125 billion over 10 years, once fully implemented.
News from On Politics
Latest posts from USA TODAY On Politics blog
5:43 PM On Politics gets a new look
3:23 PM Tea Party fave touts rival's mugshot
12:58 PM Rooting for Nationals is bipartisan affair
9:24 AM McCaskill jabs Akin on 'ladylike' hit
7:52 AM Polls: Obama leads Romney in N.H.
Read all On Politics posts
Obama didn't repeat the offer, made during negotiations with Republican House Speaker John Boehner this summer. He did propose $248 billion in Medicare savings over 10 years and $72billion in Medicaid savings.
"What the president describes as spending cuts appears, at best, to be a slight reduction in the unsustainable growth of the government budget that's occurring on his watch," said Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, co-chairman of the special congressional committee charged with finding at least $1.2 trillion in savings.
That "slight reduction" includes major reductions for Medicare and Medicaid providers — drugmakers, doctors, hospitals and insurers — and smaller changes for beneficiaries. Starting in 2017, for instance, Medicare recipients with income above $85,000 would pay 15% more in premiums for doctor visits and prescription drugs. That would raise about $20 billion over five years.
Consumer groups such as AARP, the nation's largest seniors group, and Families USA criticized the Medicare and Medicaid cuts. But they stand a good chance of being included in the recommendations of the deficit "supercommittee" this fall.
"The Medicare proposals were disappointingly modest. On the other hand, there's no reason not to do them," says Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office and adviser to congressional Republicans.
Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., a supercommittee member, said Obama "was very clear that Republicans can't just cherry-pick pieces of the proposal they like. … The final product has to reflect a balanced approach" that includes higher taxes on upper-income Americans and corporations.
Among the other spending cuts Obama recommended that could attract bipartisan support:
•Reducing federal payments to farmers and subsidies to crop insurance companies.
•Forcing federal workers to contribute more to their retirement accounts.
•Raising the airline security fee that passengers pay from $5 to $7.50 over five years.
"Some of those other things are definitely in the realm of the possible for the committee," said Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a budget watchdog group. "They don't produce the big savings, of course. But they would produce something."
That's not to say those reductions would be easy to enact. Doctors and drugmakers, farmers and federal workers all have lobbyists who can be counted on to fight back, noted Robert Greenstein, president of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
White House budget director Jacob Lew defended the depth of the $580billion in cuts.
"There is a lot of pain, and it's spread broadly," he said.
That may be the key to getting spending cuts passed, said Steve Ellis, vice president of the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense.
"If you gore everybody's ox," he said, "there's a shared sacrifice."
-
your article says exactly what Ive said in the past, obama has proposed cuts to FUTURE SPENDING!!!
As we all know these never come to fruition evidenced by the exponential growth of govt spending....
quit buying into the bloated govt propaganda!!!
-
your article says exactly what Ive said in the past, obama has proposed cuts to FUTURE SPENDING!!!
As we all know these never come to fruition evidenced by the exponential growth of govt spending....
quit buying into the bloated govt propaganda!!!
KInd of hard to cut spending in a recession. Do you want the country to backslide tony? Right now lets agree on what we can and something that doesnt take months of legislation to complete....make sense? The rest will come but you have noticed the fiscal cliff????? lets get it done and get going...not tying up congress or courts with a bunch of shit...
-
KInd of hard to cut spending in a recession. Do you want the country to backslide tony? Right now lets agree on what we can and something that doesnt take months of legislation to complete....make sense? The rest will come but you have noticed the fiscal cliff????? lets get it done and get going...not tying up congress or courts with a bunch of shit...
so youre another one of those ppl who thinks the govt is run so efficiently and without waste that cutting anything will cause negative effects?
I would certainly agree with you war-horse IF the dems ever kept their word on spending cuts, WHICH THEY DONT!!!!!
thats why you have to tie spending cuts to something they wont like tax hikes.
why not just address both of them now like the reps want to do?
it shouldnt be to hard for the dems to come to an agreement on spending cuts, the reps are coming to the table for tax hikes
-
so youre another one of those ppl who thinks the govt is run so efficiently and without waste that cutting anything will cause negative effects?
I would certainly agree with you war-horse IF the dems ever kept their word on spending cuts, WHICH THEY DONT!!!!!
thats why you have to tie spending cuts to something they wont like tax hikes.
why not just address both of them now like the reps want to do?
it shouldnt be to hard for the dems to come to an agreement on spending cuts, the reps are coming to the table for tax hikes
Fiscal cliff.
-
Fiscal cliff.
agreed, so why are the dems dragging their feet?
get to the table and make it happen before the fiscal cliff
serious question war-horse, if the Reps agree to tax hikes now believing in good faith that the dems will cut entitlements later, do you really think the dems will cut entitlements to medicare and medicade next year?
-
agreed, so why are the dems dragging their feet?
get to the table and make it happen before the fiscal cliff
serious question war-horse, if the Reps agree to tax hikes now believing in good faith that the dems will cut entitlements later, do you really think the dems will cut entitlements to medicare and medicade next year?
I dont think medicare is on the table. If it was republicans would be a ghost town next election. How about ending oil subsidies.......they dont need it.
-
We are on the verge of collapse because we dont pay our bills.
Im surprised a guy who runs a business cant grasp this concept.
A business is only a business if its successful.............. ........................ ............and real ::)
-
Did the rich feel punished when their rates were 50% and 90% decades ago? Did they just say "Well im going to turn down the million dollars because i dont want leeches like tonymc and 33333 getting govt cheese off my dime. Is that what happened?? Why you dumbasses protect people that think your scum is beyond me.....but go ahead and fall on your sword.....
you said it better than me..I've been telling these guys this same thing for years..maybe they will listen to you
-
LOL 7% is alot to you?
so that means the other 93% that needs to come from either spending cuts or increased taxes on the middle class is gigantic to you then?
so why do you spend all your time concentrating on the 7% instead of the 93%?
How does that make any kind of sense?
Let's be realistic for a second. We are in a hole a mile deep. No one thing will help us get out. A 7% cut would be a good step - but only if it wasn't the only step.
I don't think it's unrealistic to ask that we get to work to lift the country up from the hole we dug it into. Americans have, by and large, never backed away from a challenge and we have, when push comes to shove, always done the right thing for our country, often times at great personal expense. What I think is unrealistic is playing partisan games (from the left or the right) and pussy-footing around the issue while trying to appear to lead.
I'm sick and tired of the politicians who talk big, but do nothing. I disagree with Obama fundamentally on just about every issue. But I won't let them stop me from working with him to reach some common ground. Because, frankly, the country is much greater than any one of us.
I do not think it's unrealistic or improper for us to demand that the people that we elect to lead do just that. True leadership would be for them to come back to us and say: "Fuck, we're in a bind. Here's the plan: we have no sacred cows on the left or the right; we're cutting and trimming down everything; this will save X billion dollars. We need another Y billion, which we will get by raising taxes."
-
Did the rich feel punished when their rates were 50% and 90% decades ago? Did they just say "Well im going to turn down the million dollars because i dont want leeches like tonymc and 33333 getting govt cheese off my dime.
Maybe they did, maybe they didn't; I can only speak for myself, and I will tell you that, if I had the option, I would turn down a million dollars if accepting it meant sacrificing my principles.
Why you dumbasses protect people that think your scum is beyond me.....but go ahead and fall on your sword.....
Whether they think I am scum is irrelevant. My positions and beliefs aren't predicated on how others see or think of me. They are what they are. You may think that defending them is falling on my sword - and that may very well be - but my position is that some ideas are worth fighting and dying for.
-
Maybe they did, maybe they didn't; I can only speak for myself, and I will tell you that, if I had the option, I would turn down a million dollars if accepting it meant sacrificing my principles.
Whether they think I am scum is irrelevant. My positions and beliefs aren't predicated on how others see or think of me. They are what they are. You may think that defending them is falling on my sword - and that may very well be - but my position is that some ideas are worth fighting and dying for.
So if You won the lottery of a million dollars, but the gov wanted 50%....youd turn it down? Even tho you could help your family too??
Now i realize maybe the millionaire worked for it (But not in all cases). But your saying you wouldnt even try for this because of resentment towards paying taxes in your country? Not true and you know it.
-
So if You won the lottery of a million dollars, but the gov wanted 50%....youd turn it down? Even tho you could help your family too??
Now i realize maybe the millionaire worked for it (But not in all cases). But your saying you wouldnt even try for this because of resentment towards paying taxes in your country? Not true and you know it.
what does it matter whether they worked for it or had it handed to them, its none of your fuking business.
Thats their money, to do with what they want
what gives you or anyone else the right to demand that they give more money?
Especially with all the waste and inefficiency in the govt. Id be all on board with raising taxes if the govt had much less waste. Until then let ppl keep their own money and get the govts fiscal house in order.
-
your article says exactly what Ive said in the past, obama has proposed cuts to FUTURE SPENDING!!!
As we all know these never come to fruition evidenced by the exponential growth of govt spending....
quit buying into the bloated govt propaganda!!!
That's all anyone has proposed thus far, it's smoke and mirrors.
Until spending is frozen and real cuts are implemented, nothing will change.
-
So if You won the lottery of a million dollars, but the gov wanted 50%....youd turn it down? Even tho you could help your family too??
Now i realize maybe the millionaire worked for it (But not in all cases). But your saying you wouldnt even try for this because of resentment towards paying taxes in your country? Not true and you know it.
If it meant sacrificing my principles yes, I would turn money down. Even $50,000,000. I value my principles more than I value money, because money without principles is meaningless.
But there's a big difference in winning the lottery and earning that money, so your example isn't a good fit. If I won the lottery I would pay whatever taxes the law demanded, just like I pay the taxes the law demands on the income that I earn.
But, if the government came and said: "Sorry, you need to pay an extra 10% in taxes starting tomorrow" that would mean that I get to work just as hard for less money.
I know the value of my work and I demand that my paycheck reflects it. Being taxed more means being paid less. And this doesn't seem like a good deal to me.
After all, if I want less money, I can always find a less stressful, less demanding job; I don't need the government to help me by taking money away.
You see, I don't need to make $125,000 a year. It's nice and it makes sure I can live very comfortably but I could live on a lot less and be just as happy. It really is that simple.
-
If it meant sacrificing my principles yes, I would turn money down. Even $50,000,000. I value my principles more than I value money, because money without principles is meaningless.
But there's a big difference in winning the lottery and earning that money, so your example isn't a good fit. If I won the lottery I would pay whatever taxes the law demanded, just like I pay the taxes the law demands on the income that I earn.
But, if the government came and said: "Sorry, you need to pay an extra 10% in taxes starting tomorrow" that would mean that I get to work just as hard for less money.
I know the value of my work and I demand that my paycheck reflects it. Being taxed more means being paid less. And this doesn't seem like a good deal to me.
After all, if I want less money, I can always find a less stressful, less demanding job; I don't need the government to help me by taking money away.
You see, I don't need to make $125,000 a year. It's nice and it makes sure I can live very comfortably but I could live on a lot less and be just as happy. It really is that simple.
I agree here. Im also not "Money motivated" other things are more important. But the point here is that Millionaires usually are money motivated. However most millionaires iv known work a hell of a lot less that 40 hrs a week.
-
There will be nothing done on the spending side.
Taxes will be raised, the deficit will still be around 1 trillion for the foreseeable future and the debt will continue to pile up.
We will be back at this same point next year sometime with another round of debt-ceiling hilarity.
At which time those single filers and joint/family filers that make around 150,000 dollars per year will be targeted as those that can "pay a little extra."
-
If it meant sacrificing my principles yes, I would turn money down. Even $50,000,000. I value my principles more than I value money, because money without principles is meaningless.
But there's a big difference in winning the lottery and earning that money, so your example isn't a good fit. If I won the lottery I would pay whatever taxes the law demanded, just like I pay the taxes the law demands on the income that I earn.
true
But, if the government came and said: "Sorry, you need to pay an extra 10% in taxes starting tomorrow" that would mean that I get to work just as hard for less money.
Thought money didn't motivate you
I know the value of my work and I demand that my paycheck reflects it. Being taxed more means being paid less. And this doesn't seem like a good deal to me.
That's quite a simplistic look at the situation. How does having more money but brutal roads sound, or how about no police force, my analogy is equally ludricis and lacking depth as yours.
After all, if I want less money, I can always find a less stressful, less demanding job; I don't need the government to help me by taking money away.
You see, I don't need to make $125,000 a year. It's nice and it makes sure I can live very comfortably but I could live on a lot less and be just as happy. It really is that simple.
Altruism doesn't motivate you at all?
-
Thought money didn't motivate you
It doesn't per se; I see money as a means, not as an end. But that doesn't mean that I will accept less for my work than it's worth to my employer. You see, money to me is a token that represents my best effort and which others are willing to accept in exchange for their best effort.
That's quite a simplistic look at the situation.
It is simple, but not simplistic; there is a difference. If starting tomorrow I get taxed more, thus reducing my take-home pay, I am, in essence, doing the same work for less pay. How is this wrong?
How does having more money but brutal roads sound, or how about no police force, my analogy is equally ludricis and lacking depth as yours.
I believe that there are appropriate and inappropriate functions for a government, and therefore, appropriate and inappropriate uses of taxes. Since policing is a proper function of Government (at some level) taxes towards that end are also proper and ones which a rational person would want to pay. Courts and military also fall in that same category. That the Government wastes the money it takes in from taxes to provide me those services, spending it instead on nonsense doesn't mean that I should pay more to them so that they may, then, provide me with what they should be providing me with to begin with.
Would you go to a restaurant where the server ate half your soup on the way to the table and then, to add insult to injury, charged you for a second helping? If you wouldn't tolerate this behavior at a restaurant why do you tolerate it from a government?
As for roads: I don't think the Government should have a monopoly on roads, and wouldn't mind private roads; I concede that building a private highway from Las Vegas to Los Angeles or Las Vegas to Phoenix would be both expensive and exceedingly difficult; perhaps prohibitively so for private individuals or even corporations. Additionally, the Federal Government has Constitutional authority to build post roads; these two things together, for me are enough to make me be in favor of taxes that go towards the building and maintenance of roadways and related infrastructure.
As for whether the roads are brutal or not my answer is simple: if the Government proved incapable of providing me with roads of a quality I found acceptable, I would not rely on roads to go from point A to point B. Of course, even in that case, I would be forced to pay for those brutal roads anyways.
Altruism doesn't motivate you at all?
Not really, no. Altruism demands that I place the good of others above my own. I have no desire to do so.
-
There is plenty of waste in the government but its not easy to fix. It needs a giant overhaul buts not gonna be done any time soon.
What do you mean operating expences?
oh christ.